The Associated Press
U.S. soldiers in Iraq keep an eye out for the enemy.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 43 weeks 1 day ago
The Army lowers standards to meet recruiting goals
It's getting harder and harder for the Army to meet its recruiting goals. Increasingly, the military is accepting recruits without a high school diploma -- or who don't meet old standards on competency tests.
How will recruiting problems affect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How will the Army be affected?
Thoughts
The lowered standards of todays military...
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by AnonymousI find it offensive that people are talking about how the military standards are lowered and they say maybe thats the problem! My husband is a U.S. soldier today and I belive that even if he doesn't have a high school diploma doesn't mean he can't do his job.Our soldiers are fighting for the people back home, so maybe you should have a little more respect!
Re: Skill sets
Submitted on January 26th, 2008 by Joel"Would you agree that the compassion shown and effort extended during the Berlin airlift won over many a German?? "
I would, in fact. No disagreement there.
But I hope that we can judge today's Army honestly without turning it into a referendum on those who served honorably and nobly in the past. And there's got to be a way to acknowledge that the vast majority of our servicemen and women serve honorably and nobly today while still providing necessary critiques.
Skill sets
Submitted on January 26th, 2008 by MidwesternerJoel, I do not in any way disagree with your observations. Yet, perceptions in the minds of older vets are their realities.
For example, the skill sets you comment on is not an apples and oranges situaton since combat GI's in WWII were very much involved in winning over the hearts and minds of Europeans, Germans included. Would you agree that the compassion shown and effort extended during the Berlin airlift won over many a German?? So GI's had and used all the same skills back then as they are called upon to use today and in both cases, some soldiers (people like us) are good with people skills, and others are not.
The difference between today's and yesterday's soldier, if you dig into the literature at the Army War College and AUSA would seem to be in the killing technology one, and two that the Army places more emphasis on teaching political-people skills than it did in the past. Or, at least it puts more of a spotlight on that part of its training program.
Army recruiting standards
Submitted on January 26th, 2008 by JoelMidwesterner, your point is taken, but I think it's worth making a couple of distinctions:
* The military, during the time you speak of, was largely staffed by the draft. Thus the regular soldiers were a cross-section of (white) America -- people of all kinds of backgrounds and intelligence levels. In other words: The Army basically picked the people from society it thought could do the job. Nowadays, with an all-volunteer military, the Army has to take (by and large) the people who choose to come into the Army. So to talk about lowering standards today in now way reflects on the earlier generation of soldiers. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison.
* The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different from WW II or Korea. Those were "see the hill, take the hill" type wars. Iraq, a counterinsurgency, is "see the people, convince them to take your side." The set of skills needed to succeed, therefore, are very different, and more multifaceted. Again, apples and oranges.
Army recruiting standards
Submitted on January 26th, 2008 by MidwesternerThis discussion raises a few eyebrows among the remaining WWII vets, veterans of Korea and later service. Were they 'low standard' soldiers??
Obviously, the answer is 'no', particularly for the WWII vets who saved the country and more.
But the discussion tends to insult soldiers of earlier service era's.