"Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message

> > European  "volunteers" or "not volunteers" know it can mean *them*.
>
> Care to try backing that up? Is that what surveys of current soldiers
show?

I've never heard of such surveys, maybe because there are none. It is
obvious they know and everybody knows.

> It is simple enough to show through the military's own survey, that the
> soldiers and other Americans are not happy about the situation.

Ignorance....or a sort of hypocrisy from people that didn't want to see the
possible consequences last year ? That's not the first time your militaries
have reasons to complain.

> Sorry, I don't read that language. Care to explain how they promote
themselves
> to potential recruits?

That's not written here, but I can tell you they have many candidates for
all the offers, especially for overseas positions, even in case of fighting
(like Gulf War I) or blue helmets stints.
That's easy to understand. My cousin is a gendarme (a military that protect
us against our inner enemies ! Normally they never go outside French
territory or colonies.), each time he is affected away from his base, he is
paid x% more, depending on how far, plus for certain missions retirement
points are increased too. For instance, if he goes 3 months to New
Caledonia, he has 30% more on his paycheck, additional paid holidays to
compensate the week-ends he spent there, and that period counts as 6 months
of work for retirement. In case they really fight, get hurt, kidnapped,
etc, they get even more compensations. They are also given advancement more
easily. So the young bachelors tend to volunteer a lot. If they are
(un)lucky, certain militaries are active in half a dozen of real fights,
spend a couple years in a dangerous hell, and can earn a full retirement at
35 yr old...or die before. But, they know that.
What you see on the web site are offers, for each position there is a
concours more or less formal -from a simple interview to 2 weeks of tests in
different subjects on a defined curriculum. They take those with best
results. You have here the conditions to apply for over 400 different jobs.
Each group is described (degrees and/or work experience, you need to pass a
fitness test anyway), and they also say what qualities they expect from you.

They want to attract the fittest persons, especially those with technical
qualifications, so they say things like "participate in challenging research
projects" and give details for each specialty.

>Is
> the opportunity to fight and die overseas what the recruiters are
offering?

I've never heard about the existence of "army recruiters" after 1948 or 1870
(I should check, there was a complete reform)....

The positions and contracts are decided at the level of the ministry and are
published
(in details in an official publication), that's the rule for all the public
jobs. Job descriptions are clear. The official offers always precisely
explain if the position is geographically fixed or you can/will be sent away
(and how far, how long, with or without financial/retirement bonification is
even precised), if you can refuse or not, the length of engagement, if you
can quit or not, if you can choose where you'll work, if your widow and
orphans are eligible for special benefits, etc. A number of contracts are
for a given location and once that's over, you have no obligation to accept
the next propositions, others say you can be sent anywhere anytime and can't
refuse, that you are active x years, reservist x years.

I have consulted the details about diplomatic jobs, passed examinations and
applied for certain positions. That was cristal clear. I finally refused the
offers they made me as they all not only uninteresting, but concerned
countries in a special situation (Panama, Burma...just in the middle of
riots, that was as you say :Going there was the only way to know what that
was like. I wasn't that desesperate to get a job and was too young.).　They
didn't hide it, and well you never pass the first examination if you never
read newspapers anyway. At the interviews , they ask you : "You know you'll
work abroad, in difficult countries, you're sure that's not a problem ?
etc.". The army is not different.

The second thing is about the duty to defend your country. I've even seen
pages of the GIGN special police or the Legion, there was nothing
ramboesque, but more "Our job is dangerous, but we are mature responsible
men....". They don't need brain dead dare-devils.

>Are they offering the chance to ship overseas, fight and
> maybe die?

Yes, when that's the case.
A cousin that was hired as civilian staff to do web design has 0% chances to
be sent overseas or to fight, she has signed no engagement of that sort.
Highschool friends that were hired as trying pilot for fighting planes were
clearly told the high mortality of that job, even when there is no
intervention in war. A friend told me that in average, 1 in 10 of the pilots
had an "accident"...but for him that's acceptable, as his hobbies,
paragliding and acrobatic snowboard are not less dangerous.

> Read the US recruitment pages, watch a few recruiting commercials, and you
> would know. People tried to recruit me for years, calling me on the
telephone
> at home, or sending me pamphlets and form letters. No one ever mentioned
> fighting, and note that I was still a student when the first Gulf war
occurred.

OK, their style sucks, but US medias show you the deaths all the time, the
veterans with the Gulf Syndrome, and current/ex-militaries that participated
in all the interventions I listed or spent months guarding an embassy in
some desert full guerrilleros...

Really the guys that "didn't" know are immature dumbies. I'm sure that's a
huge disadvantage for an army to have troups of kids and that makes the
situation in Irak even worse. No wonder the morale is so low, the kids miss
their TV and their Mums, they don't even understand where they are, what's
the history of that country and who are the Iraki ,and the grown-up locals
don't understand in what teenagers with more guns than cold blood can do
anything positive for them, they probably fear accidents more than anything
else.
You're asking why they call reservists ? Well, that's obvious, they call the
mature ones to do the real job and babysit the brats.

>It was an invasion
....
> Now it's an occupation.

Irak had already been occupied for 8 years...

>Looking back at 20th century history, you'd think US
> leaders would understand what "Occupation" meant. Tens of thousands of
> Americans are still in and around Asia.
>
> I knew before it started, that Americans would realize their mistake in
Iraq.

The Americans never seem to realize. Oh yeah, there are individuals that see
things differently, but the majority seems to always forget and jump into
the same trap with the same confidence, optimism, naivity...
For the French, Indochine and Algeria caused a real change in mentalities,
the feeling that an area was over and that couldn't be done again. Our army
was downsized to maybe 1/10th .The failure of the first Gulf War also lead
to the same conclusion : we were wrong.
 If that 1st conflict had not happened, it's likely public opinion and
leaders would have supported or less opposed the new US project.

But Americans seem to have such a short memory. Just to think the generation
that took the Vietnam war in their teeth find it normal that their children
sign as military to pay for their studies !

> Iraq is an interesting place with a rich culture and history, a worthy
place to
> visit and study.
....
> Compare that to what US soldiers can get in Okinawa, and notice the
difference.

Maybe in 40 years, that will be like Okinawa.

Frankly, if you really think your army has disgusting recruitment methods,
why don't you do anything to change that ? Maybe you don't feel concerned,
as that's not your social class that sends teenagers to the fire.

CC