Why join the military?

[TicklingDuo]

I've been hearing a number of reports lately about folks (both men and women) who are in the military and are now refusing to serve. For some, it's because of family concerns. For others, it's because they don't believe in violence. The reasons are as many as the people giving them. This all brings up some very important questions that I think we'll need to look at once this is over.

What is the image our military presents to young people? Why do young people join the military? Why aren't many of our young men and women prepared for the reality of their job? Why are these people allowed to just state that they don't want to go and walk away?

I think that a big part of our problem is the way we "market" the armed forces. Look at any of the commercials that have been aired in the past few years. NONE of them show anything to do with combat. They all show them as a game of some sort....some actually showing popular games being played and likening them to service. We also market the military as a way to get a good education and have a better chance at a good career. While I understand that they needed some sort of pop marketing to attract people, I think they've made a mistake in not having a balance there. A lot of these guys/gals join up expecting some big adventure but no danger. That needs to change.

That having been said, I still have a problem with people joining up and then refusing to fulfill their obligation. It seems like some of these people are looking for a free ride. They get food, clothing and shelter and a pay check to boot. But, when they're asked to do the thing that the military is there for, they want no part of it. The reality of combat is a scarey thing. But, the obligations these people make are real and should be honored. If they want to take off and not fulfill that, they can be discharged. But, I think it should be an undesirable or incompatability discharge...NOT a general discharge that makes it look like they've done their duty.

What do others think about this whole thing?

Ann

 

[Limeoutsider]

Are they being kicked out of the military? If anyone of us refused to do their job, we;d get fired.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

good questions.

i served back in the bad old days of the jimmy carter administration. and i saw action, and not just in the bars, and brothels! lol.
to refuse to serve in time of war, is very serious! for a serving serviceman to refuse to deploy, into a combat zone, would be grounds for charges of desertion in the face of the enemy, to treason. that soldiers etc. are doing this (your thread is the first i've heard of it happening) and only being given discharges is insulting to all soldiers past and present! i say jail the bastards!

i think you are correct, the way the military has been advertising is a mistake. but you have to remember 8 of the last 10 years was under a democrat who hated the military, and anything to do with serving was fround upon by society. the military responded by pushing the "what we can do for you" side. as can be seen, this is a big mistake. unless thing have changed so dramaticly, we were told in basic the first day, that we were going to be trained to fight, and kill!(never to die). so why would it be such a big suprise to anyone when they are handed a gun, and told off you go! unless they signed on, with the intent to defraud the military/government/tax-payers.
steve

 

[JoBelle]

I've got some mixed views on this as well.

I can state as having such, I never joined the military. I didn't have the drive or self discipline that the lifestyle demands. I would have been a horrible soldier. I can fight mean and dirty, but I hear that might get you in trouble. 😉

My husband was in the first Gulf War, and he would tell far too often about reserves who were actually bitching that they had been called up. Hello? What do you think you were doing? PRETENDING to play soldiers? I never understood that. I don't think a persona should be able to say, "Ya know what? Fuck my repsonsibility, I've decided I'm a pacifist." That just doesn't cut it with me.

But, then....
There is the issue of the woman in the Marines. She had a 16 week old baby and her husband had been deployed. Not having anyone to keep her child, she refused to go to war. That is an example I can deal with. Who among us would expect a mother still recovering from childbirth to leave a child only 4 months old...uhmmm...where? At the next door neighbor's house? Maybe at the local day care? That's unrealistic. People's lives often change over a period of time.Those changes that can be deal with (like a new found hatred of violence) are one thing. You deal with the stresses involved, suck it up and perform your duty. But when you're leaving behind an infant without proper or trusted care when the other parent is already fighting in the war....well, that's different to me. It involves another life. Ya see?


This hwole Amry of One crap is just getting on my nerves too. They are selling the military as "It fits you. It's the perfect color. It makes you look svelte and sexy. C'mon, you know you want your own...ARMY OF ONE!" What happened to joining as my husband did to serve your country and learn something along the way? BLAH! Too many self righteous pansies around if you ask me.

