So my 17 year old is talking to an Army recruiter...

[East Coast Sue]

22 hours ago, MercyA said:

No. Just no. Please don't allow your underage child, whose brain is not even fully developed, to make a life-altering decision like this. He's going to be subject to mental abuse if not physical as well. Military training exists largely to destroy people's natural instinct NOT to kill other people--and he could be shipped off to who knows where to participate in a war for who knows what purposes, whether he agrees with it or not.

Surely there are other ways to meet his goals. My two cents.

Is this based on any evidence? I served on active duty and this simply isn’t based in fact.

[chiguirre]

7 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

My son is ROTC and will be FT Army after graduation in May.  DH was enlisted Army.  One consideration is that so much could change between now and graduation. Is he really sure he wants to make the commitment more than a year before leaving?

You can withdraw from DEP (Delayed Entry Program) at any point before shipping out to boot camp. Obviously, no recruiter will ever work with you again, but if you change your mind, you can get out of an enlistment. If you just need to extend your ship out date or you want to change your job, you can request those and probably get them approved if the recruiting slump continues.

[Lecka]

Another thing I think is that 1) people only mainly know about their job/branch and people they come into contact with.

2) there are (ime) two main things…. People either want to do “cool stuff” or they want to gain valuable skills.  
 

My husband is someone where — he is broadly part of a group who wants to either join the Marines or Army Infantry.  Broadly in the Army Infantry you can do certain cool stuff, that some people are very drawn to.  But you don’t gain valuable skills like some other jobs.

Then there are people who are drawn to valuable skills and don’t care much about doing cool stuff.

 

But some people end up doing cool stuff, but regret not learning valuable skills.  And some people get talked into doing “the responsible thing” and learning valuable skills, but really regret not doing cool stuff like they really wanted to do or pictured doing.
 

I think this is important, and makes a big difference to people.  A lot of people don’t care a lot either way, but some people do care and wish they had done the opposite thing.  
 

There are some special programs now where you can enlist and be guaranteed to apply for some kind of special forces.  A lot of these are a racket, and people who enlist and are guaranteed a chance to attend a qualification course have a very small chance of succeeding.  I think these are a bit of a racket.  As opposed to — if you wanted to enlist for Airborne and joining the 82nd Airborne — that is a normal thing to do and likely to happen.  If you are someone who is going to pass the course etc.  I would Google about anything where you are guaranteed a chance to attend Ranger school or Special Forces qualification as part of an enlistment contract.  They are not necessarily looking for 19-yos.  They may offer a guaranteed slot but then a really small percent will ever pass that way.  

There are also a lot of rivalries where — person A in job A does not have a lot of respect for person B in job B, because of rivalries.  Just — be aware of that, I guess.  My husband is in the Infantry and basically as far as helicopter they think Apaches are the coolest helicopters.  (Edit: I think, I’m not sure.) They think tankers are stupid, but this is a big rivalry, and tankers will usually think the Infantry is full of stupid idiots.  But you should not listen to someone with a rivalry against something, if that is what you are more interested in doing.  

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Lecka

[chiguirre]

@Leckabrings up a good point about cool stuff vs. job skills. I just wanted to say that dichotomy is more obvious in the Army, Air Force and Marines. In the Navy or Coast Guard everyone is part of the ship's company and responsible for damage control. Everyone has a day job (engineering, boatswain's mate, IT, etc.) but when they call General Quarters, everyone has to put on their gear and go to their station. A recruit spends weeks drilling on fire fighting and damage control and a couple of days learning to shoot a pistol. Everyone has to stand watches to make sure that the ship won't run into something and that there are no fires or hazardous conditions that could damage it. This isn't just a military thing, civilian ships also have watches and drill for damage control. It's just a part of being at sea.

[Sneezyone]

The Naval equivalent of rivalries would be sailors who have no respect for the ship’s, ahem, commercial plumbers until the toilets are backed up; or sailors who find the electronics and radio/satellite personnel jobs ‘cushy’ and ‘easy’ until the Wi-Fi is secured/down and someone has to go aloft. IJS. Sometimes you’re firing weapons, launching/retrieving planes for training purposes, or interdicting pirates and sometimes you’re doing donuts in the ocean as a deterrent. DH has gone E to O and STILL makes friends with the mess specialists (COOKS). They save him a plate when the mess/kitchen is closed, add extra seasoning just for him, even cook off menu items just because of a little respect and appreciation. There are no unimportant jobs on a ship.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Sneezyone

[MercyA]

On 1/30/2023 at 6:38 PM, East Coast Sue said:

Is this based on any evidence? I served on active duty and this simply isn’t based in fact.

