Intro to Military Rhetoric

       

So I've decided to write the next couple weeks about rhetoric the military uses in recruiting.  This is something I have experienced many many times. I went to military school for four years in high school so I became accustom to recruiters filing in and out trying to get us to sign up for one branch or another.    My school was affiliated with the Army so we were constantly being talked to by various Army recruiters. My school had a mandatory JROTC program (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corp) which is like ROTC only we don't have to serve. As part of the program our school was required to build a military science program into the curriculum, we had to wear the official Army uniform which was given to us by the US Army. Another stipulation was that my school had to allow any military recruiter onto the property that wanted to set up a station.  As we were a military school we were prime recruits for the various branches offer corps. We were taught not to trust recruiters by upperclassmen and little tricks we could do to avoid them. We could spot out lies and false promises made by recruiters very easily and more than once I was able to correct a civilian friend who had the wrong idea about military life.

lasalleinstitute.org

          Now don't get me wrong I am not anti-military at all; Far from it. I would have joined had it not been for some external factors. However, The point I was trying to make is that from my experiences I have come to realize many things about the rhetoric of military recruitment having dealt with them so many times. One might even consider me an expert.  Everything dealing with recruitment involves very precise and very carefully crafted rhetoric. From the words out of the mouth of a recruiter to the music used in the TV commercials the military have not only become experts in war but in persuasion.
          Today I just want to mention a couple of key things that I will reference in my next four blogs. These things are common rhetorical methods used by all the branches. The first is that recruitment focuses mainly on enlistment. Very rarely are recruiters looking for officers. Officers are important but as anyone who is either currently in the military or has some sort of connection to it can tell you, the majority of the physical work as well as the most danger comes from the enlisted ranks, making it the hardest to recruit. Enlisted ranks for those of you who don't know have the most dangerous jobs, go through some of the most difficult training and are payed much less than officers. On the other hand the officers have a much more difficult job mentally and emotionally as leaders. There are more people willing to do they're job but few who are actually able to. That is why most of the time recruiters won't try to sell the officer position, unless they find an extraordinary person (like what I did there Mike).
           The second point is that a recruiter will never paint a true picture of military life. If they did then nobody would join up. Every form of recruitment will talk about honor and courage somewhere whether it is a pamphlet or TV commercial. They will tell you that people will respect you more, or that you will become part of an elite family. This is an idea that has been a large part of Western Civilization since Roman times.  The Romans believed that honor and glory could only be achieved through the military and the only way to be considered successful was through honor and glory. This has been a perpetual idea throughout the western world for millenniums. So it is something that appeals to many people today. Obviously the miliray will use it to their advantage. If they were to give you the accurate description ( you will be paid little to risk your life for someone you never met and most likely die for) absolutely nobody would join. However, by appealing to theses age old forms of pathos the military has succeeded in recruiting for years.
           The third and final point is that the military will tend to appeal more to a male audience than a female audience. While it is rather backward and still a bit sad frankly, the military would still rather have men fighting than women. Also war has always been something more likely to occur between males than females simply because men have the biological tendency to fight. That is why the voices of the narrators of military commercials are often deep male voices. They often show scenes of violence and hard training. The soldiers are often men in the commercials. Most recruiters are also men. All these are because the military hopes to attract young men who are more willing to take life advise from an older man. Whether that is wise or not is not the question but it works apparently.
          What we have to remember is that everything the military does in recruiting has come about through centurie of trial and error. They know what appeals to young people, men in particular because of the tactics used before them. I want to gain press upon the reader that I am in no way shape or form against the Military. As I Said before I am a strong supporter of our troops and would have joined myself if not for some outside variable.  I am merely discussing the rhetoric used by the various branches to attract recruits and not the morality or legality of it. With that I hope you look forward to my analysis within the next four weeks of the 4 main Branches: Army, Navy, Marines (I'm separating them from the Navy), and Air Force.