6 ms·

There's still the inconvenient fact that if 77% of youth between the ages of 17 and 24 can't qualify for the military, that's only going to get worse as age inc

There's still the inconvenient fact that if 77% of youth between the ages of 17 and 24 can't qualify for the military, that's only going to get worse as age increases. The entrance standards are the entrance standards, and things start to break as you get older that are sometimes waiverable once you're in, but an absolute bar to service if you're applying. I served 20 years active and reserve, and among other things developed kidney stones at the age (mid-late 20s) when that usually happens if you're prone. Waiverable with annual testing because I was in; would have been "have a nice life" if I'd been outside trying to join. What's more, the life of a junior enlisted person is more or less culturally similar to being in undergrad, and the age bracket is the same. You're required to live on campus and obey certain (usually older) authority figures just because. As a 42-year-old retired senior officer, I can't imagine starting at my age, hoping to God I didn't get medically bounced before my pension, AND getting treated like I was 19 again. Being commissioned as an officer would be better, but still all of my hypothetical peers would be 20 years younger.

robcohen 3y ago
Yes, I served in the Marine Corps after joining at 23. It was shocking how little freedom enlisted folks have, even after basic training and technical schools. I had lived on my own since I was a teenager, and all that independence was stripped away for the entire enlistment. Not even for any particularly good or useful reason, just so officers wouldn’t look bad if someone got in trouble. I could not even fathom making that choice now at 38. That would be insane. You might as well volunteer to go to prison. Again, there’s not even a hypothetical benefit to completely stripping freedom away from grown men. It just makes no sense—-intelligent people won’t serve if they have to put up with that nonsense.
- wutwutwat 3y ago
  As I understand it, enlisting gives up many rights, because "you become government property" or so I've heard people claim. I have always assumed enlisting would be like what you described, just based on what we see in movies. I think anyone who enlists expecting to be able do whatever they please is pretty blind to the overwhelming amounts of data everywhere growing up saying otherwise. It's also in the contract you sign. Who would sign a contract with the military and expect civilian freedom and autonomy? That's just ignorant imo. With that said, I also know many people who served and they had plenty of freedom and downtime, it's just the bounds of the "freedom box" are much tighter while serving, naturally. There's still plenty of time for folks to screw around, live it up, and get into trouble, during peacetime at least.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    Being subject to the UCMJ does limit some of your rights, mainly free speech in that you can't use contemptuous language against your superiors or against certain people in the government. And, of course, you have to be where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, or else you're in varying degrees of trouble from "oops, I'm getting yelled at for being late" to "I'm being court-martialed for desertion." But the "your body becomes official government property" canard doesn't belong anywhere off a middle school schoolyard. It's nonsense.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      > But the "your body becomes official government property" canard doesn't belong anywhere off a middle school schoolyard. It's nonsense. Stop-loss programs can bite you in the ass, just when you thought you were free. At 18, most don't read the contract as well as they should.
      - psunavy03 3y ago
        Stop-loss has not been a thing in years. What's more, not reading the contract is no excuse. The contract is what it is. Enlisted members sign up for an 8-year enlistment with the balance of their time in the inactive reserve, where they are still eligible for callup. Officers serve at the pleasure of the President, which in practice means until you resign after fulfilling any Academy/ROTC/flight school obligation. My point wasn't the government being able to fulfill the contract, it was the childish "government property" meme that goes around with things like "yeah, brah, if you self-harm they can prosecute you for damaging government property!" Which, no, they can't. Servicemembers aren't chattel slaves.
polski-g 3y ago
Being too fat or weak to enlist seems like a trivial problem to solve. The base controls your diet and exercise routines. Can't they just engineer their physique after they've signed up?
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Can and do when they get desperate for recruits. They are willing to put more effort into training when they have a shortage of people joining.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    The other problem, though, is sometimes-unrealistic medical standards which can't be waivered.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  In various areas, the military offers pre-bootcamp programs to get non-qualifying potential recruits into qualifying form. No obligation. But a real, major problem are the people that are fighting the attempts to make the military more attractive to women and "liberals". You can see course-grained recruiting statistics and it's obvious which areas of the country are over-represented and under-represented in recruiting. No matter what you do, you are not going to solve the recruiting shortfalls by making the military more attractive to people from Texas and the rest of the southeast - they are already enlisting at very high rates. Our military needs to get people from the west coast and the northeast to voluntarily enlist. Going on an "anti-woke" crusade against every single potential change is self-defeating (unless you don't actually care about our country as a whole...)
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    The US military is also proudly and resolutely apolitical. Unfortunately, the culture wars in this country are getting to the point where people look at "apolitical" and see "supporting the other guy because they aren't doing exactly what I want." Look at the beating then-Chairman Milley got from both sides of the aisle at different times. Some of that he brought on himself, and he explicitly apologized to the officer corps and the military in general for the Lafayette Square debacle. But then he turned around and caught it in the face from the right, both for apologizing and for having the gall to (checks notes) work for the Biden administration per his job description after the inauguration.

