It’s a bad time for the U.S. military, facing a decade-long recruiting problem. War is ongoing in Ukraine and Gaza following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’ attacks on Israel. There are also rumors of war around Venezuela and Taiwan. Yet between 2013 and 2023, male enlistments in the U.S. military fell by more than a third, while female enlistments remained steady. Despite steadily reducing the number of new recruits each year, the U.S. military has fallen well short of its enlistment goals for several years in a row.
The Army’s current recruiting problems have to do with a long-standing tension in American military culture. Since World War II, Americans have tended to think of military victory as the product of resources and technology: Give the military enough money, and they’ll produce better machines and digital systems that will guarantee victory on the battlefield and keep the nation safe. Historian Adrienne Lewis writes, American War Culture Lewis demonstrated that this mindset, combined with a consumer culture, severely limits the recruiting pool. Americans value wealth and consumption as a measure of quality of life, with the country’s “best and brightest” pursuing careers as businessmen, lawyers, and engineers. At the same time, excessive consumerism renders many Americans physically unfit for military service. Lewis’s authoritative survey of U.S. military history from World War II to the present concludes that high-tech, low-manned approaches to armed conflict have repeatedly weakened the war effort and failed to produce victory. The Army’s current recruiting problems suggest that future U.S. military deployments will be similarly plagued.
The Army’s response to the challenge of declining enlistments has tended to treat superficial symptoms rather than the deeper illness. Recent “What kind of warrior are you?” marketing campaigns and mentions of financial benefits such as free college tuition and mortgage assistance have failed to stem the worrisome enlistment trend. The new marketing effort has revived the old slogan “Be All You Can Be,” but this selling point builds on the previous campaign’s focus on the personal, selfish benefits of military service. In his book, Making a PatriotPolitical scientist Walter Burns concluded that “reasoning based solely on self-interest does not lead men to risk their lives for others or their country.” Burns argued that to be motivated to choose national defense over private sector wages, men must be educated in self-sacrificing love for their country. What sociologists have termed the “amotivation syndrome,” in which young people apathetically wait for opportunities instead of pursuing them, is therefore an education problem, Burns said. Because our education system no longer instills patriotism in young people, they become passive and unable to see the benefits of enlistment, which demands virtues they do not possess.
Christian citizens may be able to make a difference in solving the problem of male enlistment in the Army if they utilize certain theological insights. Baptist theologian Denny Burke argues that God calls men to a “profession of protector.” Men fulfill this role when they protect the people and creatures in their lives, including but not limited to their families and communities. Similarly, the Bible makes it clear that the government is responsible for the protective work of preventing and punishing wrongdoing. Thus, one way for men to live according to God’s design is to take up positions created by the government to protect the community. Such roles include a career in the military. This argument does not mean that women do not have a role of protector according to the Bible. However, in the context of responding to the problem of male enlistment in the U.S. Army, this reasoning suggests that Christian citizens—parents, teachers, pastors, etc.—can encourage young men who are particularly troubled by passivity in their lives to consider enlisting in the military. The justification for doing so would not be the young man’s personal gain, but the opportunity to enter a profession that is well aligned with the goal of protection ordained by God.
The history of the American military shows that the military’s mission was once focused on sacrifice and defense. Naval nobilityPeter Karsten, for example, has argued that the US Navy during the Gilded Age emphasized that dedication to military service meant giving up material benefits in the name of patriotism. While writing his doctoral dissertation, he found a similar train of thought that influenced militia forces. After the Civil War, many veterans ran for political office. Those who became state governors often strengthened their state militias. Militias protected communities from mob violence and supported the national army in times of war.
Pennsylvania Governor John W. Geary, a former Union Brigadier General, argued that the militia should “educate the masses” of the state’s youth, teaching them that “there is no lasting security of our liberties without loyalty to the country at large.” North Carolina Governor Elias Carr, a former Confederate volunteer, argued that militia service would spread the “germs of patriotism” and set a precedent that would weaken the appeal of a life dedicated to “disorder and lawlessness.” No personal or economic gain motivated them to sacrifice work or time with their families. They accepted their military and protective roles as a proper sacrifice for the well-being of the community. Civil War veterans came to see military service as rooted in virtue, not self-interest. The United States has changed a lot since the Golden Age, but the men and women who survived recent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan may be able to teach today’s young Americans a similar perspective on enlisting in the Army.
Wars continue because sin has a destructive effect on the human heart. To better address that reality, the United States must overcome the recruiting problems currently facing the Army. Citizens, especially Christians, must push for a restructuring of military enlistment based on sacrificial protective service rather than personal self-interest. Soldiers will endure hardship and be held accountable for the just application of force in wartime. Encouraging men and women to think in terms of virtue rather than self-interest early in their enlistment will better prepare them for the tough choices they will make in the future.
