Here's a guest blog from Sgt. Joe Duran.
A few years ago, I walked away from a comfortable job to fulfill a personal obligation to serve my country. It was also a family tradition as my father, grandfather, and uncles had served in every branch of the military. But I was running out of time. Had it not been for an age waiver granted to me by the Marine Corps, I would’ve come close to missing my chance. But that was then. According to the changes made by Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, David Chu, the age limits have been raised. A 42 year old can now, with an age waiver, enter the service as a soldier. We are healthier and living longer he says. Over the weekend I thought about how I felt about this change, and I’ve decided it depends on whether I see it as a Marine, a Citizen, or my father’s son.
If You Can’t Meet the Goal, Lower the Goal
As a Marine, I wish the Army recruiters well. They had missed their goals last year, recruiting almost 7,000 below their target. So it is understandable that in addition to beefing up their recruiting and referral incentives, hiring a new add agency, and lowering their recruiting goal by 8,000, the Army made their target this year by relaxing their age standards as well. But as stated in the excellent blog by Steven Urbanski, “With recruiters struggling to meet enlistment goals, the recruiters have begun looking the other way.” Now they won’t have to. Along with the acceptance of an older generation of men and women, the Army has to accept their past. According to the Army’s own numbers, waivers concerning prior misdemeanor criminal offenses, drug or alcohol issues or medical problems have been required by 15.5 percent of recruits compared with 12 percent for 2004 and 2003. Last year, when they did not meet their goal, they were at 15 percent.
In addition to the relaxation of age, medical, and criminal standards for recruits, the Army has also relaxed their testing standards, signing up those who score below 30 out of 99 on their aptitude test. The acceptance rate was 2%. Now it is 4%. In an article by the Wall Street Journal, Army General Rochelle said, “I am confident we will not be above the DoD goal of 4%. My advice to the General if it doesn’t pan out: If you can’t meet the goal, lower the goal.
Support the Troops, Join the Army
As a citizen, I remember the pride I felt putting the new Marine Corps Sticker on the bottom left corner of my rear window. With the lowering of the age standard, according to the Army's estimates, 22.6 million men and women will have the chance to feel the same pride and lend a hand. Now, instead of supporting the troops with a yellow ribbon on their car, they can drive their car down to the recruiting station and play an integral part in the foreign policy they are responsible for. That is honor, courage, and commitment. But since the lowering of the age standard, the Army has recruited only 5 soldiers aged 40 and over, and 324 people aged 35 and older since June. Maybe the word hasn’t gotten out yet. But, regardless of whether or not we get 22.6 million new recruits or a thousand, my hats are off to them for the sacrifice they make on behalf of others.
Not My Dad
But as a son, my perspective changes and the change in policy gets a little more difficult to accept. It is heartbreaking to watch the faces of the war dead as I read their names and see their relatively young ages on the roll call of those killed in action. I think of the ultimate sacrifice they and their mothers and fathers have made and the future they will no longer share. Today, as I spoke to my father about this subject and about the time he spent in the Army, I also thought of the change in policy and how we are slowly adding another generation to the rolls of those who may someday not come home to make up for someone elses misjudgments. Although it is happening now with the older reservist pulling more than their share of the load overseas, and dying, it is still hard to imagine a young 20 or 30 something losing a parent. Especially if that parent is yours. So this new standard change, like most policies, is okay as long is it doesn’t affect me. Right? Wrong! Now we have possibly 22.6 million more men and women, to serve proudly, as best they can, and hopefully come home too. Somehow, as a son, it doesn’t comfort me.
It's a shame they are lowering the standards, but who else is going to fight - the priviledged? In a time of war, when billions are given in tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of this country, it would be absurd to ask their children to serve. Better a patriotic 42 year old man than Paris Hilton or the other trust fund babies. GWB and his kids included. It's because them and other like them do not raise their hands to help that we have to dip into the 40 somethings. Thats just pathetic. I think Israel and their mandatory military service is something to think about, or God forbid, quit getting entangled in these wars of choice. Now that's a thought.
Posted by: Stephen at August 12, 2006 06:48 PMwhen i joined the service, i needed a waiver to get in because I had been in a fair amount of trouble. my family situation was bleak and i found my family in the military.
thank God i did.
i was blessed.
i hope there are other kids fortunate enough to get a break and find their family here.
turn your nose up if you like.
