Soldiers Over 30: More Comments

Craig writes:

I enjoyed you op piece on “soldiers over 30”. Of course, for all the reasons you mention, the military wants younger naive recruits that don’t understand what you do. If my CO gave me an order that puts my butt on the line in order to, as you say, “open and protect markets for big corporations and to conquer and control regions with energy resources and conduits thereto” my first thought would probably be to “frag” the guy rather than to shout “Urah!” I am appalled, but not surprised, when I see videos of young service men in Iraq blasting the crap out of people and things and enjoying it as if it were a video game. There is a lack of connection between their actions and the human suffering it is inflicting, especially with “bad guys”. This is, naturally, exactly what is desired and is especially prevalent in the younger adult ages (watch any bunch of high school guys play a contact sport). There would be a lot less wars if one needed to be 30+ to serve.

Jim points out:

How could you forget that it was precisely returning vets under 30 who formed VVAW back in the Sixties? They were perhaps the most significant force in turning the American public against that war. And today, it is IVAW.

No one’s denying that vets get a quick education on the ways of the world. The point of my article is that soldiers ought to be recruited from Americans who already received that knowledge beforehand. And who doubts that the VFAW vets were one big bunch of bitter guys?

John says:

Regarding your 1/3/06 column, isn’t it clear that being a soldier of any age is absolutely the last resort? It’s amazing that in the 21st Century, we still think like warring primitives who willingly follow an obvious half-wit. Contrast that with how people will scream through the tv screen at football coaches! Really sad.

But that’s the point. The military would improve in quality if it had to compete with civilian employers for high-qualityt employees. Surely free-market Republicans would agree.

Andy says:

Actually, I think late 20s is still to early. I say minimum reqs for joining the army should be 35 years old, marriage license, a child, and a stable job (you’d get a paid vacation for all time spent doing army stuff). Then you’d have smart army and you better believe politicians would think twice before using it.

Great point.

A long-time GOR writes:

I’m confused…I agree with you….and that really scares me
What is the answer??
Oil is too important to the lifestyle we expect in America…to keep the oil flowing we must be involved in maintaining “stability” in the middle east…if we make up a reason for being there like “its about democracy”, does it make it any less important…
I guess its easier to get someone to die for freedom than it is to get someone to die to ensure the shareholders of Exxon get their dividend next year…

An anonymous correspondent writes:

Ted-
I’m sure you’ve received a chorus of e-mails with tales of our supposed “nation’s finest” acting like juvenile imbeciles, but your column and blog posts hit a nerve with me so I thought I’d share my experiences. I ask that you keep me anonymous if you decide to share my story though, for I do not wish right wing nut job hate mail to fill my inbox.
After I graduated high school in 2000, my girlfriend at the time joined the Marine reserve (she had no money and the thought of getting cash for college was too enticing). Of course, she has since been called into active duty and has recently returned from Iraq. Although we’re no longer together, we remain close to this day, and I’ve had the distinct honor and pleasure of
hearing some of the most ridiculous, and in some cases appalling, stories involving young Marines (supposedly the best and brightest of the armed forces, right?) that you can imagine. Time and time again, my friend would regale me with tales of excessive drinking and driving, officers having sex with young female enlisted members (which is supposed to be a no-no), and my personal favorite, complete disregard for firearm safety (think getting really drunk and shooting at things in your backyard, which happens to be in a residential neighborhood). My point is that young, college age kids do stupid things. If I had a dime for every time I got way too drunk/stoned/whatever and did something completely ill-advised in college, I’d be typing you this e-mail from a boat in the Bahamas instead of from my desk at work (and I was one of the more well-behaved kids). I was just a guy in college though – I didn’t have a gun and I wasn’t responsible for anyone’s life, safety, or security. I’m never, ever surprised at the reports of prisoner abuse, military mistakes, or wrongful civilian deaths because I know that the soldiers fighting for our supposed “freedom” are a bunch of stupid kids that have no business being given such responsibility. Yes, I’m sure that there are plenty of good, responsible soldiers out there, but I’m in complete agreement with you that it’s absurd that in our country you’re supposedly responsible enough to kill large numbers of people and have
access to deadly weapons before you’re responsible enough to have a sip of an alcoholic beverage.

Chohong writes:

I know a friend in New York who is still firmly for the war, for the Republicans, and for Bush. He’s almost 34. Maybe I should give his name to a military recruiter. He’s offered the same reasons as Katherine Jordan for why we were right to invade Iraq. Maybe a tour of duty there would help him justify his stance.

It sure would help him to focus.