Here's the last of my thoughts on the subject.

Here is where personal opinion comes into play, as well as knowledge of the world situation.

My own son is of the age that he could join the military if he so chooses.  I had, in his younger days encouraged him to consider joining the National Guard.  The money provided for college education is generous, and I felt he could use the discipline that it would bring him.

He has steadfastly been against military life, even more so because of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He most definitely didn't want to chance being in the military and having to serve in an area he didn't feel ready to, or even a need to help serve in.  Not that he doesn't care about the people of Iraq, the situation there, etc., but for him it was a distant country that doesn't register as a situation he feels obligated to help resolve.

My son is considerably more liberal than I am in many areas.  Way more liberal in a few.  Somewhat libertarian.  And while there is more I could potentially say, I'll respect his privacy and stop the description there.

As a parent that is concerned with my son's safety, I'm glad that currently I don't have to worry about him serving in the military in Iraq or Afghanistan.  On the one hand I expect if he served he'd served with distinction, but on the other hand, I know he doesn't feel the obligation to serve and doesn't feel the sense of urgency to do so.  I know he's got issues with being what I term scatter brained.  My wife believes it's Aspergers or some other form of ADD or ADHD.  Either way, knowing he's less than organized and doesn't pay enough attention to detail at times leaves me concerned that he might not be the most reliable soldier if he did serve, and again, his potential mistakes could result in injury or death to himself or others around him.

Personally, I seriously considered rejoining the military after 9-11.  I was close to being outside age limits at the time, if not already over the limits.  I was certainly outside of the physical fitness guidelines, but knew that I could get into shape over time.  My sense of duty is different than my son though, and I don't want to impose my standards and value on him (unlike liberals like Charlie Rangell who feels that there should be a draft that would obligate potentially all young people to serve).

I don't dispute, and actually somewhat support, the idea that all individuals should serve in the military at some point in time.  They should walk a mile in a typical soldiers shoes.  Go through basic training at least, and some generic individual training/military appreciation skill training that would leave them very familiar with military life.  I'm not saying they should be forced to actually serve in the military, just that they should go through the experience of basic training.  I think it would give people a much greater appreciation of what a service member does for their country.

In direct answer to lulapilgrim's question, I'll say a few things.

First, absolutely positively do not trust the recruiter.  A recruiters job is to get bodies, period.  They will bend the truth where possible in order to fill spots.  They may promise the world but in the end they are delivering a person that signed a contract to become property of the U.S. government to the military.  They may say that the individual's service will be performed in Hawaii, but the needs of the military can and often do outweigh those promises.

The U.S. Army is somewhat better at offering preferred duty stations or preferred skill specialty/career path.  They will put it into a contract, but be aware that they typically only offer preferred duty stations for a portion of the service commitment (typically 6 to 8 year contract).  Something around half of that time, perhaps 2/3 or 3/4 of that time.   Same for skill specialty.  Persons that train as say an illustrator/draftsman may find themselves hitting a ceiling that forces them to transfer into another specialty.  That new specialty could wind up being gun-toter.  In the end that is what anyone in the military is if so ordered.

The National Guard is somewhat more "safe" when compared against the Army Reserves or obviously against active duty Army.  They typically are only allowed to serve at home, unless in special circumstances.  At home meaning in the home state, or state where their unit is based.  They may be called out by the governor of the state in cases of natural disaster.  In those cases they provide life saving assistance and a definite helping hand to communities that see devestation like that which followed Hurricane Katrina or the recent tornadoes that struck the south.

Again though, the individual should keep in mind that once through basic training and once serving in the Guard unit they'll typically be working with older equipment and with commanders, and other superiors that are there as part-time employees and are less likely to be as strong in their skills and training as the people they recently went through basic training with.  They may feel resentment because these other service people haven't kept up with their skills and training and they may find themselves feeling disgruntled and disillusioned with their unit over time.

