All volunteer military. (USA)

[akarunway 1]

So. Used to be a clean record to enlist. The war on terror is causing this? > http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D906BM5G1&show_article=1 I joined in 77. Peacetime. Only had a GED. Quit H/S to join. Follow in the ole mans' footsteps so to speak. Said I could have any A school I wanted due to the short test scores. No nukes tho. Needed a H/S diploma. Took full battery of tests. Navy said they would waive that after results. (scored in the top 1% in the nation believe it or not) I declined although in retrospect I be retired w/ 30 yrs. right now. Now how do you current military people feel about them waiving and letting felons in? Hell, when they investigated me for a top secret clearance they wanted to boot me cause they found out I smoked pot as a kid. I foresee a Vietnam era again coming w/ judges saying "Go to jail or go into the military." Thoughts?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[dannydan 5]

I have not read yr link article yet, but with what you have said, I would agree with whats coming (Nam type era)....

I do NOT agree with allowing CERTAIN felons "IN"!!!

[jcd11235 0]

A few weeks back I overheard a couple of Navy recruiters (or possibly Army, I commonly see both) talking, and one of them mentioned that the Marines were no longer accepting recruits with full sleeve tattoos. I can't help looking at those two new policies and wondering about the priorities.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[funjumper101 15]

With the economy cratering in, recruitment is sure to become much easier.

Anyone joining the military at this point knows that they are VERY likely to go to Iraq. The standards had to be relaxed to come close to meeting the recruitment targets.

If we are going to keep the occupation of Iraq going, the draft needs to start back up ASAP. We already have a back door draft (stop loss). We need to make shrub's middle eastern adventure a lot more painful for the upper middle class and the rich. When their kids start coming home maimed or in body bags, we would be out of there PDQ.
This will never happen. The rich are pulling all the strings nowadays. They have no sense of responsibilty to this country anymore. For those kind, there is no longer any honor is serving your country. Only the poor folks do that kind of work.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This will never happen. The rich are pulling all the strings nowadays. They have no sense of responsibilty to this country anymore. For those kind, there is no longer any honor is serving your country. Only the poor folks do that kind of work.

gotta change "only" to "with few exceptions."

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

A few weeks back I overheard a couple of Navy recruiters (or possibly Army, I commonly see both) talking, and one of them mentioned that the Marines were no longer accepting recruits with full sleeve tattoos. I can't help looking at those two new policies and wondering about the priorities.

I wonder if that specific policy is gang-related?

-- US Army Criminal Investigation Command’s FY 2006 Gang Activity Threat Assessment

-- US Army 1ID Assessment of "Criminal Street Gangs in the Military"

-- Stars and Stripes investigatory article on "Gangs in the Military"

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I wonder if that specific policy is gang-related?

Possible, but not probable. I didn't see any references to tattoo sleeves in your references. Most people I've encountered with full sleeves are simply tattoo lovers, not gang members. Motorcycle gangs might be an exception.

More likely it's simply due to a perceived unprofessional appearance in BDU's (or whatever the Corps calls its uniforms) with sleeves up.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SpeedRacer 1]

I agree about ending the Iraq occupation, but I disagree that the draft is the right way to do it. We had the draft during Vietnam & that didn't make it stop. The rich kids could always find ways to get out of it, or they'd get non-combat jobs. I can't think of any time in history where conscription REDUCED the likelihood of war.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Used to be a clean record to enlist. The war on terror is causing this? > http://www.breitbart.com/...1&show_article=1 …. I foresee a Vietnam era again coming w/ judges saying "Go to jail or go into the military." Thoughts?

“Thoughts?” Lot of them, as usual.
I’m not seeing it go to the same end as you describe. I do agree that the number & type of waivers for enlisted, high attrition rates (particularly for senior NCOs and Captains), and high promotion rates (particularly for company and field grade officers in the Army, may be the same for enlisted but I’m not as familiar with the situation) are significant concerns.

