You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Military: Most Young Americans Are Unfit
2006-03-13
WASHINGTON (AP) - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato - or some combination of the above. As for that fashionable ``body art'' that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street - and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24. Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year. ``As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply,'' said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.
This isn't a surprise. At the start of WWII, the majority of young men who volunteered were rejected for service (at first) because they couldn't meet the pre-war fitness demands. As the war went out, the standards were lowered to get men into the services.
Some experts are skeptical.

Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is ``a baloney number,'' he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.
So may we regard Mr. Moskos with a similar poundage of baloney?
``Recruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves,'' said David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. ``So they blame the pool.''
Sounds like the pool has problems.
The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers. They are part of an elaborate analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity.

The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says. The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.

Other factors include:

-the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

-a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

-a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight. Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems. The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group. In the budget year that ended last September, 15 percent of recruits required a waiver in order to be accepted for active duty services - or about 11,000 people of some 73,000 recruited.

Most waivers were for medical problems. Some were for misdemeanors such as public drunkenness, resisting arrest or misdemeanor assault - prompting criticism that the Army is lowering its standards.

This year the Army is trying to recruit 80,000 people; all the services are recruiting about 180,000.
Look at those numbers: 180,000 recruits out of 6.6 million eligible. That's 2.7 % of the pool.
And about the tattoos: They are not supposed to be on your neck, refer to gang membership, be offensive, or in any way conflict with military standards on integrity, respect and team work. The military is increasingly giving waivers for some types of tattoos, officials said.
Posted by:Steve White

#13  ``As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply,'' said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.

Some experts are skeptical.


The text above is exactly the way this AP article ended in the local fishwrap. WTF? Some experts are skeptical? Well, Ok. I guess that pretty much sums it up. Debate over.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-03-13 19:24  

#12  Tattoos - greater chance of the individual developing AIDS or Hepatitis D when in the service. Also, gang insignia and unknowing tribal affliation depending on design.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2006-03-13 16:39  

#11  "As for that fashionable "body art'' that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too."

Why? The overweight/unfit part I get, but tattoos?
Posted by: Jules   2006-03-13 16:07  

#10  My nephew is an Air Force recruiter, and has been for the last eight or ten years. He says his biggest problem is finding kids who are willing to LEARN. There are lots of able-bodied, fit young men out there that just don't have any curiousity, hunger for knowledge, or willingness to try something different. He DOES blame the schools for that - our public school system is the best in the world at destroying initiative, competetive behavior, and the thirst for knowledge.

One of the new commenters at Sgt. Stryker is an Army recruiter. Read what he has to say about parents trying to get their problem-children into the military. It's a complex situation. One of the reasons so many of today's recruits are from the midwest and south, and mostly from rural areas, are a combination of more physically active lives and fewer at-home opportunities. I'm not saying most city boys are wimps, but the percentages are greater for city dwellers to get less physical exercise than a Missouri farm boy that hunts and fishes regularly.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-03-13 15:24  

#9  Slenter: Oh, I agree with that one. Warriors make themselves known. It is a combination of talents that is just breathtaking to watch, and you know that it would be as useless to try to fight them as it was to fight Achilles.

But that goes against the entire 20th Century grain--that of trying to prove that anybody can be given a uniform, a rifle and training and be as good as anyone else. An experiment that was tried, and failed, for more than a century.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-03-13 12:52  

#8  I was going to say the real story is that 30% of adults are obese

but it is a useless stat since it doesn't give the percentage of those in the appropriate age group. So the real story here is that 1/3 of teenagers can't pass a treadmill test. Wow!
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-13 10:52  

#7  Identifying warriors is not so simple, I'd say. Consider a couple of glaring exceptions: Audie Murphy and Alvin York. Additionally, I could bring up guys I served with who started out almost mousy, certainly afraid, who simply transformed under fire. The only things they seemed to have in common, at least that I could see, was honesty and a quiet serious side. The guys reading Hemingway, not Playboy. The funny thing was that, though they had been blooded and turned out to be real warriors, most resumed their unassuming behavior when the heat was off and the danger passed. Of course, they were no longer teased or screwed around with by the pretenders who'd failed to impress anyone in battle, themselves. Which was damned funny to most of us.
Posted by: Slenter Glonter4893   2006-03-13 09:24  

#6  The cruel truth is that no amount of conditioning or training will make a non-warrior into a warrior. By this I mean that there are just some people who are naturally gifted at fighting, and one of them is worth 100 of the non-warriors they are up against.

