Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Old Dix & Co.
James Dao is now covering what is known as "the Jaffe beat" for the New York Times, examining things like the cultures of the services and the military removed from its combat environment. (Greg Jaffe used to cover U.S. Army culture in particular ridiculously well for the Wall Street Journal. He is now at the Post.) Today's story is on older recruits:
[In] the three years since the Army raised its age limit for enlisting to 42, from 35, a steady stream of older recruits has joined the ranks, pushing creaky muscles through road training, learning to appreciate — or at least endure — Army chow and in some cases deploying to combat zones. And while the number of such recruits, more than 3,800, is small by Army standards, the pace of over-35 enlistment jumped sharply in the first months of this year. Motives vary, from a yearning for midlife adventure to a desire to serve their country. But rising unemployment is also a major reason, say Army officials, recruiters and training officers.
Thanks for posting this
Thanks for posting this piece. Dao's article was extremely well done and raises a number of things that deserve closer examination. Namely:
1) The near, mid and long-range costs of enlisting older entry-level personnel. By taking older privates with a large number of dependents, near-term allowance, healthcare and infrastructure costs will continue to rise at very high rates. Example: Newly enlisted SPC John Butts who at 38, is bringing 3 teenage children and a wife into the TRICARE system.; and 35 year old PV2 Batson who is bringing 6 dependents into TRICARE. In the long-term, older personnel are more susceptible to injury and therefore disability and medical retirement compensation. This is a "brave new world" for the Army. While we've always had senior NCOs and officers in their 40's and 50's, we have not had brand new, 40 year old 13B10s (artillerymen) who are only beginning a back-to-back series of demanding assignments to MTOE units and combat deployments. Is it realistic to expect 40 year olds to persist for a 20 year career in the Artillery? Should we expect them to. How many will get injured and require medical retirement and lifetime compensation? This is part of the reason why military personnel costs are skyrocketing - the housing, program and medical costs of Privates with 6 dependents is astronomical.
2) The socio-economic strata of who enlists at ages 38-42 is worthy of a closer look. While the Army loves to brag that "40 year olds are healthier today than ever before", the statsistics to support this claim include the aggregation of a whole lot of folks who would never consider joining the Army at that age (i.e. educated folks or those with stable careers). The types of people who would find enlisting at 38 attractive, are likely those who have not had a stable career, health insurance and other positive predictors and may very well be less healthy than broadly inclusive population data would suggest.
3) Finally, despite the documented shortages within the Army Oficer Corps - particularly in the Reserve Components (e.g. USAR is at 52% strength on Captains) - we see folks that are potentially qualified for commissions steered away from OCS enlistment options (which, BTW, have also been extended up to 42). In this piece alone, we are introduced to SPC Butts who in order to enter the Army at that rank, likely came in with a college degree. Could the officer corps not use "technical skills ... maturity ... and committment ..." in an era where OCS selection rates are nearlly 100% and promotion to Major is virtually guaranteed?
"3) Finally, despite the
"3) Finally, despite the documented shortages within the Army Oficer Corps - particularly in the Reserve Components (e.g. USAR is at 52% strength on Captains) - we see folks that are potentially qualified for commissions steered away from OCS enlistment options...Could the officer corps not use "technical skills ... maturity ... and committment ..." in an era where OCS selection rates are nearlly 100% and promotion to Major is virtually guaranteed?"
Welcome to my life: a 33 yo that is in the recruitment machine right now, fighting tooth and nail for OCS. Interestingly, if I had three kids and was married, I would be in basic right now, and I would have a bonus. But I'm not, and I have a degree, and no one knows what to do with me.
The Army has an interesting policy that puts it alone among the Branches: you enlist, go to basic, *then* go to OCS if you are not ROTC.
Vistor at 7:08, If you
Vistor at 7:08,
If you haven't, please check out www.armyocs.com if you haven't already. We (volunteers) assist folks in your situation on a seemingly daily basis. If you are having any issues, get on that site.
Good Luck
Visitor at 7:08, Don't
Visitor at 7:08,
Don't forget the other interesting Army OCS recruitment policy: that the same enlisted recruiters who solicit high school kids also process OCS packets. All of the other services have dedicated officer recruiters who specialize in working with college students and recent grads.
You would think that with OCS providing the MAJORITY of Regular Army 2LTs this year (up from <10% in 1998) that the Army would have implemented some hybrod of the USMC OSO model right now - at least in the largest city. Nope, it's "Army Strong" all the way when we send recruiting sergeants in rumpled field uniforms to college career fairs (alongside Marine OSO CPTs in Service dress and Dress Blues).
Add your comment