3 ms·
It's probably not the right phrasing. In both cases it seems like the idea was to show you a bunch of things that you think you would want out of the experience
by sethrin 10y ago
It's probably not the right phrasing. In both cases it seems like the idea was to show you a bunch of things that you think you would want out of the experience. The recruiter then focuses on those abstract ideals that you rate highly and tries to paint a story of how what they're selling will help you obtain those ideals. To me it was pretty overt manipulation. Whether or not you end up fulfilling those ideals is an open question, so whether or not they can be considered "empty promises" is probably in the eye of the beholder. In both cases the potential downside is minimized.
I would prefer military recruitment to focus on the highest integrity rather than the most recruits. I don't have much of a position about this particular tactic, but I do see these two issues as morally linked and I am interested in others' perspective and analysis of the matter.
- linkregister 10y agoI think it's good to have society influence military recruitment towards practicing integrity. That will be secondary to fulfilling requirements to recruit an extra few thousand servicemembers to fulfill a military objective, e.g. The Surge in Iraq. Congress and the Executive will demand results if the military isn't keeping up with recruitment. I see military service potentially fulfilling all of a person's ideals/goals, but this is primarily based off of that person's willingness to work hard, exploit opportunities, and luck. I could have mixed up the importance of those qualities, maybe luck is the most important.