Myriad of possibilities. I guess I'd just have to use my gut instinct.

Good topic Ann.
Jo

 

[Sadistictickler]

Well, in Holland we have a mayor problem which is a lack of funds combined with a lack of interest. Why join the militairy if YOU are the one getting blown to bits, and the big'n fat general that commands you just sits his ass in a huge villa and doesn't give a shit about you? Soldiers are cannonfodder, and if it weren't for the PR, US wars would still be pretty much the same as in WW1 and WW2; just send some guys to battle and some might even live to kill the enemy...

 

[TicklingDuo]

There is the issue of the woman in the Marines. She had a 16 week old baby and her husband had been deployed. Not having anyone to keep her child, she refused to go to war. That is an example I can deal with.

While I can understand her feelings and agree that the child should come first, I still have a problem with her. If both spouses are in the military, BOTH should be prepared to serve at the drop of a hat. That means keep your pants on and don't have kids until your hitch is up. There may be other details that I haven't heard yet. But I see it as a shirk of responsibility to have a child while in the military. That may sound harsh. But, I really think any woman who joins up should abstain until their hitch is up so as not to get into a situation like this. Military life and raising a family are incompatible in my book. Make a choice and stick to it.

BTW, this is coming from someone whose little brother pulled this shit in the first Gulf War. He was all gung ho to fly and see the world. But, as soon as there was talk of war, he started going AWOL. They finally discharged him (general) after he threw himself down a set of stairs to avoid shipping out when they were sent over. While I love him, I will never accept his doing that and then turning around and bragging to others about his "naval service". He lost the right to brag when he shirked his duty.

Ann

 

[JoBelle]

Ahh, but to me, she did make a wise choice. She made her first choice last to the best of her ability. THEN, when it was clearly not going to be a workable solution for anyone involved, she gave up her military career for a more important one. I believe in her case, there was a sacrifice on her part beyond what may be for a person who just "chickens out." To me, that makes the difference.

As far as military people having children...I wouldn't presume to think that one's choice of career should dictate that all other aspects of socially acceptable life not be allowed. I actually know 4 single custodial fathers who are military facing this very thing right now. They just happen to have older children with extended families who can help them. Should they have to leave the military when their wives die or walk out? Just another similar topic.

Just a thought.
Jo

 

[Deleted member 2452]

1st time i've disagreed with you jobelle

Ahh, but to me, she did make a wise choice. She made her first choice last to the best of her ability. THEN, when it was clearly not going to be a workable solution for anyone involved, she gave up her military career for a more important one. I believe in her case, there was a sacrifice on her part beyond what may be for a person who just "chickens out." To me, that makes the difference.

As far as military people having children...I wouldn't presume to think that one's choice of career should dictate that all other aspects of socially acceptable life not be allowed. I actually know 4 single custodial fathers who are military facing this very thing right now. They just happen to have older children with extended families who can help them. Should they have to leave the military when their wives die or walk out? Just another similar topic.

Just a thought.
Jo

i don't think the marine mom made the right decision. she had signed on the line, and accepted the marines knickle, then chose to get pregnant, and have a baby. did you know that in the military you have to get permission to get prgnant, if you are an enlisted man?
then when the going got rough and she was to be sent over to preform her job,(that the military trained her for) she instead chose to cry for pitty, and refuse to go, and be derilict in her duty.
i have no sympathy. if a woman wants to serve in the military, then get it straight at the get go, no babies till you get out, or pick an m.o.s. that you know won't get you shipped out of country!
steve

 

[TicklingDuo]

Joby, I do feel for the woman. Since she already has the baby and has nobody to watch her while she's gone, I think she made the right choice on a moral level. She can't abandon the child.

However, when you make a commitment to a lifestyle that isn't compatible (though some HAVE made it work) with having a family, you've already made the choice. As far as I know, a hitch is still only 4 years. That's not so long to wait if a couple decides that they want to have children. The woman can always choose to not re-up so that they can raise a family. Even then, it's very difficult.

