Missed it by seven years!
Posted on 03/22/2005 3:56:04 AM PST by Flavius
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, stung by recruiting shortfalls caused by the Iraq (news - web sites) war, has raised the maximum age for new recruits for the part-time Army Reserve and National Guard by five years to 39, officials said on Monday.
The Army said the move, a three-year experiment, will add about 22 million people to the pool of those eligible to serve, from about 60 million now. Physical standards will not be relaxed for older recruits, who the Army said were valued for their maturity and patriotism.
The Pentagon (news - web sites) has relied heavily on part-time Army Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers summoned from civilian life to maintain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites). Roughly 45 percent of U.S. troops currently deployed for those wars are reservists.
At home, the all-volunteer Army has labored to coax potential recruits to volunteer for the Guard and Reserve as well as for active-duty, and to persuade current soldiers to re-enlist when their volunteer commitment ends.
Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, an Army spokeswoman, said the maximum enlistment age for the regular Army will remain 34. While congressional action was not needed to raise the age for the Guard and Reserve, Robbins said, Congress must approve any change for the active-duty force.
"Raising the maximum age for non-prior service enlistment expands the recruiting pool, provides motivated individuals an opportunity to serve, and strengthens the readiness of Reserve units," the Army said in a statement.
Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said it was possible after the three-year test ends in September 2008 that the Pentagon may consider an enlistment age for Army reservists even older than 39.
RECRUITING GOALS
Recruiters say the Iraq war is making military service a harder sell, and the Army has added recruiters and financial incentives for enlistment.
The Army National Guard missed its recruiting goal for the 2004 fiscal year and trails its year-to-date 2005 targets. The Army Reserve missed January and February goals and is lagging its target for 2005. The regular Army missed its target for February and trails its annual goal.
"Obviously, this decision is being made partly in response to the personnel shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq," said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
But he said U.S. life expectancy increased by 40 percent in the 20th century, adding, "The pressure of wartime has pushed the Army to make a change that may have been overdue anyway."
"Anecdotally, our recruiters have been telling us for years that we've had people who are otherwise qualified but over the age limit who have attempted to enlist," Robbins said. "There are physically fit, health-conscious individuals who can make a positive contribution to our national defense."
The Army said the policy applies to men and women, and older recruits must meet the same physical standards and pass the same medical examination as everyone else.
"Experience has shown that older recruits who can meet the physical demands of military service generally make excellent soldiers based on their maturity, motivation, loyalty and patriotism," the Army said.
Krenke said the change was first considered last fall and approved by the Pentagon last week. She said the Marines, Navy and Air Force had not requested a similar change.
The Army Reserve is made up of federal soldiers who can be mobilized from civilian life for active duty. National Guard soldiers also serve under the control of state governors for roles like disaster relief in their home states.
Missed it by seven years!
MY GOODNESS! They raised the age!
It's not like people are living longer, healthier lives these days. Nothing has changed since they instituted the age!
The only way to really fix this is to attract the right kind of soldiers, and to do the right things to keep them in. We don't do either anymore.
No?
OK then ....
I was born February 29, 1948. That makes me 14 and a quarter.
If I pre-enlist now, can I get my pick of MOS?
C'mon, Sarge ... gimme a friggin' weapon and send me over !
(What a drag it is getting ollllld.)[er]
I'm 37. Could lose a few pounds, but otherwise in good health.
Considering I fully support the President and his policies, seems like I have a duty to at least consider serving. With a 3-year enlistment, I could be back out if the Dems retake the Presidency or Congress, worse case.
Any FReepers currently in the Guard that could describe what its like? I've read the "glossy brochures" on the web site, but am interested in the reality from someone who is there or has been there recently. Dad was in just before the Vietnam war, but I suspect there have been a few changes in the intervening 40 years.
BTW, I have about a dozen years of general PC/Network/database/application administration experience, for whatever that's worth.
I agree. I retired at 38 after 20 years and I can't imagine a 39 year old in basic training keeping up with an 18 year old. Not to mention taking orders from someone young enough to be your son. There are exceptions but on the whole I think this is a bad idea. Old bones don't heal as fast as young ones.
I think the age has more to do with attaining 20 years of federal service before your 55th birthday than physical considerations. But I could be way off.
That's worthless, believe me I know. If they raise the age 4 more years than I'll enlist with you. With any luck we'll invade India and China and we can shoot the sunavabitches who replaced us. :-P
I haven't been replaced (yet). Although most of my experience is in smaller companies where one has to have a broader base of knowledge to be successful, as opposed to larger companies where depth of knowledge is more important, but also makes you more replaceable (although I'm under no illusions that I'm somehow immune to being outsourced).
The downside is I don't have the management opportunities a larger company would have because I typically run a very small shop augmented by occassional third-party assistance.
The complexity and specialization of the jobs have changed. The sky is not falling.
I think that would be the tougher part of it. There’s a percentage of 40 year olds that can perform like they were 20, but everyone of them will have to seriously psych themselves into working for 20 year old authoritarians.
Imagine a young troop putting a 40 year old at attention and screaming at him when his barracks doesn't pass inspection.
If I understand the purpose of that correctly, it’s to tear down the identity of recruits so that it can be rebuilt as part of the team. If it’s possible to do to a 40yo, it won’t be done through screaming. I don’t think it would be hard to tear down a 40y/o with other forms of belittlement, but like someone else said, 40yo bones don’t heal as quick. I don’t know if many would spring back.
40yos won't get any special treatment because of their age. They will be treated like others of their rank.
Most 40 year olds will be laughing inside when screamed at. A smart DI will find other ways to rip him down.
We need to raise the mininum age to 21 since 18 yearolds can't be trusted to drink.
As long as that doesn’t mean I don’t have to stop cheating on my wife with teeny boppers.
"It's a shame that the military didn't fix retention at the right end, and instead is just looking to pull more people off the streets "
They should have treated us better. Now they know. During the RIFs many vets were treated like garbage while at the same time many were kept in just to keep the rainbow pretty. Go find the REFers and make them patrol!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.