"Support The Troops"

[Terxpahseyton]

Sure they do. I wouldn't have become an inner city teacher without a promise of some loan forgiveness and some other perks. It's a terrible job.

I realize that things can be a bit rougher in the states. But I believe an inner city high school is not just yet comparable to the military or a ware zone

 

[galdre]

I realize that things can be a bit rougher in the states. But I believe an inner city high school is not just yet comparable to the military or a ware zone

Having served in the military during a conflict, and having known some teachers, I'm not so sure about that

 

[downtown]

I realize that things can be a bit rougher in the states. But I believe an inner city high school is not just yet comparable to the military or a ware zone

War Zone, no, but who says everybody in the military serves in a war zone? Do we give bonuses for the armed forces because they are making a large financial and personal sacrifice to serve their country? If so, then that ought to be extended to other public servants, because an inner city teacher in Philly does too, or a social worker. Do we give them bonuses because their job is dangerous? Then we should remove military "perks" for guys who don't have dangerous jobs, and give them to people like cops or prison guards, who do.

Lots of people "serve their country" outside of the armed forces, and what makes a guy who plays in a military band more valuable than a southside Chicago cop? One guy is a lot more likely to get shot, and it ain't the dude with the trumpet.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Not everyone is in a war zone, but that is why I said "military or war zone". I am not sure that this is "fair", but what I am sure about is that joining the military means such a sacrifice to many people that it is more difficult to get enough recruits than it is to get enough teachers.
Think of all the recruiters busy basically tricking people into joining. Think of how requirements for new recruits had to have been lowered. At least I recall reading on here that for instance the minimum IQ was lowered. It just is more difficult to get enough soldiers than teachers or social workers. So from the mere functional perspective of filling those positions - more benefits for soliders makes sense.

 

[GoodGame]

War Zone, no, but who says everybody in the military serves in a war zone? Do we give bonuses for the armed forces because they are making a large financial and personal sacrifice to serve their country? If so, then that ought to be extended to other public servants, because an inner city teacher in Philly does too, or a social worker. Do we give them bonuses because their job is dangerous? Then we should remove military "perks" for guys who don't have dangerous jobs, and give them to people like cops or prison guards, who do.

Lots of people "serve their country" outside of the armed forces, and what makes a guy who plays in a military band more valuable than a southside Chicago cop? One guy is a lot more likely to get shot, and it ain't the dude with the trumpet.

Well I wouldn't degrade anyone's self worth, but a US soldier can technically deploy anywhere the US wants them to be. You can move around between military roles if you choose, as long as you have no other physical impairments. A Chicago cop is only ever going to serve in Chicago.

 

[Commodore]

War Zone, no, but who says everybody in the military serves in a war zone? Do we give bonuses for the armed forces because they are making a large financial and personal sacrifice to serve their country? If so, then that ought to be extended to other public servants, because an inner city teacher in Philly does too, or a social worker. Do we give them bonuses because their job is dangerous? Then we should remove military "perks" for guys who don't have dangerous jobs, and give them to people like cops or prison guards, who do.

Lots of people "serve their country" outside of the armed forces, and what makes a guy who plays in a military band more valuable than a southside Chicago cop? One guy is a lot more likely to get shot, and it ain't the dude with the trumpet.

You can't really base military benefits based on job though, because even though someone's job is slotted as a non-combat role doesn't mean they won't see combat. For example my job was technically considered a non-combat role, but for me to do my job effectively I had to go out on patrol with the infantry every single day and if we were engaged I was expected to fight just like the other infantrymen. Also, due to the nature of asymmetrical warfare and counter-insurgency operations traditional "rear line" elements were frequently attacked and had to defend themselves. Even the finance personnel (which is about as far from a combat role as you can get) were engaged from time to time trying to get out to the remote bases to give the soldiers out there some of their pay in cash so they could have some spending money.

 

[GamezRule]

]Lots of people "serve their country" outside of the armed forces, and what makes a guy who plays in a military band more valuable than a southside Chicago cop? One guy is a lot more likely to get shot, and it ain't the dude with the trumpet.

Actually military bands have deployed to war zones and the band members do sometimes get guard duty.

You don't seem to know much at all about the military or its requirements.

The GED requirement, which can be satisfied once the recruit has joined, also appears to be a scam more than anything else if they cannot function anywhere near the same level as those with high school diplomas.

