A Few Good Women

Posted By Subsunk

This article in the NY Times is pretty full of misconceptions and falsehoods about Marine recruiting. If you read between the "long unpopular war" lines, you'll see a Marine Corps that is using a more targeted strategy of advertising to find young Women to join the one of the finest services there is in the world today. Getting more bang for their buck.

The young Lady mentioned as a recruit is also just the type to make good Marines. Yet the reporter doesn't quite recognize that the Marine Corps is more than "parachuting from airplanes, wielding big guns, driving heavy tanks and stampeding across the ground". In fact it appears that's the only thing he thinks male Marines are good for. (I can almost hear the bewilderment in his voice over why such "big strong Men would have the smarts to do anything else"????? Wielding big guns??? Stampeding across the ground???? Where did this guy learn about the Marine Corps? In a gay bar?)

Code Pink shows up too, as some sort of experts in why this is Marine Propaganda. As Bugs Bunny said, "It is to laugh". What else is wrong with the article? Read on.

But now it is also showing a softer side. In the latest campaign, a print ad shows a female marine striking a martial arts pose in front of a crowd of men who are looking up to her as their leader. The tag line: “There are no female marines. Only marines.”

Marines are Marines, with a capital M. And there are no female Marines. Just Marines. Except for his punctuation, he's right.

Compare and contrast what we know today:

In the 1990s, when the Marines Corps was having trouble reaching recruitment goals, it ran a scattering of ads in magazines like Seventeen and Sports Illustrated for Women, using tag lines like “You can look at models, or you can be one” and “Get a makeover that’s more than skin deep.” That outreach “wasn’t as sophisticated as it is now,” said Jay Cronin, management director of JWT, a unit of the WPP Group, which has been the Marine Corps’ advertising agency for more than 60 years.

And today we know that the Marine Corps has met or exceeded every recruiting goal since May 2005. In the middle of the "longest", and "most unpopular" war in recent history. (As if Marines or Americans anywhere found any war popular.) In March 2008, they exceeded their recruiting goal by 37%, far exceeding the other services goals. Although it is also true that the Army, Navy, and Air Force also met or exceeded their goals in March 08.

Code Pink says,

Dana Balicki, national media coordinator for Code Pink, a women’s peace group, called the Marine campaign “just another example of potentially misleading tactics used to sell the war to young people, and especially young women.”

Talking specifically about the print ad that shows a woman in a leadership role, Ms. Balicki said, “She’s supposed to look like she’s being empowered, but she’s in a typical self-defense stance. After knowing the statistics and talking to women who have experienced sexual trauma or violence in the military, it’s hard to think of it as empowerment.”

Really???? "Potentially misleading", "selling war", "She’s supposed to look like she’s being empowered", "hard to think of it as empowerment"? What's misleading about female Marines being in charge? What's  misleading about female Marines knowing how to pick up a rifle and use it? What's misleading about portraying female Marines as Leaders. Where is selling the Iraq war mentioned in the ad?

I don't know about you, but if a female Marine Officer struck a defensive martial arts stance on me, I wouldn't think of it as anything other than a prelude to getting my ass kicked if I laid a hand on her. If that's not "empowering" (God, I hate that word...it is too PC and wimpy for me), then I don't know what is. Excuse me, but kicking some guys ass when he threatens you is at least as empowering as learning martial arts to defend yourself if attacked, or divorcing your abusive husband, or taking charge of your own finances, and I hear how those things "are so empowering to women" all the time.

“We’re in the midst of a very difficult war, and the ground forces are taking a pounding,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer and military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a research firm.“We’re in the midst of a very difficult war, and the ground forces are taking a pounding,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer and military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a research firm.

