The real challenge is convincing the rest of the country that the military is a worthy and necessary profession and not one that should be relegated to the "bottom rungs" of society.

Military service used to be respected as a matter of civic duty, but it has since been derogated in the national psyche to the level of a vocational career for the undesirable and desperate. Not the reality, certainly, but it is not an uncommon view.

When I had students telling me, more often than not, that they wouldn't join the military because it would be a waste of their college education (why would they seek a job meant for high school drop outs and GED candidates?) I knew that we were in trouble.

Wrong conclusion, even if the data aren't at least slightly fudged. Ability to complete basic or advanced training, or function well in an MOS is totally unrelated to prior criminal record. Prior criminal record is a disqualifying consideration because the indication that the individual is willing to break the law if it gets him what he wants, or being sufficiently lacking in self control that they end up breaking the law.

Prior criminal conviction disqualifies because, given that among those with out criminal records there are many who are discipline problems who just didn't get caught, are barracks thieves, bullies, and worse, deliberately larding the force with high probably discipline problems is just a bad idea. It has always been possible for men with certain criminal records to enlist anyway, but they had to show that they were in fact not a disciplinary risk to do so. On several occasions in my times following the eagles, in the sixties and seventies, I had the happenstance to run into ex offenders. Those who were of the I have proven myself worthy did seem to make good soldiers, but too often the service wasted much too much time trying to give crooks and slackers a chance to change their lives, when the services then couldn't put the effort into retaining proven performers because they had only so much time and so much money, so education opportunities had to go to marginals getting their GED's, rather than exceptionals who sought college courses.

In the mid seventies the Army had many programs to encourage those marginal soldiers to excel. Anecdotal evidence was regularly advertised about the successes, and there were many, but no one analyzed the programs for how many proven NCO's (like me) walked away from the Army because they couldn't get the educational benefits, assignments, or other benefits they desired BECAUSE by official Army policy, GED's and other such basic programs were to get preference. It seemed in 1976 that the Army was trying to reduce its size by driving out the portion of the mid NCO corps that could do well in civilian life, so they could turn some of the marginal soldiers into functioning troops, because at least those marginals who succeeded got some benefit out of the Army.

The fact that the Army most expose volunteers at every level to a higher likelihood of Barracks thieves, muggers, frauds, cheats, than they ought to have to suffer, BECAUSE there aren't enough properly qualified candidates otherwise, isn't ever a good thing. If you have to risk enrolling discipline problems to get enough candidates, better do it through the draft, and, along with the undesirables you will draw in, get the serendipitous gems who otherwise would never consider serving, to balance the bad with the great.

Note, by the way, that honest, honorable, law abiding, disciplined volunteers are rejected, or driven from the ranks because men who never served, even dodging service where necessary, will not allow them to serve BECAUSE THEY ARE ADMITTED HOMOSEXUALS.

There are far too many heterosexual sexual deviants in the service, often protected by their command chain because they have the outward Gung Ho attitude, but men with the mental, emotional, and psychological tools needed to fill some of the most demanding jobs, like Arabic Language Interceptor/Analyst, or EOD technician, cannot enlist, and if discovered in service cannot continue, because nonveteran fundamentalist congressmen don't want gays in the military.

More better would be a UNIVERSAL right of service. Blind, crippled, crazy, whatever, if you want to serve the service will find you a function. Unless you have served, you can't run for office, hold a judgeship, or be a mid level or higher public servant. (Because there are certain reasons for Peace Corps Volunteers not to be Veterans, Peace Corps Service would count as service.) Sort of like in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."

ceflynline -

Great notes. I'm not sure I'd go so far as Heinlein, by tying citizenship to service, but I would like to see a national service program for this country.

Not getting kicked out is not at all the same as being an effective soldier.

The stats only differentiate between getting kicked out and not getting kicked out. Thus we do not know (but can guess) if the waivers result in minimal, average, or above-average performance.

Statistics prove that the single-best predictor of success in the military is a high school diploma. Next is a clean criminal record. After that comes GPA, ASVAB GT score, etc. That does not mean that a soldier with a waiver or a GED instead of a HS diploma can't be a great soldier - I served with some like that. But statistically they are much, much less likely to be successful.

That during a time of war and incredible stress on an overworked force we see fewer criminal-waiver soldiers kicked out is not reassuring and proves nothing.

The units having to make do with what they are given - in equipment, in strategy and tactics, and in people - will do the best they can, but this does not mean our standards should have been lowered. They should not have been. That it is not as bad as some feared does not justify it, and I disagree that it is not as bad as some feared - the results are still not known, but given the statistics and studies of the past, we will eventually figure out, again, that criminal waivers are not worth it, they cost too much, lead to too many problems down the road, and they are a short-term fix with disastrous consequences down the road - and only a short way down that road.