And while OIF and OEF can be argued as major drivers, there are other factors at play as well, including but not limited to money (senior NCOs & O-3s+ can make more in the private sector), greater prioritization of family, low unemployment, greater military-civilian divide, and cultural shifts: one contributing reason for the draft in WWI and WWII was concern that all of the ‘best & brightest’ young men of the nation would enlist and potentially be killed, therefore one (not the only, obviously) motivation was to spread the risk across from ‘best & brightest’ to whatever’s at the other end of the spectrum.

In conjunction with March testimony on current readiness of the Armed Forces to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), the Army was requested – in that way that Congress requests – to provide numbers of waivers and waivers specifically for felons. Congress released that information late last week or yesterday.

“Data released by a congressional committee shows the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records jumped from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007. And the number of Marines with felonies rose from 208 to 350.

“Those numbers represent a fraction of the more than 180,000 recruits brought in by the active duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines during the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. But they highlight a trend that has raised concerns both within the military and on Capitol Hill.

“The bulk of the crimes involved were burglaries, other thefts, and drug offenses, but nine involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions. Several dozen Army and Marine recruits had aggravated assault or robbery convictions, including incidents involving weapons.

“The total number of sailors who received felony waivers dipped from 48 in 2006 to 42 in 2007. Most were for a variety of thefts or drug and drunk driving convictions. Two in 2007 were for terror or bomb threats compared to three in 2006.

“There were no Air Force recruits with waivers for felony convictions in 2007.

“Waivers must be approved by an officer who is ranked as a brigadier general or above, and recruits must have written recommendations and endorsements from community leaders showing they would be a good bet for the military.”

W/r/t waivers, and those specifically for felony convictions, it remains a very small number of the overall percentage of new enlistments. Let’s see where the trend goes.

It’s one factor in the larger effort to expand the Army and Marine Corps. And there are larger, long-term pieces as well, imo.

Last week, SecDef Gates gave (another excellent, im-ever-ho) speech at the American Association of Universities in which he highlighted the need to strengthen ROTC programs and the need for the DoD to do a better job with its public relations (here in the specific context of interactions w/academia):

“While there is a very strong relationship built upon past and present research – especially in the hard sciences – I worry that in the public sphere there is often the view that we are at loggerheads.

“The military seems to have been pitted against the Ivory Tower and vice versa – even though the range of opinions covers the spectrum, both within the military and academia.”

“Part of the blame rests clearly on the Department of Defense, since we do not always do a great job of explaining what we are doing in ways that are accessible to the uninitiated. Like academia, the Pentagon has its own, shall we say, unique approach to the English language.”

It’s an issue that extends beyond OIF and OEF and beyond meeting quarterly enlistment goals.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

So. Used to be a clean record to enlist. The war on terror is causing this? > http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D906BM5G1&show_article=1 I joined in 77. Peacetime. Only had a GED. Quit H/S to join. Follow in the ole mans' footsteps so to speak. Said I could have any A school I wanted due to the short test scores. No nukes tho. Needed a H/S diploma. Took full battery of tests. Navy said they would waive that after results. (scored in the top 1% in the nation believe it or not) I declined although in retrospect I be retired w/ 30 yrs. right now. Now how do you current military people feel about them waiving and letting felons in? Hell, when they investigated me for a top secret clearance they wanted to boot me cause they found out I smoked pot as a kid. I foresee a Vietnam era again coming w/ judges saying "Go to jail or go into the military." Thoughts?

When I went to USMC bootcamp in November of 93 we started with 70 recruits. 8 were felons told by the judge to join the Corps or go to jail. This is nothing new for the Marines and I completely support this method of rehabilitation. Incidently all 8 of those recruits graduated where we lost more than half of our platoon to either injury, failure, or voluntary drop.

I don't believe it was ever policy for the Marines to allow tats below the sleeve. If memory serves, it was overlooked for a time and too many young Marines were taking advantage of it which lead to a crackdown by command. Don't know for sure though.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

So. Used to be a clean record to enlist. The war on terror is causing this? > http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D906BM5G1&show_article=1 I joined in 77. Peacetime. Only had a GED. Quit H/S to join. Follow in the ole mans' footsteps so to speak. Said I could have any A school I wanted due to the short test scores. No nukes tho. Needed a H/S diploma. Took full battery of tests. Navy said they would waive that after results. (scored in the top 1% in the nation believe it or not) I declined although in retrospect I be retired w/ 30 yrs. right now. Now how do you current military people feel about them waiving and letting felons in? Hell, when they investigated me for a top secret clearance they wanted to boot me cause they found out I smoked pot as a kid. I foresee a Vietnam era again coming w/ judges saying "Go to jail or go into the military." Thoughts?

