new army recruiting tactics?
Dave LoweI was in the Circle K getting a few things. Ahead of me walked in three men. One was in US Army ACUs and the others looked like teenagers. The Army guy checked out ahead of me with three items; he had a Red Bull and two quarts of malt liquor. They all three got into a car with government plates. My thought at first was he was a recruiting sergeant. And the two kids with him were potential recruits.
Does anyone else find this picture a little disturbing? Were those guys underage? Was that recruiter buying them beer? Kinda makes me wonder just a little what sort of recruiting tactics the military is stooping to these days.
Tags: military
Loading ...
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Could be your impression is right. However, they could already be soldiers. Or, they could be soldiers and underage. The daughter’s boyfriend is home this weekend for the last time before his unit leaves for Iraq. He should be back a year before he can legally buy alcohol.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
It actually depends on what time of day you saw this. They may be on what is known as the Hometown Recruiting program where soldiers from this area come home and assist the recruiters, but he should not be buying anyone underage alcohol, especially while driving a govt vehicle.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
10 to 1 he was buying underage kids beverages, believe i knoe how those reruiting trips go!!!!
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Everything that’s wrong with some bloggers: all innuendo and no cement. The commenter who knows all about how those recruiting trips go types like he/she already drank the Schlitz.
What, by the way, was your second thought? That you might be wrong?
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Sandy’s right, this post is 100% speculation backed up by 0% proof. I know that the Army has sunk quite a bit in it’s recruiting standards, and that has been well documented. This incidence proves nothing except the fact that people can have vivid imaginations.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Whatever the real circumstances, the impression is out there of a recruiter run amok and this conversation, including my part in it, is just slacktivism. Want to stop either the reality or impression of the recruiter buying underage teens alcohol? Give the Tampa Recruiting Bn commander a call on Monday. (813) 935-3398.
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
This situation really disturbs me. Why was there even alcohol in a government vehicle to begin with? who knows if he was getting them drunk so he could get ‘em to sign on the dotted line later. When my stepson was in 12th grade, we had at least 2 daily calls from recruiters promising him the world. They were pushy and rude. I am a big supporter of our Armed Forces but we felt harrassed by recruiters. Thanks for you enlightening post Dave.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I don’t know about all recruiters but I DO know this: I got the same aggressive phone calls and they were for a girl who must have given ANY number (happened to be mine) instead of her own. I finally called the guy back after NUMEROUS messages. And, of course, that still never stopped the calls so I just ignored them. As well, I ran into a guy in DT TAMPA who was in uniform escorting a young, nervous fella through the juvenile section and I DID overhear him say that if the kid’s record wasn’t ‘too bad, they could help him get in the service. And that it might be the only idea for him or he might go to jail.’ The kid looked at me all helpless but I didn’t think fast enough because I was in a deep conversation.
How did he get permission to check that child’s records? Where are the parents? That was a young kid and he did not look happy; he looked scared.
I’ve heard the tactics are pretty bad … but the one thing without the other would not have made a dent. As well, I know some ex-gis who do counter-recruiting who try VERY hard to get the same access to young people as recruiters and are rebuffed strongly by the school system (the recruiter who called me repeatedly was based in Chamberlain HS)
One final thought is this: I seem to kinda go along with alot that Sandy says but in this case I feel that Dave was merely seeking opinions. Sometimes one doesn’t have a clearly formed agenda but just the strong idea that something is VERY wrong and seeks REAL input from intelligent, respected people one finds in the blogosphere. How else to gather thoughts unless you pose your own? We’re not in a court of law but laboring in the court of public opinion. JMO, as usual. Even if I disagree I still like to know what others are thinking.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Sandy’s right, this post is 100% speculation backed up by 0% proof. I know that the Army has sunk quite a bit in it’s recruiting standards, and that has been well documented. This incidence proves nothing except the fact that people can have vivid imaginations.
100% speculation? Are you alleging this post is entirely fabricated? What is the problem with reporting what one sees in public? As far as I can tell, Dave is simply stating what he observed. That’s not speculation, that’s FACT.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
this sounds like the beginning of a VERY HOT gay porno.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
gaypinellas-please preface posts like that with coffee spewing laughter alert.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Tim, the only facts in the post are that Dave saw an Army guy and two teenagers in the Circle K and after buying some drinks, they got in a car and drove off. He speculated that it was an Army recruiter, and he speculated that he was with recruits. Two speculations which are by their nature fabricated. Everything else he alluded to in the post was based on those two speculations.
I see guys wearing ACU’s in my building all the time. They’re not all recruiters. Can we please differentiate between what actually happened, and the facts that we do not actually know?
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Well, usually the recruiters get a “company car” with government plates. Not every army guy does. So it was a little bit dipped in fact.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Make and model of the car? License plate? I’ve spent my entire adult life in the Armed Forces and I can tell you with relative certainty whether or not it was a govt. vehicle with that information.
BTW…in Iraq I saw body parts of kids that looked like they could have been 15, so don’t read too much into age by appearance alone.
And, if you are concerned about it being a recruiter, call the commander as the gentleman above said. Commanders have a way of stepping upon illicit activity without even knowing who did it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
It was a Chevy Malibu, the license plate SAID US Government, partial number was G10 something. I know the rank and last name of the sergeant in question, too. But, hey, all I said was it LOOKED disturbing. My first thought could have been dead wrong. I would hate to turn the guy in and it was all legit.
I don’t feel I need to justify a simple observation.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Tonight I asked five random people what their conclusion would be to seeing this situation, and all five said “recruiter.” One related a story to me about a recruiter who brought minors to a local bar to talk up the Army.
