Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. administers the oath of reenlistment to 15 soldiers during a ceremony at the Pentagon, July 1, 2008. Casey said "Men and women like these are the heart and soul of our Army - our soldiers, families, and Army civilians are who separate this Army from any other Army in the world, and separate our Armed Forces from any other force in the world." U.S. Army photo by D. Myles Cullen
Washington Times: Military eyes 16-year-olds as ranks and candidates dwindle
The best way to fix the U.S. armed forces’ recruiting challenges may involve dipping further into the nation’s high schools.
As the Army, Navy and other services contend with a thriving economy and a directive to expand their ranks, there is a growing debate over whether the military should consider lowering the minimum enlistment age from 17 to 16. More than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, already have adopted the policy.
Critics say the idea is deeply flawed and presents a host of societal problems, but supporters argue that the Pentagon needs to think outside the box if it wants to continually overcome one of the toughest recruiting environments in decades.
Neither the military nor lawmakers have given any indication that they are entertaining the idea, but some analysts say that opening the ranks to younger Americans could provide unique benefits and may be the kind of fundamental overhaul the recruiting system needs for the 21st century.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I personally think 16 is too young. But here is a little bit of history. The Roman Army's minimum enlistment age was 14.
9 comments:
Bad idea. Just looking around California, the average device-addled , deconditioned 16 year old is in no shape psychologically or physically to handle the routines of military life. Much less actual combat.
As a teenager in Colorado the mid-1980's, my favored pass times were skiing, motocross, horseback and beer drinking.
They don't even drink beer anymore.
Then there'll come the push to allow them to vote at 16. Which is the last thing we need.
Time for a draft including a community service component for those who cannot serve compulsory military service for reasonable considerations. All young people, male and female. Period. We need to turn around the lack service on behalf of this country. This should be a non controversial element of reaching maturity.
Never too young (or old) to die, for some idiotic nationalist ideal being commanded by professional morons, on orders by elected criminals that aren't going to give the chest for accommodate the bullets.
the younger the better
Age: the first question to ask is why they can not get recruits at the present age requirement
Service: Israel has a required term of service and it gives a sense of belonging to the nation and a spirit of brotherhood (and yes, sisterhood)...if a draft seems too much, then a possible draft and/or term of service to the nation.
Such service takes one above and beyond the Selfie stage so many seem at these days, and develops a connection to others that is helpful in full development of citizenship
ALWAYS BIG LOUD CLAIMS FROM FAKE MACHO MAN
DRAFT HER AND DEFEND AMERICA...WE WHO HAVE SERVED ALSO WANT WOMEN TO SERVE AND YOU CAN PACK AND LEAVE IF YOU DO NOT LIKE YOUR NATION ENOUGH TO SERVE IT
I too agree with a new draft. After high school and before college with an education bill available after one's 18 month service period. National service would not necessarily be military.
Ultimately it will be Congress, or perhaps an authoritarian Presidential decree that decides how to replenish low ranks. There's only 3 ways: 1. Lower Age. 2. Draft Lottery, 3. Requirement of National Service. Another front in the continuing muslim wars saga would force the issue. A resumption of the Draft Lottery would bring riots to American universities.
16 is to young, they are kids!
Post a Comment