Which part? About having to be broken down, mentally, to learn to kill people? I thought that was pretty well established. There was a book written by a Lt. Co. Dave Grossman--On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. He was a paratrooper and a ranger. He taught psychology at West Point and was a professor of military science as well. He is pro-military, pro-war. He even defends the war in Vietnam. But he wrote that most people naturally have an aversion to killing. He said there was a study done after World War II that found that only 15-20% of soldiers fired their weapons during combat and even fewer fired to kill. Training was changed specifically to desensitize soldiers to the "enemy's" humanity. As a result, 55% of the infantry in the Korean War fired their weapons, and 90-95% fired them in Vietnam. Grossman freely acknowledges that soldiers are damaged, mentally, by this training and have a hard time integrating back into society. 

I saw a documentary called The Ground Truth, which consisted almost entirely of interviews with veterans of the war in Iraq and footage from their training and their deployment. The soldiers talked about being broken down, systematically, in boot camp. They were damaged there and in the war.  I've heard other young men who joined the military--some of whom I personally know and previously thought well of--talk about killing with totally cavalier attitudes and dehumanizing terms.

Or did you mean what I wrote about the military being able to send you wherever they want to do whatever they want? That's just a fact. An enlistment agreement is a one-way contract. The soldier is bound by its terms, but the military is free to change what they demand at any time.

Or the part about the brain of a 17-year-old not being fully developed? Brains aren't fully developed until around the mid-20's. You really think an underage child should be subject to training that teaches him or her to kill automatically, without question, when someone orders them to do so? I think that's abhorrent, personally, and it's not something I would want for my child. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Which part? About having to be broken down, mentally, to learn to kill people? I thought that was pretty well established. There was a book written by a Lt. Co. Dave Grossman--On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. He was a paratrooper and a ranger. He taught psychology at West Point and was a professor of military science as well. He is pro-military, pro-war. He even defends the war in Vietnam. But he wrote that most people naturally have an aversion to killing. He said there was a study done after World War II that found that only 15-20% of soldiers fired their weapons during combat and even fewer fired to kill. Training was changed specifically to desensitize soldiers to the "enemy's" humanity. As a result, 55% of the infantry in the Korean War fired their weapons, and 90-95% fired them in Vietnam. Grossman freely acknowledges that soldiers are damaged, mentally, by this training and have a hard time integrating back into society. 

I saw a documentary called The Ground Truth, which consisted almost entirely of interviews with veterans of the war in Iraq and footage from their training and their deployment. The soldiers talked about being broken down, systematically, in boot camp. They were damaged there and in the war.  I've heard other young men who joined the military--some of whom I personally know and previously thought well of--talk about killing with totally cavalier attitudes and dehumanizing terms.

Or did you mean what I wrote about the military being able to send you wherever they want to do whatever they want? That's just a fact. An enlistment agreement is a one-way contract. The soldier is bound by its terms, but the military is free to change what they demand at any time.

Or the part about the brain of a 17-year-old not being fully developed? Brains aren't fully developed until around the mid-20's. You really think an underage child should be subject to training that teaches him or her to kill automatically, without question, when someone orders them to do so? I think that's abhorrent, personally, and it's not something I would want for my child. 

There’s so much to unpack here about the difference in conflict/combat today, the difference in young people who’ve been taught to protect themselves from armed school shooters, and the nature of military training. Maybe just keep reading.

[1234]

14 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Which part? About having to be broken down, mentally, to learn to kill people? I thought that was pretty well established. There was a book written by a Lt. Co. Dave Grossman--On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. He was a paratrooper and a ranger. He taught psychology at West Point and was a professor of military science as well. He is pro-military, pro-war. He even defends the war in Vietnam. But he wrote that most people naturally have an aversion to killing. He said there was a study done after World War II that found that only 15-20% of soldiers fired their weapons during combat and even fewer fired to kill. Training was changed specifically to desensitize soldiers to the "enemy's" humanity. As a result, 55% of the infantry in the Korean War fired their weapons, and 90-95% fired them in Vietnam. Grossman freely acknowledges that soldiers are damaged, mentally, by this training and have a hard time integrating back into society. 

