NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: The US military has always preferred younger men and women, particularly in combat units. The thinking was that younger people have greater stamina and recover from strenuous physical exertion, stress, and wounds more quickly. This is now apparently changing, not only because of recruting shortfalls, but because of the growing realization that many people over 35 keep themselves in better shape than they use to. I think this is a very positive development, and not just for the reasons cited in this article.


Pentagon Proposes Rise in Age Limit for Recruits (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/politics/22recruit.html?th&emc=th)

By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: July 22, 2005

The Army told John Conroy on July 8 that it did not want him, despite his master's degree in business and his marathon-proven fitness. Just shy of 41, he is too old.

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.

[ This article is two pages long. To read the remainder of the article, click here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/politics/22recruit.html?th&emc=th). ]

Great, now people are going to start yelling at you for having to register.

Wouldnt the government get a much smaller return on their investment in terms of the amount of money spent on training, etc if they took on older recruits? At least if they only choose younger men and women they can be more sure that they will be given long service in return

Wouldnt the government get a much smaller return on their investment in terms of the amount of money spent on training, etc if they took on older recruits? At least if they only choose younger men and women they can be more sure that they will be given long service in return
Not really. Most younger recruits seldom serve for long periods of time, prefering ( understandably ) to leave the military as they get older to build a civilian career and family. Mandatory retirement age for most purposes is 62. For a 40-year-old, this means they can serve for 20 years if they so desire, to qualify for retirement pay and still be relatively young.

Great, now people are going to start yelling at you for having to register.
"Register?" For what? Selective service registration has always been at age 18. Nothing would change in that regard.

Register?" For what? Selective service registration has always been at age 18. Nothing would change in that regard.
I meant they have to register at that sight to read the full article. :p
Remember what happened last time you linked an article like that?

This is now apparently changing, not only because of recruting shortfalls, but because of the growing realization that many people over 35 keep themselves in better shape than they use to.

It wouldn't be "apparently changing" so as to forestall a call-up of young-and-able-bodied children of Republican voters, now would it? Or is that just happy coincidence?

Personally, I think this a good idea. Not that I have lost ANY faith in our fighting boys and girls, but somehow I think older people would have more of the necessary maturity to last in a high-tension combat situation. And if it is true that middle-aged people are in better shape today than they were in the past, then that makes it all the better.

I'm thinking about doing it. I'm 37. All I have to do is take the ASVAB and piss test.

But the only thing holding me back is that I'm not in the best shape of my life, but as recently as as a year ago I was working out and in pretty good shape.
I even have my MOS picked out-Intelligence Analyst.

I've been told that this MOS virtually assures me of being sent to a combat zone but then, that's part of the deal when joining the Army.

It's kind of funny because they told me that I wouldn't be going into combat but that I would probably be going into a combat zone. I guess I get some sort of special combat pass I can holdup whenever someone starts shooting at me.

Democrats stopped having kids?

Democrats stopped having kids?
:eek:

Doesn't anyone else suspect that this might be a move to boost falling 'replacement recruit' numbers, rather than any love for the middle aged? Especially since the US military is quite stretched, and could definately use more people?

Probably. Whats your point? It also gets you recruits with more experience and practical knowledge. Thats something a lot more valuable than just a young body to throw into the lines.

Doesn't anyone else suspect that this might be a move to boost falling 'replacement recruit' numbers, rather than any love for the middle aged? Especially since the US military is quite stretched, and could definately use more people?
I don’t think anybody is trying to say that this isn’t about raising recruitment.

Sinuhue-
That's exactly what it is. But the older people can't go into to combat (ie, can't drive a tank, be in a combat role). It's to bring in people who have skills already, so that they don't have much of a learning curve. That's just one benefit of trying this out.

Democrats stopped having kids?


eh, we're just trying to get in as many abortions as we can while its still legal. ;)

I meant they have to register at that sight to read the full article. :p
Remember what happened last time you linked an article like that?
Yes. Nothing. :)

It's the New York Times. No one is forcing anyone else to register for anything. If you don't wanna register, then don't. It's just that simple. :)

eh, we're just trying to get in as many abortions as we can while its still legal. ;)
Very funny. Ha. Ha. :rolleyes:

eh, we're just trying to get in as many abortions as we can while its still legal. ;)
That “joke” reaches a new level of bad taste.

