Arguments surrounding recruitment

In addition to the general debates about war and the alleged connection of the military to homophobia, sexism, racism, and imperialism which take place across the anti-war movement , there are debates about the benefits of military service and the promises of recruiters which take place specifically in the context of counter-recruitment:

* Whether recruiters exploit a lack of other options for underprivileged young people, in a phenomenon sometimes called the "Poverty Draft."

* Whether recruiters are honest. Various investigations, such as one in May 2005 by Cincinnati's WLWT, have revealed dishonest conduct by individuals; a recruiter interviewed in the documentary Why We Fight notes that people in his profession have "the bad reputation of used car salesmen." Military defenders argue that the bad actions of a few shouldn't taint the whole. Counter-recruiters argue that high pressure on recruiters creates systemic dishonesty. The U.S. Army shut down its entire recruitment apparatus for a single day in 2005 in order to "refocus" on ethical conduct.

* Whether the military will pay for an education. Through various programs, such as the G.I. Bill in the U.S., which offers up to $71,000, young people are given an incentive to join the military in the form of scholarships for college when their enlistments expire. This is the primary reason why many enlist; a young recruit interviewed in Why We Fight, William Solomon, cites this as his motivation. Counter-recruiters argue that this is a false hope, noting for example that 57% of those who apply for G.I. Bill benefits do not receive them, and that the average net payment to those who do is less than $2200. This is a consequence of various eligibility requirements; 65% of eligible veterans receive money.

* Whether military service provides job skills. Recruiters often suggest that personal and technical skills learned in the military will improve later employment prospects in civilian life, with very similar skills utilized for nursing and electronic and mechanical repair. Counter-recruiters claim that this does not apply to most recruits, citing for example a study in the U.S. which found that 12% of male and 6% of female veterans say they have used their military skills in their civilian careers.[6] However, a study titled "Military Experience & CEOs: Is There a Link?" found that "leadership skills acquired during military training can absolutely enhance one’s chances for success in corporate life."

* Whether reform from within is a better solution than disassociation. Many who agree that there are problems in the military argue that these will be better solved if those who recognize them as problems gain influence in the military rather than avoiding it. Others argue in response that the military's problems are structural, and that its disciplinary hierarchy prevents successful internal pressure. This debate occurs mostly in narrower contexts, such as debates about whether left-wing activists should join the military or whether universities in the U.S. should have ROTC programs, rather than in discussions of general enlistment.[8]

* Whether the military inaccurately promotes a "romanticized" view of combat - using catchphrases such as honor, courage, and service - and glosses over death, injury, and civilian suffering, in order to give recruits a "soft" vision of the job.