Posted by: evolo at August 12, 2006 08:28 PMHats off to you brother. I'm glad I joined and what the army does is there business. The age limit has been 27 for the USMC and AF for sometime now. But I bet it would be easier for the army to recruit if we didn't seem to be pulled to and fro by "suits" that think they know what they are doing...that talk tough, but then pull back when the going gets tough...its all politics and it stinks sometimes..but what you gonna do?
Posted by: PatrickHenry at August 14, 2006 08:45 AMI don't know how well I'll sleep knowing "grandpa" is on the gate tonight. Don't get me wrong, I went to boot camp with a guy that was 30yrs old and could run us young bucks into the ground. If these gents can do the same work and carry the same pack as their younger counterparts, then by all means sign them up, but don't just hand gramps a rifle just to make a quota.
Posted by: Rob at August 14, 2006 03:47 PMHey Rob, I'll have you know this "gramps" ran his 6 miler today. But thanks for the comments. I agree with you about the quota. Maybe we can look at why we aren't meeting the quota. I do appreciate you younger guys support during bootcamp and beyond. Anyone who makes it in should be welcomed as "family", but I'm not so sure I agree with them lowering the PT standards at basic to help them pass. It lowers the quality of the force.
Posted by: Joe at August 14, 2006 04:49 PMI don't agree with Rob. I think that the Army will do just fine if they "Change" the standards. Those standards are outdated and need to be changed to reflect modern reality. We need more bodies. Plain and simple. With technology today, they don't need to be as nimble as they did in the past. Even the Dept of Defense admits that the battles of today are easier when they say that no Medal Of Honors are given, only Navy Crosses: because the warfare is different and not as intense as Vietnam, etc.
Posted by: MARTY USARMY at August 14, 2006 06:03 PMJoe, my ex-husband is in the military and although he is right within the age standards, I bet there will be alot of pissed off wives e to who used to be able to count on the age limit to keep sense in their husbands, but now have to let go of a man that really has no business, although their hearts, are in the rigt place, but their bodies might not have the get up and go to bring them back home to their families. Thanks for bringing up the family part.
Posted by: Nici at August 14, 2006 10:37 PMJoe is a stud! He runs 6 miles a day! That's awesome! Nici brings up a very good point. Age is simply a number...quality over quantity...we all know this :>
Posted by: Joni at August 15, 2006 01:48 AMIt is said that with age comes wisdom. If that is so then having these older more mature people join the ranks of our Troops should help. My best friend was ten years older then me when he joined the Corps. Had it not been for his guidance at times of need i may have acted crazier and loss rank, my freedom,my life or cost someone else their life. Bring on the older people, allow them to share there wisdom and be something like a 'Older Brother/Sister" to us young pups.
Posted by: IGGYMON at August 15, 2006 07:07 AMNici, Thank you for reminding us of the sacrifices so many families make. We often forget to honor the loved ones of our soldiers and recognize all that they do.
There seem to be a lot of factors at issue here, but I believe drive, determination, and a willingness to help your country are far more significant than a number of years. We are living longer and healthier lives, and that enables people the chance to make life-changing decisions later in life. We should provide them this opportunity by allowing them to serve at older ages.
Posted by: Jenn at August 15, 2006 10:49 AMI THINK IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS FOR A 42 YEAR OLD TO JOIN ANY SERVICE AT THAT AGE. FIRST OF ALL, IMAGINE YOURSELF AT 42 YEARS OF AGE, GOING TO WORK EVERY DAY, AND HAVING A 19 YEAR OLD AS YOUR BOSS!! THEN YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THE PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF THE MILITARY.....NOT SAYING THAT 42 YEAR OLD MEN/WOMEN ARE NOT IN GOOD SHAPE, BUT I WOULD NOT ADVISE THEM GOING ON 13 MILE HUMPS W/ PACKS ON THEIR BACKS, OR RUNNING 3-5 MILES 3 TIMES A WEEK. IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE AN ALL AROUND BAD IDEA TO ME.
Posted by: BGARD at August 15, 2006 10:58 AMThanks Jenn. That was very well put and hopefully the servicemembers that read this get a sense that folks are grateful for our service, regardless of age.