The ability to "make it" as a military family is much different from having a happy and healthy lifestyle....esp. for the kids. I've known several military families over the years. My cousin Jeff (currently preparing to leave to rejoin his ship in the gulf after a term of shore duty and brief leave) is the father of one of those families. They constantly question whether they made the right choice...esp. when things get rough like they are now. His wife waited until her initial hitch was up until they began the family. The kids are constantly worrying about their father's safety and well-being. It's tough having to constantly pick up and move away from friends when he gets transferred. There are all sorts of inherent difficulties.

Can it be done? Yes, it can. Should it be done? I personally don't believe that it should. Just my opinion.

Ann

 

[Oddjob0226]

I remember during the Gulf War I was watching Donahue or something similar. They had people in the military on who didn't want to go into combat in Kuwait. They were willing to serve, but most of them had joined the army to get their medical degrees (it was their specialty). They were willing to treate wounded & such, but didn't want to fight, for many reasons (it was an Arab problem; it was for oil not the freedom of the U.S.; if badly wounded how could they help anyone as a Dr. with missing hands, no eyes, whatever...) The audience thought they were real squares, man, & didn't see things their way, and I was like "I know you're po', but why would you join a group that FIGHTS for a living?"

What about the people who volunteer for the military - not press ganged, not drafted - but volunteer, and then make the decision to have kids & get married & such, knowing full well they might have to go off & get wounded & die, then society gets guilt tripped into the "they're fighting for us", etc. We make choices in life, and sometimes they suck the big one. Last time I checked, post 9/11, any of us could be a target, so any of us might need to fight (at any time (and the army is better trained & equipped!). Like on an airplane. On my July trip to Ohio, I'll ready to show some suckas what time it is! I'll let you know the outcome.

Besides - preganacy ain't exactly a disease. You don't develope it, like SARS, rabies or Sponatneous Human Combustion.

What does it all mean? I don't know.

 

[RichardAuc]

For JoBelle & Areenactor...

I'm a veteran who was a fourth-generation soldier. I was an Army battalion clerk who had to know regulations well, so I'm in a position to answer some of the factual questions.

JoBelle: In the event that a soldier's family has a financial hardship imposed by his absence, said soldier is entitled to a hardship discharge. The regulations on this point do not restrict hardship discharges by gender, or by whether or not said soldier is serving in a hazardous duty area.

Steve: There IS no MOS (military occupation specialty--Army talk for "job) that is guaranteed to keep you in country during "hazardous duty." (I can't call this a war--Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution says only Congress can declare war.) Clerks, doctors, and others may have a hard time getting an overseas transfer in peace time--I was denied SIX requests for overseas duty--but there are no such protections now.

As for the point about pregnancy constituting a violation of military contract--believe or not, technically true. One of the clauses of a military contract says that you can't deliberately do anything to yourself that debilitates you in such a way that you cannot perform your duties--and pregnancy is certainly debilitating, particularly the third trimester. An extreme example of this happened when my father was put on report during his Marine Corps enlistment--for allowing himself to be sunburned, and thus rendering himself unable to perform his duties. Since sunburn is only temporary, they let him off w/a fine. Pregnancy last a lot longer, and childrearing is permanent.

These rules are harsh, to be sure, but they exist to ensure that the United States military has dependable people. For every soldier away from their post--for whatever reason--other soldiers, with families and friends at home too, are put at risk for reasons not their fault.

Thus endeth the factual report.

My personal opinion: a volunteer army is the only effective one. Saddam's bunch is full of draftees, which is why they're dying by the hundreds and surrendering by the thousands. When I was active, I was reassured that I was serving with people who wanted to serve with me. If someone wants to leave the service, they shouldn't have to get pregnant to leave. My only request is that no one leaves during an actual fight, because that endangers not only the deserters but everyone who depends on them. If there's a break in the action, though, anyone who wants to walk should get to--at least that way the ones who stay will know who'll support them. Read Ecclesiastes: "to every thing there is a season", and that includes a time to fight for what the country stands for, and if necessarily, to die for it.

