OT: I Don't Know If I Should Be Surprised But...

[Littlearmies]

http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/03/70-percent-of-young-americans-are-unfit-for-military-duty/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sph ere.com%2F2009%2F11%2F03%2F70-percent-of-young-americans-are-unfit-for-military-duty%2F

"The economic meltdown and rising unemployment, combined with bigger military bonuses and benefits, enticed hundreds of thousands to enlist despite the inevitability most would be sent to war."

One thing that gets me about articles like this is the fairly typical assumption that the record recruitment levels are despite the excellent chance these kids are going to end up in a warzone. It never seems to occur to the authors that the fact there is a war is what is enticing some of these kids to join.

[Webstral]

My anecdotal experience is that those who volunteer for the combat arms--infantry in particular--are looking for a fight. Those who volunteer for combat support and especially combat service support are looking for something else. That something else often is college money and/or a marketable skill. If college money and/or a marketable skill are the object, then the war is a negative factor to be weighed in. If one is looking for a fight, then one joins the combat arms. Since the combat arms are a fraction of the total service, perhaps the war-seekers are so outnumbered by the war-endurers that the overall impression is that volunteers are putting up with war to get the prize they seek.

Webstral

[Kellhound]

We are going through the same, even with our pitiful resources, sorry excuses for a recruit and politicians remembering (or warning against) the "older times" of dictatorship (never knew which side misses it more).

Man, there are journalists in [insert your country here] that should leave their "job" and sign up for some political party.
Less hypocritical that way. ;)

[pmulcahy11b]

My anecdotal experience is that those who volunteer for the combat arms--infantry in particular--are looking for a fight.

Not always true. I went for infantry because it's the most challenging of any branch. The Army revolves around the Infantry. But since my early teens, I've been one of those people who knew how to fight, but never wanted to. And I damn sure never wanted to have to kill anyone, though it turned out I could when I had to. And now that I'm no longer in the Army, I hope I never have to so much as slap someone. I won't even smack my dogs on the butt.

I wouldn't want anyone in my unit to WANT to go to war. I think such people are as dangerous to our side as the enemy -- maybe more so. You should be prepared for a fight, able to kick ass, but not dreaming of the day when you can shoot someone.

That's my take on it.

[pmulcahy11b]

http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/03/70-percent-of-young-americans-are-unfit-for-military-duty/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sph ere.com%2F2009%2F11%2F03%2F70-percent-of-young-americans-are-unfit-for-military-duty%2F

"The economic meltdown and rising unemployment, combined with bigger military bonuses and benefits, enticed hundreds of thousands to enlist despite the inevitability most would be sent to war."

One thing that gets me about articles like this is the fairly typical assumption that the record recruitment levels are despite the excellent chance these kids are going to end up in a warzone. It never seems to occur to the authors that the fact there is a war is what is enticing some of these kids to join.

I kind of wonder about that -- we had guys in Basic that the Drill Sergeants managed to peel almost whole people's worth of weigh off of. A friend of mine in Basic, Charles Purkey, lost 65 pounds -- he went through four uniform re-issues in 13 weeks and later went on to become a Ranger. He "caught the fever," and did what it took to be a success in the Army. I don't think the problem with some of these kids enlisting now is fatitude -- its being spoiled and lazy.

[Webstral]

Not always true.

This is why I use the term anecdotal. In any event, while you may not have been looking to kill folks just for the sake of killing folks, neither were you looking to avoid it at any cost--unless your recruiter was the Hernando Cortez of recruiters. Perhaps, though, "looking for a fight" is a bit overstating the zeal of many of the infantry. "Willing to serve by fighting" might be more accurate. I will say, though, that all the combat arms guys from 4th Brigade, 3rd ID that I met hated checkpoint duty and police-style patrolling. Many of them were OIF1 vets; and if they had to be in [expletive deleted] Iraq again, they'd rather be fighting like they did the first time around than manning checkpoints and talking with the locals on foot patrols. Even the guys in my unit, who clearly weren't in the National Guard because they were frothing at the mouth for blood and guts, wanted to take the fight to enemy and leave the checkpoint to the MPs or other REMFs. They could have had all the National Guard benefits (!) while serving in a medical unit, driving a truck, or almost anything else.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

I will say, though, that all the combat arms guys from 4th Brigade, 3rd ID that I met hated checkpoint duty and police-style patrolling.

Well, of course, that's an MP's job! Seriously, though, I get your point -- infantrymen and combat arms-types are not trained for police or peacekeeping duties (I got a little of that kind of training because I was in the Guard before I went on active duty, but when I was in that wasn't common). Police are trained to apprehend the bad guys, while infantrymen are trained to close with and (yes) kill them. It's basically mutually-exclusive training.

[Littlearmies]

Well, of course, that's an MP's job! Seriously, though, I get your point -- infantrymen and combat arms-types are not trained for police or peacekeeping duties (I got a little of that kind of training because I was in the Guard before I went on active duty, but when I was in that wasn't common). Police are trained to apprehend the bad guys, while infantrymen are trained to close with and (yes) kill them. It's basically mutually-exclusive training.

Whereas in the British Army up until the mid 90's everyone served in Northern Ireland at some point so they had done exactly this kind of duty (and I'm not talking just infantry battalions, I recall artillery units -without field artillery obviously - doing foot patrols). I was shocked when I watched news reports on the telly and we seemed almost as clueless as the Americans after Gulf II at doing this stuff. I guess it showed just how short institutional memory can be in practice.

I'm not entirely certain of my statistics but I'm pretty sure that British Army recruitment typically rises in time of war. I also seem to remember that our basic training was extended by two weeks a few years ago because the kids feet were so soft from wearing trainers all their lives that they needed extra time for their feet to harden up

[Caradhras]

The article doesnt surprise me, you see the kind of condition the people of a country where you have to sweat for a living are in and compare it to the chav scum wasters on the streets of Britain (and I assume the US is as bad or worse) - it is worrying when you think these are the generation that may have to defend the country.

The will be exceptions that the army make men of, but our rich (relatively) and 'caring' society is bad for future generations (imo).

[Targan]

I also seem to remember that our basic training was extended by two weeks a few years ago because the kids feet were so soft from wearing trainers all their lives that they needed extra time for their feet to harden up

That's funny. Even today I still wear boots and only boots, every day. I attended a wedding at the weekend and wore shoes for the first time in more than a decade.

[Legbreaker]

I have shoes that only get worn at the gym. The rest of the time it's boots or bare feet.
Haven't owned a pair of dress shoes since.......ummmm....err....1995?

:confused:

[pmulcahy11b]

That's funny. Even today I still wear boots and only boots, every day. I attended a wedding at the weekend and wore shoes for the first time in more than a decade.

Last time I went to a wedding, I was the best man and in sneakers...

[jester]

Bah! I wear dress shoes everyday! Then again I also wear boots daily, and sandals more often than not. And when I can barefootin! The only way to go:D