Posted by: Joe at August 15, 2006 11:03 AMLower the standards, Hell no. Young able body men win wars and have done so since the country's first conflicts. If a 40 something can swallow his or her pride and meet the standards then hell yeah allow them in but make them live up to the standards like any other entry level Marine or Soldier. The problem arises, however when that 40 something cant take orders from a 22 year old, they say they are more advanced so they dont think they have to fall in to the normal pecking order. It gets complicated when rank and age conflict, thats all I've got to say.
Posted by: Big Ed at August 15, 2006 11:31 AMTHESE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP.
"These older recruits must pass the same physical standards and medical examination as younger ones"
-Julia Bobick, an Army Recruiting Command spokeswoman
But,
According to USAToday's August 1, 2006,
"To accommodate the older soldiers, the Army has lowered the minimum physical requirements needed to pass basic training."
According to the army these are the minimum physical requirements for recruits at the Army's age extremes:
Men
17: 47 sit-ups/35 push-ups/16:36 (2 miles)
41: 29 sit-ups/24 push-ups/19:30 (2 miles)
Women
17: 47 sit-ups/13 push-ups/19:42(2 miles)
41: 29 sit-ups/6 push-ups/24:06 (2 miles)
Source: U.S. Army
Good article Joe. Question for you - is the military only looking to recruit more combat soldiers, or does it also focus on more specialized professionals who might contribute in other ways? I'm not too familiar with the process and for all I know these programs are already be in place, but it seems to me that the military is becoming more and more high tech and less reliant on large, traditional infantry these days, so I wonder if they would have more recruiting success by expanding their focus to those with different skills. For example, if a nerdy programmer who can't carry 50 pounds of hardware and exchange bullets with insurgents wants to enlist for a few years to work solely as an army programmer, shouldn't the army have some sort of program to take advantage of his or her abilities? I'm sure this is true for many older people who are accountants, lawyers, programmers, managers, etc.
Posted by: mlueders at August 15, 2006 03:20 PMI personally think that if they want the elder statesmen to join up. Go for it!!!! Just because they are in the Army does not mean their physical ability is in question. Can anyone say desk jobs and tech fields. Some of these "older" people bring skills from previous fields that can be useful to our Nations military.
PS. I run 7 miles a day:-)
Joe thanks for help w/ the website
Posted by: Spinners at August 15, 2006 03:30 PMGood article, as well as the comments from the readers. I have to respond to "mlueders". Marine 101: Every Marine, A Rifleman. If a rear base/camp is over ran or surprisely attacked by the enemy, to include taking out the security, shouldn't the service members within the base/camp (programmers, cooks, etc...) at least know how to protect all the top secret materail, equipment (not to mention that the nerd will have to be strong enough to carry certain gear/equipment) that's worth millions or at least defend themselves...? I can go on and on explaining the differences between the Marines and other services, but that one point should be suffice. Personally, if a person is mentally and physically fit then allow them to enlist. The education comes as to which service the person can maintain that particular service standards. Would you put a nerdy programmer on a ship if he/she didn't know how to swim? A reminder, Service Members sole purpose is to defend the United States of America at all costs. I didn't join the Marines for money, to get educated, or for a retirement plan. Those things will come after I've sacrificed my sole purpose.
Posted by: The Other Joe at August 15, 2006 05:08 PMGreat dialogue here. And great comments from everyone. One thing I wanted to mention in response to mleuders good point/question. I do notice that there are more contractors serving and I think that maybe the best niche for the people mlueders describes. NMCI is one such group that helps us with our computers. They didn't go to bootcamp, will never hold a weapon, but they do provide a valuable service.
But every Marine is a Rifleman, as Joe says, not a Contractor. We have to hold to that core value, especially now when many of our casualties are non-grunt (infantry) personnel. I suspect that as our wars become more contracted and open-ended, we may resort to creative ways to beef up the force and provide a way for more citizens to serve. But if our recruiters are selling our armed services as an elite fighting force, the few, the proud...etc.etc. then that is what they should be. We should not say one thing, but deliver another and in an era of declining standards and lowered bars, this is one area in which we should never waver.
