i know in the United States at least that one needs a HighSchool diploma before they are eligible to enlist in the army/U.S.M.C/Navy etc. In my opinion anyone should be allowed to enlist, it is a right to serve one's country and is unfair that even if someone attained a GED which equates to a diploma in many scenarios they still can't join armed forces. I do understand that higher ranked officers should be better educated but why do you think that governments are so strict on who can serve their country?
Should joining the military be restricted?
brinktk
Active member
It is not a right to serve in the armed forces. The government reserves the right to change the criteria for entering the armed forces based on mission and need. Many of the services don't accept a GED without 15 college credits because they feel, rightfully so, if one is not committed enough to attain the minimal education freely offered by the government, then why should they trust that same person to commit to an obligation that requires much more committment than that of a high school student. 80% of military age males cannot pass the minimum requirements to serve in the armed forces. Still, the military seems to be fine on gaining recruits.
You missed the GED band wagon. 4 years ago the Army, at least, was taking many people who before that time they would have never even considered taking in. With the drawdown of the armed forces, many soldiers who have served honorably over the last 5-10 years are being forced out of the militrary because the requirement for the Army to downsize by 80,000 soldiers. They can afford to be picky about who they let in and you can expect to see them only allowing the top 20% of candidates to join.
If you really have your heart set on joining then I would suggest enrolling in college. Join the ROTC program or gain a degree and go OCS. That's about your best bet at this time. Remember, once you are in, you are at the needs of the army. It's not a right to serve it's a priviledge. They reserve the right to keep you in or out of the military at any time. If you plan on being a soldier, this is something you must learn to accept.
You missed the GED band wagon. 4 years ago the Army, at least, was taking many people who before that time they would have never even considered taking in. With the drawdown of the armed forces, many soldiers who have served honorably over the last 5-10 years are being forced out of the militrary because the requirement for the Army to downsize by 80,000 soldiers. They can afford to be picky about who they let in and you can expect to see them only allowing the top 20% of candidates to join.
If you really have your heart set on joining then I would suggest enrolling in college. Join the ROTC program or gain a degree and go OCS. That's about your best bet at this time. Remember, once you are in, you are at the needs of the army. It's not a right to serve it's a priviledge. They reserve the right to keep you in or out of the military at any time. If you plan on being a soldier, this is something you must learn to accept.
Last edited:
Trooper1854
The Brit Pack
One;
Its not a right to serve ones country it is a privilege.
Two;
With the advances being made in the technology available to the ordinary foot slogger, there has to be a certain amount of brains under the helmet!
When I was in, twenty five years ago, there was just about one radio per infantry section, and things like GPS/sat nav were science fiction!
I was attached to an Infantry company to help them use anything bigger and more complicated than these section radios.
Now days, each infantryman has a radio and access to plenty of other technical kit that requires a certain amount of intelligence to use.
Also there is more to soldiering than pointing them in the right direction and saying "Go get em!"
It's not just officers who need the scholastic backing.
In the British Army the same level of intelligence and initiative is required and expected of anyone.
Get as much educational backing as you can, it can't hurt.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
I remember the old back pack radio's that were heavier then a GPMG and had a range of about 2 miles, bloody hopeless.
Trooper1854
The Brit Pack
The Royal Signals are known a "Scaly backs"
This is because the batteries in the radio packs were like car batteries and they leaked, burning the operator's backs and causing a horrible scaly look to the backs.
When battery technology improved and dry batteries were used, the name stuck because the "Man portable" sets were so heavy, they rubbed your back raw!
Duty Honor Country
Active member
In the end it is all about numbers and quality.
When the insurgency in Iraq heated up, a large amount of Soldiers were not reenlisting and civilians were not real excited about joining. In an effort to fill the ranks, the Army began to allow people with GED and other things like felonies that once barred people from joining the Army. However, lowering the standards for the Army brought in a higher amount of people who were more of a problem then what they were worth (ie drug dealers). Now that the economy is better, the standards have gotten higher.
The days of recruiting from prisons and the scum of society are well behind us (referencing British history).
