Making tomorrows Military today: Getting a little pissed

Getting a little pissed

Ok, I have heard it all.

Today on Eileen Byrne's show on WLS, a lady called in to agree with Bill Maher's Fruit comment I blogged about yesterday(her blog needs a bit of help, but we will let her pass). Well, she started in on recruiting saying that we, recruiters, are targeting minorities and poor people. My favorite quote was "no oil executive has lost their son in Iraq".

First off, I found this blog with the demographics (as of May 1) of those killed in Iraq.

Interestingly the deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom reflect the racial composition of the U.S. population in 2000, with the exception of the Asian category (n=1048)::
Whites -- 731 (70%)
Black or African American -- 132 (13%)
Hispanic or Latino -- (12%)
Asian -- 22 (2%)
Other categories were 1% or less

Deaths from Operation Enduring Freedom are a bit more concentrated in the white category:
Whites -- 116 (83%)
Black or African American -- 9 (6%)
Hispanic or Latino -- 12 (9%)
Asian -- 1 (0.7%)
Other categories were 1% or less

Well. Ironic. The dying people (the only military that most people care about in America) match almost exactly the demographics of the USA! Wow!

We are not targeting anyone lady. Oh yes I am... 17-35 year olds that are mentally, physically, and morally qualified. Do I care where the guys I recruit come from? NOPE! I have been in a 3 million dollar house with an applicant who wanted to make his dad proud and not have his dad support him forever. I have been in a house where the mom ran out, dad forced the two boys to quit school, take care of HIM by working and doing all of the work around the house. The house was so dirty and filled with cigarette butts that we had to do the interview outside. I sat on the front porch and a board snapped underneath the weight of the applicant. You know what, I put them both in the military, got them a job that they loved, and they appreciate it. Their family appreciate it. They are both men now that love their country, love what they do for it, and love the feeling that they get when they come home.

Do oil executive's children join the military. Yep. What do they do? Anything. Most will be officers. Why? They have a better education in better schools. They have drive. Motivation.

I am going to hit the rant on button.

I was a kid in high school 8 years ago today. I graduated 5/24/97. I did not join the military because I was desperate for a job. I am what us in recruiting call a "Golden Nugget". I had a 99 on the ASVAB, high school athlete, physically fit, active in school, etc. I took the highest and best program that my branch has to offer. When I made it to the training, I was with some of society's best. I am still with some of society's best.

What am I getting at? Kids today are just like me in some ways. 95% of the kids like me are not going to join because their parents have indoctrinated them into believing that the only thing that will advance them in life is college. IT happens, we will not get into how college may or may not prepare you or your life. People are wanting more people from my demographic to join, but they do not want to give the incentives that will make people like me join. I joined because I needed discipline first and foremost, college opportunities, and a host of other things.

So the woman's decision on how to make more people like me to join is the Draft. She said explicitly that the draft is the only way to go. So, the republican party does not want a draft, the extreme left wing wants a draft to get back at the "oil executives" and the rich.

What can we do to get the brightest to join the enlisted ranks? Force the military to only pick up officers from the enlisted ranks and the Service Academies. That is one way. Not the best way by far, but it would work. Make ROTC units only have prior service people in them. Do not allow the ROTC to give scholarships to HS seniors. They do not deserve it. They deserve to go to Boot Camp. If you look at a cadet from the Academy and an ROTC grad from say, Texas A&M (no offense damn aggies) there is a TON of difference in the way that they walk, talk, act etc. An Academy grad could come out and be a CEO of a company within a couple of years. The ROTC punk needs to be taught the ropes when they get to their command.

I wonder how much the military spends on ROTC units?

Wow that rant did not go down the same line I thought it would...

Militantpundit posted @ 10:01 PM

|| Permanent Link || Comments (3)

Ok, maybe I went a little over the top talking about ROTC v. academy issue. (I am sorry I did not really intend on calling someone an ROTC punk, my apologies)I know that alot of the officers that I know are usually good people all around. You are both right. It is not the quality of teaching at the university level, but the quality of unit when you get to the field. As for the Aggie Comment, I was thinking of one particular person when I said Aggies. Do not let that get in the way of the topic.