ASVAB exists for a reason. People only get into jobs they qualify for. Furthermore, there are ways for people without a Diploma or GED to enlist but it's very limited and certainly not easy.

 

[Commodore]

Again, do you really think 4 more suicides per 100,000 for a single year is actually significant?

And I'm still waiting your facts to support your allegation that "most" people in the military have a physical or mental disability when they eventually leave the government subsidized gravy train, instead of being a small fraction like any other occupation involving physical activity.

That merely taking reasonable steps to assure that soldiers are treated properly would not only drastically reduce the suicide level down to the levels they were prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but it would also significantly decrease those who do actually suffer from physical or mental impairment due to their time in the military.

You don't seem to know much at all about the military or its requirements.

The GED requirement, which can be satisfied once the recruit has joined, also appears to be a scam more than anything else if they cannot function anywhere near the same level as those with high school diplomas.

Army Recruiting More Dropouts

Sorry, but your articles are from 2008, during the height of the surge when recruitment requirements were lowered considerably to get more boots on the ground as quickly as possible. Before the surge and starting again around late 2012 to early 2013, the recruitment requirements did not allow convicted felons or those without a high school education serve in the military. That is the current standard and is the default peace-time standard. But hey, I'll let you continue to put your foot in your mouth as you continue to demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about how the military operates.

 

[Formaldehyde]

ASVAB exists for a reason. People only get into jobs they qualify for. Furthermore, there are ways for people without a Diploma or GED to enlist but it's very limited and certainly not easy.

Yet less than 71% of the recruits in 2007 had a real high school diploma. Furthermore, only 56.2% in 2005 to 44.6% in 2006 were competent enough to be given jobs that require any sort of qualification.

These aren't the creme of the crop. Many of them have difficulty finding real jobs with any sort of actual screening to meet the criteria necessary to get a job. They aren't doing it to defend their country from some imaginary foe. They are doing it for the pay and the benefits. And they are the ones who typically end up in the infantry doing the real fighting.

This group is already overly pampered by being on the federal government welfare dole while receiving perks that no other similar government employee gets. They hardly need even more incentive just to be occasionally intentionally mistreated and abused to fight political wars in foreign countries for some chicken hawk politicians.

If they really want to be involved in such reprehensible activities, they can do so without having to be prodded with extravagant benefits and goofy billion dollar advertising campaigns including even NASCAR race team sponsorship. They wouldn't need to hear some recruiter give his spiel on their high school or college campus.

Sorry, but your articles are from 2008, during the height of the surge when recruitment requirements were lowered considerably to get more boots on the ground as quickly as possible. Before the surge and starting again around late 2012 to early 2013, the recruitment requirements did not allow convicted felons or those without a high school education serve in the military. That is the current standard and is the default peace-time standard. But hey, I'll let you continue to put your foot in your mouth as you continue to demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about how the military operates.

'Translation of the above post: "You found data that contradicts my claim as well as exposing legitimate holes in the data I presented, so now I have to attempt to hand wave your data away to save face."'



You can't have it both ways. The suicide rates obviously skyrocketed due to the very same wars. If merely training and serving in the military made people suicidal (while causing "most" of them to suffer from serious physical and mental impairments) as you absurdly suggest, this would have been seen in the statistics long before now.

Not to mention that hardly anybody would ever willingly sign up, and the VA hospitals would be located every few miles or so to accommodate all the victims.

Now that the military is downsizing it obviously can stand to be far more picky. But just as soon as they need cannon fodder to fight some silly foreign war once more, that will quickly change yet again. They don't need even more extravagant benefits. They need far less because the supply now exceeds the demand.

Again, if you really cared about those who find cushy homes in the military, you would be protesting on the street to end involvement in absurd foreign wars while doing all you could to elect congressmen who don't just give veterans lip service when it comes to the VA.

The military is still vastly bloated. It could be a quarter of its current size while still being far more than capable of defending this country from any sort of actual threat.

 

[Akka]

Of course some of the guys I manage resent me because they thought one of them would get the promotion, but none of them were veterans. The point of this story is that my boss had no idea who I was, all he had was my resume, but he took a chance on me because of that loyalty veterans have for each other. Now that I have some input in the hiring process, I am going to start slowly replacing the people I manage with veterans. The same goes for when I get my business off the ground, only veterans will be considered for employment at my business.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a moving story of trust, but as an horrible display of cronyism and appalling unprofessionnal behaviour ?

