New source of high-quality recruits

[Schmedlap]

Great news from the Wall Street Journal. Apparently thousands of Korean immigrants have gotten frustrated with the bureaucratic obstacle course that must be traversed in order to gain citizenship. So, they are utilizing a loophole: military service for fast-track citizenship. The program was intended to attract immigrants with high-value language skills, but it is also attracting high-quality Korean immigrants whose Korean language proficiency might not be quite what we were looking for, but are bringing other high-value skills and attributes.

So many Koreans have applied, however, that the Army doesn't need them all.

Koreans form the largest group among the 8,000 applicants for the program, launched on Feb. 23. Many have excellent credentials, including degrees in medicine and engineering. Almost all are veterans of South Korea's own compulsory military service.

"The quality of these applicants has been phenomenal," says Lt. Col. Peter Badoian, the project officer for the pilot program. "But we didn't anticipate one immigrant community would respond so strongly."

- via WSJ Online

My only question is, what on Earth are they talking about when they say, "the Army doesn't need them all"? Do we have too many recruits with advanced degrees? Not enough new recruits who grew up sitting on a couch and playing video games? Are we looking to even out the ranks with people who can't pass the ASVAB?

[Rob Thornton]

My experience with ROK Marines back in the old Team Spirit exercise was very positive - they were razor sharp.

History indicates this to be the norm. That they come with advanced education and a strong desire to be American citizens is even better.

Best, Rob

[Uboat509]

My only question is, what on Earth are they talking about when they say, "the Army doesn't need them all"? Do we have too many recruits with advanced degrees? Not enough new recruits who grew up sitting on a couch and playing video games? Are we looking to even out the ranks with people who can't pass the ASVAB?

Actually, I was talking to a recruiter the other day and the Army has surpassed it's goals so far this year. They have apparently stopped accepting GEDs and drop outs. As for having too many advanced degree candidates, I would imagine that it depends what the advanced degree is in.

SFC W

[Schmedlap]

As for having too many advanced degree candidates, I would imagine that it depends what the advanced degree is in.

Understood, but I've had riflemen, automatic riflemen, team leaders, and squad leaders with masters degrees - a handful of them had multiple masters degrees. One of my first squad leaders, when I was a shiny new 2LT, was working on this PhD (in philosophy!). My concern is: Advanced degree? So what? That doesn't make the guy unqualified to do something that does not relate to his degree. Some of us (myself included) hope to NOT use our degrees in the Army. I hope that the recruiters are telling these guys, "we don't need any more people for ___ MOS, but have you considered an 11X enlistment to go to airborne and RIP immediately after IET?" Are they allowing people to go straight to SFAS? Have they lowered the rank requirement?

[Brandon Friedman]

I mean, yeah, this is great that so many highly qualified people in this country are volunteering to serve. I'm more than aware of both the Army's recruiting woes over the past few years and how difficult it can be for long-time residents to attain American citizenship (my wife is from Europe). So this is good for both.

My problem with this, however, is that the Army is now being forced by law to recruit foreigners to fill roles which are "vital to national security" because they aren't allowed to recruit patriotic American citizens who happen to be gay.

I just think there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

Because remember, the new recruiting policy isn't just aimed at linguists--a task for which the Koreans are specifically qualified. When it was announced, they said they were targeting people "to make up for chronic shortages of doctors, nurses and linguists."

[tequila]

I think the comment was more about the Koreans taking up too many slots in the program and possibly crowding out Farsi or Arabic speakers who aren't quite as organized.

[Schmedlap]

they aren't allowed to recruit patriotic American citizens who happen to be gay.

Of course they can. Don't ask, don't tell. There were at least 3 gay Soldiers in one of my battalions and it was common knowledge that the female barracks on post had at least three dozen lesbians. It was actually a source of frustration for many of the male Soldiers who were annoyed at how protective the lesbians were of the barracks, making it difficult for the men to "introduce themselves" if you will. I always found this kind of funny - whenever I heard such a gripe, I would always ask, "is it so much of a hassle to drive downtown to the club and associate with women who do not live on base?" They always had a zinging retort: "but sir, what if you're on staff duty? Then you'll have to come pick us up from jail after we get arrested." Touche, young Soldier.

The prohibition is on serving while being openly gay. There are lots of prohibitions. It is not a bar to service. It is a bar to conduct. There are lots of those associated with service.

The paradox here is that...
1. There is political motivation to encourage people to openly identify themselves by their sexuality
2. Changing DADT will be seen as a shift in mainstream values to accepting open identification of one's self by one's sexuality
3. Were it not for the political motivations underlying this shift for a change in policy, then the policy could quietly change with very little notice or fanfare
4. But the political nature of the debate is what creates so much resistance to changing the DADT policy, because changing the policy will be perceived as a victory in a culturally divided political battle

The military is perceived by many (at least recently) as the epitome of traditional American values - what is best about America. To bring about this change in the military is to send a strong message that America is changing and to use the military's policy change as a means of persuading people that the change is good, or at least acceptable. Some people don't want that change. Other people do. On both sides of the fence, the most fervent proponents and opponents have political motivations for their views and understand the significant persuasive effect of changing policy in order to induce the military to accept openly homosexual servicemembers. I think that is the true source of concern among the military. They do not want to be dragged into this ugly political nonsense. Unfortunately for them, it is not their call.

[Brandon Friedman]

DADT is certainly politically charged, but that fact alone isn't germane to the question of whether this policy makes sense or not. This is really simple: I'm arguing that it's better to first hire qualified Americans (who might be openly gay) for these "vital" positions than it is to hire foreigners. Are you saying that's wrong?

The point is that there are Americans available to fill these positions without having to first recruit non-citizens.