 This
article is provided courtesy of DefenseWatch,
the official magazine for Soldiers For The
Truth (SFTT), a grass-roots educational organization
started by a small group of concerned veterans
and citizens to inform the public, the Congress,
and the media on the decline in readiness
of our armed forces. Inspired by the outspoken
idealism of the late Colonel
David Hackworth, SFTT aims to give our
service people, veterans, and retirees a clear
voice with the media, Congress, the public
and their services.
|
|
|
|
August 9, 2005
[Have an opinion about the views expressed in this article? Sound
off in the Hot Issues with Defensewatch Forum.]
By
Pete Farmer
I am not yet convinced that people my age do not have a role in the military, but Nat Helms in his recent article ( " Now the Army Wants 40-Something Troops," DefenseWatch , July 29, 2005) has given me cause to reconsider my views, especially for ground combat jobs like platoon leader.
Based on his experience as a young trooper in Vietnam , it seems to be asking for trouble to have novice platoon leaders over age 30, let alone age 40. It also sounds like those washout platoon leaders who couldn't cut it under fire in Vietnam were not adequately trained prior to being committed to action. This is a major leadership failure. (As an aside, I've always wondered why the services let a neophyte officer fresh out of OCS, ROTC, or a service academy lead NCOs with much greater practical experience. Why not make successful leadership as an NCO a pre-requisite for officer training?)
From a scientific perspective, Helms is certainly correct that young men possess a sense of invulnerability that older men do not. They are inherently aggressive and prone to take risks. I think that there are probably a small fraction of middle-aged men who'd make effective small-unit infantry leaders/fighters, but is it enough to make finding and training them cost-effective or practical? Of course, even if the middle-aged are admitted to the military, we will not provide the large numbers of recruits needed. Too few mid-life people are interested in serving in anything but a war of national survival.
As Helms notes, mid-life people have complications: families that depend on them, careers and other commitments. He also points out the effect on our military traditions that the introduction of older soldiers might have. I agree, but haven't we already gone down this path by opening up the military to women in the way we have? Given that a return to the "old days" of the (nearly) all-male military is unlikely, what mix of male and female, and youth vs. experience is preferable? If we cannot find enough young men to serve, these questions will have to be addressed. Indeed, the army recently moved to ease rules governing servicewoman and proximity to combat, deferring only after congressional opposition.
Our recruiting shortfall has to be made good somewhere. More money and benefits might help pull in some young recruits, but it is unlikely to solve the problem. Other possible alternatives are opening up service to people who aren't citizens and don't have a green card, a sort of U.S. foreign legion; drastic reduction of enlistment standards; or a return to conscription. None of these scenarios is a panacea; each option has trade-offs.
Having conceded the wisdom of Helms' arguments about platoon leaders specifically and infantry (I'm including special operations forces here also) generally, let us turn to other jobs within the military. If men of 40 are not effective as infantrymen, what about as tankers or artillerymen? Of course, artillery and armor personnel can be called upon to fight as infantry, but so can cooks and other rear-area support troops (of whom some are women). Still, why can't a 40-year-old crew an Abrams M-1A2, provided he can pass the physical aspects of maintaining the tank such as changing tracks, etc. Has the military ever conducted studies to determine if such options are realistic, or have we simply assumed that only the young can complete the mission?
What about a middle-aged medic or corpsman? Being a corpsman is potentially a very dangerous job, yet the USNR takes new reserve recruits up to age 39 (I found out about this too late; I tried to enter the service as a corpsman, since I have medical skills, but I missed the cutoff age by two years). The Navy even allows qualified candidates to attend FMF Service School for attachment to Marine infantry units.
What about jobs further from the front-lines? Turning our attention to the USN, USCG and USAF, what possibilities do these services offer for use of an older sailor or airman? First, extrapolating from Helms' remarks about infantry, we can eliminate USAF and USN special operations, since they function as ground troops on very demanding missions. We can also eliminate pilots of high-performance aircraft, since studies dating back to World War II show that combat flying is among the skills best learned young. But what about everything else? That leaves a lot of MOS types still open. Can they be done only by the young? Why can't a 40-year-old make an effective radar technician or other specialist? As I noted before, in theory this frees a young person to fight.
There are one or two other aspects to the younger soldier/older soldier issue we have not touched upon.
First, what about using older recruits specifically for homeland defense duties? Why use a 20-something stud to patrol an airport terminal or do border patrol when a man or woman of middle age could do the job? That 20-year old soldier could be used in a higher-impact MOS. Using him as we do now is arguably a waste of resources. This scenario also makes sense because reserve rotations in-and-out of domestic defense roles could be managed to suit the older citizen-soldier currently being hurt by multiple deployments overseas. Perhaps a redefinition of the National Guard mission is in order, whereby they are given a domestic defense mission exclusively, and are not subject to federal call-up as overseas combat troops. This would have the effect of giving us greater resources for harbor, border, and other homeland security missions as well as disaster relief and other traditional Guard functions. Of course, there are entrenched bureaucratic and other vested interests lined up to oppose such a move. Who knows if it could happen or not?
Another aspect of the debate concerns the different capabilities the older soldier possesses compared with his younger counterpart. Don't counter-insurgency operations like those we are conducting in Iraq demand skills that are "police-like?" William Lind noted in one of his recent columns that de-escalation is needed in many situations, and not escalation ( "De-escalation Is Best Tactic for Us in Iraq," DefenseWatch , June 30, 2005 ). Other things being equal, an older adult is more likely to provide the former, while an aggressive young soldier is more likely to provide the latter. Especially useful in counterinsurgency work, Lind says, are reserve personnel who serve in law enforcement as civilians, since police are trained to de-escalate rather than push for a fight. Doesn't this argue that a young, "shoot-first, ask-questions-later" soldier isn't always the best choice for the job? Certainly, many domestic police agencies are now allowing older applicants to become police officers for their abilities at defusing difficult situations, and the over-all maturity they provide.
Advocates for the use of older soldiers do not wish to see standards diluted or readiness degraded. We will not support measures that endanger our service members or their ability to complete their missions. We simply want an objective, scientifically-rigorous examination of the issue, both pro- and con. To date, that has not been forthcoming from our defense establishment.
©2005 DefenseWatch.Guest Contributor Peter Farmer is a research scientist and historian. He also is a member of the Let Them Serve coalition. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
|