Got that? It would seem that our forces are taking a pounding from the enemy. While I am reasonably sure Ms. Thompson didn't actually mean it that way, it is the quote the reporter chose to use, and it conveys facts which are not in evidence. The only "pounding" our guys take is the pounding their morale takes due to long deployments away from home, and the MSM characterizing them as murderers of innocents, and uneducated grunts with bad table manners and horrible breath. In the context of actual combat, while I am sure they do not appreciate incoming fire, I am equally certain that "taking a pounding" is not a sentiment that they would choose to use in describing their situations. "Giving a pounding, ass kicking, meting out excessive punishment, "getting some", or just generally beating the living sh*t out of some assh*les who desperately deserve it" might be a more accurate portrayal of their language.

The Marines also broke from tradition earlier this year by running a 60-second spot during several episodes of “American Idol.” Titled “America’s Marines,” the ad featured marines standing in formation against various national landmarks. It was intended to appeal to a general audience, including parents and other people whom military recruiters refer to as “influencers.”

What tradition was being broken? The tradition of showing the Silent Drill Platoon performing across America? The tradition of showing Marines to be Patriots who've decided to give their lives to their country in service to Her Defense?

That Tradition?

Given the drumbeat of bad news from the lingering conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, where American military casualties recently topped 4,000, the sell can be a tough one. Sentiment against recuiting has flared on some campuses, as well as in Berkeley, Calif., where the City Council approved a measure in February asking Marine recruiters to vacate their downtown office.

Imagine how much better the Marines recruiting might be if Code Pink had NOT protested Marine recruiting in Berkeley, and if the MSM had accurately portrayed the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq? The only propaganda I see today if that espoused by the MSM to slander American soldiers, and proselytize against any military action by US forces. There is NO GOOD REASON to use force, for any circumstance or condition whatsoever, if you believe the preaching and proselytizing of reporters and editors of our news organizations today. And Hollywood has accepted their premises and done their best to propagandize in the same vein.

Where else but America can radical Islam get their message blazoned across the movie screens of the world, and printed in banner headlines in the most influential newspapers.... for free! The next time you see a story that says al Qaida's media arm has been damaged or hindered....... don't you believe it. Even if we killed or captured lots of al Qaida's nimrods overseas, its media operations are alive and well in Hollywood, and the NY Times.

As opposition against the war continues, Congress has ordered the Marines and the Army to augment their forces. All branches of the military have been reaching out to nontraditional audiences, but none have done so quite as emphatically as the Marine Corps, which is the fourth-largest of the five branches (the Coast Guard is the smallest). Its advertising budget is $157.4 million this year, up from $152.4 million in fiscal year 2007.

Wow, a whopping 3.2% increase in the recruiting budget! Just about the amount of inflation! Knowing a tad about budgeting in DoD, I have to say this shows a tremendous amount of "nothing new to be seen here". The USMC decided to revamp their recruiting approach and it cost the US taxpayers exactly 0% more than it already would have due to the budget increases for inflation listed in EVERY federal budget every year.

Finally, a good note to end on:

Ms. Castillo seems to be precisely the kind of young woman being sought by the advertising. She plays soccer and softball at high school and says she is hungry to prove herself on more dangerous fields.

“The Marines are the toughest,” she said in a telephone interview. “They have the longest boot camp, the highest standards. The Marines want people to actually want to be in the Marines, not just be in it for the money.”

.....

Like anyone entering the Marine Corps today, Ms. Castillo is keenly aware of where she is probably headed. “I’m O.K. with it,” she said. “If I get sent to Iraq, I’m going to be ready.”

Note to NY Times. There are more Ana Castillo's out there. They understand that evil needs to be opposed, not appeased. They are ready, willing and able to stand up and be counted in America's column. When can the NY Times say the same?

Subsunk out.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/28323646

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Few Good Women:

Comments

[Allan]

Sheesh, this is not an anti-military article.

On the capitalization of Marines. Have you looked at the NYTimes style manual (or the style manual of any newspaper)? Perhaps there is a stylistic reason for this. An anecdote. Once I gave an interview for an Army post newspaper. The draft referenced the CG a few times, the first time as General Smith, the rest as Smith. I complained that the CG should always be referred to with his title. I was rebuffed because that was not "proper style".

I agree with the "softer side" reference. The female marines I have known have been tough as nails. But, I do not think that this is anti-marine. Rather, it is sexist, implying women are weaker than men. If your comment is on the NYTimes's misogyny, I could not agree more.

