I'm very sorry about the formatting. TypePad stripped it off, I didn't notice (*kicks self*), and now I can't seem to get in to edit my post. The article this is from is here:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,182930,00.html

Via VetVoice.

I should add: there are four paragraphs in there that should be blockquoted, since they're from the article. ("The Army" through "criminal record.") There are quotes around them, but hopefully this will clarify, until I can get in and edit.

Isn't this bound to happen when you're badly prosecuting an unpopular war? Who wants to sign up for lousy pay, multiple extended tours, and risk of death? And if you want to work in a war zone, you can find work as a contractor and have more freedom and better pay.

But I'm guessing 2008 is going to be the nadir of recruitment. With the economy in the crapper, and Iraq winding down, the military will be more attractive to more people. Unless Afghanistan blows up.

It's worse than that. That is just the moral waivers. All told, the Army is closing in on 20% total wavered troops if you count the waivers for medical conditions and weight and piss-poor PTs.

"felonies or serious misdemeanors (or three minor misdemeanors)"

Does possession of marijuana count here? If so, I would want to know what percentage of Army recruits committed a "real" crime, i.e., something different than what a pile of politicians and tens of millions of other Americans freely admit they did--but didn't get caught doing.

There is nothing I hate more than individuals that trash us. First, it is amazing how out of the blue a story wrote in May 2008 is being posted and circulated again as if the information in the blog you linked to was recent. I find it very ironic that the day the transition team writes about there * new civilian ground force* that will be as *funded* as our military comes out the same day as a article bashing us and our leadership. As if to give justification for this new little *civilian troops* on ground they are initiating. But by all means continue.

Don't know how much this still happens. Used to be young people arrested for some crime were sometimes given the choice of joining up or facing prosecution.

A friend's stepson joined up about 5 years ago. The kid had been a troubled high school drop-out, but he was taken by the army anyway and eventually stationed out in Texas. He and some of his buddies decided they were shortly bound for Iraq so the bought some pot and proceeded to party, but were caught. The step-son took off for Mexico where stayed for a couple of months before eventually deciding to turn himself back in. The story is actually much longer and more interesting, but the upshot is that the army gave him minimal punishment, he pulled one tour in Iraq, and is now awaiting a medical discharge due to PTSD.

Oh year, all of the other pot smoking soldiers were discharged right after the incident.

The idea that over one in eight Army recruits has a criminal record is really scary. But hey: at least they aren't lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender!

Wanna bet?

GWillikers and tommyharper got to my point about the "criminal" population involved in non-violent drug possession, but it could be stated differently; Given that the numbers of people being held in prisons in this country continue to grow, it is hardly surprising that the numbers needing waivers are also increasing, I'm sure that the statistics you cite would still be alarming, but I would be more concerned if the data were adjusted for increasing prison populations in the general population and if non-violent drug convictions were ignored.

Don't know how much this still happens. Used to be young people arrested for some crime were sometimes given the choice of joining up or facing prosecution.

This used to be common. A guy could avoid a criminal conviction and serve his country. I personally don't see the big deal. It's not as if you need some kind of degree to go out and kill the enemy. We're not recruiting engineers and doctors here. Most of these waivers, I suspect, are for things like drug possession.

Let's face it. People who are young and foolish do a lot of foolish things. Sometimes the Army is the best thing to straighten them out.

The Army is not responsible for societal failures but it is responsible for putting the most fit, intelligent and motivated force possible in the field. Rest assured that those who cannot adapt will be identified and removed from service. A more useful study would indicate how many of those granted "waivers" turn their lives around and honorably serve our country. For many the Army is the only institution which gives them a chance to actually be useful members of our society.

Since my step-son is in the non-high school diploma category, I'm certain you have to have at least a GED to be in the Army. Perhaps that is something else they can waive, or its not the same as a High School Diploma so it doesn't count, but its worth mentioning.

I think this says a lot more about American society as a whole. More drop-outs, more unhealthy lifestyles, more people with criminal records [whether deserved or not] indicate a culture that has given up on personal accountability and self-motivation.

I blame TV and George Bush.

Felonies, disdemeanors, low GT scores - Well, something had to be done to entice and bring out the best of the RepuG youth and the YAF members.

Rest assured that those who cannot adapt will be identified and removed from service.

Because there are so many other more adaptable types standing ready to replace them?

What disturbs me is that these same veterans will recieve hiring preference when they are discharged. I knew several guys who were knuckleheads that were given the option of the military or jail by a judge. They needed discipline and maturity and the military was a good choice.

But as a result over guilt about how Vietnam veterans were supposedly treated, all military are now heroes. In Illinois State government they are given an absolute preference for employment. If they meet the minimum requirements they get the job, even if someone else is far more qualified. This was even one of the reasons for impeaching Gov. Blagojevich; he dared to work around the veteran's preference.

Besides having good people passed over, I wonder what the impact is on the increased number of ex-military in government agencies. It has made a difference in my office. I remember one incompetent vet who didn't follow through on an important task because I asked him directly, instead of having my boss ask his boss to ask him.