Why, exactly, are you reacting so strongly to this? It seems to be the most logical conclusion. You’re acting as if he suspected them of being aliens from the planet Orgeron.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Dave,
If you felt something was wrong with that situation, then you should have done something about it. Next time try asking him/her what is up. I am pretty sure it is still a voluntary to join the military.
March 4th, 2007 at 7:55 am
I’m trying to follow this
1. Someone is seen who might be planning/doing something illegal, then allusions made to nefarious dealings generally among this person’s presumed profession.
2. Conclusions are drawn that the suspected activity was not only going on in this case, but is rampant and part of an officially sanctioned way to practically Shanghai children.
3. Frenzy of condemnation ensues (well not exactly frenzy, but hyperbole is the bread and butter of blogs)
4. The alleged perpetrator’s identity and partial plate are known, as well as how to contact someone in authority.
5. “I would hate to turn the guy in and it was all legit.”
As Jonathan Greene said above, even if the commander doesn’t know the when and the who, actions can be taken to make sure recruiters are not buying kids alcohol.
Why an 18-20 yo can die for us but not buy beer is a debate for another day.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Well said. I’m not as articulate as you, apparently.
FYI…just because I’m a veteran doesn’t mean I don’t think this guy should be skull f*cked if he’s buying alcohol for minors.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Well, I asked 5 gays and all of them hoped it was gay porn.
March 5th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I do the same thing: ask random people… to gauge.
It stands to reason that concern with recruiting tactics is growing because of the world situation currently. An almost certain task of going to war.
As well, the age of joining was raised and guardsmen and others forced to stay longer and for more tours. This is backdoor draft and I’m not the first one to say that (of course)
It stands to reason that recruiters would be under more pressure and I’m glad that the subject was brought up and I believe recruiters are putting pressure on young people. I believe young people are schooled in conformity and uniforms way faster than in individuality and life-skills. Some of them end up dead as dead before they ever get to vote even once for a President.
It needs attention. I’m sure this is not the first time in history …
Oh and also, I agree with Tim … the poster was stating his observations — that’s what a reporter DOES and, as well, he was seeking other conclusions than his own. I’m sure the CO knows about all the ’skills’ involved in recruiting. I hope recruiters now know that more eyes are on them. All of my family members joined the service(s) willingly. If that’s not happening now, we all know why.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:30 am
He’s obviously not a REPORTER as they have to turn over their copy to someone else who might point out said “speculation” before printing. Let’s not get too full of ourselves. We’re BLOGGERS, apparently responsible to no one.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:06 am
So, did he see a recruiter? Answer that conclusively and we have reporting. I’m not trying to knock Dave. I happen to be anti-army recruiting, but this thing has no legs. GO TERPS!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I should clarify: “Reporter” as in reporting the event as he witnessed it not as in MSM Reporter.
Alot of MSM reporters are mere mouthpieces with the able exception of Mike Deeson. Dave would not qualify as a mouthpiece as he reported an observation with an original conclusion not what someone else told him to write.
I read ’speculation’ in the Tampa Tribune every day yet very few point this out … that the Tampa Tribune is similar to reading the Enquirer. The man on the street is HAPPY to say so — if you ask.
I guess it’s up to each individual blogger what they feel responsible for
Responsible
If you wanted to question the veracity of the things I have to report you’d have to be behind my eyes. If you were reporting on your death from cancer, who is to question that? Just like what happens in MY life, if you were to ‘ride along’ the activity would quell. I’m sure if Judy Hill had been in the Circle K the beer purchase would have waited. A ‘planted editor’ is exactly the reason why REAL news goes unreported. If no one else has noticed — media reform is desperately needed. I’ve noticed the media pick up on almost everything I’ve talked about with the exception of the obvious. (no one wants to know about that as long as it ain’t happening to them) neimoller.
But, ignoring the issue as is attempting to be done with attacking the ‘reporter’ is not going to make it go away.
I won’t involve myself in all the infighting here and other places — I have different goals and limited time. I just say what I think — court of public opinion and all.
There have been presented five different observed incidents of AGGRESSIVE recruiting —
Dave, carry a video camera ….. and do on the spot interviews ….
I have learned a few things about closure and online.
Closure = close your mouth, people don’t want to hear about it.(too bad)
Attacking Integrity =
First they ignore you
Then they ridicule you
Then they fight you
Then you win
anyhoo — you won’t find me wasting alot of time on this type of responding.
Dave brought up a good point that needs addressing.
Jonathan calmly addressed this from his directly opposing standpoint and still agreed it was wrong … (as observed and opined) …
Separate the wheat from the chaff on your own.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:40 am
My apologies for a lengthy response. As well, I didn’t close my brackets, maybe tommy will fix that or edit at will. I don’t normally even address strawman stuff —- he DID see a guy with govt plates buying beer in the company of two younger guys. A cop would have had a problem with that. hehe A citizen of America’s FIRST duty is to speak up the FIRST SECOND he sees something that violates the rights of another.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:51 am
“Dave brought up a good point that needs addressing.”
He brought up a suspicion that needs addressing, but is blogging about it addressing it? As I said in a previous comment, without taking action to actually stop the suspected misdeed (talking to the perpetrator, reporting it to someone in authority) blogging about it is not addressing it. Blogging in addition to action is a good thing. Blogging confused with action is delusional.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
See ARMY WRONG http://www.armywrong.net if you want to learn what’s really going on in recruiting