The "tradition" being broken was to target recruits, and mainly male recruits. Now they are also targeting those who influence potential recruits.

You complain of the MSM misrepresenting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think you are off base. As for Afghanistan, I am not sure to what you are referring. As to Iraq, given that the president recently admitted that he lied on how the war was going (purportedly to raise the morale of the troops), I am not sure your argument holds water. The simple truth is this: If you join the military, you are going to war. If you go to war, you will put yourself in harms way. Many people do not want this (which is why, in past wars, the draft has been the primary means for recruiting fighters).

A 3.2% increase is small. But most federal agencies are scaling back spending.

There may be more Ana Castillo's out there. If there are, they are likely to go to the Marines. Personally, I think the number is too small to sustain the military for much longer. But, then again, the Marines seem to keep meeting their recruiting goals.

[Kat-Missouri/USA]

the president "admitted he lied"? when and where. Link please. I have to read this for myself.

Many people do not want this (which is why, in past wars, the draft has been the primary means for recruiting fighters).

Thank you for noting that, even in alleged "popular wars", there is big chunk of people who wouldn't serve without being bound by law and an equally big chunk of people who would and do serve as volunteers.

whic proves exactly nothing about this war except, well, there's no draft so the traditional people that don't want to go, don't.

[Allan]

As Phil Carter puts it: "There you have it folks. The president of the United States admitting that his own certainty about the mission was more important than telling the truth to the American people." http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/04/adding_insult_to_injury.html

Mr. (CPT) Carter was referring the ABC news interview at:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4634219.

RADDATZ: All during that period -- April, May, June, July [of 2006] -- when things were really going downhill, people were talking about there being civil war.

BUSH: Yes.

RADDATZ: .You were saying, 'We're winning. We have a plan for victory. We are winning,' up through October.

BUSH: Well, there was -- I also recognized -- I think if you'd go through the -- kind of fully analyze my statements, I was also saying, "The fighting is very tough, it's -- you know, the extremism is unacceptable. The murder is unacceptable." And you know, it's very important to be realistic.

RADDATZ: But the overall thing -- when you say, "We're winning," you know what the American people hear. You know how that will play.

BUSH: Well, yes. I think we -- and I wanted -- that's as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as -- look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale? I'm the commander in chief of the military as well, obviously, as, you know, somebody who speaks to the country. And if you look at my remarks, they were balanced. They weren't Pollyannaish.

RADDATZ: But you weren't talking about a new strategy. I mean, I remember going to some strategy tactic things with you. You weren't talking about a new strategy publicly. It's one thing for the troops and boosting morale. I totally understand that. But do you think you lost credibility with the American people? Do you think that's one...

BUSH: Yes.

RADDATZ: ... of the reasons you couldn't sell this?

BUSH: I think the quickest way to lose credibility with the American people is for them to think the president makes decisions based upon the latest public opinion poll or what's good for a political party.

[dellbabe68]

Hey, good job!

http://tank.nationalreview.com/

[Troll Feeder]

Hmmm... I think there's a glitch in the B5 login process, because numbnuts keeps showing up as "Allan"

We all know the style manual sez that's not right...

[Allan]

On Code Pink... I am pretty sure that I would not have used that quote. You have the Marines and a counterpoint is good.

On the other hand, anyone who thinks that the military should not advertise and do all it can, short of lying and impressment, is naive. Our military recruitment is based on being competitive with other forms of employment. The armed forces needs to advertise and needs to market.

[Tincan sailor]

This women thing is old hat,if you don't know where you could end up in any branch of the
military while this war is going on your are more than a little naive.As for women the last
time I checked we have more than 1 F-15 Pilot, many A-10 Pilots One call sign comes to mind
"Killer Chick",an all women cokpit crew either on a C-5 or C-17.There are a lot who think
like I do,we owe this country,I know that is hard for some folks to buy but thats how it
is plain and simple...As for the Media most should back up for their paycheck,infact if
they got paid for the quality of their work most would be on welfare.The media bangs away
on the 4000 plus killed in 5 years,I say one death is one to many but how would todays
so called "MEDIA" handle 7600 plus killed or wounded in 36 days at a place called
IWO JIMA??You tell me..And while I'm on the media I have and will continue to take the
infomation from Michael Yon,Michael Totten, Bill Roggio over the NYT any day of the week...

