250 years of the US Armed Forces: New Strategy for the US Army

The transition to a completely voluntary service in 1973 forced the army to define, form and convey their narratives to the public in a completely new way. For most of the last two decades, this narrative seemed surprisingly stable and strong, maintaining a high level of public respect, even when the attitude towards the wars led by the army has become negative. But today this narrative is being destroyed.

Whether through politization, or through exit from the Global War with Terror, the opportunities of the army in the field of public communications are far from ideal. The fall of public trust in the army is one of the indicators of this, but a shortage of conscripts in 2022, when the army did not good 15,000, or 25% of targets, makes this problem even more obvious.

The army is already taking some steps, for example, returns its very successful slogan "Become Everyone, what can you be" within the new marketing campaign. But they are fragmentary. The crisis of call is only much more serious problems. The army is not just a new slogan, it needs a completely new narrative strategy. Focus has translated the new text of Dan Vallone dedicated to the development of the US Army.

The armies will have to make serious efforts to take the initiative in the field of communication until the situation has become worse. In a new study of my More In Common organization, we found that many Americans consider the army too involved in politics: seven out of ten say that the military should be separated from politics, but only four of ten believe that this has already been achieved.

If you do not change this dynamics, the army can easily get into a false circle when Americans are increasingly viewing it through a political filter. With the help of a new narrative strategy, the Army can start overcoming political polarization and integrally to the numerous messages that it sends. It can focus on the fact that researchers call transaction and transcendent narratives, or, in the case of army, pragmatism and patriotism.

In this case, the army will form a sense of belonging and a common goal in all the audiences that it needs to cover. With the right approach, a new narrative strategy will allow all representatives of the army - from a commander who reports to Congress to a conscript who speaks with parents at the dining table - to use messages that best resonate with specific audiences, but at the same time tell a common story about the army. The ability to listen is the first step in building such a strategy.

The effectiveness of the narrative strategy depends largely on how narrative corresponds to the values, views and beliefs of the target audience. For the army, this means to hear from Americans of any origin and views on how they understand three key concepts: the purpose of the army, relations between the army and the American people, and a wider horizon. The army has a unique chance to collect the following data: in 2025 it is 250 years old.

This important milestone is a natural opportunity to attract the attention of Americans, break through polarized media channels and hear the thoughts of people and communities directly across the country. The army should take advantage of this by launching the "250 years of the Army" campaign to conduct large -scale discussions and events across the country.

Explaining the causes of the lack of conscripts, analysts do not take into account the role that the narrative plays in the Americans' decision on military service. According to researchers from Rand, the decisions of individuals about the call "are usually modeled within a professional choice, where people go to the army, if the expected value of service in the army exceeds the alternative costs associated with the refusal of service.

" Such models allow you to get important conclusions that have improved politics, benefits and practice of conscription, but at the same time isolate the call from the wider relations of the army with the American people. The consequences of such isolation are visible from the diversity between the coverage of the crisis and the recommendations issued by many researchers.

The coverage of the crisis invariably emphasizes the public discussions about whether the military has become too "left", while expert recommendations are usually focused solely on changes in politics and public practice. The discrepancy between public opinion based on ideology and proposed decisions based on practical considerations complicates the adoption of constructive measures by the army.

There is little data that suggests that fears of progressive indoctrination are a significant factor in the process of recruitment (more about it later). However, the army must turn to a public narrative to create strong political support for changes in politics and practice. An effective narrative strategy in this context creates the conditions for successful implementation of structural improvements.

This does not mean that you need to dismiss or diminish the value of econometric analysis for recruitment initiatives. Studies are constantly showing that macroeconomic factors, such as unemployment and salaries in comparison with civilians, have a significant impact on Americans' decisions to go into the army.

Public opinion also confirms this fact - for example, in the process of joint advertising surveys, marketing research and market study conducted in the fall of 2021 among Americans aged 16 to 21, 58% chose "Payment/money" as the main reason why They could consider joining the army. Operational considerations, such as a system used by the army for medical selection of recruits, are also relevant to the success of recruiters in achieving their goals.

It is logical that such variables will play a key role in solving today's problem. However, these econometric models should be supplemented and integrated with research that considers narratives and the fact that sociologist Dr. Charles Moscos called "institutional" variables such as debt and patriotism. The impact of such variables is obvious in surveys in which servicemen ask why they have been taken to service.

In March 2018, a survey of recruits showed that the main reason why a person would like to go into the army was "pride or sense of dignity/honor. " Institutional variables have always been among the most important reasons why Americans choose a service in the army, but they are paying much less attention in conversations about improving recruiting results.