robcohen 3y ago

Yes, I served in the Marine Corps after joining at 23. It was shocking how little freedom enlisted folks have, even after basic training and technical schools. I had lived on my own since I was a teenager, and all that independence was stripped away for the entire enlistment. Not even for any particularly good or useful reason, just so officers wouldn’t look bad if someone got in trouble. I could not even fathom making that choice now at 38. That would be insane. You might as well volunteer to go to prison. Again, there’s not even a hypothetical benefit to completely stripping freedom away from grown men. It just makes no sense—-intelligent people won’t serve if they have to put up with that nonsense.

wutwutwat 3y ago
As I understand it, enlisting gives up many rights, because "you become government property" or so I've heard people claim. I have always assumed enlisting would be like what you described, just based on what we see in movies. I think anyone who enlists expecting to be able do whatever they please is pretty blind to the overwhelming amounts of data everywhere growing up saying otherwise. It's also in the contract you sign. Who would sign a contract with the military and expect civilian freedom and autonomy? That's just ignorant imo. With that said, I also know many people who served and they had plenty of freedom and downtime, it's just the bounds of the "freedom box" are much tighter while serving, naturally. There's still plenty of time for folks to screw around, live it up, and get into trouble, during peacetime at least.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Being subject to the UCMJ does limit some of your rights, mainly free speech in that you can't use contemptuous language against your superiors or against certain people in the government. And, of course, you have to be where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, or else you're in varying degrees of trouble from "oops, I'm getting yelled at for being late" to "I'm being court-martialed for desertion." But the "your body becomes official government property" canard doesn't belong anywhere off a middle school schoolyard. It's nonsense.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > But the "your body becomes official government property" canard doesn't belong anywhere off a middle school schoolyard. It's nonsense. Stop-loss programs can bite you in the ass, just when you thought you were free. At 18, most don't read the contract as well as they should.
    - psunavy03 3y ago
      Stop-loss has not been a thing in years. What's more, not reading the contract is no excuse. The contract is what it is. Enlisted members sign up for an 8-year enlistment with the balance of their time in the inactive reserve, where they are still eligible for callup. Officers serve at the pleasure of the President, which in practice means until you resign after fulfilling any Academy/ROTC/flight school obligation. My point wasn't the government being able to fulfill the contract, it was the childish "government property" meme that goes around with things like "yeah, brah, if you self-harm they can prosecute you for damaging government property!" Which, no, they can't. Servicemembers aren't chattel slaves.

polski-g 3y ago

Being too fat or weak to enlist seems like a trivial problem to solve. The base controls your diet and exercise routines. Can't they just engineer their physique after they've signed up?

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Can and do when they get desperate for recruits. They are willing to put more effort into training when they have a shortage of people joining.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  The other problem, though, is sometimes-unrealistic medical standards which can't be waivered.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
In various areas, the military offers pre-bootcamp programs to get non-qualifying potential recruits into qualifying form. No obligation. But a real, major problem are the people that are fighting the attempts to make the military more attractive to women and "liberals". You can see course-grained recruiting statistics and it's obvious which areas of the country are over-represented and under-represented in recruiting. No matter what you do, you are not going to solve the recruiting shortfalls by making the military more attractive to people from Texas and the rest of the southeast - they are already enlisting at very high rates. Our military needs to get people from the west coast and the northeast to voluntarily enlist. Going on an "anti-woke" crusade against every single potential change is self-defeating (unless you don't actually care about our country as a whole...)
- psunavy03 3y ago
  The US military is also proudly and resolutely apolitical. Unfortunately, the culture wars in this country are getting to the point where people look at "apolitical" and see "supporting the other guy because they aren't doing exactly what I want." Look at the beating then-Chairman Milley got from both sides of the aisle at different times. Some of that he brought on himself, and he explicitly apologized to the officer corps and the military in general for the Lafayette Square debacle. But then he turned around and caught it in the face from the right, both for apologizing and for having the gall to (checks notes) work for the Biden administration per his job description after the inauguration.