 |  |  |
Last year the Army increased the maximum age limit for anyone wanting to join the Army to 40, and then in June it was raised to 42. Over a thousand people have jumped at this opportunity to serve thier country.
But was this a good idea? Can these 40+ soldiers "hang" with the 18-22 year old counterparts? The CS Monitor ran a story about the "Newest Army recruits: the over-35 crowd" and interviewed the first 42-year-old recruit, PFC Russell Dilling, during his basic training. Though the article indicated that he was doing well, it also mentioned that he had to wear crutches during part of his training because his knees were bothering him.
The Army claims that “Experience has shown that older recruits who can meet the physical demands of Army service generally make excellent Soldiers. They are mature, motivated, loyal and patriotic, and bring with them a wealth of skills and experience to our Army,” said Col. Donald Bartholomew, U.S. Army Recruiting Command Assistant Chief of Staff, G5.
Some will argue that war is more of a mental hardship than a physical one anyway. If that is true, then maybe older soldiers do have an advantage over their younger compatriots. "Everybody said [Basic Training] was going to be 80 percent mental and 20 percent physical, but it's the opposite for me." stated PFC Dilling. "It's the physical stuff that gets me. If you've ever had a wife who yelled at you, dealing with a drill instructor is no big deal."
The rest of the services have not followed suit. The maximum age to enlist in the Air Force and Marine Corps remains 27. The Navy’s maximum is age 35.
The Army is not expecting a surge of middle-aged people lining up at the recruiting office according to Julia Bobick, a spokesman for the Army’s Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky., “We don’t anticipate that this is going to give us a lot more enlistments. It’s a way to give [older] individuals on opportunity to serve if they want to do so.”
So here are some discussion points:
- Can older recruits add value to our services?
- Is this a sign that we are getting desperate to fill our ranks?
- Should the other services raise their maximum age limit?
 |  |  |
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
1 - Older recruits can definitely add to the military. They can do those jobs which are less strenuous (clerical and logistics) and allow the younger and better fit troops deal with the fighting.
2 - I don't think the term desparation is proper, but we certainly need an influx of new blood. It's either this or wait for the next attack on US soil to light a fire under the "me" generation.
3 - No, the other services shouldn't follow suit. The Navy and Air Force are reducing and the Marines have always been a very lean outfit and probably don't need to increase in numbers.
Jobs in the Army are not currently handed out by your physical capability or age though (except, of course, the elite forces like Rangers and Airborne). For example, a 42-year-old has just as much of a chance as the 18-year-old of being placed in Infantry, and having to be trusted by the "team" to do their part.
Drawn down or not -- why should someone be penalized for thier age in the Air Force or Navy? They have desk jobs in those services also. Wouldn't the wise older person be better than the younger immature kid?
My husband really wanted to join up and serve his country at this time.
Military life can be a good thing.