My concern with an all volunteer military is they tend to become elitists. And I also believe, an all volunteer force does not represent American society as it should.

I believe the Heritage report mentioned in the article was completed in early 1994 using data collected from two earleir periods covering October 1998 to September 1999 and January 2003 to September 2003...periods prior to 9/11 and a period post 9/11. I believe the face of our military has changed dramatically since September 2003 and the type and kind of recruits being recruited after September 2003.

I have been involved with the Marine Corps since November 2002 when our son enlisted. I can tell you, I have seen a dramatic change downward in the type and quality of recruits in the Marine Corps since 2002 with the most dramatic change occuring after 2006. I base this opinion on what I have witnessed in our sons Company during this span of time and based upon my many, many conversations with men who had enlisted prior to 2006.

Now, I am not denigrating our people in uniform, I do not blame them for what is happening as decisions regarding manpower are made well above their pay grade. But those decisions are having a deep impact upon those who are part of the lower rank structure and who already have at least three years of service. I've seen the turnover during these years and know some of the reasons as to why. And as long as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, I believe the problem will only become more accute.

As things now stand, the Marine Corps is losing experienced NCO's they cannot afford to lose. Right now, the Marine Corps is having difficulty retaining Captains and are now offering a sweetened bonus for them to reenlist. Add the new recruits who do not make it through boot camp, some claim 10 to 20 out of 100 don't make it only adds to the recruiting problem. It would be interesting to see the stats on those recruits who fail boot camp, average age, family background, education level. It is obvious recruiting standards were lowered for a reason?

I would like to remain positive about our military but there are some disturbing stats out there that have to make one wonder. Are we really getting accurate poop or is it embellished to make some people look good?

I do agree with a draft. Our greatest test, WW 2 was fought by mostly draftee's. Those I fought with in Nam were just as good and sometimes better than those who enlisted. An honest draft is the truest test of a countries commitment to self defense. Depending upon 1% to 2% of our population for our defense creates the wrong impression regarding our responsibilities as citizens.

S/F Gordon

quote:

Enlistees, under the AVF, are better educated than their predecessors. Today, over 92 percent of enlistees have a high school diploma. In the Air Force and Navy that number reaches almost 99 percent. In addition, 70 percent of enlistees score in the upper half of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test. Well above those who choose to stay in the private sector.

This is true - but it is also notable that the army has had to reduce its entrance requirements in order to keep up with recruiting quotas, and repeatedly use stop-loss to prevent an exodus. The army, etc, is tired. They might be the best trained and most experienced force on the planet due to so much time in Iraq and Afganistan - but that is both the good new and the very bad news. The long-term costs of the Iraqi adventure (even ignoring the problems with the justifications for going) have yet to be assessed, and may not be for a decade or more to come.

The numbers of PTSD cases that we know about are staggering, the suicide rates have increased radically, and the problems w/r/t long term health care for the many disabled vets (fortunately but belatedly, there are improvements being made in this area) are going to be expensive over the long run. This ignores the personal cost to the families of those who have been serving but deployed multiple times (incredible divorce rates, etc.).

All the services have problems with PTSD and, in my opinion did all the veterans coming out of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the mid-East. I also agree that we are seeing a high rate of suicide in the services. Also agree that we are overstretched in combat regions due to the limited number of troops on active duty. But, the point of the article was that the troops we do have represent American Society, are better trained better and better educated than their predecessors and perform at a very high level in extreme combat conditions.

According to what I have seen, close to 30% of enlistee's in the Marine Corps have a GED or some kind of waiver.

I applaud anyone who has received a GED but it does not compare with toughing it out in High School and graduating with a diploma.

Just my opinion regarding a GED. The waivers speak for themselves. I know at LeJeune, the brig has more attendee's than at any time in its history...you see them all over the base in their orange attire.

S/F Gordon
_____________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by PolicyWonk:

quote:

Enlistees, under the AVF, are better educated than their predecessors. Today, over 92 percent of enlistees have a high school diploma. In the Air Force and Navy that number reaches almost 99 percent. In addition, 70 percent of enlistees score in the upper half of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test. Well above those who choose to stay in the private sector.

This is true - but it is also notable that the army has had to reduce its entrance requirements in order to keep up with recruiting quotas, and repeatedly use stop-loss to prevent an exodus. The army, etc, is tired. They might be the best trained and most experienced force on the planet due to so much time in Iraq and Afganistan - but that is both the good new and the very bad news. The long-term costs of the Iraqi adventure (even ignoring the problems with the justifications for going) have yet to be assessed, and may not be for a decade or more to come.

The numbers of PTSD cases that we know about are staggering, the suicide rates have increased radically, and the problems w/r/t long term health care for the many disabled vets (fortunately but belatedly, there are improvements being made in this area) are going to be expensive over the long run. This ignores the personal cost to the families of those who have been serving but deployed multiple times (incredible divorce rates, etc.).