The other day I blogged about Holy Joe doing the shuffle and jive for the White House as it rumbles toward military action in Iran. One has to wonder where are they going to find soldiers if it comes to on-the-ground efforts. The military is having a difficult enough time maintaining forces as it is.
One answer: lowering admissions standards, including raising the age of recruits…
A U.S. military advisor and former combat officer is troubled by recent reports that the Army has had to lower recruiting standards to meet its quotas.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis says after missing last year’s goal by 7,000 recruits, the Army is going to have a tough time reaching is fiscal year 2006 goal of 80,000 new soldiers. Still, he is not happy about what the branch has had to do to fill its ranks. “It means that 2,500 of the people this year that we’ll recruit are getting in basically with waivers of the old standards,” the Pentagon advisor says. “However, in order to fill the ranks of 80,000 this year, it’s become necessary to take some action. We’re also recruiting an older population — bringing in people in their early 40s to basic training. I don’t understand why this nation has to revert to that.”Although these older recruits are “probably reasonably healthy,” Maginnis notes, “by the time you’re that old, you’re older than most of the drill sergeants that are trying to run you through basic training, and the idea that we’re going to be fighting wars with 45-year-old infantry privates just seems to be a bit ludicrous to me.” It is unfortunate that the U.S. Army has had to “change the standards in order to get the numbers,” the Lt. Colonel says, “but that’s what happens in a volunteer force.” Maginnis also points out that, besides accepting older recruits, the Army has lately been issuing recruits more waivers for criminal convictions, drug use, and medical conditions.
28 Responses to “Recruiting 45-year-olds for the Dear Leader’s Iran Adventure”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Jesus Weeps
Going into the military….for the first time….at age 40+?
And they were doing what with their lives until this monumental decision? Hmmm, probably had a job the Bushies exported. Maybe they’re homeless because of the Bush economy and want three squares a day.
Of course I know a fellow who’s 100% disabled, walks with a cane but still, technically, is in the Reserves. They’re so desperate they keep trying to recall him. He’ll tell them on the phone he’s disabled and give them his service number. They’ll tell him to report anyway. He’ll have somebody drive hime 150 miles, show up and they say, but your disabled and he’ll say but I told you so…. Abolut every three months this goes on. The right way, the wrong way and the Army way.
Fire Rummy. Do it now.
you’re older than most of the drill sergeants that are trying to run you through basic training
And that’s going to make life tricky. You’re going to get middle-aged reservists who are quite frankly pissed off at being back in Basic, and may well be prepared to mouth back at their drill sergeants. Insubordination is spelt ‘B-U-S-H’. Same goes with the ones in on waivers. All the worst stuff from the draft days, without the political blowback of sending GOP kids to boot camp.
And here I thought my military opportunities had passed me by. Nice to know I could still join up if I wanted to.
It is unfortunate that the U.S. Army has had to “change the standards in order to get the numbers,� the Lt. Colonel says, “but that’s what happens in a volunteer force.�
And of course, the fact that it’s well-known that soldiers these days are underpaid, with shitty-to-no benefits and subject to stop-loss orders that can extend their tour indefinitely, with no attempt by the political leaders to motivate them into any sense of national obligation beyond shopping, no coherent leadership anywhere to be found and a warmongering administration already eyeing their third target in five years, couldn’t have anything to do with a low turnout.
Actually, it’s the criminal conviction waivers I’m worried about. Don’t we have enough problems with our soldiers breaking international law and the Geneva convention due to bad leadership and combat stress? There’s not a lot of law and order in an occupied area anyways, and soldiers are tasked with protecting civilians, arresting criminals and protecting lootable sites.
Why don’t they just forget even the pretence of a middle man and start sending petty convicts over ? Wouldn’t that make more sense in bipartisan hawk la-la land ?
Hey, there are two young women who are doing nothing better than partying … draft the Bush Twins!
That said, I don’t have a specific problem with a fortysomething volunteering to serve. I just want to know how in the hell they are going to find qualified 40-somethings who will work for the kind of pay and benefits they are now offering?
Think about it a minute: in order to be fit for duty at that age, you kind of have to have your shit together. And if you are 40, high school educated, and have your shit together, your job prospects elswhere are a bit better than this. In fact, you can make a great deal more working for a contractor if you really want the action.
They would be far better off to relax the non-violent felony aspect (read - minor druggies), and give somebody a chance to put that military discipline to good use in their personal life like many friends of my youth and relatives have.
Maginnis also points out that, besides accepting older recruits, the Army has lately been issuing recruits more waivers for criminal convictions, drug use, and medical conditions.
Merge this (emphasis mine):
Equally significant is the Army’s currently liberal use of “moral waivers,” loosely defined as criminal offenses. Officially, the Pentagon states that most waivers issued on moral grounds are for minor infractions like traffic tickets. Yet documents obtained by Salon show that many of the offenses are more serious and include drunken driving and domestic abuse.
with this (emphasis mine):
Detective Hunter Glass is a an Army veteran and Fayetteville gang officer.