~DHC
When the insurgency in Iraq heated up, a large amount of Soldiers were not reenlisting and civilians were not real excited about joining. In an effort to fill the ranks, the Army began to allow people with GED and other things like felonies that once barred people from joining the Army. However, lowering the standards for the Army brought in a higher amount of people who were more of a problem then what they were worth (ie drug dealers). Now that the economy is better, the standards have gotten higher.
The days of recruiting from prisons and the scum of society are well behind us (referencing British history).
~DHC
Trooper1854
The Brit Pack
The armed forces of the world have always, throughout history, been seen as the way to escape prisons, poverty, and anything else.
People think its an easy option, but get a bit of a shock when they get there!
The history of recruitment is closely tied to the history of the country.
When unemployment is high the recruiting offices are always busy.
Duty Honor Country
Active member
You are right there. For the US, it is a great time to be a recruiter. The economy is bad, people are staying in the military and there are troop cuts on the way. Right now the higher ups are looking to cut the lower quality Soldiers right now from everything that has been said. Since I has served since 1997, the Army is just going back to the "pre 9-11" standards where if you cannot pass an APFT in 3 months you are out or if you cannot pass body fat within 6 months you are out.
Here is an interesting note about the captains in my career course. 6 captains are either more than 6% over body fat or are 25 pounds or more over weight and cannot make standard. That is 10% of my class.
Trooper 1854, what are the standards like across the big pond? I am not savvy to military standards for England.
Here is an interesting note about the captains in my career course. 6 captains are either more than 6% over body fat or are 25 pounds or more over weight and cannot make standard. That is 10% of my class.
Trooper 1854, what are the standards like across the big pond? I am not savvy to military standards for England.
Trooper1854
The Brit Pack
The standards for the British Army, the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, and Royal Marines are very high. They always have been.
The armed forces have always had the pick of the litter, so to speak.
When I joined, unemployment was over 2.5 million and it took me nearly a year to get through all the required stages of assessments, and I had to go for specialist assesments for the trade I was going for.
I walked into the recruiting office with four friends, only two of us got in, and the other three guys were not slackers, one went off and joined the French Foreign Legion, did his five years and came out as a senior NCO.
I'm not really sure that this qualifies as a question (more so a statement), but I'll try to give you a constructive answer. First, as others have said, serving is by no means a right. You can actually find that in article 1 of the constitution,which establishes the formation of the United States military. I point this out because your attitude, though understandable, is definately your first barrier.
Next, on GEDs: it's a numbers game. You're more likely to be a problem soldier if you have a GED, as opposed to a diploma. This isn't putting you down; it's a simple fact. Here's the kicker, though...if you start taking college courses, the GED vs diploma issue becomes moot, as the military (Army, at least) looks at your highest level of education. Will a couple completed semesters get you in? I'm not sure; 10 credit hours was the standard a couple years ago. I can tell you that an associates degree got my newest soldier out of MEPS and into Basic, and he had one of those 'diploma mill' GEDs...the ones that got black-listed a few years ago.
Your next mission is to start calling a recruiter regularly, and keep him/her posted. Enlistment requirements change just about every fiscal quarter. Sure, getting in is tough, but fortunately for you, staying in just got a lot tougher, so persistence pays dividends.
My source for this information is a briefing I received two weeks ago, as part of a Leader's Course. For those of you who've been there, it was just like it always is...Army can tell you everything you don't need to know ("your 17-year-old cousin can choose from these jobs"), but is still hazy on the pertinent stuff ("it hasn't been decided if a soldier who _____ or _____ will be able to stay in"). I guess it's good to know what the new crop'll look like, but so much is up in the air right now for those currently serving that it's definately nerve-wracking. I digress...
Maybe it's not the answer you want, but i hope it helps.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
When I joined the RAF the standard was quite high, then a couple years later the standard did drop because not enough men were being recruited. One chap in my flight at Wattisham said that during his aptitude testing there was a picture of two circles and one triangle, the question was "Which is the odd one out?" He said, "The two circles." I kid you not, he wasn't very bright at all. If I ever got lumbered with him on night duty, I'd send him to the stores hut to count paper clips. But overall the standard was and still is very high.