[Grizz]

allan;

As a former Marine, the son of a Marine, and the father of an active duty Marine, I can assure you that any Marine who's proud of the title will emphatically state that Marine is ALWAYS captitalized, regardless of what the NY Times style book says. I rather doubt that you'd be so quick to defend them if the Times style book declared "Allan" would henceforth be written "twit".

[Gryph]

"(I can almost hear the bewilderment in his voice over why such "big strong Men would have the smarts to do anything else"????? Wielding big guns??? Stampeding across the ground???? Where did this guy learn about the Marine Corps? In a gay bar?)"

I don't think so. Considering the rather large number of Marines and other military personnel I've met in gay bars, I'd say that if he had, the reporter would have had more correct information.

[jordan]

"Marine" is always capitalized, and any style book that says otherwise is wrong. This distinguishes it from the word "marine" as in "marine biology".

Semper Fi.

[Hospitaller]

I don't think so. Considering the rather large number of Marines and other military personnel I've met in gay bars, I'd say that if he had, the reporter would have had more correct information.

Oh?

[Laughing Wolf]

I don't know about the NYT Style Guide (Don't know many out there who use it other than them), but the AP (standard style guide for most newspapers, magazines, etc.) states clearly that it is Marines; to wit, Capitalize when refering to U.S. forces, and Marine when referring to an individual. Pg. 128, 22nd printing, spiral-wire bound edition, ISBN 0-917360-03-6. The NYT may not say to capitalize (I actually doubt it, suspect it does unless you have a current citation otherwise), but that is also simply because they don't respect or capitalize any U.S. armed forces, the United States, etc...

LW

[defendusa]

Grrr! I dislike that "reg"!! It should be caps. And, speaking of that, my own moniker needs the USA to be capped. Anyone know how to fix that? I am challneged in the blog world.

[douglas]

"A 3.2% increase is small. But most federal agencies are scaling back spending."

A reduction in the growth rate of your annual budget is not "scaling back", sorry.

If only that statement were true, we'd all be a lot better off.

[Mommynator]

If any Woman is able to endure Marine basic training and come out alive and sane, then she is worthy of the title.

And subsunk is totally correct about "empowerment". What a stupid word. If a woman has enough self respect to stand up for herself, Marine or not, then that is true "empowerment", not crying rape when you feel like it or feel guilty, not expecting someone else to pick up your slack, not weeping through life's self-inflicted dramas and doing nothing to end it.

If it takes military training (in whatever service) so be it. But I'm sure many women in past historical times that are sadly denigrated by the stupid twit feminists, would recognize sticking up for themselves whilst slapping and snubbing rude men.

[Ken]

If averaging 2 KIA a day over five years is "taking a pounding", I wonder how the author would describe Iwo Jima, Utah Beach, Belleau Wood, any battle from the Civil War...

[Chuck Ziegenfuss (TCOverride)]

Three things (well, maybe more. You never know)

1. Please refrain from using phrases like "more bang for your buck" with regards to increased recruitment of females.

2. Bush lied, people died. Can't you come up with anything fresh? Any leader worth his salt will put on his best face when things aren't looking good. Because you lead, you have to believe in yourself, your troops, and their mission. You can't very well expect soldiers to follow you over the ramparts after you've spent all morning crying into your tea about how bad things are going and how you are destined to lose. However, since I get the distinct feeling that Allen has never led anything more than a protest rally, I don't expect him to get it.