When I went to USMC bootcamp in November of 93 we started with 70 recruits. 8 were felons told by the judge to join the Corps or go to jail. This is nothing new for the Marines and I completely support this method of rehabilitation. Incidently all 8 of those recruits graduated where we lost more than half of our platoon to either injury, failure, or voluntary drop.

I don't believe it was ever policy for the Marines to allow tats below the sleeve. If memory serves, it was overlooked for a time and too many young Marines were taking advantage of it which lead to a crackdown by command. Don't know for sure though.

"Hey, that dude that just blew your leg off had a tattoo below the sleeve."
-Iraqi militia dude to other Iraqi militia dude

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I don't believe it was ever policy for the Marines to allow tats below the sleeve. If memory serves, it was overlooked for a time and too many young Marines were taking advantage of it which lead to a crackdown by command. Don't know for sure though.

When I was in the Army, policy was any tats preexisting at time of enlistment were fine. Tats obtained while in the service were restricted with respect to location. I can't remember exactly where was allowed and where wasn't, since I never got any while I was in. I think they had to be hidden with sleeves up and in Class B's.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[downwardspiral 0]

It was the same for us and any tats below the sleeve prior to recruitment needed a waiver. An individual that can be described as "sleeved" would have never been allowed to join. Perhaps that changed with more difficulty in recruiting.

6 months to a year ago I read an article regarding Marines overlooking tats below the sleeve or "roll" and the consequent crackdown. Navy and/or Army recruiters could have easily mistaken or spun this as recruitment policy IMO.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

When I went to USMC bootcamp in November of 93 we started with 70 recruits. 8 were felons told by the judge to join the Corps or go to jail. This is nothing new for the Marines and I completely support this method of rehabilitation. Incidently all 8 of those recruits graduated where we lost more than half of our platoon to either injury, failure, or voluntary drop.

Analysis based on the US Army documents I mentioned showed trends among those receiving waivers (which would include all felons) between 2003 and 2006.

Soldiers receiving waivers showed a wider spread along the spectrum:

“These soldiers tended to have better performance in basic training, re-enlist at a higher rate, are promoted to the rank of sergeant more quickly and receive more medals for valor than those without waivers.”

But at the same time

“Waiver recruits are more likely than non-waiver recruits to be drummed out of the Army due to misconduct, desertion and failure to complete alcohol rehabilitation.”

The analysis was discussed more fully on last Thursday’s “Morning Edition” on NPR.

There are (at least) two policy issues that may have some overlapping areas of concern and some that run contrary: is it to "society's" overall benefit to view military service as a rehabilitory option for young men and women? Are the services obligated to accept such enlistees?

Do the services benefit from such an enlistee (perhaps, they are more committed because the alternative option, i.e., jail, is worse) ?

Is it to the uniformed services benefit to increase the number of waivers granted? Does the extra expenditure due to those who fall to the far left hand of the spectrum (which is a larger percentage of the 'waiver recuits') justify the need for more enlistees?

Related: what's the USN & the USAF doing 'right' that they don't need to use the waiver option?

And where in the whole discussion is the other end of the spectrum -- attracting the 'best & brightest' and holding onto them? Rather than lowering the lteral and metaphorical bar, why is that even necessary? (Okay, I admit the last part has some easy flippant answers, i.e., we're engaged in overseas conflicts, but it also has larger issues w/less easy answers.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

The most celebrated Marine in history is Major General Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller and he once said while on Battalion inspection....

"Take me to the brig. I want to see the 'real Marines.'"

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I can't think of any time in history where conscription REDUCED the likelihood of war.

Popular support for the second Iraq war wouldn't have been the same with a draft. America is different now. Without a tangible threat, I don't see a war can be sold with a drafted army.

