Digital Warfare: Social Media in Military Recruitment
A Veterans Story
If you want to help support the newsletter so more people learn about issues military members and Veterans face, feel free to do some of the following.
Share these articles with friends and family
Open new articles (even if you skim them) to increase the engagement for the algorithm.
If you haven’t already, subscribe (it’s free). If you want to sign up for an annual plan for $30, or a total of $2.50 per month, know that 100% of your proceeds will be donated to Veteran causes
Lastly, if these emails are going to your spam/junk folders, make sure to move them to your inbox
Can social media have an impact on recruitment?
Defense officials say, "The Pentagon should harness the power of social media and influencers to change young people's perception of the military and entice them to enlist amid a challenging recruiting environment" (Shkolnikova, 2022). Officials also mentioned how news coverage could harm potential Generation Z recruits. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephanie Miller emphasized that the portrayal of military service is inaccurate.
Can we blame the military for wanting to try new tactics to replenish its ranks? Would relying on strategies used in the 1980s during 2024 and beyond make sense? It has been years since I have seen a physical military recruiting office; maybe I subconsciously glaze over them while driving. Social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, etc., can reach millions of viewers within seconds, so they are the obvious choice to back.
In my previous article, Should America Be Concerned About Its Military Recruitment Issues, I stated that only 23% of young adults are qualified to enlist due to medical, behavioral health, obesity, and addiction issues. In short, yes, the military should be concerned about its recruitment issues, but can social media help? Yes… and no. Here is why.
"A historically low level of interest among young people, as well as a strong labor market and intense competition with the private sector, are all expected to continue contributing to recruitment woes" (Shkolnikova, 2022). Though the above article was written in 2022, recent pieces state the same regarding the labor market. Honestly, I do not care what reports state that the market is strong and unemployment has lowered by 1, 2, or 5%. I frequently visit LinkedIn and notice a plethora"open to work badges" on people's profiles. LinkedIn and TikTok contain many stories of how people have been unemployed for 6-12+ months and have applied to hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., stated, "Surveys of potential recruits show young people mainly pass on military service due to the possibility of becoming injured or dying or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychological issues" (Shkolnikova, 2022). Tillis mentioned how these are incorrect narratives meant to deceive susceptible young people. The funniest part about this quote is that Tillis proved the opposite of his point. The statistics of this survey are not only noticeable but correct. Unless you have a burning fire of patriotism, why join the military in 2024? The main pros of joining when I did (2010) were that you would get free college, free medical care, a steady paycheck, and possibly put on the right path if you needed help. The cons I have realized after being out for more than a decade are that most jobs will pay for your college now, or many states have made community college free or heavily discounted. The free medical aspect is only if you get hurt enough while in, something recruiters fail to mention, in addition to the fact that Veteran Affairs is egregious. The steady paycheck is borderline poverty, which is why junior enlisted are qualified for government programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women, infants and children (WIC). Lastly, being guided towards the right path is 50/50.
Is the grass actually greener?
"The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of those who join the military come out much better for their service" (Shkolnikova, 2022). I know plenty of veterans doing just fine after serving; they went to school, got a great job/started a business, settled down, and had a family (white picket fence stuff). I also know a good number of veterans who shot themselves in the head due to mental health issues. Many, if not all, of my friends who deployed have some severity of PTSD, whether they will admit it or not. Additionally, the majority of veterans I know are so tired of dealing with the VA that they use the insurance through their jobs.
Military influencers have become rampant on social media in the past few years. It seems like every ex-seal, green beret, paratrooper, etc.. has amassed a large following on their platforms. Some do this to increase business traffic, others to discuss politics and issues facing the veteran/military community. This tactic has gained the attention of military branches and their recruiters. Recruiters proudly display their battalion in their Instagram bios and are heavily active in trying to meet their quota. Pictures of recruits swearing in, videos of cheeky antics in the office, rough and tough military training, you name it. It is a great strategy; civilians can feel like they "know" the recruiter, creating a virtual bond. Maybe, just maybe, they will reach out to learn about potential opportunities.
Anything for the views!
On the other hand, a significant amount of content would make a potential recruit run for the hills, and not during PT, if you catch my drift. After five minutes of scrolling on #Miltok, you will find yourself on videos of soldiers trash-talking their experiences. Korea sucks; I was demoted for XYZ, and I cannot wait to get out because of (fill in the blank). Soldiers also post videos and pictures of themselves in uniform at protests, which is strictly prohibited per DoD Directive 1344.10.
I have spoken to many people about their opinions regarding recruitment and overall military strength. In 2024, do we need as many "boots on ground" as we did 20 years ago? I have put these individuals into two buckets. One group believes we do not need as many soldiers in a technology-run era; after all, a drone can blow up a building with a drone operator located anywhere in the world. On the other hand, this technology and new equipment will require maintenance. It needs operators, maintenance techs, IT/software workers, etc..
“CHYNA”
The group that states we need more soldiers seems to always refer to China's population and military. I did some research on America's soldier count in comparison to some of our potential threats.
America:
Active Duty: 1.29M
Reserves: 800,000
Total: 2,090,000
China:
Active Duty: 2M
Reserves: 800,000
Total: 2.8M
North Korea:
Active Duty: 1,280,000
Reserves: 600,000
Total: 1,880,00
Russia:
Active Duty: 1.32M
Reserves: 2M
Paramilitary: 250k
Total: 3.57M
Just dance
Why did I pick China, North Korea, and Russia? I'm sure you can figure that out. Needless to say, America has significantly fewer soldiers than both China and Russia. Luckily, we have plenty of ocean between our countries (sorry, Alaska). What do you think? Do Russia and China's having more troops pose a threat? Do we need America's recruiters to dance more on social media to help fight our impending doom?
I think the weak leadership in the White House is a big problem. They're orchestrating WWIII and deploying arms at great speed. But a strong leader who can establish peace would be a game changer. I believe many more people would enlist to defend the US. But the money laundering and corruption and endless foreign wars are not selling anymore. Everyone knows too much.
well, I'm not sure where you're located, but there are 2 sets of recruiting offices (brick and mortar) within ten miles of where I sit right now. (before you ask, yes I'm a vet, in fact I retired from the navy before you enlisted for the first time.)
Are we going about recruiting properly? No, in my not so humble opinion.
Is Social Media a useful tool for recruiting? Yeah but only once you fix the message.
The military was ordered to work hard on recruiting that one percent or so of the population that is the alphabet people, you know the LGBTQRMOUSE types. So, being required to follow the orders of the chain of command, they did so.
In the doing, they alienated their core recruiting sources. We've seen this all over, from Sports Illustrated trying to suck the cocks of the Alphabet folks, and the 'anti body shaming' (read that as "Don't you dare tell me I'm a fat ass") and then suddenly going broke, to arguably the most famous failure to understand your core competency in history: BUD LITE. All of this started, I believe, with the Ditzy Tricks (Dixie Chicks) managing to piss off their core audience overseas back during the Bush jr Administration.
Until the military ceases to pander to the 1% at the cost of alienating their main source demographic, they're going to be sucking from a dry well. As long as you have veteran families, with three, four, or more generations of service telling their sons and daughters "I wouldn't enlist now on a fucking bet" we are in trouble.
The fix is easy, but it's against the will of the perfumed princes of the pentagon, who got their gigs by felching political goo from all the 'right' folks up on the hill. They made their bones by pandering, and if the military quits pandering, they'll lose their 'phony baloney jobs.' Don't expect them to just 'fade away' like Macarthur described. They're going to have to be fired (like Macarthur) by a president with the balls to do so, and the will to go against that very vocal, and very visible 1%.