I'm thinking about doing it. I'm 37. All I have to do is take the ASVAB and piss test.

But the only thing holding me back is that I'm not in the best shape of my life, but as recently as as a year ago I was working out and in pretty good shape.
I even have my MOS picked out-Intelligence Analyst.

I've been told that this MOS virtually assures me of being sent to a combat zone but then, that's part of the deal when joining the Army.

It's kind of funny because they told me that I wouldn't be going into combat but that I would probably be going into a combat zone. I guess I get some sort of special combat pass I can holdup whenever someone starts shooting at me.
The term "combat zone" is almost obsolete now, especially in an insurgency situation. One of the things the US Army began to emphasize after Vietnam was that everyone, including cooks, mechanics, clerks, etc., is a soldier and is expected to fight when and as the need arises. Long overdue, IMHO.

If you're bound and determined to join up, start running and working out. Even if you later decide to not go in, at least you'll be in better shape and will feel better too. Besides, being in good shape makes for great sex! :D

Eutrusca-

I have a question you may be able to answer:
I would be going into Basic training as an E3 (I have 2 degrees).

Does that mean anything in basic? Or would I just be like everyone else?

Eutrusca-

I have a question you may be able to answer:
I would be going into Basic training as an E3 (I have 2 degrees).

Does that mean anything in basic? Or would I just be like everyone else?
It didn't when I was in, but that could have changed like so many other things. Usually, when someone is a stand-out in Advanced Individual Training for positive reasons, they will promote to Corporal or SP4. My advice? Don't make a big deal of it, but make sure your recruiter knows and enters it on your DD Form 2-1, or whatever form they use now to record personal data.

Start a file and keep copies of everything! :)

That “joke” reaches a new level of bad taste.

My sides hurt. I thought it was hilarious.

Eutrusca-

I have a question you may be able to answer:
I would be going into Basic training as an E3 (I have 2 degrees).

Does that mean anything in basic? Or would I just be like everyone else?

Means nothing except for pay purposes and possibly a squadleader assignment which you don't really want because you will be fired within a week anyway. You could of course get a platoon guide assignment (glorified snitch) but if you hang onto it for the duration you would be in the running for OCS. One in each company is sent. Dont know how many actually make it through though.

Democrats stopped having kids?
Yeah. All that sodomy killed our birth rate :rolleyes:

I can think o' one reason to raise the age: Abu Ghraib. Older people are less likely to treat a long, stressful, boring assignment as an excuse to practice Frat Hazing Rituals. (It's called "maturity")
Older troops are also more likely to pay attention to the rules and more likely to know what those rules are.

I'd like to see the age limit raised to 50. There's a few 50 yr olds I'd like to see forcibly recruited.

Step forward Private Rove.

I'd like to see the age limit raised to 50. There's a few 50 yr olds I'd like to see forcibly recruited.

Step forward Private Rove.

LOL... Hey, don't just pick on one scumbag-let's get 'em all, if we raise it to 55, we can get most of the dodgers who hid out in college or canada during vietnam!

I'm sure Karl could use some basic-training exposure to John Edwards, or Bill, hell, we might get a more moderate government when all the demagogues on both sides are stuck in uniform with the UCMJ forcing them to be quiet.

They would have to change the retirement system, at least for enlisted personnel. As it is now an enlisted can serve for 30 years or a maximum age of 65. That fits very well with someone who is 35 and wants to serve 30 years.

LOL... Hey, don't just pick on one scumbag-let's get 'em all, if we raise it to 55, we can get most of the dodgers who hid out in college or canada during vietnam!

I'm sure Karl could use some basic-training exposure to John Edwards, or Bill, hell, we might get a more moderate government when all the demagogues on both sides are stuck in uniform with the UCMJ forcing them to be quiet.

No, to get those bastards who hid out in Canada we would have to raise the age to about 65. :(

Yeah. All that sodomy killed our birth rate :rolleyes:


I was refering to Dobbswrold comment

It wouldn't be "apparently changing" so as to forestall a call-up of young-and-able-bodied children of Republican voters, now would it? Or is that just happy coincidence?

It just made no sense in my mind.