If possible, try to visit the prospective unit that the recruiter is promising placement with.  Visit them on a "drill" weekend and watch them go through their normal service.  See what life with that unit is really like.  Get any and all promises in writing.  Ask as many questions as you can.  Where will basic training be?  When?  What skill specialty would be offered?  How long would that specialty be available -- is it a long term, or at least long enough term, specialty in terms of advancement, or is it one that would require shifting out to another specialty over time?

One big thing to consider career goal, and life goal, wise is that joining the military may provide a way to get a security clearance.  Especially if someone will be working as an Intelligence Analyst or other similar position.  If you can get a clearance in the military it can translate into a world of possible jobs in civilian life.  Intelligence positions with Department of Homeland Security, ISA, the FBI, CIA, State Department, contractors for these places and lots more.  It can make an individual with a marginal work history (someone with a short work history because they are still going through college, etc.) a very hot commodity in the work force.  It can mean thousands of dollars in salary over time.  In that case it could very well be worth the risk of potential service abroad during the military service period.

Weigh the risks carefully.  Find out whether or not the unit that is targetted would be one that has served overseas or has done all of their service at home, or at least in the U.S.  That can help you decide whether it's too risky for you to accept.

Either way, best of luck and /salute if the decision to serve is a go.

Texas Wahine wrote:

Anyone who joins in ANY capacity needs to be prepared to serve a year or longer in Iraq (maybe more than once). Understand that it WILL happen. Going NG does NOT make you more "safe" regarding overseas deployments. At least not now.

Excellent point Texas Wahine, and not one that I was trying not to make myself above.  I realize I wrote:

The National Guard is somewhat more "safe" when compared against the Army Reserves or obviously against active duty Army.

... but that doesn't mean I was trying to say the National Guard is a "safe" branch of the military to serve in if one doesn't want to see military action.  As you point out, Guard units are seeing action more and more.  Even if NOT in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are seeing action.  Many Guard members or their units are being called up to fill in roles at other places so that "regular Army" members are freed up to serve abroad.  If the Guard troop (unit) has roles (specialties) that are needed in Iraq or Afghanistan -- especially security groups (military police, etc.) -- they are absolutely not "safe" from being deployed overseas and in fact would be highly likely to go.

Like with most things, I think you’ll get out of the military what you put into it. I believe the military is a noble profession, and that the recruiting poster clichés of honor, patriotism, and service really do have meaning in our lives. I agree with Grey when he says:

I would recommend the military to anyone who wants to join for the right reasons.

If they just want the steady paycheck or the college money I would advise them to stay in school and work in the private sector. The military doesn't need folks with that mindset.

If you approach your time in the military with the attitude of just getting out of it what it will give you, you will spend a lot of unhappy time in uniform. If you look at it from the perspective of being a part of something larger and greater than yourself, you may find it is very rewarding. It’s never easy, and your efforts are often under-appreciated. I’m going to paraphrase Tom Hanks from ‘A League of Their Own’ on this. He was talking to Geena Davis about baseball, but it echoes my own sentiments pretty well. He said ‘Of course it’s hard. If it was easy, anyone could do it. The Hard is what makes it Great!’ You could hear the capital letters in his voice.

In the military you will get the chance to see and do things you would otherwise only see in movies, but you will also spend long hours and days doing ridiculous amounts of nothing. You’ll spend months and years away from your family, but you will make friendships that will span the globe. You will see some of the wonders of the world in far distant lands, but the people might be shooting at you while you are looking around. You will meet some of our nation’s finest men and women, but you will also meet some of our worst jerks and losers. You’ll get paid a decent wage, but it will never seem like enough, and you’ll work to earn it every day.

Would I recommend the military to someone considering it? Yes and no. Examine your motives. If you think any of what I wrote above makes sense, you might make a go of it. If you’re just looking for a good money-making job, this probably ain’t it.

Terpfan, I am so thankful for your writing this excellent, informative piece. Yours, and everyone's comments, have been helpful beyond measure as there is nothing better than gaining understanding through the experiences of others. Now, we have a better and easier sense (and getting closer to having peace) with making the decison. For us, I think the advice of "examine your motives" and join "for the right reason" clinched it all.

