With the Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard all on pace to fall short of their recruitment goals for the year, the military is reconsidering its age limits for recruits.
Allowing older soldiers could be costly in terms of benefits, and there is the thorny issue of whether older men and women can keep up with the young. But many in the military argue that 40-somethings are in better physical shape today and point out that thousands of middle-age soldiers are already rotating through Iraq.
On Monday, the Pentagon filed documents asking Congress to increase the maximum age for military recruits to 42, in all branches of the service. Now, the limit is 39 for people without previous military service who want to enlist in the reserves and the National Guard, and 35 for those seeking active duty.
At a subcommittee hearing in the House on Tuesday, David S. C. Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said lifting the age limit was one of several tools needed to turn recruitment around.
"There is a segment of the population that is older, that would like to serve," Mr. Chu said at the hearing, "and we'd like to open up that aperture for the military departments to use as they see fit."
It is ironic how the White House PR machine, through under secretary of defense Chu, is asking Congress to increase the military age for recruiting so that the older segment of the population can serve their country. Let's face it--the military has shredded itself to pieces through the Bush war in Iraq. The military has used up its manpower through the stop-loss gimmicks that have extended soldiers tours. With the public's mounting worries that the U.S. has gotten into a no-win situation in Iraq, and the parent's opposition towards recruiters access to young high school and college students on campuses, it is no wonder that the Pentagon is falling short of its current recruiting goals. So if you can't get the young people to join, then go after the old--wave the flags and talk about patriotism and serving your country.
The problem is that this can only work in the short run. You can certainly get some older Americans who still believe in the Bush PR line for the war in Iraq. But as new allegations of Plamegate and the scandals that the Bush White House fixed the intelligence reports to support their war and are now trying to cover up the scandals start to publicly emerge, how many of those older recruits are still going to believe in patriotism and serving their country, when their Commander-in-Chief has lied to them? How many of these older recruits are still willing to go to an unjust and unnecessary war? And when the numbers for the older recruits start to drop, and the Pentagon still falls short of its recruiting goals, then what is next? Will there be a draft?
Stop loss is not an extension. Though an extension can lengthen the time a soldier may be subject to stop loss.
ReplyDeleteWhen stop loss is in effect, soldiers in units that have been placed on alert for deployment may not End Term of Service (ETS) or retire (unless for attaing maximum military age: 60) until either the unit is stood down from alert or 90 days after redeploying (returning home).
At whichever end point, all troops hat would have ETSd or retired will do so.
Nothing sinister in this. It is done soley to stabilize manpower rosters for deployment.
RTO: I will admit I am not fully aware of the different terms and definitions the military uses in extending a soldier's tour. What I do find ironic is that the military has been extending the time regular service and national guard units have had to stay in Iraq. The longer these units have had to stay in a hostile environment, the more it is going to cost to Pentagon to refit these units back to their pre-war status. And there is always the possibility that the individual soldiers will leave the military, once their contract is up. Another consideration to look into is how many of these soldiers will have experienced some form of post-traumatic-stress-disorder and have to be medically treated? They are not going to be of much use to the military, but the will add to the cost of VA medical treatment.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, the military is slowly using up its forces. And since the White House has said that this Iraq war could last for 8 to 10 years, the military is going to need to find fresh bodies. If they can't find them through in the 18-24 year-old-volunteers, then they're going to try to find them with the 40-something crowd. It is getting to a point where the military is happy to take anyone willing to put on the uniform and pick up the gun.
National Guard units have not yet been subject to an extension. Doing so is problematic (at best) under current policy that only permits 24 months deployment for National Guard troops in a 6 year peroid that begins with the first day of deployment. If you extend a until from 12 months to 15 (as happened to 1st Infantry Division) you now have a unit that is not available for another 12 month deployment. I have been deployed for 12 months. I'm going to be deployed again for 15 months, which can happen only because I signed a waiver to allow the additional three months. It's my choice.
ReplyDeleteThe Active Duy and Reserves can be extended, involuntarilly. So far though, only 1st ID, 3rd ID and 4th ID (to my knowledge) have been extended. Perhaps some separate companies have been as well.
Our status regarding "using up" forces is not as dire as some would have you think. There are a number of Brigades and one Division of Ntaional Guard troops that have either not been deployed yet, or have had subordinate elements deployed piecemeal, leaving the rest available.
The possibility that troops will leave as the opportunity arrises is there, but so far, they aren't. Re-enlsitments are way up. This is the primary reason the Guard is having recruiting problems, many of the recruits the Guard would have had are deciding to stay in the Active army.
As fo time and money to refit, everyone inteh Army is going to get a refit of one kind or another, the money is going to be spent, whetehr they spend mroe or less time on deployment as we reset to the Brigade centric Modular Force structure. Will we, won't we, isn't at issue. I might point out that an Aviation Brigade from the 101st, on returning from Iraq, was transfered to the 3rd ID, reset to the Modular organization, and deployed back to Iraq with their new Division, in 5 months. Sure that's exceptional, but it's a clear indication of what can be done when needed.
PTSD is a separate issue. You can't make a soldier get treatment for anything, much less PTSD. All of us who have deployed ahve undergone changes that could be attributed to PTSD (I found I didn't care for 4th of July fireworks as much as I used to) and it's something that either gets better or worse (treated or not) with time. We'll just have to see.
RTO: Thank you for the clarification. There are certainly some interesting statements you've made that I'm not aware of.
ReplyDeleteRe-enlsitments are way up. This is the primary reason the Guard is having recruiting problems, many of the recruits the Guard would have had are deciding to stay in the Active army.
So if what you're saying is true here, National Guard troops are transferring to active army status and staying there. So what I'm seeing here is sort of a statistical numbers game between the Army and the Guard--Guard members transfer over towards active Army, boosting Army's recruiting numbers up, while Guard numbers drop. Members of the press may not understand this because they probably have not served in the military--I know that I have never served.
On a separate note, are you an active member of the Army, or the Guard? Are you currently deployed in Iraq? What can you tell me that is going on over there? I'm certainly curious to learn more about what the real story is--it can be difficult to wade through the right and left-wing political pundits, White House propoganda, corporate media sources, and who-knows-what-else to understand the war in Iraq.
Stay safe.
Not quite that they are transfering to Active from Guard, but that a large segment of Guard recruits every year are prior Active Duty troops. Those troops that normally would leave Active service, decise that tehy still want to serve, but in the part-time capacity, are decideing not to and remaining in the Active Army.
ReplyDeleteThe war is the reason. The assumption is that a deployment is a deployment, Active, Guard ore Reserve, so why make a switch. That and the thing that soldiers fight for is they guys on their left and right, so better to stick with your team.
I am a National Guard soldier. I've been in the Guard for 11 years. I've served one year in Afghanistan and I'll be going back for a second sometime next year.
I haven't been to Iraq, but I have friends who have and who are there now. All of them assure me that the situation isn't so grim as it is protrayed. It is indeed dangerous, but hopeful signs are everywhere. I have no problem beleiveing this. While in Afghanistan, I know that media accoutns did nto match what I was seeing out my own tentflap.
I try to put better information on my own blog. I also frequently pick at the journalists that aren't telling the whole story.