The army shouldn't be demonised for recruiting youngsters | thearticle

Isn’t it terrible? The British Army has been accused of “leaning on” under-18s to deal with its recruitment gap. The Child Rights International Network (CRIN) was appalled after it found

that the army took on 1,000 16-year-olds and 820 17-year-olds last year, with most of them likely to come from poorer areas. CRIN’s campaigns coordinator Charlotte Cooper complained to the 

_Guardian _that the army had been taking “teenagers from the most deprived backgrounds to fix its recruitment crisis, using them to fill the riskiest roles because it can’t persuade enough

adults to enlist”. The newspaper was so horrified that it ran a whole editorial on the story. “With under-18s making up almost 30 per cent of recent British army recruits, the UK is

increasingly out of step”, it read, even suggesting that the “nationalist turn of politics” was behind some of its appeal to youths. Just how out of touch can you be? The whole debacle

revealed a real snobbery towards the army, which is being treated as an untoward path for young people, like turning to drugs or crime. In fact, the complete opposite is true, as it’s often

a chance for whippersnappers to transform their lives and fortunes. Yes, it has dangers — and there have been terrible tragedies. But it still offers excellent training, a good wage and

education, from basic literacy skills to postgraduate degrees, as well as the benefits of friendship and teamwork. Huge numbers of army recruits will come off better than others their own

age, who will be saddled with student debt and fewer employment opportunities. It’s a fallacy to believe that these young soldiers are being preyed on. Even so, the _Guardian _takes an

incredibly dim view of the thought processes that would lead someone to signing up, arguing that the army’s recruitment policies are in “bad faith” and that it’s “not in anyone’s best

interests to make this decision [to join] before they are an adult”. This attitude reeks of someone who lives in the media bubble, and cannot imagine anything more combative than a Twitter

argument. Its writers forget the immense pride the services bring to men and women, as well as their families, around the country. Some boys and girls dream of joining for their whole lives,

and should be celebrated — not treated as victims of exploitative recruitment practices. Which brings me to my next point: recruiters, too, should not be demonised for tapping into the

under-18s pool. The army is more than 7,000 short of its target figure of 82,000, and needs energetic recruits, as has always been the case. And goodness knows it has tried to get other

generations on board. Earlier this year advertisers ran a provocative campaign that targeted “snowflake” millennials. These turned out to be successful, leading to more applications, but

there is only so much the army can do. From anecdotal experience, I can say that people around my own age (30) are not the most patriotic of generations, more concerned about Britain’s

wrongs than how the country will protect itself in years to come. Many are against the nuclear deterrent, which is why they favour Jeremy Corbyn, and were mollycoddled at universities that

teach them to fear the content of Shakespeare lectures more than the poisonous tactics of Vladimir Putin. This latest backlash against the army shows the immense pressure it is under to look

 “woke”, while having to do the hardest job of all: protecting our country. In previous times, it would have never had to endure these criticisms. Huge numbers of young men went to war,

motivated by love of their country and with little complaint. Nowadays the sign of a few thousand joining voluntarily is considered a societal outrage. All this demonstrates is the relative

safety which Britain and the West have enjoyed, thanks to the Forces — and a media which views tough work with a certain amount of disdain. Papers like the _Guardian _claim to represent

marginalised communities, but their palpable dislike of hands-on roles couldn’t make them any further removed. The fact that its journalists (and many readers, too) think the recruitment of

under-18s to serve their country is exploitative says everything about widening gaps in British society.