Posted on 07/21/2019 8:27:59 AM PDT by Towed_Jumper
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I was 17 at basic training, and we had another recruit that was *gasp* 26! He might as well have been my grandpa.
No. Half these kids hate America. I don't want malcontents who are there against their will working side by side the men and women who want to be there.
I'm active duty E6.
Do you want some pissed-off snowflake who hates America, hates the President, hates the military doing maintenance on an F/A-18 engine? I don't want them anywhere near me or my Sailors.
“This is a ploy by liberals to drop the voting age to 16.”
I hadn’t considered that as a possible unintended consequence...16 year olds voting is a scary thought. Of course, everyone on the Left also wants to raise the age at which you can by a firearm up to 21.
“Maybe they should recruit older people, instead of younger.”
If I recall correctly, I believe that Army already did that several years ago by raising the upper age limit from 35 up to 40.
You pay for your uniforms.
The food is crap in the ground forces.
The medical care (have you ever had five male navy nurses holding your down while they take turns trying to get a spinal tap in?) is of the same level.
That skill for maintaining ground radar surveillance systems is really important in the civilian world, same as the thermal optics and guided missile Electronics. Huge demand.
Roll that up against the minimum wage you posit and tell me which is a better value.
which is better, a hangnail or stubbing your toe?
They need to raise the age rather than lower it. At least to 50. The most passionate patriots in the defense of liberty against radical islamists and communism would be men like me in their 40’s.
“Judge said join the Military or go to jail”
That used to be an option back in the day. Best thing that ever happened to many a young man.
Audi Murphy unavailable for comment.
“Seems to work well in Africa.”
Not Africa...these kids are queued up for the latest gun “Buy Back” program in Baltimore. /s
This is a backdoor method for giving 16-year olds the vote.
Big “no” from me.
“With all the high technology used today in what possible position could they serve anyway? “
IMO this kind of program should be a 5 year enlistment with GED type education included.
And there are plenty of teens around who excel at technology independent of their high school education.
“The answer is mandatory National Service.”
Which in a democrat administration would be called Mandatory Indoctrination.
No thanks.
Also universal conscription would turn the Army into daycare. There would be no end to discipline problems. Every other soldier would be a “corporal Klinger” trying to get out. It would destroy the Army.
If they lower the enlistment age to 16 and lower the voting age to 16 are they going to lower the drinking age to 16 also? That’s what it is in Germany by the way.
A bunch of geriatric crooks in congress prodded by 40 year old housewives telling an 18 year old man who has carried an automatic weapon into battle against islamic terrorists that he can’t drink a beer in his down time is criminal.
“I tried to join the Marines when I was 30 and they said I was too old.”
My wife’s uncle was drafted in WW2 at age 35. Spent the duration in the China-Burma-India theater in combat engineers maintaining the Burma road. Never too old when chips are down.
Amen, brother. We need soldiers, not peace corps.
Ok. Good kid. Smart. Lousy home life and a public school system more concerned with his/her ‘butt in the seats’. He won’t enjoy the military but he’ll at least be doing something and getting paid for it. THAT’S what I’d call school choice.
“Hey, kid, ever see the golden rivet?”
Is that 9.7 hr for 24 hours since a soldier is never off duty, while the new 15 hour wage is for 4, 8, or 10 hours a day. If true, the soldier makes more that the civilian per day.
There’s a considerable chunk of the already serving that are not even close to being in shape for anything other than sitting behind a desk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.