“We do know through intelligence that some gang members are actually sent into the military to learn about military tactics,” Glass said.
Glass showed NBC 17 footage of a known gang member just back from Iraq firing on two California police officers — he kills one quickly using tactics perfected on the battlefield.
“Using strictly military tactics he learned in the Marine Corps, he applies suppressive fire power right into the corner,” Glass explains. “He didn’t learn those tactics as a gang member.”
A SWAT team eventually shoots and kills the Marine.
“I’m one gang officer in this entire country and I’m getting phone calls from the Army, Marines and the Air Force advising me that they are seeing (signs of gang activity),” Glass said. “It’s an issue.”
and especially this:
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t seen General Casey’s comments, his specific comments. I will tell you this; that after five years of war, there is a need to make sure that our troops are balanced properly, that threats are met with capability. And that’s why we’re transforming our military. The things I look for are the following: morale, retention, and recruitment. And retention is high, recruitment is meeting goals, and people are feeling strong about the mission, Mark. But I also recognize that we’ve got to make sure that our military is transformed. And that’s what’s taking place right now — we’re transforming the United States Army so that capabilities and the threats are better aligned.
and we have civilian disasters (whether gangs, people on the street, or domestic disputes) just waiting to happen.
Pardon the long post, BTW…
“I don’t understand why this nation has to revert to that.”
Well, it doesn’t. There are plenty of men and women lining up to join police and fire departments. There’s no lack of courage. There’s no lack of people who are willing to risk their lives to save others.
There IS an increasing lack of faith in this war and this administration.
Oh, and there is a desire to be properly compensated and to have goals and obligations (such as time and number of deployments) clearly stated.
The smart thing about recruiting people with criminal convictions and records of drug use is that after they go back to being civilians, their previous offenses should disqualify them from VA medical care, tuition assistance and other federal aid usually given to vets.
There goes Jonah Goldberg’s argument of “I’m too old, that’s why I can’t sign up.”
What was that thing about squandering your birthright for a mess of pottage?
My thoughts exactly, Mark Spittle. Now the Flying Keyboard 101st Division of the Order of the Yellow Elephant will no longer be able to claim that they are too old to serve.
Jonah doesn’t just say it’s his age, he also says he has responsibilities, like a job and a famiy to support.
Ratbastard.
Like Pat Tillman didn’t have a job?
Not that I think that the US Army is correct on this (I don’t), but there are some cold-blooded advantages to hiring oldier soldiers: they do non-infantry work and free up the able-bodied younger men for infantry duty, for example.
Why is there an assumption here that 45 year olds are not able-bodied, or capable of infantry duty.
One look at the age skew in marathon results says endurance performance peaks in the late 20s to mid 30s. Similar situation with the Tour de France.
Many of the seargents who will lead infantry soldiers are in their late 30s to mid 40s.
nd that’s going to make life tricky. You’re going to get middle-aged reservists who are quite frankly pissed off at being back in Basic, and may well be prepared to mouth back at their drill sergeants.
Older recruits are more apt to have the patience and restraint to go thru basic without being broken down, esp if they fully realize what basic is for and does to you.
And if they can pass the physical after 40, they prolly won’t sweat the actual physical stuff.
Ms. Kate:
A 40 year old who can run with the 20 year olds are the exception, rather than the rule, and it is the rule that will have to govern your statistical expectations.
Many of the seargents who will lead infantry soldiers are in their late 30s to mid 40s.
True, but these are career noncoms, the backbone of all professional western armies. There is a world o’ difference between a 40 year old private and a 40 year old master sargeant who has spent 20 years in the service.
Breaking News:
Dear Leader is so desperate for bodies he’s now stealing the crews from warships and putting them through infantry training.
magis:
Cite?
Seeker:
Morning news with a bagel in mouth and rushing out the door. CNN I think.
magis:
lol….
fair enough, fair enough. I’ll see if I can find it. And I hope it was a good bagel.
Seeker:
Pretty good bagel for Utah.
This may not be the exact same thing and I can’t get into CNN for some reason….
Go visit this site.
I read the article; thanks. They aren’t remustering, technically. It seems worse, though, in that it seems like a sneaky way to put sailors in infantry jobs without proper infantry training. It’s a bad plan, and near-guaranteed to run casualties up.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and PATRIOTIC feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a MISERABLE creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. (John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873). Tomorrow my son leaves for basic training at Ft. Jackson. He is 18 years old. He had no visible direction since graduating high school. He is now motivated, encouraged, and directed. His enthusiasm and patriotism has inspired me, a former MP dog handler, cold war vet, 41 year old better man than some, to re-up in the Army Reserves and will be going to Drill Sargent School. I agree that if those of us that can do it, should do it, to free up the younger soldiers so they can win this crappy situation and keep those lesser men free who wrap themselves in the First Ammendment, that is so they can complain about the conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. Let us not forget that the men and women who are over there are our children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters. How about some support?
Qick, CoRev, here’s your chance to sign up!
[…] Compare the highlighted sentence above with this revelation, via Pandagon: […]