(as a side note : I tend to be sympathetic for veterans, and I agree that they should have some kind of reward from the country ; but this quote just disgusted me)

 

[GamezRule]

It also depends on job availability and you're ignoring GEDs.

 

[Light Cleric]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a moving story of trust, but as an horrible display of cronyism and appalling unprofessionnal behaviour ?

(as a side note : I tend to be sympathetic for veterans, and I agree that they should have some kind of reward from the country ; but this quote just disgusted me)

I have to agree here. I don't have any problem helping veterans find employment when they return, and providing them whatever care they could possibly need for their injuries, but explicitly excluding others who may be far more skilled in a given field seems pretty wrong(I had a better word and I lost it )

 

[Formaldehyde]

Many in the military think they are somehow superior to everybody else merely because they signed up.

The biggest issue is that the real world doesn't operate anything like the military does, and for good reason. Many of those who eventually leave don't have any relevant experience. Yet they want to be considered for the very same jobs where qualified applicants with relevant job experience are plentiful.

They should have used the perk to get a free college education or technical training to be qualified for the jobs they desire. Or they should have signed up for occupation specialties which do have a demand in the civilian world.

 

[Flying Pig]

Many in the military think they are somehow superior to everybody else merely because they signed up.

The biggest issue is that the real world doesn't operate anything like the military does, and for good reason. Many of those who eventually leave don't have any relevant experience. Yet they want to be considered for the very same jobs where qualified applicants with relevant job experience are plentiful.

They should have used the perk to get a free college education or technical training to be qualified for the jobs they desire. Or they should have signed up for occupation specialties which do have a demand in the civilian world.

It depends. In the Cold War days, a lot of men were more interested in the support arms (mostly the engineers of various stripes and signals) because those gave you a trade - all that the combat arms could offer you in terms of transferable qualifications was a driving license. There's work for a man who's served a few years and knows how to lay bricks or run telephone wire; there's not necessarily much use for mortarmen and machine-gunners, and you quickly realise that most of the quantifiable skills which form your 'worth' in the military (fitness, skill at arms, drill and turnout, and so on) have little if any value in the civilian world. That said, it's entirely possible for a teeth arms soldier to come out vastly more employable. I was somewhat lucky in that I managed to go straight into highly related fields, which tend to be the most competitive for former servicemen (there's an awful lot of former Royal Marines and special forces men working in security on oil tankers in the Gulf, for example), but if you've spent a few years in the military and had leadership responsibilities that can be very helpful, especially if you don't have much in the way of civilian qualifications. If you're going for a low-level management job, a poor school record might be compensated for by actual evidence of managing large numbers of people successfully.

Also, the GI Bill doesn't exist in the UK, somewhat to my regret - I would have quite liked to have gone to university. Soldiers being demobilised rarely have the money to set themselves up with new qualifications, and often simply aren't that good at studying for and passing exams - after all, that's why they became soldiers.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is a real issue. There are only so many security and law enforcement jobs which frequently like to hire ex-servicemen with combat experience.

I agree that those in the service do need to be careful what sort of jobs they think will give them employment opportunities in the civilian world. Learning to maintain and service aircraft and trucks are good examples of skills that do have high demand in civilian life. There are many others. But as you pointed out, many of them are low-skill jobs that only require a limited amount of training.

The moment you enter the service you should be considering what sort of employment prospects you might have once you get out, and how you can best maximize them while you are still in the military. It should come as no surprise that landing a good paying civilian job with no experience or qualifications is going to be difficult to do unless you properly prepare for it ahead of time.

As far as managing others is concerned, my father once got a job as a supervisor building golf courses. But he had a difficult time acclimating. He was used to giving orders and them being carried out. Or if they weren't there were serious consequences. Many of those with experience who knew they could get other jobs quite easily just laughed at him. Many of the rest resented his approach.

I see nothing wrong with allowing those in the military to take higher education classes in their spare time which are paid for by the government. Many companies have similar programs, but some of them require the classes to be work-related.

 

[Flying Pig]

It is a real issue. There are only so many security and law enforcement jobs which frequently like to hire ex-servicemen with combat experience.

