Families in jeans... Or Utilities...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
...
I have no way to support the assertion, but I think that family history has much more to do with a person choosing the military in the future.
. . .
...My only claim to fame is that I went through Army basic training, and Marine Corps boot camp within 13 months of each other...
History can be infectious. I'm sure there has to be a vaccine.
Heh, I reversed the order over a longer period -- and my order was the way to go. The Corps insists EVERYONE go to boot camp; when I went in the Army, I only got two weeks of 'Refresher Training' in lieu of Basic and AIT since I'd been in the Corps. That 'refresher' consisted of pulling details, going through the Gas Chamber (?) and signing a plethora of forms wherein I attested I had received this or that training. And pulling details -- did I mention that? ;)
I agree with you on the family history element. I've also become pretty well convinced there's a genetic impact. Some people object to violence, some can tolerate it. At one pole you have those who will never perform a violent act no matter the provocation; at the other there those that love violence for its own sake. Fortunately, there are very, very few of either.
Most of us are on a continuum between the two poles. I think about half are disposed toward non-violence and half can accept it without flinching and I'm convinced that's a genetic imprint. I do not deny for a second that there can be and are environmental impactors that skew that in all directions but watching a lot of societies around the world in and out of wars over a bunch of years has left me pretty well convinced that the genes are paramount and the environmental factor is secondary.
That would play with your family history theory, that is, some families would be more disposed to a military hitch or career than would others -- with the aforementioned environmental impacts thrown in for the many variations.
I totally agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
...I also think that many people who are baby boomers have a sense of entitlement, which I ascribe in part to the "social fixes" instituted as part of the New Deal...
Being older than I have a right to be, I've watched it happen. In three generations we've gone from perhaps excessively independent and very self reliant to dependent. I even got to watch a short term abbreviated version when I moved to Florida. Shortly after we arrrived, so did a major hurricane, the first to hit this area in over 70 years. there was adequate warning, most folks were prepared and though damage was significant, people pitched in and helped each other and self help was the order of the day.
After most of the big work was done, FEMA finally arrived and started dispensing checks willy-nilly -- literally, they fouled up so badly they had to recall half of 'em (so much for how great FEMA was under the previous administration...).
Fast forward three years, another, not a bad one -- same scenario. Fast forward four more, yet another but this time, little was done until FEMA came in -- no self help to speak of. The next year yet another and then absolutlely nothing was done until FEMA appeared; people were screaming, "What's the government going to do about this?"
Sad.
True and I always thought that perspective was
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
You can also see its evolution in the Army recruiting campaigns from "Be all you can be" through "Am Army of One" to "Army Strong." From where I sit as an interpreters of their messages, each of these campaigns focuses more and more pointedly on the individual perspective of getting something from the institution rather than the need to work together to produce solutions/results on behalf of the institution.
very short sighted. You may get an extra bod or two with the 'learn a trade' route but most kids in the target age group want to be challenged (even if a lot of them don't realize it). I'd rather have 50 dedicated folks than 500 unmotivated skilled people. Most people leave the services because they're disappointed at the lack of challenge (as todays combat arms high reenlistment rates show)...
Well, I'd buy that - but I suspect most would not.
My ideal Army for the US today would be about 350-400K (while doubling the current size of the ARNG). Tooth : tail ratio would be 1:1 instead of the current 1:3 in favor of the tail and equipment would be designed to be rationalized to a minimum number of parts and pieces that can be assembled to make the requisite toy -- sort of like we ended WW II with three sizes of tracks and roadwheels, five hull types and four powerpacks for every tracked vehicle -- ultra reliable and low maintenance instead of to do everything for everybody. We can keep all the electronics, most of that uses LRU anyway.
Everyone would enlist for three or four years in the combat arms and after one hitch could reenlist for a CS/CSS job. Probationary hitch there and then they could reenlist for a career where ever they wished if there was a space. PCS's in CONUS would be cut by 2/3 saving big bucks. Homesteading would be tolerated. No 'up or out' but a definite out for non-performance. Most Training, MAAGs and ROTC Dets would use a Junior ROTC-like contract for Retired folks (language required for the MAAG jobs, all other Active duty standard met including height and weight) on five year contracts, renewable one time, periodic re-greening required.
Congress would never buy it -- neither would most of the Generals. :D
To realistically answer your question, some do join to learn a skill or trade. Most of the farm kids and suburban dwellers opt for the combat arms for fun and frolic and many plan on one tour and out. A few do go for the technical stuff but the majority who enlist for that do it to get a later leg up in civilian life. The reenlistment rates in those skills vary from time to time and MOS to MOS but are rarely as good as the Army would like -- those skills are in some cases, very expensively acquired. I don't think requiring some combat arms time of everyone is going too far (even though I know it would impact recruiting a bit) but I think most might disagree with me.
We have suffered variations on the same theme.
The lowering of standards here has been mostly in response to Congressional pressure, (perceived) public clamor for 'equality' or due to stupidity (low graduation rates cost $$ and harm reputations). The facts that all people are not equal and that the combat arms demand * great physical conditioning and superior cognitive skill are diligently ignored.
Back in my misspent youth, when the 101st was a real Airborne Division, the 101st MP company would not accept anyone who had not served at least a year in a Rifle Company and who was not 5'11" or taller. Given some thought, both requirements make a great deal of sense. That was brought to an abrupt halt in 1958 when two short graduates of the MP School reported in and were told to go serve in a Rifle Company and gain a few inches of height. Congress got involved. A great MP Company became another mediocre MP Company...
Round pegs fit in all holes -- just not well.
In the past, that slack training was a peacetime norm because the Mothers of America did not like their children getting hurt or killed in training. In WW II, we threw that concern out the window and trained harder -- in our wars since then we have not done so. We have improved training, no question but we've also made it easier. It no longer weeds out the inept.
* Like many demands, that one can be ignored -- and is -- but, as always, there's a cost. In this case missions not well performed and higher own casualties than necessary.