WWI and WWII - the Presidents waited until events like the Loisitania and Pearl Harbor got people raring to fight. Korea and Vietnam were driven by the spectre of communism under the Cold War, and by the second one it was getting unpopular in a hurry. Bush had to sell this last one to the public with a lot of propoganda about WMDs, even with a volunteer army.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

So. Used to be a clean record to enlist. The war on terror is causing this? > http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D906BM5G1&show_article=1 I joined in 77. Peacetime. Only had a GED. Quit H/S to join. Follow in the ole mans' footsteps so to speak. Said I could have any A school I wanted due to the short test scores. No nukes tho. Needed a H/S diploma. Took full battery of tests. Navy said they would waive that after results. (scored in the top 1% in the nation believe it or not) I declined although in retrospect I be retired w/ 30 yrs. right now. Now how do you current military people feel about them waiving and letting felons in? Hell, when they investigated me for a top secret clearance they wanted to boot me cause they found out I smoked pot as a kid. I foresee a Vietnam era again coming w/ judges saying "Go to jail or go into the military." Thoughts?

It's simple economics. X people will trade a set of costs (IEDs, being away from home, living in a desert) for a given set of benefits ($Y a day, early retirement, college, etc.). You need to accept more of them, decrease the costs, or increase the benefits.

Black Water pays its contractors between $450 and $650 a day according to its website, subject to all taxes and the employer's share of FICA + Medicare. Single Staff Sargents make about $85 a day tax free and ones married with children $170 a day tax free.

If the military paid what the free market decided the job was worth they'd have more takers although the war costs wouldn't go over as well with the tax payers.

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

Related: what's the USN & the USAF doing 'right' that they don't need to use the waiver option?

For the most part the USAF tends to have more limited staffing numbers to meet while at the same time having personal that at least a while ago had higher reenlistment then the other branchs. They tend to have the best toys/least direct combat/best living conditions/better pay and they get the best and brightest of the people intersted in Military servicve. In the past they used to have waiting lines for their best positions so they were able to be extremely selective in who they choose and never really needed to waiver people since they had long lines of people waiting to get in.

My experience with the other branches is more limited but after sharing office space with a MEPS building for 4 years I got to the point I could call the branch the recruits were going to almost all the time. The nerds usually were Air Force bound, the ones that were "rougher" were usually Marines or Army. The Navy kids usually wanted to get out and away from the midwest and were every spectrum of personal but that was a big driver from the ones I talked to.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[labrys 0]

Quote

If we are going to keep the occupation of Iraq going, the draft needs to start back up ASAP. We already have a back door draft (stop loss).

Jeez not this again, please. There's nothing "back door" about a contract that says in plain english, and in plain (not fine) print that you're enlisting for 8 years and we'll let you serve in an inactive reserve component for some of that time if we don't need you.

That's what an enlistment contract is. It's a contract for 8 full years of service. Stop loss is the enforcement of that 8 year contract and nothing more. It appears that the military needs to worry more about whether or not enlistees can read.

http://www.js.pentagon.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf

Quote

10. MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATION FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

c. As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I may be required to serve on active duty (other than for training) for the entire period of the war or emergency and for six (6) months after its end.

d. As a member of the Ready Reserve I may be required to perform active duty or active duty for training without my consent (other than as provided in item 8 of this document) as follows:

(1) in time of national emergency declared by the President of the United States, I may be ordered to active duty (other than for training) for not more than 24 consecutive months.

(2) I may be ordered to active duty for 24 months, and my enlistment may be extended so I can complete 24 months of active duty, if:

(a) I am not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily in, a unit of the Ready Reserve; and

(b) I have not met my Reserve obligation; and

(c) I have not served on active duty for a total of 24 months.

(3) I may be ordered to perform additional active duty training for not more than 45 days if I have not fulfilled my military service obligation and fail in anyyear to perform the required training duty satisfactorily. If the failure occurs during the last year of my required membership in the Ready Reserve, my enlistment may be extended until I perform that additional duty, but not for more than six months.

(4) When determined by the President that it is necessary to support any operational mission, I may be ordered to active duty as prescribed by law, if I am a member of the Selected Reserve.

