In the United States, as you know, we have an all-volunteer military.  This means the decision to be a soldier (or not) belongs, for the time being, to the individual. Since the highly unpopular draft during the Vietnam War, the military has had to advertise itself to prospective soldiers, to sell soldiering as a career choice: “Be All You Can Be,” “An Army of One,” etc.  Yet many countries around the world maintain their armed forces with mandatory conscription, also known as the draft.  Most European countries, for example, require their young men (and sometimes women) to serve in the military for a two full years.  During wartime, the U.S. has, of course, drafted young men into the military, and the government has the power to reinstate the draft if needed for the defense of our country.

Currently, we are at war, and while we have no draft as yet, “stop-loss” orders that forcibly extend terms of service as well as the dramatically increased use of National Guard units for active service, critics charge, constitute a “backdoor” draft.    Also, the Army is having trouble meeting its recruitment goals, both in terms of numbers and the qualifications of the new recruits.  How long can we sustain an all-volunteer military before we make the politically unpopular decision to reinstate the draft in order to expand the numbers of our already thinly stretched troops?

The answer lies, in part, in how effectively recruiters will be able to sell us on the idea that some of us should make extraordinary sacrifices, endure terrific hardships, and risk our lives in combat rather than enjoy the freedoms and comfort the war is supposedly meant to defend.   Joining the armed forces is a different kind of decision in wartime, and, for as long as we have the right to choose to serve rather than being chosen to serve, recruiters are going to have an especially difficult job and some prospective recruits are going to have a hard time make a well reasoned decision. 

For your midterm, I give you a prompt to write a persuasive essay, providing you with a rhetorical situation that will require you to use your pesuasive skills, awareness of audience, and detailed knowledge of one or two military sales pitches.   

To prepare, choose a recent ad or a pitch from whichever U.S. military advertising campaign strikes you--Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, or Marines--to analyze. Look at pitches made on the Internet and in magazines or interview a recruiter, visit a recruitment office or even review a military sponsored video game in order to understand the nature of the argument each makes.   How are recruiters describing this choice to prospective soldiers?  Who is the target audience for the particular ad you’re looking at?  Consider the each element of WASPS from the recruiters’ perspective.  How is the argument being made?  How do you feel about it?

Try paraphrasing the basic reasoning the ad (or website) makes in the following way.  In the famous recruitment poster to the right, the argument could be paraphrased in the following manner:

(Thesis claim)You should join the U.S. army

because,

(Reason claim) if you don't, you should feel ashamed of yourself.

Evidence: Picture suggesting your own authoritative grandfather scolding you

Consider the all-important unstated assumption here--what the success of the argument depends upon: the audience, in this case, young men during WW I and WW II, had a sense of duty to their country that could be appealed to.  Thus, the main premise upon which the argument rests:  All young men have a moral obligation to obey authority.  Do you have such a conviction today?  How would this advertisement appeal to draft-age people today?