Posted by: Joe at August 15, 2006 06:11 PMI think what ties the sentiments of this post with Flavia's editorial on Cheney's seasonal terror invocations and the current state of political discourse, our environment, emission standards, what we allow in Darfur, Guantanamo, our public schools, and in our own personal lives (see the excellent blog on The Memory Keeper's Daughter) is this sense of a universal lowering of standards, and the fight against this. This speaking out by the commenters and bloggers is an important step in regaining the standard. We know there is something more, we deserve more, we want more, and yet we settle for much less than what we were meant for. Shakespeare called this desire the "immortal longing", and although he meant it as a desire that many times is not fulfilled, it is the act of striving that is our spirit, our soul, in action. Standards take many forms, and they are meant to challenge us as well as set boundaries. Do we give in, and give up our "immortal longing", or do we continue to try and make our world a place our souls can prosper? That is the question. Flavia, and the rest of the bloggers, are attempting to ask this question, and hoping to find an answer. Thanks.
Posted by: drake at August 15, 2006 07:47 PMI think Big Ed has it wrong, anyone can do it!
Posted by: Randi at August 16, 2006 01:41 PMI think the army should focus their efforts at recuiting more individuals under 25 and in the prime of their life. Most people take avantage of sports and athletics in high school and college, but people in real world don't exercise regularly. Granted, certain people around 40 work out daily, but on average that is not the case. Lowering the standards in order to accept people whose bodies are not in shape from 10 years of sitting behind a desk is unacceptable.
Posted by: Matthew at August 16, 2006 03:56 PMI don't believe you should lower the bar just to meet a quota, but if older men and women can meet the physical and mental standards then they should be allowed to join.
Posted by: Steve at August 16, 2006 04:36 PMSorry BigEd you were right, I am just a creation of Joe's
Posted by: Randi at August 17, 2006 11:00 AMI believe that when looking at potential recruits, age should not be nearly as big of an issue as motivation and determination. In order for most 40+ year olds to join, they would have to put a LOT of effort into maintaining the physical requirements. I believe that any man or woman that has the desire and determination to serve their country, regardless of age, deserves our support.
I don't, however, support the lowering of other standards. I would rather recruit 5000 good men and women that pass the aptitude test and have clean pasts than 10000 recruits that can't pass the test, and are potentially criminals.
Posted by: Henry at August 17, 2006 11:10 AMThere's increased demand for (tech-savvy) soldiers, so increasing pay would be a good way to draw in some more good folks.
Crazy concept, huh?
Posted by: Alfred Marshall at August 17, 2006 04:46 PMThe Army has announced that they have met their active duty recruiting goals 14 months straight, so how does the Daily News justify publishing this bilge. And on top, this Sgt. Joe Duran mouths all the talking points of the looney left. I tried to enlist, but the Roid Rage Grannies had taken the Recruiters hostage as they baricadded themselves in the Recruiting Center. If you want me to enlist, you got to Iraq and be a human shield for peace. Funny how the left only went to Iraq and did that for Saddam. They won't got stand with Iraqis in a marketplace, employment line or a mosque to be a human shield. They won't do it for the Iraqi children in a school or school bus either. I seriously wonder if Sgt. Joe Duran is to Iraq what Al Hubbard was to Vietman.
Posted by: Guy WIth A Lamp Looking For at August 17, 2006 05:22 PMAlfred, that is a great point. Instead of cutting bennies, increasing buy in amounts for the GI Bill, and other little cost savers, maybe they ought to look into going the other direction. With a background in sales and personnel management myself I know of the pressure the recruiters face. But to lower a goal or a standard ultimately results in bad back-end numbers and a lower quality product. Better to actually beef up the offer and refine the techniques of persuasion than to take the easy way out of lowering the goal and the standards that accompany that goal. Just a thought. Any other thoughts out there, please share. It's all about the improvement of the force. God forbid we have a draft. As Stephen said, "Better a patriotic 42 year old man than Paris Hilton or the other trust fund babies." A higher quality recruit will only help us.
Posted by: Joe at August 17, 2006 11:14 PMI think its pathetic that the Army is relaxing their age standards. I grieve everytime i see the death of a reservist or national guardsman who is in their 30's or 40's and think of the family they left behind to fend for themselves. You don't see the Bush or Cheyney children serving.