I also work with a number of intelligent and competent veterans. I believe they would have received their jobs without any preference.

There is nothing new here, the very same thing happened after Viet Nam in which a very high percentage of Category Four (no diploma, criminal records, low IQ) recruits were brought in and the Armed forces, especially the Army, suffered. The Marines learned this lesson and have been recruiting the best candidates strongly, the Army not so much.

What bothers me the most is not the fact that it is happening as much as the fact that nothing was learned from the 1972-1985 (or so) debacle.

What bothers me the most is not the fact that it is happening as much as the fact that nothing was learned from the 1972-1985 (or so) debacle.

I don't think it's the fact that nothing was learned so much as that it's a stretched-to-the-limits Army and they're doing what they have to to get recruits. There just isn't a supply of better candidates to choose from. At least, that's what I'm hearing from military people I trust; I'm sure we'll now hear from some I don't.

Rick Atkinson writes of the problems incurred by the US Army in West Germany in the late '70s in his book "The Long Grey Line". As that title refers to the USMA graduating class of 1966, he mentions the problems of 'Nam trained officers encountering major drug problems involving personnel in kasernes across Germany.

This comes from not having a draft- from "privatizing" the armed forces.

A draft, ( if it is properly done- not as what happened during the Vietnam era), is the best protection against idiotic wars.

Nothing like having sons/daughters of the rich placed in harm's way to prevent pre-emptive war.

They're hitting up GameStop for the Call of Duty player base...don't laugh...it's practically true.

evagrius
You beat me to it. The draft is a great equalizer.

shortstop said:

"I don't think it's the fact that nothing was learned so much as that it's a stretched-to-the-limits Army and they're doing what they have to to get recruits. There just isn't a supply of better candidates to choose from. At least, that's what I'm hearing from military people I trust; I'm sure we'll now hear from some I don't."

What you say is true, but two or three years ago, when the supply was clearly diminishing, the Army kept gaming the system instead of facing reality. They moved the recruitment goalposts in order to say that they were meeting their goals when it was clear that they were not. It was 1975 all over again.

The Marine Corps, on the other hand, stuck to their standards and made the Corps more enticing. Of course they had a leg up to start (and this from a retired Army officer) and have from the beginning because they are seen as an "elite" force and are much smaller with fewer support needs.

What wasn't mentioned in the article is that the various white supremacist hate groups are encouraging their people to join to get weapons and combat training and to recruit more converts to their cause. Remember Timothy McVeigh? The army is well aware of it but aren't about to do anything to reduce their already low recruitment rates. What happens when these sickos return home with or without discharge papers? Especially with PTDS acquired during their service?

What you say is true, but two or three years ago, when the supply was clearly diminishing, the Army kept gaming the system instead of facing reality. They moved the recruitment goalposts in order to say that they were meeting their goals when it was clear that they were not. It was 1975 all over again.

The Marine Corps, on the other hand, stuck to their standards and made the Corps more enticing. Of course they had a leg up to start (and this from a retired Army officer) and have from the beginning because they are seen as an "elite" force and are much smaller with fewer support needs.

I'm sure this is the case, but since the USMC is smaller and more elite and has fewer support needs, what is the solution for the Army when the supply just isn't there to meet the demand? I'm not looking to argue with you or to defend the Army, just wondering what "facing reality" means in terms of boosting Army recruitment. How do you make an overstretched, underequipped Army in the middle of two endless wars more attractive?

*nods to Blue Girl, shortstop, and Texas Aggie*

All good points. I can only add that Hawaii's Schofield Barracks, home to the Tropic Lightning, the 25th Infantry Division, has had more than its share of gang problems and prostitution rings in the last decade. Those problems have become less immediately evident, but only because the brigades have been deployed on a rotating basis.

I can only add that Hawaii's Schofield Barracks, home to the Tropic Lightning, the 25th Infantry Division

...and the most beautiful barracks I've ever seen...but I digress.

What would the proportion of ex-offenders be if private contractors' mercenaries were counted? Very, very scary, I suspect.

By the way, the last stats I saw showed that nearly half of military academy grads were leaving the services after their minimum-required terms (four years, I think). Anecdotally, I've heard the NCO departure rate is the same or perhaps higher.

A shortage of experienced junior officers and NCOs compounds the problem of bad-actor recruits.

Anybody got timely numbers on this?

"How do you make an overstretched, underequipped Army in the middle of two endless wars more attractive?"

It's simple enough - just report you're at the end of your rope and can barely fight with what you have. Let the politicians and public make the appropriate decision. In the past, overstretched armies meant an end to war. In fact that is the only thing that ever meant an end to war. The idea that the institutional role of the Army is to degrade itself and its performance rather than to admit it's outmatched is completely insane on every level.

To expand on hilzoy's last point, the criticism of allowing LGBT people into the armed forces is that it will degrade unit cohesion (or some such).

What does the presence of criminals in the ranks do for unit cohesion?