I agree that those in the service do need to be careful what sort of jobs they think will give them employment opportunities in the civilian world. Learning to maintain and service aircraft and trucks are good examples of skills that do have high demand in civilian life. There are many others. But as you pointed out, many of them are low-skill jobs that only require a limited amount of training.

Bear in mind that most people joining the forces would otherwise be looking at jobs of that level if not lower - soldiering is very much a working-class job.

The moment you enter the service you should be considering what sort of employment prospects you might have once you get out, and how you can best maximize them while you are still in the military. It should come as no surprise that landing a good paying civilian job with no experience or qualifications is going to be difficult to do unless you properly prepare for it ahead of time.

One of the problems is that when you're in the military, your career is planned for the military's interests, not those of your post-service career. Yes, it's possible to study for GCSEs and the like while you're in, but you've got to do that while maintaining your day job, and a soldier's lifestyle doesn't really lend itself to regular study. A lot of people are told when they join up that they can do all sorts of useful courses, but the truth of the matter is that they probably won't get onto them - the chain of command is notoriously slow and reluctant to do anything of the sort, because it ties up manpower that could be more fruitfully doing other things.

As far as managing others is concerned, my father once got a job as a supervisor building golf courses. But he had a difficult time acclimating. He was used to giving orders and them being carried out. Or if they weren't there were serious consequences. Many of those with experience who knew they could get other jobs quite easily just laughed at him. Many of the rest resented his approach.

Military leadership has changed a lot, certainly over the time that I was serving - it's now quite universally recognised that leading people requires respect, and that using force to assert your authority actually represents a failure of leadership. Yes, there are times at which people have to obey orders unquestioningly, and there are times at which it's necessary to scare people into doing what they're told, but 'business as usual' should be a matter of the led doing what the leader tells them because they trust him and want to achieve the same goals.

I see nothing wrong with allowing those in the military to take higher education classes in their spare time which are paid for by the government. Many companies have similar programs, but some of them require the classes to be work-related

Again, while it is allowed to high-flying officers to take university courses, it's unlikely that an ordinary soldier would be able to take advantage of these for the reasons I outlined above.

 

[downtown]

You can't really base military benefits based on job though, because even though someone's job is slotted as a non-combat role doesn't mean they won't see combat. For example my job was technically considered a non-combat role, but for me to do my job effectively I had to go out on patrol with the infantry every single day and if we were engaged I was expected to fight just like the other infantrymen. Also, due to the nature of asymmetrical warfare and counter-insurgency operations traditional "rear line" elements were frequently attacked and had to defend themselves. Even the finance personnel (which is about as far from a combat role as you can get) were engaged from time to time trying to get out to the remote bases to give the soldiers out there some of their pay in cash so they could have some spending money.

Okay, sure, so guys in non dangerous jobs could be theoretically deployed to war zones and have to engage in combat, but realistically, how many people are in those situations compared to the entire armed forces? 50%? 25%? 10%? less than that? Again, if we're going to base the idea of vets being a protected class getting better representation and perhaps more perks than almost any other special interest group on the idea that the job is dangerous, it shouldn't be that hard to just give those to people who actually saw danger? A guy who spends his entire career in Japan, or Germany, or stateside, is probably in less danger than the cop who patrols my neighborhood.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a moving story of trust, but as an horrible display of cronyism and appalling unprofessionnal behaviour ?

(as a side note : I tend to be sympathetic for veterans, and I agree that they should have some kind of reward from the country ; but this quote just disgusted me)

Yeah, it's a pretty dumb idea. Not only is probably a bad business move, but depending on the industry and how it was implemented, it would almost certainly be illegal.

 

[Tarquelne]

a soldier's lifestyle doesn't really lend itself to regular study.

Ok, it's never going to come up naturally in discussion: Is your avatar a picture of Slim? (I find myself nearly certain it is, so maybe it has come up.)

I've always remembered (vaguely) his claims about the usefulness of time to think. Even as a general he seemed to need to make an effort when setting some time aside. What was relatively easy for him I can see as being a smidge difficult further down the ladder. At least without plenty of support from above. At which point study time could easily become mandatory ... which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[Commodore]

Okay, sure, so guys in non dangerous jobs could be theoretically deployed to war zones and have to engage in combat, but realistically, how many people are in those situations compared to the entire armed forces? 50%? 25%? 10%? less than that? Again, if we're going to base the idea of vets being a protected class getting better representation and perhaps more perks than almost any other special interest group on the idea that the job is dangerous, it shouldn't be that hard to just give those to people who actually saw danger? A guy who spends his entire career in Japan, or Germany, or stateside, is probably in less danger than the cop who patrols my neighborhood.

