<p>“I would have gladly seen my son off to Afghanistan at the beginning of that conflict, one which was justified at the time IMHO.”</p>
<p>While it is hard to find fault with your basic premise - that support for the military is a basic duty/obligation, I wonder about the logic of supporting the Afghan war (presumably to fight al Qaeda) but not the current Iraq war, which is also targeting al Qaeda. Why is it justified to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan but not Iraq? Since Iraq is many orders of magnitude more strategic than Afghanistan, I don’t get the logic.</p>
<p>Also note that “all four services met or exceeded their goals for retention of current active-duty personnel in May, the Pentagon said.” In particular, those who have actually served in Iraq have had an even HIGHER restention rate than the rest of the service. That tells you something about those who are actually carrying load and their views about the worthiness of the effort. Of course Nancy and Harry know best.</p>
<p>The thing is that I never made any statement about acceptance criteria. However, even this data is subject to distortion. The US army is better educated than the population as a whole. The fact that they may have loosened it up a bit doesn’t mean that they are suddenly an army of misfits.</p>
<p>Oh come on. Your post implied that there are no problems maintaining recruitment rates. The fact that the acceptance criteria are being loosened in order to maintain the same rates indicates this is not the case. While it is by no means an army of misfits, it is, by its own definition, a less fit army than it once was.</p>
<p>I implied no such thing. I only addressed the erroneous view that you espoused that we were not meeting our goals. While that was true a few years ago, it is no longer true.</p>
This would depend on the actual crime commited and circumstances - all of which I assume the military branches take into account. I doubt that they’re actively recruiting sociopaths and murderers. There are likely many young people who have committed petty crimes (shoplifting, vandalism, failing to pay child support - which will be corrected once in the military) that would benefit from doing some military duty. Society would likely benefit as well.</p>
<p>The US military is better educated than the general population. Not just officers are included in that data. This is likely a result of the military’s advocacy of higher education and benefits like military community colleges and the GI bill.</p>
<p>“The US military is better educated than the general population”</p>
<p>So the smarter hs grads are forgoing college to sign up as grunts?</p>
<p>Can you reference the data base they are using to make this arguement?</p>
<p>Does the comparison include all citizens or just service eligibles? </p>
<p>Would they be comparing against let’s say special needs kids with downs?</p>
<p>When you study statistics one of the first things you learn is how to use statistics to support your arguement. </p>
<p>So if you are including the entire population from newborns to the elderly, the arguement could statistically fly. </p>
<p>But, I do question this statement when you compare HS grads who are eligible to enlist at that time.</p>
<p>I would compare who actually can belong to the services, by who enlists compared to who doesn’t. That would be more telling, No?</p>
<p>Creating a statistical model of comparisons when you include people who are too young to serve and those mentally infirmed or physically disabled creates bad data…</p>
<p>“This is likely a result of the military’s advocacy of higher education and benefits like military community colleges and the GI bill.”</p>
<p>and wouldn’t this be post service? So wouldn’t they be part of the civilain population at that point, thus improving the other side of the stat.?</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I tried to stay out of this because I don’t have all the “statistics” but I just can’t. I am pained that the good people, men and women, of the military, whether they’ve made mistakes in the past or not…are being downgraded on this thread and talked about like a bunch of cretins. </p>
<p>Whatever their circumstances, whatever they’ve done- shoplifted, joyriding, involved with drugs in some petty way or another (btw how many of us 60’s/70’s generation aren’t thinking- there by the grace of God go I on that one?), bad checks, credit problems, not making it to the courthouse on time…</p>
<p>They are out there putting their lives on the line for us, people! Let’s not sit around talking about them as though they aren’t in this chat room. How do we know they’re not? Would you actually have this discussion, talking about how uneducated and <em>criminal</em> our armed forces are, if they were standing right in front of you? They are protecting you and your sons and daughters who are going to a nice school and playing violins or baseball or whatever they’re doing.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the average household income of new recruits is on approximately even with the national average (at least in 1999 and 2003). I find this interesting in light of how often I hear people complain about the military targeting the uneducated and the poor for enlistment.</p>
<p>Yes, the GI bill would benefit those who have left the military. However, the military does promote furthering education while in the service. In fact, there are usually several colleges with representatives at a base.</p>
<p>The point here is not to deprecate those who have elected to join the military, so lets not get the discussion off track. The point is the military (at least the Army) is stretched thin, and has had to substantially lower its acceptance criteria (age, “morals”) and increase its incentives ($$, citizenship) to maintain the same recruitment (and is now failing to do even that). Thus data collected in 2003 is not relevant, since the issue is what is happening in 2007. Indeed, given the enlistment-age demographic has increased since then, not decreased, the problem is even more acute.</p>
<p>I have a tremendous respect for those who have chosen to join the armed forces. It is and has been an honorable profession. But I have no doubt that the fact that we have an all-volunteer army has emboldened our “leaders” to spend their lives recklessly. “They knew what they were volunteering for when they signed up” is a sentiment I’ve read on these forums as well as elsewhere. I say: You shouldn’t spend the lives of volunteer soldiers any more lightly than those of draftees - even if the political cost is lower. </p>
<p>So, my modest proposal: an automatic triggering of the draft anytime our soldiers are involved in a shooting war or “hostile occupation” for more than six months. And yes - the draft is universal, men and women. You want to wage war? Fine, but understand, war is a national struggle. Oh - I almost forgot - also a 10% income tax surcharge. No passing the cost onto the next generation - yeah, the same generation which is contributing most of the soldiers. Everybody contributes to the effort - or you don’t do it. No more “cheap” wars.</p>