I saw a documentary called The Ground Truth, which consisted almost entirely of interviews with veterans of the war in Iraq and footage from their training and their deployment. The soldiers talked about being broken down, systematically, in boot camp. They were damaged there and in the war.  I've heard other young men who joined the military--some of whom I personally know and previously thought well of--talk about killing with totally cavalier attitudes and dehumanizing terms.

Or did you mean what I wrote about the military being able to send you wherever they want to do whatever they want? That's just a fact. An enlistment agreement is a one-way contract. The soldier is bound by its terms, but the military is free to change what they demand at any time.

Or the part about the brain of a 17-year-old not being fully developed? Brains aren't fully developed until around the mid-20's. You really think an underage child should be subject to training that teaches him or her to kill automatically, without question, when someone orders them to do so? I think that's abhorrent, personally, and it's not something I would want for my child. 

I feel like you’ve either watched too much TV or you need to meet more people.

Almost every single male in my, and dh’s, family have served in the military (including dh and both our dads, uncles, cousins, etc.).

None are the way you describe. Some have more to deal with than others but none are cavalier about those issues. I’m actually quite the pacifist but some of your words here are even over the top for me. They just seem very out of touch with reality.

I don’t at all doubt those men exist but I don’t believe the military is making them like you seem to suggest. My dh, his brother, and both of our dads, would say the military ended up being one of the best decisions they made. I know many other, non family, people who feel the same. 

[katilac]

My general rule was that I did not sign special permission for anything that you could do on your own at 18. 

No marriage, no military, no loans, no tattoos, lol. 

 So I wouldn't sign for him to join at 17, because he can just as well join at 18, and have a lot more surety and knowledge of the process. 

 

 

[sassenach]

Dh was a Marine with no regrets. We've always told our kids to keep in mind that recruiters are in the sales business and nothing, absolutely nothing, counts unless it's in a contract. DD is considering enlisting and I've emphasized to her that she needs to be fully ready to give up her decision making power- you belong to the service for your entire contract. Her situation is unique because she's already in nursing school and was debating enlisting now to cover her tuition (so an 8 year contract). I told her that I would rather pay and have her make the decision after she graduates. A lot can change in the next 4 years. If she still feels passionate about it after graduation- go for it. On the flip side, ds is drifting right now and I have wondered if enlisting might be exactly what he needs but he's not interested at the moment. 

[MercyA]

@Joker2 and @Sneezyone, I am not saying that everyone comes out of the military a psychopath. Both my grandfathers were in the military. My uncle received a Purple Heart after Vietnam. I grew up in a pro-gun, card-carrying NRA household. I have other friends and family members who were in the military as well. Many are okay. Some are not.

I recognize that you both have more lived experience than me and I appreciate your measured and kind responses.

We just need to look at the rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, and suicide among the military, compared to the general public, to know that there are, in fact, problems. Not to mention the incidents we've seen of men and women torturing and killing other human beings and posing with their bodies. You may say, well, there are always bad apples. Maybe. Or maybe the environment and the training are not healthy. Maybe, like law enforcement, it tends to attract the wrong kind of people sometimes. 

I maintain it is not the place for a 17-year-old or anyone who is not okay being ordered to kill for someone else's questionable reasons. 

Like I said, I am *incredibly grateful* to those willing to defend others. I don't doubt their good motives. But I see them being used over and over for evil purposes, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to willingly sign up for that.

Edited February 1, 2023 by MercyA

[Lecka]

I do think there are very problematic things that are worth bringing up.  But I think it’s still a good option for many people.  There are so many factors.  
 

I do think training is conducted with an aim to make people more likely to fire their weapons, but I don’t think it is through breaking people down mentally.  I think it is through practicing more lifelike training.  
 

I also think, well, people are expected to kill but to save themselves or their friends.  I think it is “kill or be killed.”  I think there is a huge issue of — you aren’t supposed to kill when it would be unethical.  You are expected not to follow an order that is not lawful.  