Posted by: Dave at August 19, 2006 09:06 AMWell, I'm bisexual, and I can't serve because I am dating a man.
I want to serve. It's the best career opportunity when economic times get bad.
The Army could fetch at least an extra 1,000 men per month if the military eliminated such a stupid policy. Britain did it--and their military force did not implode.
It's not like you can go to your CO and ask to be shipped back because you discovered that the Army is now letting a very small minority population into service. Gays seem to be able to hold high-paying jobs and command large salaries, but for some reason they are still deemed unable to defend our country.
Posted by: Annoyed Citizen at August 19, 2006 09:20 AMRaising the age requirement is a great idea. The ARMY isn't looking for convicts, dead-beat dads, or vagabonds. They opened the door for guys like me who have always wanted to enlist, but family commitments and a successful career superseded the calling. Nevertheless, the calling never wavered and I'm eager to do what I can to help. (Even if it means taking orders from a 22-year-old) At the age of 41, I've put my kids into college and I'm now considering a transition to the military from a 20 year law enforcement career. I know that sounds crazy, but a calling is a calling and trying to deny the call to serve is what sounds crazy to me. I don't like the idea of relaxing the physical standards. Frankly, it doesn't matter if it was 10 or 50 pushups...I'm in the best shape of my life. I just find it hard to believe that if I came across some 20 somethings in the fight of their lives, that they wouldn't want my help just because I have a little gray hair.
Posted by: Ray at August 19, 2006 10:43 AMTo annoyed citizen,
Flavia mentions some startling statistics in her excellently written and well thought out editorial on disallowing service to people based on anything other than relevant qualifications.
From Flavia Colgan's January 16, 2006 editorial
"Where are the Translators?"
The answer: don't ask.
"Pentagon numbers reveal that between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic linguists and six Farsi translators for violating the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality.
Fifty language experts have been discharged overall since the policy was instituted. (And nearly 10,000 troops overall have been booted from the military under the same policy.) We should be bringing more qualified people into the military, not kicking them out for trivial reasons."
You'll find the rest of her article on this site. I suggest ya'll check it out.
Thank you Ray, I appreciate your desire to answer the call, even after a few rings. My advice to those with a "little gray" is to talk it over with your families, and get them behind you, as family support is absolutely crucial to the force. Then get yourself into fighting shape. Although the official physical requirements may be lower to help meet a number doesn't mean you have to lower your own personal standards. It will only help yourself and your unit accomplish the mission and get you back home safe to your families.
Posted by: Joe at August 19, 2006 02:15 PMI've always thought that various "age" requirements often have had a tendency to "throw the baby out with the bath water." If an individual of any sex, of any age, of any background meets or exceeds the physical and intellectual qualifications to SERVE one's country--Amen.
Posted by: Jay at August 21, 2006 07:02 PMIts not like a job at Wal Mart, its someones life. Lower standards for warriors - NO WAY!
Posted by: Kap at August 23, 2006 02:44 PMI agree with Joe Duran regarding some of his comments above; it all depends on how you look at this (from what perspective). It is a touchy subject that was discussed for years throughout Recruiting Offices nation wide. With the War on Terror going full steam ahead, all branches have had low numbers. I have several co-workers and friends that have been on Recruiting Duty or are still on... and the consensus is that it's a struggle to make ends meet. Most of them feel (as well as myself) that the Army's new perspective could be a good idea. As long as the men and women can do all of the physical training, and we keep all of the testing, training, and schooling the same... they should be able to come in and serve as well as the rest of us that are younger. Bottom line for the Corps is MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT. Bodies are needed, and if America's youth isn't willing to come in and serve- then maybe we need to look at this as a good option. It has proven successful for the Army... it should/could work for all Branches.
Posted by: Natalie Jones at August 23, 2006 04:09 PMSO you're for raising the age maximum but not lowering the physical/mental/moral standards to meet a number?