One more thing--full benefits only for those who finish their enlistments, warrants or commisions--or can't do so for unavoidable medical reasons. These are military services, not day care centers, hospices for pregnant women, or nonprofit organizations to pay for education (medical or otherwise). A military contract is like any other contract in this respect--there are legal consequences for breaking it. If those consequences are unacceptable, best not join.

 

[RichardAuc]

MIssed one

Tickling Duo: one correction--the hitch is for six years, not four as you claimed. However, not all of that is active time. In peacetime, the active portion varies from two to four years depending the occupation of the service member, and the balance is inactive reserve time. In times like these, however, any or all inactive reserve time can be converted to active time at the convenience of the United States government. How likely such a conversion is depends on how shorthanded the military gets for the occupation of said service member.

 

[Raya]

I remember being quite confused when I was at MEPS on my first day of active duty. There was a ceremony where we all pledged our service to our country and it was slightly modified for those entering the service who stated upon signing up that they were "consciencious objectors" (sorry if I butchered the hell out of that one, closest I could come?). It seemed odd to me that people who objected to violence would join the military, and even more odd that they would be accepted. If those refusing to serve did not initially state that they were in this category (I won't butcher it again, thank you), then they should indeed be considered in violation of service.

So far as pregnancy being a violation, at least up until 12 years ago, when I left the service, I was not considered to have done anything wrong, and I had two children while I was active duty. At that time, and possibly still, it was the one condition you could have that gauranteed you the right to just up and decide you no longer wanted to serve, and gauranteed you an honorable discharge if you chose to go that route. (I did not). I can also tell you that at no time was our choice to be parents discouraged by anyone on our base. Perhaps this might be different if my field were specifically a combat field, but communications can be performed and is needed pretty much anywhere. I have to disagree with you on this one, Ann (simply because I cannot view my two children as mistakes or ways of shirking a duty).🙁



And to add to this, yes, my parents were prepared all throughout the first gulf war to take the kids if either Keith (my first husband) or I were shipped over, and yes, we were prepared to go!

 

[TicklingDuo]

Richard...Maybe things were different when my brother was in. His hitch was to have been 4 years. I thought that all were. I stand corrected.

Tracy...As I said when we spoke yesterday, I had never heard of the fact that there is any variation of the oath taken. It's always been my understanding that you must be willing to serve out your time in whatever way you're asked when you join up. I think the fact that this is an option for people is fine, but not that they are allowed to train and serve in units where others assume them to be willing to fight next to them. It has to be a killer for moral...both for their fellow soldiers and those at home who hear about things like this.

If people want to join up only for what they can get out of it (Sorry, but that's how I see those who are unwilling to do the duty of a soldier going in.), there should be some different "home support" branch designated for them. They can join that branch so that there is no question of their unwillingness to serve in combat defense of this country...which if you think about it is the whole point of the military, not some extended adult scout troup outing.

As for the issue of pregnancy/having kids, I still feel the two are generally incompatible. But, I know that some can make it work. I salute their ability to do so. As long as people are still willing to do their duty, I can accept that.

The point of my original post was not to put anyone down, but simply to question how things are done in the military, how it's presented and why things like these people refusing to serve can happen. I know that having an all volunteer military is best AFA people actually wanting to be there. But, in my opinion, those same volunteers should be made to understand what it is that they're going to be asked to do...ALL OF IT, not just the "see the world and have a great adventure BS".

Let's face it, the military (like police and fire services) is a dangerous occupation where you have a good chance of being hurt or killed and seeing a lot of pain and sufferering. If you aren't prepared to accept and deal with that, you don't belong there. I've seen little evidence of this being told to those who join up. To me, it's like saying you want to be a doctor, allowing someone to pay all your tuition and living costs and give you an allowance as you go through med school only to say that you won't tend to any patients because you can't stand being around sick people or the sight of blood. As the robot on "Lost in Space" used to say, "Does not compute, Will Robiinson!"

Ann