Article

2006-03-13 Home Front: WoT

Military: Most Young Americans Are Unfit

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-03-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 00:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2006-03-13 00:40|| Front Page Top

-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"> Barbara Skolaut 2006-03-13 02:08|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-03-13 02:08|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 07:18|| Front Page Top

#5 This is just more Al Guardian anti-American bullsh*t. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2006-03-13 08:23|| 2006-03-13 08:23|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 09:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 09:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 10:52|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 12:52|| Front Page Top

#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">Old Patriot 2006-03-13 15:24|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-13 15:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 16:07|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 16:39|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-13 19:24|| Front Page Top

11:42 Just Curious
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:53 The Flipper
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:22 Frank G
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:19 Frank G
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:09 JosephMendiola
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:54 Hupaviper Flaique8373
22:53 BA
22:52 Frank G
22:52 JAB
22:51 Brett
22:50 Jan
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:31 BA
22:18 bombay
22:17 Frank G
22:16 Frank G
22:11 doc
22:07 DMFD