In short, although there are levers in the army that can only be used for recruitment, the crisis cannot be solved in a detachment from a broader problem that the army faces in communication with the American people. Creating effective communications: convincing narratives, before the army can build a new narrative strategy, it must come up with a general definition of what a narrative is. It's more difficult than it might seem.

Although the army has gained more experience with narratives in the last two decades, the focus was on an operational or tactical level. There is not enough research or recommendations on the role of narrative in relations between the army and American society. Fortunately, the army can rely on both past experiences and research conducted for war with terrorism to form an effective definition of narrative.

After the war or during the relative peace, as now, the army often has difficulty in creating a convincing narrative. This is evident from the last statement about the US Army position, which marked six goals that should be guided by troops, starting to become more focused on data and ending with a positive climate in the command. Every goal is important, but the total package does not pass the test for persuasiveness - the sum does not exceed its parts.

There is no broader topic, there is no basis that would connect goals together to create a more consistent narrative, and there is no thread that connects the past, modern and future of the army. Obvious is a striking contrast with a 2002 statement that took into account: "Today we are involved in the Global War with Terrorism and Protection of Our Motherland. Soldiers who are on the guard of the nation's interests, protect and promote American interests around the world. They perform these.

Vital missions are just as we are 226 years old, without much noise and attention. " These three sentences convey the essence of a convincing narrative, formulating a bold, new, vital mission, which is at the same time a continuation of the continuous heritage of modest service and self -sacrifice for the nation.

In addition to the study of its past narratives, the army can take advantage of a brief review of research on narratives prepared for the series "Assessment of Revolutionary and Insurgent Actions". Although the focus is on narratives in the context of insurgent activity, the authors give a working definition of convincing narratives, which is applied to the internal landscape.

Based on research in the field of social sciences, they define narrative as "a consistent system of interdependent and consistently organized stories that serve as a general rhetorical intention. " For the army, this means that the narrative becomes a system of stories - topics, boundaries, slogans, mottoes, stories of units, visual elements, etc. - which are suitable for each other and create a common metacologist about the army.

The narrative strategy corresponds to the desired ultimate state of the narrative - a metaractor about the army that people want to hear and feel - and appropriate methods and resources to reach and interact with different audiences. The strategy creates integrity, leaving in its high level of individualization, and allows the army to use both thoughtful and spontaneous communications.

But in order for the strategy to be effective, the army needs to determine the clear final state of the narrative. The narrative strategy of the army will be effective to which its audience can understand what the army is, why people come to the army and why it is important.

Although the army touches on all three topics - we will call their purpose, people and context - in our current vision of the army in 2030, it is not clear whether there is a correspondence in how the army and the American people understand these topics. The purpose of the army, as she understands it, remains unchanged since its foundation in 1775: to win wars.

Appointing George Washington, the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, the Continental Congress described the purpose of the army as "protection of freedom of America and . . . reflecting any hostile invasion of it. " Today, the army states that its mission is to "deploy, manage and victory in our country by ensuring the readiness, promptness and stable dominance of the Land Forces throughout the range of conflict within the Joint Forces.

" However, there is no clarity how Americans outside the army understand its goal. For decades, Americans have associated a victory in the war with victories such as World War II, however, as the Ambassador Ryan Kroker said in his report of the Senate Committee on International Relations in 2021: "Victory and defeat are not the terms I used in such areas of combat actions like Afghanistan and Iraq.

" The reflection of this discrepancy is the opinion of America that America has not succeeded in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the data does not confirm that people believe that the army has not coped with their task in general. This indicates a discrepancy in the perceptions of the army itself and the public about its appointment. The public perception of the entire army was also apparently influenced by high -profile internal missions, fulfilled by the army for the last few years.

Whether response to protests in 2020, or deployment on the southern border, or the protection of the US Capitol after the events of January 6, the army played a very prominent role in numerous politically significant events. Although additional research is needed to fully understand the impact of these missions on the army, it is likely that, weakening of public trust, they have caused further confusion and split in the US Army.

In addition to the study of different types of goals, the army also needs to evaluate how Americans in the form and without understanding relations between the army and society. This is vital for how potential recruits understand their place in the army.

It is necessary to study ancient trends, such as contradictions between the perception of the army as a patriotic institute of citizens-soldiers and a highly technical professional organization, as well as a huge gap between the army and most Americans in terms of social contacts. However, the more urgent task for the army is to combat new trends, especially with sharp ideological polarization in the country and its influence on the attitude to the army.

In the course of a study conducted by my organization at the end of 2022, we found a significant ideological polarization on the army. For example, 45% of Democrats against 15% of Republicans believe that the military is allocated too little resources and attention to the fight against racism in the army. 60% of Republicans Against 39% of Democrats agree with the statement: "The more military pay attention to diversity and inclusivity, the less they can focus on preparing for war.