My DZ's waiver is 12 pages long. The enlistment contract is 4 and the above is a significant percent of that. Don't let that "back door" smack you on the ass on the way to Iraq.

Owned by Remi #?

[akarunway 1]

Quote

The most celebrated Marine in history is Major General Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller and he once said while on Battalion inspection....

"Take me to the brig. I want to see the 'real Marines.'"

Kinda reminds me of "The Dirty Dozen". Great flick.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

If we are going to keep the occupation of Iraq going, the draft needs to start back up ASAP. We already have a back door draft (stop loss).

Jeez not this again, please. There's nothing "back door" about a contract that says in plain english, and in plain (not fine) print that you're enlisting for 8 years and we'll let you serve in an inactive reserve component for some of that time if we don't need you.

That's what an enlistment contract is. It's a contract for 8 full years of service. Stop loss is the enforcement of that 8 year contract and nothing more. It appears that the military needs to worry more about whether or not enlistees can read.

http://www.js.pentagon.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf

Quote

10. MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATION FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

c. As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I may be required to serve on active duty (other than for training) for the entire period of the war or emergency and for six (6) months after its end.

d. As a member of the Ready Reserve I may be required to perform active duty or active duty for training without my consent (other than as provided in item 8 of this document) as follows:

(1) in time of national emergency declared by the President of the United States, I may be ordered to active duty (other than for training) for not more than 24 consecutive months.

(2) I may be ordered to active duty for 24 months, and my enlistment may be extended so I can complete 24 months of active duty, if:

(a) I am not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily in, a unit of the Ready Reserve; and

(b) I have not met my Reserve obligation; and

(c) I have not served on active duty for a total of 24 months.

(3) I may be ordered to perform additional active duty training for not more than 45 days if I have not fulfilled my military service obligation and fail in anyyear to perform the required training duty satisfactorily. If the failure occurs during the last year of my required membership in the Ready Reserve, my enlistment may be extended until I perform that additional duty, but not for more than six months.

(4) When determined by the President that it is necessary to support any operational mission, I may be ordered to active duty as prescribed by law, if I am a member of the Selected Reserve.

My DZ's waiver is 12 pages long. The enlistment contract is 4 and the above is a significant percent of that. Don't let that "back door" smack you on the ass on the way to Iraq.

Who in their right mind would sign that except a wanna be lifer or someone that can't read. So if the war on terror goes on they have you for life? Fuck that!

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Who in their right mind would sign that except a wanna be lifer or someone that can't read. So if the war on terror goes on they have you for life? Fuck that!

I didn't post that because I intended to argue the merits of the enlistment contract. I posted it because I think that it makes it clear that the intent of the contract is not the least little bit ambiguous.

I've been "stop lossed" myself. It didn't surprise or enrage me. I recognised that I had agreed to the possibility when I raised my right hand and I sucked it up. I guess it pisses me off when people whine about it or claim it's back handed.

But hey, my "war" only lasted 100 hours. I had it easy.

Owned by Remi #?

[downwardspiral 0]

They also made it very clear during bootcamp. For the Marines, you are not 100% obligated to fulfill your contract until you graduate and can finally call yourself a Marine. Prior to that point you can tell your drill instructors you want to go home and they will happily send you on a bus. In fact there is nothing that will make a drill instructor happier.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[skippyjumps 0]

We have to think of the positives as well. The military can be the boot that some kids need to straighten out their lives. I wasn't a felon when I enlisted only because I never got caught. (Statute of Limitations have all expired) I can safely say that if it weren't for the military I would definitely have gone down another road. would I be where I am now? Probably not. I was lucky. Also lets not forget that in the old days cops would kick our butts and let us go. today they put paper on every small infraction. So letting a few kids tetoring on the fence a break could be productive. but what do I know.

"whatcha doin with that lawn mower blade?"

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

Seems plain enough.
However I am curious to know what determines the end of the war. The commander in Chief declared "mission accomplished" more than six months ago. There is an internationally recognized government in Baghdad and the United States, I would presume, has exchanged ambassadors; they do not appear to be at war with the government of Iraq. Does Congress need to pass a resolution ending hostilities?