GI Schmo

[Magrus]

I saw a ad for this article on www.msn.com, and found it interesting enough to click on it and read: http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/nav/tap1/?GT1=7641

Now, a quick summary. People are refusing to join the army who happen to be intelligent, because of the situations the army is being pushed into. Since they do not have enough recruits who are doing well on the tests, the army has begun accepting larger numbers of those who did horrible on the tests. Instead of recruiting those who are good soldiers they are recruiting anyone they can.

This will lead to a few problems, as mentioned in the article. Not only will the soldiers be incapable of performing difficult tasks, they also were proven to have poorer accuracy. That means more wasted time, money, and stray bullets and missiles harming innocent people. Not to mention, if these soldiers who passed under lower standards are stuck in a situation without an intelligent commander to keep them in check, chances are they are far more likely to get themselves killed or to cause political problems.

Thoughts on this?

[Fiona]

Is this not just reverting to type? I had the impression that without conscription armies were usually largely made up of the poor and desperate, and the sad. In this country they got quite choosy when we had very high unemployment. But the recruiting is much harder now that has fallen. It's a bit like prize fighting. You don't see many people from a privileged background going in for that. Why would those people join the army (with the exception of officer training)?

[Chanak]

@Fiona: A number of factors influence the composition of armed forces. After the Vietnam era, the US Department of Defense (DoD) began to "sweeten the deal" by offering educational benefits as an incentive to enlist. The GI Bill, as it is called, funds education at accredited institutions (universities, colleges, technical schools) of the individual's choice. Since that was offered, there have been additional incentives: the College Fund, which effectively doubles the amount of the GI Bill (started in the mid-1980s); monetary bonuses - usually a sizable lump sum - for enlistment in critical job fields; and programs such as the US Army's "green to gold" re-enlistment package.

The "green to gold" program targets enlisted personnel who scored high on the military's battery of aptitude tests, offering them an all-expenses paid fast track to earning a college degree and becoming a commissioned officer. The individual basically re-enlists to go to college, earning a science degree while wearing a uniform. Once their enlistment expires and they have earned the degree, they are offered a commission by the US Army (which they must accept under the terms of this program). Other branches of the US armed forces offer similar programs. I mention the US Army's in particular since it was offered to me as a re-enlistment option while I was in. I considered it briefly before I decided to get the hell out of dodge as I had no intention of staying in longer than my initial enlistment. The reason I had joined the military in the first place: the College Fund. I walked in to the recruiter's office when I was 19 years old, asked him to spare me the spiel and the doctored recruitment videos, and got down to business: how much?

Another factor to consider: the DoD re-engineered the entire enlisted promotion system in the 1980s by assigning "promotion points" to different categories of performance. One of the biggest ones: civilian education. Your chances of being promoted are enhanced by pursuing your own education.

Overall, serving in the US military is in truth a very attractive way for a person to gain an education in the US. Considering the horrendous costs associated with higher education in my country, it's a viable option that I considered myself and decided to take. The trade-off: they own you, of course. During your time in you are a soldier (or airman, marine, or seaman), and the contract you signed means you follow all lawful orders and are the legal property of the US federal government for the duration of your term of enlistment. I chose a total of eight years (four active duty, four inactive duty) since that offered the most robust College Fund option: over $30,000. Now, all I need to do is go back to school and finish what I started years ago.

I am not surprised that recruitment of qualified personnel is suffering. Little wonder: the neo-con Bush regime is sacrificing American lives in their bid to control Middle Eastern oil. Since we have been over this issue in other threads here in SYM, I won't elaborate any further on that. Suffice it to say that people with qualifications and high aptitude are going other routes in the pursuit of their education, and the US military, no matter how much the DoD sweetens the deal, is the big loser.

[Fiona]

Thanks for that explanation Chanak.

We do have a similar scheme in the UK, I believe. But the method of funding education is different (though much more like that in the US, or "worse" as I call it, than it used to be) and it is not a very widely used system, so far as I know. To be honest I find it remarkably distasteful to bribe and blackmail young people to put themselves in danger in this way, in order to secure an education. But I think that attitudes to that may well be controversial, and heavily culture bound. I mean no offence.

[Oskatat]

I may be wrong, but I dont believe the dutch have such a scheme. While the military still has adds on tv, it has lessened a bit and the emphasis seems mainly on technical personel. On the other hand, the dutch army isnt very big.

But to comment on the question asked, yes, I think its a bad idea to allow less able persons to fill the ranks. friendly fire did a lot of damage in both afghanistan and Iraq. Not only material and in lives, also in goodwill.

[Chanak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona Thanks for that explanation Chanak. We do have a similar scheme in the UK, I believe. But the method of funding education is different (though much more like that in the US, or "worse" as I call it, than it used to be) and it is not a very widely used system, so far as I know. To be honest I find it remarkably distasteful to bribe and blackmail young people to put themselves in danger in this way, in order to secure an education. But I think that attitudes to that may well be controversial, and heavily culture bound. I mean no offence.

None taken. I agree with you. I am of the very strong opinion that education should be one of the highest priorities to the US, and should be available and accessible to everyone regardless of socioeconomic status. It wouldn't be such an odious bribe if there were other options available. As it is, the cost of education in the US is ridiculous. Many physicians continue to pay on their student loans as interns, never seeing the end of it until they are actually practicing - the very loans that saw them through medical school.

As we are seeing, however, the bribe is not working well at all. Involuntary conscription (draft) is the next step.

[Obsidian]

I feel I am qualified to talk about this...

I am a Canadian army recruitier, specifically, I am responsible for recruiting all people to 16 Field ambulance, and am in charge of all recruiting on the university campus in my hometown.

Recruitment is indeed suffering right now, and there are many reasons.
1) General availability of jobs - there are dozens of civilian sector jobs that are out there for the willing. They pay nearly as well, without any of the downsides of joining th military.

2) The war in Iraq is terrible for my business. I don't want to get dragged into the moral argument, just saying that the media reports coming out of Iraq, and popular left wing commentary sullies the water, as much in Canada as anywhere else.

As an aside, I actually had a couple university students do a "die in" outside my booth. Their shirts said "Dead Canadian Soldier in Iraq". Now, I am in full support of peaceful protest, and any soldier who gets overly upset about it is a hypocrit, it is one of the reasons we fight, but now please, someone tell me what is wrong with "Dead Canadian Soldier in Iraq"? It' truely isn't complicated if you think about it.

So why do people join the army in this day in age? Because some want to, they just have that inner need (like me), some need immediate money, and don't have any other skills. The military is the only institution that cares nothing for your socioeconimic background, and will still hire you. You can show up in rags, and get a job. We care about who you are, not where your from.

On the medical side, a lot of people want their education paid for, and we have a couple officer plans, and all reservists and Canada get $8000 over 4 years for their post secondary. Nurses, my bread and butter of recruiting for medics, join the Reserves as medical technicians, and get tons of hands on experience with real patients, or, can join as officers, and get real leadership experience and responsibilty that would take them 15 years of seniority on a nursing ward.