Well the federal government does kind of give veterans who have seen combat slightly more benefits than those that haven't. The fact that I have two Iraqi Campaign Medals (due to the timing of my deployment I was awarded two for a single deployment) and a Combat Action Badge puts me in both a 'campaign veteran' and 'other protected veteran' status, which would put me in a slightly more advantageous position if I were applying for government jobs than a veteran without combat experience. I am also considered a disabled veteran because of my permanent knee injury (a status I actually don't like because while I am not able to run anymore, it really doesn't stop me from doing most jobs). I do agree with you however that the "deployment dodgers" that spent their careers avoiding the warzones should receive a more basic benefits package. Although I will say that the Army started cracking down on those soldiers and started giving them orders to report to units that were deploying. They could technically refuse the orders, but then they would be immediately booted out of the military with a general discharge and a forfeiture of most VA benefits.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a moving story of trust, but as an horrible display of cronyism and appalling unprofessionnal behaviour ?

I don't see it as unprofessional or cronyism. My boss and I agree that we want veterans working for us because we know what kind of work ethic they have and we know we can count on them to be not only good workers, but also more likely to develop into solid future leadership for the company. With a civilian who has never served, you just never know what kind of worker you are really bringing in, especially since everyone acts like the stellar employee in the job interview. My boss also decided he would like to transform the company into one that is both managed and operated by veterans. There is also nothing illegal about what we are doing either. It's not like we are firing people for no reason just so we can replace them with veterans. The plan is that every time someone quits or gives us a legitimate reason to fire them, they will be replaced by a veteran. It's not like we are hiding that fact either since in the new job postings we are placing "military experience preferred" in the qualifications.

'Translation of the above post: "You found data that contradicts my claim as well as exposing legitimate holes in the data I presented, so now I have to attempt to hand wave your data away to save face."

Except you posted articles from a time in the Army's history that can easily be shown to be a statistical anomaly and a statistical anomaly cannot refute an argument. Prior to 2006 (the start of the surge) you could not get in the military without a HS diploma or GED and it was extremely unlikely you would get in of you had a felony conviction on your record (prior to 2001 you could not get in with a felony conviction, but they relaxed that a bit when the war started). Starting in 2012 those requirements were reinstated due to the end of our military involvement in Iraq and the budget cuts that were just starting to come down the pipe.

Now on to your suicide argument: Of course suicide rates are going to be much higher during war time than peace time, but there is still a much greater danger of suicide from military service than other civilian occupations. Tell me one other job out there where the training alone can drive someone to suicide. In my basic training class alone there were maybe around 15 suicide attempts (zero successful) out of about 160 recruits. Now, I'm not saying that my basic training class is indicative of the attempted suicide rate, but it does demonstrate that the level of stress experienced in military service even outside of combat.

It is also not an absurd claim that most soldiers leave the service with some sort of impairment. I think it seems absurd to you because you are once again looking at the matter through too narrow of a scope. I think you are only considering the major impairments like PTSD, TBI, lost limbs, etc. But you have to consider all permanent injuries that directly result from military service no matter how minor they might be. The most common permanent injuries sustained in military service in both peace and war time are knees, backs, and hearing loss. Those have to be counted even if they are minor because we are discussing the overall danger level of the occupation. Think about it, the government wouldn't have set up a quite extensive network of hospitals specifically for veterans if a low percentage of us left the service with permanent injuries.

And how do you know I'm not doing anything to help veterans? I do a lot of work for DAV in my free time and once I get my business up and running I will partner with a veteran's representative I know in the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to make job openings at my business available to veterans before they become available to the general public. I will also use the business to help finance a veterans' rights lobby to fight the erosion of our well-earned benefits. I have also donated to Veterans For Peace. So don't try to accuse me of not caring about this issue when this is in fact one of the few issues I actually still care about.

 

[JollyRoger]

This thread has made me more hesitant to consider hiring veterans, given the entitlement mentality being displayed.