So the best bet is to provide the small class of real warriors with as much support as they need. And *these* are the people you need to recruit.

Since they are not being recruited as warriors, they should be recruited for whatever talent it is that they can provide in support of the warriors, not under any pretense that they are warriors.

Insisting that they be warrior-like in other than uniformity, for efficiency, is ridiculous. Their only combat requirement should be the ability to defensively protect their rear area.

Instead of needing to run two miles, they should be pushed for high-efficiency in whatever it is they do as a job.

This time around, the military has grudgingly accepted the notion that even civilian contractors *could* perform such tasks as mess-hall operations, etc. But these civilians were not as proficient as their military counterparts--a situation that needs to be remedied.

So, the question is, how many of these Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potatoes would be acceptable to a civilian contractor? If they can get hired by a civilian company, *and* can do the job, then that should be almost good enough to do the same job, but in a uniform.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-03-13 09:04  

#5  This is just more Al Guardian anti-American bullsh*t. Nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by: Spot   2006-03-13 08:23  

#4  Having been in the Army at its post-Vietnam nadir and carried through its reform/revolution in the 80s, one key lessoned learned is that its better off having only 8 motivated soldiers in a 10 man squad than to have the extra 2 bodies which steal 50% of the NCOs and officers time because of their 'problems'.

BS. If the NEA wants to make the public school systems a national security issue, they'd better think twice. Not only does DoD operate a very viable school system for dependents overseas, DoD operates one of the largest school systems in the nation from boot camp, technical schools, up through War Colleges. There are enough former commandants and instructors available to certainly start to make a big impact on any major school system. I don't think the NEA would like to see the results compared to what they've forced upon the public for the last couple decades.
Posted by: Flineque Angush9511   2006-03-13 07:18  

#3  
-a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.
An "epidemic" which seems to exist only in this country.

If I were a conspiracy nut, I'd have to wonder whether - in addition to drugging boys so they won't act like boys, to make life easier for lazy teachers - there weren't some conspiracy among Ritalin pushers to render young men unable to enter the military.

If the left (which has a strangle-hold on our schools and a good chunk of the medical professions) can't destroy the military itself, why not destroy the next generation of boys who would make up that military? Anything to achieve their goal. >:^(

Just sayin', 's all....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-03-13 02:08  

#2  I've heard more or less the same thing in Australia -- albeit there it was worded something like "Military: Australian kids are too fat".

Though, I can't say that I'm too surprised -- is it me, or is the military looking for a body standard that's more or less discouraged in peacetime by the incentives and choices of civilian life? ("Live a little!" -> "let yourself go")

Posted by: Edward Yee   2006-03-13 00:40  

#1  The greatest single fear vv Iran-North Korea is military confrontation btwn the USA, Russia, andor China - the States and economies of the latter two remain mostly [Russia] or wholly [China] militarized, whereas the USA is volunteer.
Truth be told, it is in the Anti-American agendists to keep it that way so as to induce Washington to Socialize and over-stretch beyond over-stretch domestically whilst intensifying America's risk of defeat andor "quagmire" overseas, for OWG and anti-Amer American Socialism. They want America to run out of beans and bullets before the Motherly, World-saving Commies run out of bodies - in WW2 the Nazis had TIGER and PANTHER tanks, the JAPANESE had the YAMATO-class and the ZERO, BUT BOTH STILL LOST. Russia and China are NOT going to give America any extended/long "lead times" to build up in any East-West, nuke-possible confrontation in the ME or NK-Taiwan. America's waffle-loving Policrats will ALWAYS be for everyone and no one, thru Nuke War, Asteroids, and the Second Coming of Christ, etc.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-03-13 00:31  

00:00