Posted by: VoiceofReason at August 23, 2006 04:20 PMVoice of Reason, it might be appropriate to really think about that question... why would I be for lowering the physical, mental, and moral standards? That is ridiculous! If there is a 35, 36, 40, 50, etc. year old male that is capable of doing everything that a 18 year old Male can do; then why shouldn't they get to serve? Lowering standards such as the ones you listed would not only permanently damage the Armed Forces, it would mean that we would be sending men and women into battle that are basically worthless. Standards for entering the Corps are close to perfect the way they are. You have to be at a certain level of physical fitness, a High School Graduate, no felony record, able to pass the B.S.T.... so if someone that is 40 years old can do all of that (most that dare to attempt it at that age can do it better than an 18 year old I would imagine)... why shouldn't they be granted the opportunity to serve? I am for raising the age limit.... I think it has proven to be successful for one branch. Numbers are low, and we need bodies. If you could offer a better, more effective way of doing so... please feel free to enlighten me. So far, this is the best option.
Posted by: Natalie Jones at August 24, 2006 11:04 AMMs Jones, this is what bugs me:
Men
17: 47 sit-ups/35 push-ups/16:36 (2 miles)
41: 29 sit-ups/24 push-ups/19:30 (2 miles)
Women
17: 47 sit-ups/13 push-ups/19:42(2 miles)
41: 29 sit-ups/6 push-ups/24:06 (2 miles)
If this isn't lowering the standards, than what is??
Source: U.S. Army
I can't comment on the Army's standards of physical fitness, but I will attempt to explain something to you. Those standards may seem low to you, but the Average High School student wouldn't be able to do all of those. You are reading numbers on paper and thinking that it seems slow or weak, but in reality that is rather difficult for the average 17 year old to do. When I came in at 19, it was tough for me to push out 60 sit-ups in two minutes and hang from a bar for 30 seconds... and I have always been in above average shape for my age, etc. I agree with you, it looks low to you and many others on paper. In reality, it is difficult to find men and women who can do it. Many men and women have to wait to actually Enlist because they can't pass it initially (at least in the Corps). They have to make their height and weight, pass a 1.5 mile run, do pull-ups/flexed arm hang, and crunches. I would be willing to ask the local recruiters up here how many non qualified (physical) applicants they have walk through in one week, just to reconfirm how difficult it really is. When we put people in the service, they are not expected to be ELITE men and women. They are expected to be average. As the Corps puts it, "We break them down and build them back up the way we want them." That's the point of Boot Camp and Marine Combat Training, etc.... it builds physical fitness and toughness. You can't expect everyone that walks through the door to be a physical hard ass (for lack of a better term). It's a starting point. If they fail to hack the training in Boot Camp... that's when they get canned. But you have to open the door and let them try to rise to the occasion. If we failed to do that and raised the standards even high- we would need to start putting steriods in the water and expect everyone who Enlists to be of Olympic calibur.
Posted by: Natalie Jones at August 24, 2006 05:51 PMGood points, so what you are saying is the Army is taking the older bodies capabilities into account (pre-bootcamp) which is still an okay standard, with the hopes of raising thier abilities? Okay. What happens when the older person bodies break down to this building up and maintenance phase. Aren't we just creating another sick call commando?? Is this really an answer, or will it make it more difficult to accomplish the mission in the long run. The great Chris Farley once said, "You can stick a warranty on a peice of Sh*&, but it is still a peice of Sh!#." In other words, you can let someone in becaused they "passed", but you are still left with a liability when they break down, and they will break down. Is the fleid of battle really where we want to see that happen?? Even the servicemen who posted above say war is a young man's game.
Posted by: VoiceofReason at August 24, 2006 07:08 PMThat is pretty close to what I am trying to say. You have to take certain factors into account. Keep in mind, the mass majority of males and females that get shipped to boot camp (Marine Corps) don't make it through. A handful that do are "sick call commandos". Like I stated above, you can't expect everyone to be a warrior... there are going to be weak links. That's the nature of the beast. You think it's a great idea to send an 18 year old into battle? Who is more likely to break down in a time that requires steady thinking and rationality... a 18 year old out of High School or a grown man that has expirienced several stressful situations in life and triumphed? Who stress threshold is higher? I'm not a betting woman, but I would place my chips on the 40 year old that is a little less lean! I'm not sure if you have served or not... but most of the time (younger Marines) get really motivated and inspired by the "crusty" old Gunnery Sergeants, Master Sergeants, First Sergeants, Sergeant Majors, Warrant Officers, Majors, etc. We get inspired by their wisdom, knowledge, and ability to lead. The most influential Marines that I have met are almost all over 35 years old. The most hard core, gung-ho, badass Marines I have met are over 35 years old. You have to consider this, if a 40 year old has the guts to walk into any recruiting office and sign a contract to train with kids half their age and go through temporary hell to serve their country at such an old age.... they have to be someone with intense personal strength and will. In battle, that's what wins firefights. True or false? Some of the young gents above may think that war is a young man's game... but in the end- it's all about what kind of man you are (not how old you are).