Glad to hear that these words have helped in some way.  If you son does join the military, and even if he doesn't, then please understand I still wish him all the best.  The most important thing (as with all military people, and young people in general) being to hopefully make a positive contribution through his life.

Service obviously doesn't have to be in the military, nor in any organization that would claim to be service oriented.  It can come through little things done daily to help others around you.  If your son applies that approach then his impact will be felt all along the way and his value in others' eyes will be tremendous.

Again though, I wish him and your family all the best.

Trust me my friend, the Army is polluted with this breed and they do nothing but drag the mission down. Most non-combat units could do their mission more efficiently if they were allowed to boot out roughly 50% of the unit.

We are deluged by college seeking shitheads.

I think your precentages are off, less then 1% are a problem in the military over their entire military careers if you regard dishonorable discharges.

Though there are personnel problems in any organization, the military's problem isn't with the people it has, it's with not having enough to perform the duties it is being given by the civilian leadership. Beyond that, general's in the field are being overruled by civilian leadership in tactical sense ( Increased US troop levels in Baghdad ordered by President Bush against the previous objections of the generals ) rather then overall strategy or grand master plan. That distinction between what has been a successful war, a mismanaged prolonged post war, and now an active role by the civilian political establishment, making military decisions in a theater, smells of VIETNAM, BAD.

"Trust me my friend, the Army is polluted with this breed and they do nothing but drag the mission down. Most non-combat units could do their mission more efficiently if they were allowed to boot out roughly 50% of the unit.

We are deluged by college seeking shitheads."

Consider the source and context of those remarks, especially in a time when our military, and the soldiers who make up the military, is being called to do more and be more then ever before.

"better soldiers could be doing bigger and better things. "

If you feel this is truly a problem and represents a majority of the armed forces one the whole why don't you bring that to the attention of your leadership?

Phrases like... "punish the screw-ups" "college seeking shitheads." give me lots of pause thinking about how you describe our armed forces.

"Education has little to do with whether a man or woman will be a better soldier." That is true but education is about making our citizens as well as people in general better, and along with that society as a whole better. Soldiers though performing a noble occupation are not the whole of society. Of course there are lots of behaviors and problems that people in society have and it is every bit as much a job for the military to tackle and overcome those through screening, training, and leading those people into becoming soldiers.

"Education has little to do with whether a man or woman will be a better soldier. A strong work ethic will make for a better soldier, as will a positive, proactive attitude. There is nothing wrong with wanting or even expecting a college education from the Army in exchange for your service, but having it be your only motivation means that when faced with a serious challenge, it's easier to decide that the education isn't worth the trouble. You gotta dig deep to be a good soldier; just getting the army to pay for you to go to college is, in my opinion, a relatively shallow goal."

I agree, you have to be wiling to do everything and anything the military asks you to do in exchange for their end of the deal. But you should be able to expect support in return from your fellow soldiers. The military will demand of you, in exchange for a college education, years of your life serving whatever cause the civilian leadership so chooses. They may ask you to die for your country, kill for your country, be ready to do that at any time, watch your friends in the service die. These sacrifices people who wish to become soldiers need to prepared o make. Anybody in any occupation in the military could be asked to perform combat or duties outside their area of training as evidenced by the prison scandal, and the fog of war.

I'm not in the military very much for the reason, that I don't like being told what to do, but prefer to do the telling. Anyway, as for being interested in hearing anything negative, that's life, you have to be willing to hear, as well as searching for problems to troubleshoot no matter what your occupation is.

In the military, ignoring that reality, doesn't cost product, or money, it costs lives, and thats worse in my opinion then avoiding troubleshooting of a regular civilian job.

If the army cannot mold their employees into the soldiers they need to perform the duties as they need to be done, then that is on them not the individual. You and others are right though when they say you get out of your service, what you put into it, but that is true of most if not all other occupations.