3. Capitalizing Marine. Marine is capitalized at some times, and not others. When used as a name for a person, i.e. "Come here, Marine." then it is. Other times, when used as an adjective, it isn't. For example, The name Marine (capitalized because it is used as a noun) comes from the original title of naval or marine infantry. Now, you could (and should) capitalize "marine when referring to$ the entire organization, e.g. "The Marines took fewer islands, and suffered more casualties the the Army did in WWII pacific theater of operations. You see, here the Marines and the Army are both capitalized, as they are the names of the organization, the same as you would capitalize any other organization. "Recently, SoldiersAngels (an organization)donated $5000 to purchase sweats for wounded servicemembers."

I am sure this will draw the ire of the many marine infantrymen who read it. However, to my knowledge, there has been no special dispensation granted to the USMC (capitalized here as it is an acronym) by the governing body of the International Organization for English Usage in Print and Speech (IOEUPS). Just because a marine says that "marine" is always capitalzed doesn't mean it always is capitalized. If they say it is to differentiate them from marine botanist, then they should refer to themselves as "marine infantry" because that is what they are; "marine" whether capitalized or not, simply refers to anything from or relating to the sea. Marines should really seek to differentiate themselves from "Maureen," a traditional celtic name for a baby girl meaning great.

Plus, taking grammar and diction tips from marines? Doesn't ANYONE see the failure in logic there?

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Rhetoric is all the liberals have. They neither use or understand context.

A friend of mine who has the stomach to watch brian williams emailed me to tell me he announced that the miliatary is desperate for recruits because "they doubled the number of waivers they issue for felon recruits.

Never stated the number, but it's from 250 to 500. God the liberals are pathetic. Makes me ill to think I share the same country with them. All they do is whimper to the enemy, foul things up and form moron brigade lines in the way of progress.

[Navyvet]

I thank God this group of "journalists" wasn't around during World War II. They would have declared the war lost on December 8th and had us surrendering by Christmas.

[Deltabravo]

Gryph, it all becomes perfectly clear.....

Chuck Z., you owe me a keyboard. Your #1 started it and your last sentence finished it. I'm still laughing. Spew warning next time, please.

[Rich Casebolt]

Time for a little perspective ...

"I say again and again and again that I will never send American boys to fight on foreign soil."

... President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the 1940 Presidential Campaign

Said even as he was leading this nation into preparations for war.

If we are to condemn this President for putting what our Men and Women were doing in 2006 for us in the best possible light, then what are we supposed to do with these guys?

It becomes clear that our lapses could have been much greater if one studies the blunders of Eisenhower, Bradley, and Montgomery in 1944, not to mention the hare-brained ideas of great men like Churchill and Roosevelt — from being surprised at Pearl Harbor, Singapore, and the Philippines, to losing 50,000 casualties at Okinawa 90 days before the Japanese surrender, to allowing all of Eastern Europe to fall to the Communists. Yalta's terrible miscalculations make the present administration's foreign-policy slips seem minor in comparison.

I am sure FDR also put the best face on Yalta, just as President Bush was trying to re: Iraq.

I also remember predictions of "victory by Christmas" in 1944?

And, let's not forget Churchill's "lie" of omission that turned the people of Coventry into sitting ducks in November 1940. If President Bush had done the same thing, his critics would be calling for a war crimes trial.

But, instead, every gnat must be strained by the Allans of the world, in order to discredit any President they don't like ... regardless of the true reasons they don't like him or her, or their relevance to the nation.

[hindmost]

I had already saved this yesterday as one of my "special posts" to come back and read for perspective and to use against the "Allans" of the world. I had returned to comment on the difference between lies that Bush never told (but the left accuses him of doing so), and a CinC's leadership and commitment to his troops, even couched in what would have to be called a "lie." But Rich... anything I could say would pale in comparison... that comment alone was worth bookmarking this post. Well said.

[Allan]

Rich,

There may be a difference between what Roosevelt and Churchill said and what Bush said. Then again, there might not be.

My understanding of history is that Churchill, for example during the Battle of Britain, acknowledged things were going badly, but asked that the people keep a "stiff upper lip" and fight on.

Roosevelt may not have led our troops into war had it not been for Pearl Harbor. I think he wanted to go to war, but did not have the political backing to do so until December 1941.