Posted by: Natalie Jones at August 25, 2006 02:41 PMDamnthatssomegoodstuffjones!!!
Posted by: billy at August 25, 2006 03:57 PMYou have to consider this, if a 40 year old has the guts to walk into any recruiting office and sign a contract to train with kids half their age and go through temporary hell to serve their country at such an old age.... they have to be someone with intense personal strength and will. In battle, that's what wins firefights. True or false? Some of the young gents above may think that war is a young man's game... but in the end- it's all about what kind of man you are (not how old you are).
Excellent points! You may just have a career as a talking head one day!
It's a hobby... a quiet passion. Believe it or not, I keep my political beliefs to myself and occasionally I voice my opinion if someone invites me to do so. Glad you liked my points, yours were well thought out also (and valid).
Posted by: Natalie Jones at August 28, 2006 12:01 PMI still think it's a young man's game. 42 is too old!!!
Posted by: zanecoran at August 28, 2006 03:38 PMGunny Mares, a great Marine and eloquent commenter here sent me this today...nothing wrong with a little inter-service rivalry. Enjoy and Semper Fi!
An insight to the anachronistic Marine
Ask a Marine whats so special about the Marines and the answer would be Esprit de Corps, an unhelpful French phrase that means exactly what it looks like the spirit of the Corps, but what is that spirit, and where does it come from?
The Marine Corps is the only branch of the U. S. Armed Forces that recruits people specifically to fight.
The Army emphasizes personal development (an Army of One), the Navy promises fun (let the journey begin), the Air Force offers security (its a great way of life).
Missing from all the advertisements is the hard fact a soldiers lot is to suffer and perhaps to die for his people, and take lives at the risk of his/her own. Even the thematic music of the services reflects this evasion.
The Armys Caisson Song describes a pleasant country outing. Over hill and dale, lacking only a picnic basket.
Anchors Aweigh, the Navys celebration of the joys of sailing, could have been penned by Jimmy Buffet.
The Air Force song is a lyric poem of blue skies and engine thrust. All is joyful, invigorating and safe.
There are no land mines in the dales nor snipers behind the hills, no submarines or cruise missiles threaten the ocean jaunt, no bandits are lurking in the wild blue yonder.
The Marines Hymn, by contrast is all combat. We fight for right and freedom, we have fought in every clime and place where we could take a gun, in many a strife we have fought for life and never lost our nerve.
The choice is made clear. You may join the Army to go to adventure training, or join the Navy to go to Bangkok, or join the Air Force to go to computer school.
You join the Marine Corps to go to war!
But the mere act of signing the enlistment contract confers no status in the Corps.
The Army recruit is told from his first minute in uniform that your in the Army now, soldier. The Navy and Air Force enlistees are sailors and airmen as soon as they get off the bus at the training center.
The new arrival at Marine Corps boot camp is called a recruit, or worse, but never a MARINE. Not yet, maybe never. He or she must earn the right to claim the title of UNITED STATES MARINE, and failure returns you to civilian life without hesitation or ceremony.
Recruit Platoon 2210 at San Diego, California trained from October through December of 1968. In Viet Nam the Marines were taking two hundred casualties a week, and the major rainy season operation Meade River had not even begun. Yet Drill Instructors had no qualms about winnowing out almost a quarter of their 112 recruits graduating eighty-one. Note that this was post enlistment attrition; every one of those who were dropped had been passed by the recruiters as fit for service.
But they failed the test of Boot Camp, and not necessarily for physical reasons; at least two were outstanding high school athletes for whom the calisthenics and running were childs play. The cause of their failure was not in the biceps, nor the legs, but in the spirit. They had lacked the will to endure the mental and emotional strain, so they would not be Marines. Heavy commitments and high casualties not withstanding, the Corps reserves the right to pick and choose.