As far as I remember from my first application at Victory House, Kingsway in London to actually arriving at the school of recruit training at RAF Swinderby was no more then two months.
42RM
Banned
There is no right granted to anyone to serve. The respective military departments do have the absolute right to reject you for any reason it deems appropriate.
Regardless of how recruiting commercials may "sell" the military, it is not a "jobs program." It's serious business, involving the security and national interests of our country.
42RM
Banned
IMHO a top quality well disciplined lot. Superbly professional officers and NCO's and the average British private are highly competent and well trained. Quite many have relevant experience under their belts - professionalism in the field overall. Leader/Killer/Gentleman in one neat package. Sharp discipline and top quality leadership is understandable when a country has a history of fighting abroad.
Something for the Brits to be really proud of.
Just plain bias. ;-)
KJ
Active member
Interesting indeed.
I have heard quite the opposite being said about the higher echelon brass sitting at home not allowing the doers to do their deeds.
That there have been an unusual amount of friction between Theater commanders and them stay at home and fill a seat chaps.
We all have our gripes, but I have heard it often enough to not ignore it.
What is your take on the current set up?
As for the quality of troops I am on the same page as you.
KJ sends..
muscogeemike
Active member
As an ex-recruiter (involuntary) I personally don’t believe any time is a “good” time to be a recruiter.
42RM
Banned
The "problems" are at No. 10 Downing Street and in the schools that produce our generals. Too many dinosaurs among the higher brass who still live in a NATO / WARPAC age. British PM's have been listening to the Exchequer for decades now, always trimming costs, and programs, and units. The results are very small forces, that aren't as well-equipped as they might be.
And then our generals get involved and thinking that they don't have a lot of:
1) Men
2) Money
3) Public Support
decide that the solution is a "political" one, rather than a military one. Sure, war is politics, BUT a special kind of politics. And the result is Basra or truces with the Taliban, all in hopes of "finessing" a win, that Britain can't achieve on the battlefield. It hasn't worked all that well. Sorry, and I like Britain...think Britain contributes a tremendous amount to the world and NATO. But our senior commanders just don't want to fight, when fighting is necessary to shape the battlefield and the facts on the ground that will yield a stable peace.....seem to be trying to get a political victory on the cheap.
Plus, I find the British Press and Intelligentsia a bit trying....spent years hearing about how we didn't understand LIC/COIN....too focused on fighting..yada...yada...yada.
Trooper1854
The Brit Pack
Its not so much a case of politics becoming involved in the military, but military becoming involved in politics.
The higher up the ladder officers progress, the more political they appear to become, loosing sight of the fact that they are officers in the armed forces and not politicians.
Its frustrating to see people who were once very good officers suddenly behave like they never served in the military, once they reach the levels of Major and above.
The higher up the ladder officers progress, the more political they appear to become, loosing sight of the fact that they are officers in the armed forces and not politicians.
Its frustrating to see people who were once very good officers suddenly behave like they never served in the military, once they reach the levels of Major and above.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Sadly there are politicians who poked their noses in like Duncan Sandys who wrote a white paper that stated that the "piloted aircraft is out of date." What the hell did he know about aircraft?
KJ
Active member
During Fallujha the Black watch (i think it was, if memory serves) were sent north to relieve the Marines going up to Fallujha for Phantom fury.
Not only did the then DSF throw in a caviat for "D" 22 NOT to get into the mix..
There were even talk about disengaging the watch after they took several cassualties during the first two weeks in place.
Had that happened it would have opened up another FFZ for the insurgents.
Could you enlighten me on one aspect though?
Are the DSF a political apointee?
A military guy with small units background trying to play politics?
Or just a military guy caught between a rock and a hard place?
Not knowing LIC/COIN?
Your chaps damned near invented the thing.
AND you are currently holding the record for sucessful campaigns in this kind of warfare by far.
You didn´t win by turning the other cheek ALL the time though..
I have said it before and I will say it again.
We need a Sgt with some experience from twentytwo taking point in Afgh, preferably one of them veterans of Op. Storm.
KJ sends..