That being said, you guys are missing the point of the post. My point is that the HS senior that has everything going for him is not thinking military as their first option. How do you get that kid to think military as his first option? Hell, even second option?

Armynuseboy, congrats. You are actually doing the program that I shot for when I came into my branch. secondly, do not call me SGT. You do not know me from the guy next door to you. I might be LTC, I might be Chief, and I might be Captain. So please do not try to talk down to me by calling me a title. We are all friends and equals here.

So tell me this. How much cash do we spend sending greenhorn officers through universities like Harvard and other Ivy League Schools? How many of them retain their commission after their first contract? Is it worth it? And calling it inbreeding sending enlisted guys through the officer pipeline is showing some colors that I do not particlarly agree with. There is nothing that could be further from the truth.

The ROTC programs have a cutoff of 27 years old. If I put a kid in tomorrow at 18 years old, he would have until he is 22 years old (basically) to catch an ROTC scholarship. So his first enlistment is not enough to be considered inbred or indoctrinated. We all come from different avenues and areas of the country. If we put quality people in the enlisted ranks, you do not have to "scrape the barrel" (if you will) for those quality, officer worthy, soldiers/ sailors/ airmen/ marines. The reason that many people are scared of the idea is that it makes you perform right out of the gate. IF you do not perform as an enlisted, you are SOL and you do not get your shot at the "good life".

Guy said "The one area I would make an exception for is the "Mustangs", I can not recall having met or served with any who were anything less then outstanding." Why should we accept anything less than the best from our officer corps? If a Mustang can do the job better because he already knows how to be a follower, a good worker, and has already shown his worth to the military before his acceptance to fooicer world, why in the world are we bringing in people who have only been screened based on their High School life (and who Daddy/Mommy is in some cases). Why not screen them for the best programs that the enlisted community has to offer and use those programs as a springboard to the officer community?

To me, this is not an officer/ enlisted thing. Smart kids and smart parents only want the best thing for their kids. To most, including me, think that the Officer World is much better at making better people coming out of the military.

So, the question still stands. How do we get that 18 year old kid who has "everything" to join the military?

Posted by Militantpundit @ 4:19 PM, May 25, 2005

ArmyNurseboy,

do you have a blog? Your profile does not send me to a blog. Fire a link to me and I will put you on my milblog list.

Good comments

Posted by Militantpundit @ 7:02 PM, May 25, 2005

Very interesting debate you started. I have to say that I am probably even more radical than what you posted in your "rant".

I won't take up too much space...but I think that a single tier commmand structure is truely the only logical choice. With it comes the understanding of the job behind and a head of everyone. If a platoon sgt has to teach a cherry lt the ropes...why doesn't the platoon sgt just do the job. And then promote him to officer so he can learn the details at company level. This two tier system is a perverse hold over from the days of the haves leading the have nots. It's time to move on...we are no longer beholden to the feudal systems that lead to the modern regimental system. We can leave them behind now.

ROTC programs and service academies are just more of the same. The vast majority of college graduates are just as lost at 22 as a 2nd LT is. They have degrees because that is what you do...not because of some drive. And the current programs show the diacotomies inherent in the system. The focus is on curriculums other than war...where the highest GPA gets to pick their branch...instead of the course of study determining that. Can you imagine getting a BS in Infantry Operations?

In general I think it is time for major reform in the area of the militaries rank can command structure. It is time to take the next evolutionary step and create a single tier system inside a truely professional military structure.

CL

P.S. As far as the topic of recruiting is concerned...your guess is as good as mine. I need more data...I joined because I wanted to belong to something bigger than myself. I wanted to be a warrior. That's a rarity I believe. There are just too many reason why people join or not join...to many fronts to that battle.

Posted by Unknown @ 1:38 PM, May 26, 2005