History classes in boot camp? Stop a soldier on the street and ask him to name a battle of World War One. Pick a sailor at random to describe the epic fight of the Bon Homme Richard. Everyone has heard of McGuire Air Force Base. So ask any airman who Major Thomas McGuire was, and why he is so commemorated.
I am not carping, and there is no sneer in this criticism. All of the services have glorious traditions, but no one teaches the young soldier, sailor or airman what his uniform means and why he should be proud of it. But ask a Marine about World War One, and you will hear of the wheat field at Belleau Wood and the courage of the Fourth Marine Brigades, fifth and sixth regiments.
Faced with an enemy of superior numbers entrenched in tangled forest undergrowth, the Marines received an order to attack that even the charitable cannot call ill advised. It was insane. Artillery support was absent and air support had not yet been invented, so the Brigade charged German machine guns with only bayonets, grenades, and indomitable fighting spirit. A bandy legged little barrel of a gunnery sergeant, Daniel J. Daly, rallied his company with a shout, Come on you sons a bitches, do you want to live forever?
He took out three machine guns himself, and they gave him the Medal of Honor except for a technicality, he already had two of them. French liaison officers, hardened though they were by four years of trench bound slaughter, were shocked as the Marines charged across the open wheat field under a blazing sun directly into the teeth of enemy fire. Their action was anachronistic on the twentieth-century battlefield, so much so that they might as well have been swinging cutlasses.
But the enemy was only human, they could not stand up to this. So the Marines took Belleau Wood. The Germans called them Dogs from the Devil.
Every Marine knows this story and dozens more. We are taught them in boot camp as a regular part of the curriculum. Every Marine will always be taught them!
You can learn to don a gas mask anytime, even on the plane in route to the war zone, but before you can wear the Eagle, Globe & Anchor and claim the title you must know about the Marines who made that emblem and title meaningful. So long as you can march and shoot and revere the legacy of the Corps, you can take your place in line. And that line is unified spirit as in purpose.
A soldier wears branch of service insignia on his collar, metal shoulder pins and cloth sleeve patches to identify his unit. Sailors wear a rating badge that identifies what they for the Navy.
Marines wear only the Eagle, Globe & Anchor, together with personal ribbons and their CHERISHED marksmanship badges. There is nothing on a Marines Uniform to indicate what he or she does, nor what unit the Marine belongs to. You cannot tell by looking at a Marine whether you are seeing a truck driver, a computer programmer, or a machine gunner.
The Corps explains this as a security measure to conceal the identity and location of units, but the Marines penchant for publicity makes that the least likely of explanations. No, the Marine is amorphous, even anonymous, by conscious design.
Every Marine is a rifleman first and foremost, a Marine first, last and always! You may serve a four-year enlistment or even a twenty plus year career without seeing action, but if the word is given youll charge across that wheat field! Whether a Marine has been schooled in automated supply, automotive mechanics or aviation electronics, is immaterial.
Those things are secondary the Corps does them because it must. The modern battlefield requires technical appliances, and since the enemy has them, so do we, but no Marine boasts mastery of them. Our pride is in our marksmanship our discipline, and our membership in the fraternity of courage and sacrifice. For the honor of them fallen, for the glory of the dead Edger Guest wrote of Belleau Wood, the living line of courage kept the faith and moved ahead.
They are all gone now, those Marines who made a French farmers little wheat field into one of the most enduring of Marine Corps legends. Many of them did not survive the day, and eight long decades have claimed the rest. But their actions are immortal. The Corps remembers them and honors what they did, and so they live forever.
Dan Dalys shouted challenge takes on its true meaning if you lie in the trenches you may survive for now, but someday you will die and no one will care. If you charge the guns you may die in the next two minutes, but you will be one of the immortals.
All Marines die; some in the red flash of battle, some in the white cold of the nursing home, in the vigor of youth or the infirmity of age, all will eventually die. But the Marine Corps lives on. Every Marine who ever lived is living still in the Marines who claim the title today. It is that sense of belonging to something that will outlive your own mortality, which gives people a light to live by and a flame to mark their passing.
-Author unknown (but probably a Marine)
Joe has it right imho.
Posted by: Rob at September 10, 2006 11:40 AMSEMPER FI!!
Posted by: anonymousdevil dog at September 12, 2006 01:27 PM