We need disciplined and motivated soldiers who can think for themselves and do the right thing in the absence of orders. The idea that convicts fit that role in any way is ridiculous. They already did the wrong thing, it is not wise to expect better. That some would do better if given a second chance is great - and should have nothing to do with the Army or Marines.

End the waivers. If we can't recruit enough qualified volunteers then our citizenry is sending a message. We either institute conscription (it can be limited in a way that would not take away from the advantages an all-volunteer professional force brings to the battlefield) - OR WE END THE DAMN WAR.

Instead, to "support the troops," the standards are lowered for recruits. Imagine if we did that with equipment, or housing, lowering quality standards for both? Well, I guess we don't need to imagine that either, do we?

Impeach, dammit! If you want to support our troops, write to Congress and demand impeachment - yes, even this late in the game, yes, even despite the impact on the election in November. Impeach - it is too important not to do so!

Ceflynline writes: Unless you have served, you can't run for office, hold a judgeship, or be a mid level or higher public servant. (Because there are certain reasons for Peace Corps Volunteers not to be Veterans, Peace Corps Service would count as service.) Sort of like in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."

No, no, a thousand times no. We don't have our government place tests before we vote or run for office because, in a truly dangerous way, that reverses the power structure in this nation. Our republic is based upon all sovereign power originating in the people. The people created government to work for them. The government is subservient to the people. All government power is delegating from the people. Now you want to have the government place restrictions on who can run for office, based on serving the government? Before we abandon consent of the governed and government for, by, and of the people, think about what you are saying.

A national service requirement sounds like a fine idea - but who decides who qualifies? A government employee? A partisan political operative? And isn't your suggestion one that people can put in place themselves by voting? Why take the choice away from them? Using your system, John McCain is the only candidate who qualifies. If you want blood in the streets, take away my right to vote for somebody else. Under the Starship Troopers model, Bush qualifies for office, while Clinton would not. That might be fine with the neo-cons here, but it would not be fine with America. Under the Starship Troopers model, Bush qualifies, Thomas Jefferson does not. Adams does not. Madison does not. Lincoln might due his service in the militia - or perhaps not. Jefferson Davis qualifies though.

Heinlein's book was a warning against fascism, not a prescription of how things should be. Hitler served bravely in WWI, earning an Iron Cross for bravery. FDR never served. Who the heck would you want to vote for?

One of our greatest generals, a true genius, was U.S. Grant, a true American hero. He was also a truly ineffective and mediocre-at-best president. The aforementioned FDR never served in the military, and was the greatest president of the 20th Century.

No Starship Troopers fascism for me, thank you.

There is some truth about this Army study. My own personal experience, and hardly representative, is that one of my best platoons in Iraq was made up almost entirely of soldiers with some criminal records prior to enlisting (minus the two key leaders). So I can see the study as having some merit worth further research.

I am not against the Army accepting those who failed to make good decisions in the past. But I believe that before giving a waiver, there should at the minimum be some psychological screening. The Army gives an aptitude test (which to my knowledge hasn't been significantly updated in years), a health physical and a criminal background check. That is it. I think before assigning an MOS (job), there should be a personality inventory done and an interview. I think these added steps (although a bit costly) will not only better help determine who is fit for service, but also make sure we are putting round pegs in round holes.

Phil,

I can't believe you fell for the exact conclusion the ham-handed Army PAO/Spin-meisters WANTED you to arrive at. I mean, come on. These guys are grasping at straws and are throwing out a "shotgun", kitchen sink arguments ... even resorting to methodologically flawed studies by the Heritage Foundation to "prove" that today's AVF is overrepresented by the nations elites.

Two points on this "study" ...

1) IET attrition doesn't mean what it used to. In the "bad old days" pre-OIF, IET attrition was on the order of 3x higher than where it is today. The incessant pressure on Drill Sergeants and IET Commanders to push through marginal enlistees is unbelievable. Our IET attrition is now below 6% at the same time that our enlistment standards have been lowered on a number of levels: aptitude, age, physical fitness and moral/criminal history.

2) As a purportedly "retrospective study", the data is serving up "apples" when we need to look at "oranges". Fact: the normal Army enlistment is 4 years. Fact: this data is looking at a pre-FY2004 cohort of enlistees with waivers ... BEFORE we accepted 41 year olds, before the number of waivered, convicted felons doubled and when certain convictions pretty well barred enlistment.

