Calling all elderly hawks!

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

All you old-timers who've been going on about how the war is such a splending idea, here's the chance you've been waiting for! They're raised the enlistment age for the National Guard and Army Reserve to 39. Go git 'em!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7962861

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, an Army spokeswoman, said the maximum enlistment age for the regular Army will remain 34. While congressional action was not needed to raise the age for the Guard and Reserve, Robbins said, Congress must approve any change for the active-duty force.

Added five years to the max did they?

Beats the heck out of lowering the age.......................Hitler youth - file under terrible alternatives.

dd74 · 03-22-2005, 09:12 AM

Obviously subscribing to the "Logan's Run" philosophy, eh? Instead of killing anyone over 30, just send 'em to Iraq.

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

Or how to solve the social security/baby boomers retirement issue and the Iraq war manpower at the same time...Now, THAT is a genius idea !

Aurel

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

This has got to be the most assinine move I've seen any branch of the Military pull. Beside the fact that some that old would have a rough time making it through any branch's Recruit Training, it just seems hard to fathom someone 38 years old taking orders from some 23 year old Sergeant.

I've never agreed with this in the past and still don't today. I think the Marine Corps is the smartest in this respect, with their age limit of 27 years old.

Randy

stomachmonkey · 03-22-2005, 10:03 AM

Actually it's not a bad idea.

My father did 20 years in the service, Korea and volunteered for Nam for the "combat pay".

They tried to activate him during the Gulf War.

Not that they wanted to send him over there, they wanted to use him stateside in an Admin or training capacity to free up a younger guy to go get shot at.

If you kept them to support/admin roles it could work nicely. You may just pick up some very capable people.

mikester · 03-22-2005, 10:20 AM

The did not lower the physical requirements according to the article.

Tim Hancock · 03-22-2005, 10:22 AM

After 9/11 I tried to get back into the Army Reserve (I think I was 36 at the time I inquired). I got a letter back which my wife opened (I did not tell her that I was looking at getting back in), needless to say I was read the riot act by my wife. The letter stated that I was too old, I had always thought the reserves was 36 and under? Oh well, if a guy wants in and he can meet the physical requirements, who cares?

tabs · 03-22-2005, 10:38 AM

Yep I can see it now the "Wheel Chair and Cane Division" .....

Tim Hancock · 03-22-2005, 10:47 AM

I am soon to turn 39 yet I can still pass the PT test that some 18 year old douche bags in basic training struggled to pass. That said, obviously the older you get the less likely you are to be in perfect shape. If someone has the urge to serve their country and is physically fit, why not?

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

In other news, all MRE's will now come standard with TUMS and Fixodent...

Tim Hancock · 03-22-2005, 10:58 AM

So Thom, basically the young soldiers are too trigger happy and the older ones are too old. Therefore the US should just not have a military anymore is that your point here? I would not want to be accused of misinterpreting where you are going with this!

gaijindabe · 03-22-2005, 11:13 AM

More than a few guys in their 40s getting blown up over there.. Sad.

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
My father did 20 years in the service, Korea and volunteered for Nam for the "combat pay".

I did 20 years, myself, and I can tell you, from personal experience, the last thing a "younger" leader needs is an older and "self-proclaimed" wiser individual who has a hard time dealing with younger authority. It's just not a good mix.

There IS more than just a physical reason why people are recruited at a young age. Some folks here, I sure, would call it brainwashing, but it's actually the same in ANY industry. You get people while they're young, before they become set in their ways, and are still able to learn.

Randy

Tim Hancock · 03-22-2005, 11:27 AM

I hear what you are saying Randy, but I do not think too many 39 yr olds will being willing to sacrifice their way of life to rush off to basic training so they can make soon be bringing home E-2 or E-3 pay. I only see guys who feel strongly about serving their country actually doing this. There are no financial incentives for most 39 yr olds.

This may get some past reservists with experience back in (which I argue would be a positive thing), but I doubt there will be many "newbie" 39 year olds flooding the recruiting offices.

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

Tim,

Raising the age limit in this particular instance really has nothing to do with enticing prior-service soldiers back in to the Guard.

"Raising the maximum age for non-prior service enlistment expands the recruiting pool, provides motivated individuals an opportunity to serve, and strengthens the readiness of Reserve units," the Army said in a statement.

This article also states that the Army values these people for their maturity and patriotism. Well, the patriotism I'm not going to question. the maturity, on the other hand, is a big question in MY mind.

I think you would be hard pressed to find many of those newly eligible 22 million 35 - 39 year olds who wouldn't be leaving behind families and careers to enlist. Typically, somone at that age, with no obligations holding them back, are problem lacking in the 'maturity" that the Army is looking for.

That's not to say you wouldn't find them, just that they would be too few and way too far between for this to really have much of an affect.

Randy

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

They were happy to let me recently join the AF Reserve at almost 50 since I an not "nonprior service." It would be difficult to start as an E-1 though.