Bush, on the other hand, KNEW that things were going poorly in Iraq in 2004, but he said things were going well. He said things were going well in order to raise the troops' morale. He may have done so, but at the cost of lowering the nation's confidence in him as a leader and lowering the nation's morale.

I have said before, and I shall say again, that I was prepared to follow Bush on 9/12. But his lack of candor and the abhorrent running of the war lost me in about April of 2003, when it was apparent that his administration had no idea of what to do in Iraq.

One should not hold Bush responsible for his failed predictions. One should hold him responsible for his mischaracterization of facts.

This nation is mature. Had Bush acknowledged we had problems, rather than prevaricate, it would have been better for everyone.

[Subsunk]

Allan/Carl/Whoever you are,

If your arguments are the best you've got, no wonder folks consider you a military moron.

Rich, as always, you provide one of the best responses to Lies, Dies, Oil for Blood, Blood for Oil, Incompetent, etc..... ad nauseum. Military historians will forever debate whether Iraq was a mild failure, or an unmitigated stomping of Islamic radicalism. As a campaign, I see few, I say again few, mistakes which could have been handled differently. I was around when we cut the active duty military to 1.4 million folks, only half of them in the Army and Marine Corps. 700,000 Men and Women isn't enough to handle an occupation of 200,000 folks for several years. We need a military two or three times the current size to do what all the "pundits" claim should have been easy with more troops. Bullshit. They aren't there.

Rummy was right. You fight the war with the forces you've got, not the ones you wish you had. It was true in WWII and VietNam and it is true today.

The only liars in this game are the al Qaida propaganda arm and the MSM and Hollywood and any Dhimmicrat who thinks running away makes us stronger and al Qaida weaker.

Allan is a fool. I stand with Rich. Bash away, Brother.

Subsunk

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Allan, I'll just politely ask that you consider that the words of GW Bush don't just go out to Americans. They go to the enemy as well. I'll trust you don't want Shirley Temple for CinC if you get my drift.

Rich, If I may add to your comment.

FDR actually betrayed Churchill, favoring Stalin's plan to invade Germany through Normandy. Churchill's plan was to attack Germany through the soft underbelly of Europe, the area now populated with the Dirkastans. Stalin preferred this because he wanted to take control of that territory and didn't want to have it flowing with American troops and equipment after the war. So, many more Americans died at Normandy that should have never if we didn't have a weasel for a president at the time.

PS - Hillary says her presidency will be less taxing on the tax payers as her and Bill can simply take all the stuff they stole from the White House back for the next 4 years instead of remodeling. Just fyi.

[Allan]

This certainly has gone off topic.

The point Subsunk was trying to make was that the ad was anti-military. I continue to disagree with his assessment. The only possible anti-military thing about it was obtaining a quote from Code Pink. I would agree that the quote added little to the article and I would probably not have included it.

Bottom line on this one: attack Code Pink if you disagree with what it represents, but the NYTimes is not culpable on this one.

Bottom line on the president: When he did not tell the truth about Iraq, and it was evident he was engaging in propaganda, I was a soldier and it lowered my morale. What it did for the rest of the soldiers or the rest of the world, I do not know. IMHO it was unnecessary and seriously eroded his credibility. (And, yes, perhaps others, i.e., FDR, LBJ, and Lincoln, did it, too, but I was not alive or was very young back then, so I did not have an opinion on the matter when it happened).

[Allan]

Correction:

One sentence above should read:

The point Subsunk was trying to make was that the article was anti-military.

I had written "ad" instead of "article."

Apologies for the mistake.

[Chap]

Hey SS: You've got a typo. Loren Thompson's a guy, not a Miz. He's a graybeard in the Beltway, Ph.D. type. Regular media presence. Crotchety but not stupid, has followed military stuff for a long while.

I wonder why Douglas Quenqua decided to use the quotes he did; I sense a lack of digging. Code Pink? Eesh. Did Quenqua source anyone *not* already on the "military issues" section of the telephone's speed dial?