How can you look at the FY2002 and FY2003 waiver cohorts and extrapolate the data to justify the larger number of and more severe waivers in FY 2008. It doesn't add up.

BOTTOM LINE: This "narrative" crafted by Army "leaders" is bunk and evinces a willful ignorance of reality by men who have dedicated their entire adult lives to an organization now in crisis. At a time when truth-telling and candor are needed more than ever, they parrot propaganda.

As I like to say, these spokesmen basically are saying that something was "wrong" with the quality of personnel that comprised the fine Army that crossed the LD into Iraq in 2003. I disagree.

BG,

Why doesn't it surprise me that you think the current Army personnel policies are just "great."

Go along to get along ... whichever way the wind blows.

Why do you toe the party line so strongly when promotion rates to MAJ are 98% and 89% (and rising) to LTC? It's not like you won't get promoted by thinking for yourself.

Today's field grade officer corps worries me. The Schoomaker's/Harvey's/Cody's of the world have led us over countless "cliffs" yet they still still follow ... "full speed ahead" ... heedless of the increasingly visible harm these decisions cause to the institition they supposedly love.

re: last post ...

I apologize if I was a bit caustic ... sorry.

These issues really amp me up and I regret personalizing my larger concerns towards a single officer with a differing opinion.

In Charlton Ogburn's book _The Marauders_, he describes the diametrically opposed methods that two Lieutenants in Merrill's Marauders (5307th Composite Unit, later the 75th Infantry) used to recruit their respective reconnaissance platoons. One officer recruited after chapel services, the other picked his men at the gate of the stockade. Both were good leaders, trained their men well and fielded excellent units.

My point is that we can't really make a judgement based upon raw statistics. I'd like to hear what some of the officers and noncoms who work with these folks have to say.

This is great, and, serendipitously so, timely news, since we have had to (allegedly, 'lower the standard' to meet our manpower goals.

I wonder, did they break down the data any further? I mean I wonder if there is any relationships identified between the soldiers that did well, and the nature of their supposed crime? For instance, if, say, pot smokers did well, perhaps that might point us in a new direction for our PR outreach efforts? Think of the ads we could come up with? The sound tracks? Or might it be that supposed car thieves did better? We could have ads showing fast cars in the military. The possibilities are endless.

IRR, what are you talking about? How did we digress to a discussion about MAJ promotion rates? I simply stated that I could see how the study could have some merit, with the caveat of more research (and I agree, as you point out, it should be outside research to avoid a bias).

And my comments never said everything was "great", I said that we needed to improve the way we recruit by adding personality inventories for everyone, and psych evals for those who need a waiver. I don't think we disagree on ANY point. The system is broke and needs fixing.

You feeling okay today, brother?

Sorry about the non post. It just jumped.

JD: Remember, Heinlein was, in many respects, a Neocon's Neocon, and Starship Troopers was one of his more radical fascist novels. But his proviso was that EVERYONE had a right to serve. Again, sick, blind, crazy, you enlisted and the agency who enlisted you found you a job, No one could be turned down. Therefore, if you wanted the franchise, you served. Much of Starship Troopers is bad theory, from his understanding of military tail, which Heinlein never properly understood, to the supposed organization of MI units.

The thought that those who wished to have government position ought to have government service first is as old as the Athenian EPHOEBI. You ought to have a right to vote for the candidate of your choice, provided he meets established qualifications. Where those criteria require the candidate be of a certain age, (35 for President) you don't have a right to vote for a 22 year old. By the way, I do believe that Jefferson did hold military rank and served as an aide to Washington before being sent abroad as an envoy to France. Lincoln would certainly have qualified, he did serve in wartime. I suspect that, were service of some kind a requirement for office, Bill, Hillary, and Barack would all have taken the time to serve. How many of the Chicken Hawk brigade would have done so? Bill is an especial case. Having gotten a Rhodes Scholarship, he probably really qualified for yet another student deferment, but having also drawn number 366 in the draft, it was easier for him to expose himself and take his chances. I doubt that he would have dodged service if it were a requirement for public office, since that seems to have been his driving ambition from the start. FDR would have served, wheel chair and all if he had been allowed.

Still, the real point is, why do non veterans block the chances for Homosexuals to serve in the armed services?

Heinlein had no objection. Neither did Goldwater.

On a slightly related subject, how many of the fifteen Republicans backing the bill that would forbid the Exchange System to sell Playboy and such magazines are actually veterans.

It's like that with a lot of things, not just the military.

I've been in an out of trouble all my life and on more than one occasion my work has had to convince a judge to let me out of jail because their operations were dependent on my engineering skills.

They would probably love to get rid of me if they could find anybody as good.