- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Too bad that Clarren didn't contact the U.S. Army and see if they had any stats on the conversion of gamers into enlistees. After all, if we're underwriting this recruitment strategy to the tune of "nearly $10 million" then doesn't it beg the question: Is this program paying off?
I just visited the America's Army website. It's about what I expected. Recruiters haven't changed much over the decades. They still use the same old come-ons that have timeless appeal to the developing minds of naive teenage boys.
Become a man! Fight for your country! Become a real American hero! Glory awaits you! Get respect! Become part of something important!
If that doesn't hook 'em, they go for the more practical approach:
Choose from hundreds of different Military Occupational Specialties. Prepare yourself for a career in computers, or diesel mechanics, or food handling. Just sign here kid and don't pay attention to the fine print.
So is the program effective? I wish Clarren had provided an answer.
Because if it isn't effective, then American taxpayers are just footing the bill for a free "First Person Shooter" game that kids would otherwise have to buy. I'd imagine that the other FPS game manufacturers might be a little pissed that they've got some unfair competition.
The gamers posting here are absolutely correct that it's just a game. And best of all, it's free. I wonder how participation would drop if gamers had to pay to play.
DeLappe is underestimating the intelligence of the gamers. He weeps, "It's probably the only game out there on the Internet, where if it draws you in and gets you to join the military, you could die." Yeah, but is it any more likely that a gamer is going to join the military after playing America's Army than he would move to some crummy town in New Jersey, become a gangster and live out his fantasy as a low life hoodie in Grand Theft Auto III? Give these gamer guys some credit.
The Army and the Marines still haven't figured out how to get the few good men they want. So they have to cast a wide net, getting not only a few good ones, but they wind up spending our money on and then having to reject a hell of a lot of kids because they don't measure up. I object to America's Army game as a recruiting tool for this very reason.
The Army is operating on a false premise: that gamers are dumb as dirt and malleable, when actually the kids who get involved in gaming are skilled at getting out of traps and thinking two or three steps ahead of their opponents. They know that real combat is not a game. It doesn't take much imagination to think just beyond the cartoonish G.I. Joes and understand the consequences of being on the losing end of a firefight. I'm pretty sure they know that when you get perforated pretty good, you go into shock, you bleed out and you die. There is no reset button in real life.
I think the $10 million could be better spent by going after kids that eschew gaming and prefer to participate in real high risk, thrill seeking activities. Let's say rock climbing, dirt bike racing or skydiving. After all, real combat is nothing if not risky and thrilling.
It's not false braggadocio, the reflection, "you've never lived until you've almost died." It happens to be true. Although DeLappe may not like it, some people are naturally drawn to taking those risks.
I don't think those people are the ones who sit around in their underwear yanking their joysticks. So DeLappe and the recruiters are both spinning their wheels.