[KungFuPanda]

17 hours ago, MercyA said:

Which part? About having to be broken down, mentally, to learn to kill people? I thought that was pretty well established. There was a book written by a Lt. Co. Dave Grossman--On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. He was a paratrooper and a ranger. He taught psychology at West Point and was a professor of military science as well. He is pro-military, pro-war. He even defends the war in Vietnam. But he wrote that most people naturally have an aversion to killing. He said there was a study done after World War II that found that only 15-20% of soldiers fired their weapons during combat and even fewer fired to kill. Training was changed specifically to desensitize soldiers to the "enemy's" humanity. As a result, 55% of the infantry in the Korean War fired their weapons, and 90-95% fired them in Vietnam. Grossman freely acknowledges that soldiers are damaged, mentally, by this training and have a hard time integrating back into society. 

I saw a documentary called The Ground Truth, which consisted almost entirely of interviews with veterans of the war in Iraq and footage from their training and their deployment. The soldiers talked about being broken down, systematically, in boot camp. They were damaged there and in the war.  I've heard other young men who joined the military--some of whom I personally know and previously thought well of--talk about killing with totally cavalier attitudes and dehumanizing terms.

Or did you mean what I wrote about the military being able to send you wherever they want to do whatever they want? That's just a fact. An enlistment agreement is a one-way contract. The soldier is bound by its terms, but the military is free to change what they demand at any time.

Or the part about the brain of a 17-year-old not being fully developed? Brains aren't fully developed until around the mid-20's. You really think an underage child should be subject to training that teaches him or her to kill automatically, without question, when someone orders them to do so? I think that's abhorrent, personally, and it's not something I would want for my child. 

I'm going to write to the Army and complain that I never got to be broken down, mentally. and wasn't properly trained to be a Terminator.  They wasted my time in school after school; mostly on the beaches of Monterey.  I guess I never really saw The Real Army, but then again I didn't see the documentaries so I have some learning to do.  They also couldn't literally send me anywhere to do anything because my training was rather specific and not globally applicable. 

The military is a bit like civilian life in some ways.  Some people are cops and some are cooks.  They can't really give you a personality transplant because you spent a few weeks on a rifle range in basic training.  Most of the serious break-them-down training is in extremely specialized schools that aren't exactly the norm.  The minimum age for special forces is 20.  

I'm not sure what the alternative to having no army at all would be.  Yes, it would be awesome if nobody killed anyone ever and national defense was unnecessary.  We can't ALL be too special to serve.  I totally understand your side, and my kids  aren't going into the military, but SOMEBODY has to step up so we can have the freedom to complain about how misguided they all are.

[mmasc]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

@Joker2 and @Sneezyone, I am not saying that everyone comes out of the military a psychopath. Both my grandfathers were in the military. My uncle received a Purple Heart after Vietnam. I grew up in a pro-gun, card-carrying NRA household. I have other friends and family members who were in the military as well. Many are okay. Some are not.

I recognize that you both have more lived experience than me and I appreciate your measured and kind responses.

We just need to look at the rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, and suicide among the military, compared to the general public, to know that there are, in fact, problems. Not to mention the incidents we've seen of men and women torturing and killing other human beings and posing with their bodies. You may say, well, there are always bad apples. Maybe. Or maybe the environment and the training are not healthy. Maybe, like law enforcement, it tends to attract the wrong kind of people sometimes. 

I maintain it is not the place for a 17-year-old or anyone who is not okay being ordered to kill for someone else's questionable reasons. 

Like I said, I am *incredibly grateful* to those willing to defend others. I don't doubt their good motives. But I see them being used over and over for evil purposes, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to willingly sign up for that.

I ***RARELY*** (ok, never) hop into these threads that can be heated or controversial, but I really need to point out that you’ve commented at least twice about being thankful/grateful, but none of your words support that and at this point just seem offensive to me. You can keep stating your opinion of course, (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), but I’d prefer if you’d leave off the grateful bit bc I’m not seeing it. Who do you think is going to do the protecting if nobody “signs up for that”? I just feel like overall you don’t understand how our military works AT ALL. And really, most civilians don’t. But it would be nice if you could get some real life info, maybe make some friends who are living the active duty lifestyle, etc. before making your broad statements about what military training does to a person. 