" This polarization is captured and distorted by the headlines about the "field" military and comments that conservatives refuse military service. In fact, the picture is much more complicated. Republicans' trust in the army, although it remains high, has fallen from 81% to 71% in a year, which is a significant decrease. At the same time, however, Americans are still much more conservative (32%) than other society than the more liberal (10%).

This is especially correct for Republicans, 40% of whom are conservative servicemen. In addition, recent surveys conducted for the army have shown that young Americans retain from service primarily about the dangers of army life or that the service will reject them back in professional terms. A deeper understanding of the myths and realities of the perception of the Army by Americans is crucial for the army to effectively operate in a polarized communication environment.

In the end, the armies need to understand how Americans understand the wider context of threat. Americans believe that we came out of the Global War with terror. In the last survey of the Reagan Foundation, Americans named China (43%) and Russia (31%) that pose the greatest threat to the United States.

In the Army-20230 Vision document, this transition is clearly marked, but it lacks a comprehensive structure that would help Americans understand new conditions of safety in ideological and material terms. It is a departure from the era of the Global War with terrorism and the Cold War, when there were convincing limits of the nature of the threat.

Army error in the absence of a single threat similar to the threat of Soviet Union or global terrorism is that it continues to list the challenges - China, Russia, Cybersecurity, Space, Climate, etc. - instead of telling the story of people, values ​​and ideas , standing behind them. There is a temptation to emphasize "what" we do ("we are conducting an accurate fire over long distances", "We carry out far -out intelligence") instead of a deeper "why".

It is at this point in the existence of many threats, when the concern of Americans about foreign policy disagrees on ideological lines, it is necessary to consistently and clearly describe the landscape of security, touching on identity and values. Not only the army is responsible for the description of the general context of the threat. Both the national security strategy and the national defense strategy are used by strategic competition.

This shot has a significant, though contradictory meaning to policy insiders, but it has dubious value in talking to most Americans who are less understood by the intricacies of national security and international relations. Army must apply vertical integration: to associate high policy with stories that are more significant at local and personal levels.

Vertical integration will allow the army to be consistent in all its reports about the national security landscape, starting with the Pentagon briefings and ending with the recruiter's statements at the local high school. Competitive and sometimes contradictory signals about the Americans to the army emphasize the need for additional research to better understand how Americans treat the Armed Forces. However, two points are now obvious.

First, the situation became more polarized than in 1981, when the program "Become All you can be" was launched. Secondly, the situation can worsen. Нова наративна стратегія допоможе армії змінити цю динаміку, але тільки в тому випадку, якщо вона створить історії, які знайдуть глибокий і широкий відгук серед населення.

Найкращий шлях до таких результатів починається з безпосереднього, широкого й особистого опитування думок американського народу.

Як механізм для досягнення цієї цілі армія повинна використовувати майбутній 250-річний ювілей для запуску великої ініціативи щодо залучення громадськості. Ця ініціатива дозволить провести тисячі заходів по всій країні протягом кількох наступних років.

250-річний ювілей є незвичайною нагодою для безпосереднього спілкування з американцями. Це та віха, яка говорить про потребу людей у колективному досвіді.

Люди інстинктивно приділятимуть цій даті більше уваги, що є величезною перевагою в умовах конкурентної економіки уваги та поляризованого комунікаційного ландшафту. Для реалізації цього проєкту армії необхідно працювати з партнерами громадянського суспільства.

Ветеранські організації, релігійні групи та підприємства могли б організувати заходи та надати маркетингову підтримку.

За прикладом святкування 250-річчя країни у 2026 році, штати та місцева влада можуть ухвалити відповідне законодавство та створити комітети, щоб залучити більше людей до цього процесу.

Армія має запросити істориків і кінематографістів для вивчення, написання і створення матеріалів про історію армії.

Зрештою, в межах "250 років армії" варто також провести заходи за участю військовослужбовців і членів їхніх сімей, щоб переконатися, що нова наративна стратегія знайде відгук у дійсних військовослужбовців. Армія має унікальну захопливу історію, яку необхідно розповісти.

Це історія про службу та патріотизм, про соціальну мобільність та економічні можливості, а в період поляризації — про підтримку американцями всіх верств суспільства одне одного в спільній справі. Але ця історія не буде розказана сама собою.

Нова наративна стратегія є вкрай важливою для встановлення зв'язку з американським народом на довгі роки вперед.

Ден Валлоне — виконавчий директор організації More in Common US, де він очолює ініціативу "Ветерани та громадяни" — дослідницький проєкт, покликаний допомогти подолати розрив між спільнотою ветеранів і сімей військовослужбовців та суспільством загалом.