[Lecka]

I have mixed feelings.  My husband was in the Infantry and DA-select Drill Sergeant in the Army.

 

I don’t think it’s horrible but I do think — war is  war.  
 

It’s not what I want for my kids, yet I think it’s a good option for many.  
 

Edit:  I guess I’m not willing to make a wholesale statement that it is all bad — but I do think there are good points being made.  

Edited February 1, 2023 by Lecka

[MercyA]

7 minutes ago, mmasc said:

I ***RARELY*** (ok, never) hop into these threads that can be heated or controversial, but I really need to point out that you’ve commented at least twice about being thankful/grateful, but none of your words support that and at this point just seem offensive to me. You can keep stating your opinion of course, (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), but I’d prefer if you’d leave off the grateful bit bc I’m not seeing it. Who do you think is going to do the protecting if nobody “signs up for that”? I just feel like overall you don’t understand how our military works AT ALL. And really, most civilians don’t. But it would be nice if you could get some real life info, maybe make some friends who are living the active duty lifestyle, etc. before making your broad statements about what military training does to a person. 

I'm not lying, but don't see any way to really prove that to you. You'll have to take my word for it. I *am grateful* for people willing to join the military. I just think those people are also being used for nefarious purposes. I don't see a contradiction between those two things: someone being willing to do something for good motives, but then being used for bad ones. 

I am sorry to have offended you. 😞 

Going to bow out. I think I've said my piece. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by MercyA

[Sneezyone]

56 minutes ago, Lecka said:

I have mixed feelings.  My husband was in the Infantry and DA-select Drill Sergeant in the Army.

 

I don’t think it’s horrible but I do think — war is  war.  
 

It’s not what I want for my kids, yet I think it’s a good option for many.  
 

Edit:  I guess I’m not willing to make a wholesale statement that it is all bad — but I do think there are good points being made.  

There are lots of different jobs and career specialties lumped under the military umbrella - from Coasties who mostly do rescues, immigration, and drug interdiction work to forward-deployed Army/Marine Corps personnel living in tents. It's irresponsible and unfair and inaccurate to lump them all together. In a world war, someone like Dorie Miller may end up firing guns on the ship's decks to save himself and his colleagues. In modern times (even forward-deployed), that's not a thing. We can be both honest and realistic about the relative risks each person faces based on their chosen/assigned area of expertise.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Sneezyone

[maize]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

There are lots of different jobs and career specialties lumped under the military umbrella - from Coasties who mostly do rescues, immigration, and drug interdiction work to forward-deployed Army/Marine Corps personnel living in tents. It's irresponsible and unfair and inaccurate to lump them all together. In a world war, someone like Dorie Miller may end up firing guns on the ship's decks to save himself and his colleagues. In modern times (even forward-deployed), that's not a thing. We can be both honest and realistic about the relative risks each person faces based on their chosen/assigned area of expertise.

 

Exactly!

I was in the Air Force. My husband works as a civilian on an Air Force Base. I was never any closer to an actual combat situation than he has been (hasn't been!)

There are some very grim realities of warfare, on both small and large scales, and anyone entering the military should be prepared to grapple with those. My specialty managed, among other things, mortuary affairs. We trained to recover and process human remains that might be in very, very poor condition (not necessarily even combat related; imagine--or don't --what happens to a human body when a plane crashes). 

I had some minimal weapons training. It's possible I could at some point have ended up in a situation where I may have needed to point a weapon at a human. But the chances of that were very, very small--I'm honestly not sure they were any higher than they have been in my civilian life. And that is the reality for the overwhelming majority of people in my branch of the military, and honestly for the majority of people in every branch of the military. The people who can actually expect to engage in direct combat are a minority of today's military force. 

[TravelingChris]

On 1/29/2023 at 7:41 PM, MercyA said:

I'm happy for him, truly. And definitely everything should be in writing. But even enlistment agreements specifically state: “Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document.” And not ot enlistment either.  My dh was told by his OTC recruiter that even though he was a physicist from a very good college, if the USAF wanted, they could make him a silo man ( and they would never, ever do that- because they never placed too intelligent people in silos).  He signed and he knew that if he flunked out of OTS, he would start as. E5.  But, except for the mandatory period of service, is exactly like law enforcement- ypu don't get to choose what unit you will work with when