Maturity Over Youth

[Zarathustra]

From http://www.cfr.org/publication/10204/beyond_the_3block_war.html

"Maturity Over Youth

Stability operations require not only skills different from those needed for high-intensity combat—skills such as knowledge of foreign cultures—but also a higher degree of maturity, because in these types of missions, the kind of aggressiveness that is the Marines’ hallmark can backfire. The challenge is to know when to shoot and when not to shoot. The Marine Corps is superb at turning 18-year-old mall rats into stone-cold killers; it’s more difficult to turn them into goodwill ambassadors and intelligence analysts—both essential missions for troops engaged in stability work. It might help if the Corps got older.

Traditionally, the Marines have filled their ranks by recruiting 17-, 18- and 19-year-olds, sending them on one deployment abroad and then discharging them. This makes for a force younger and less-experienced than that of the other U.S. military services and many of America’s allies. The median age of a Marine is 22; for an Army soldier, it’s 27. Those five years can make a big difference in terms of maturity. It’s interesting to note that in the Australian Army—a small force, but one that specializes in stability and counterinsurgency operations—most of the soldiers are 25 to 29 years old, and they have an average of almost 10 years of service. The British Army, another force that puts more emphasis on counterinsurgency work, has enlisted personnel who are an average of 26 years old; for the Royal Navy, the figure rises to 28. That’s a model to aspire to because in stability, as opposed to amphibious assault operations, youth can be more of a hindrance than a help."

Comments ? I'm wondering what you think because I'm in the recruiting process and I have more maturity than youth.

(put the article in a quote box to prevent further misunderstandings - pc)

 

[big bad john]

I take it that you are talking about the US Marine Corps and not the Royal Marines.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, it refers to the US Marine Corps.

 

[exsemjingo]

This dynamic has been in play since WWII.
Somewhere in "Bridge Over the River Quai" a British officer says to an American NCM "What are you man, 19?"
While the army can turn boys into men, this does not help, since it must turn men into soldiers. This is the fundamental difference in philosophy that distinguishes the American Marines from the Armies of Britian, Australia, and Canada.  The mistake made by the Americans has crept into even your thinking, since it is deceptively subtle:  A boy can be taught to kill, but it takes a man to kill and move on. 
The reason the American army has such a bad reputation is that they are dealing with what is left of a draft system.  The draft system is one of the reasons the Vietnam war failed; Once the army was done with Vietnam vets, it dropped them.  These soldiers were left with problems that they were incapable of dealing with.  The thinking behind this flawed system is that:
1) Nobody wants to serve, since it may mean death.
2) If anyone should die, it should be those with no other commitments; ie 18 year olds.
3) The military is full of kids, and goes through then like poop through a goose.
There would have been less trouble with Vietnam vets had their army been structured like Canada's:  Volunteer men who: can deal with what they face on missions, and who remain in the army. 
Once a man becomes a soldier, he is always a solider.  Keep him in the army, and he will become better over time.  Kick him out, and he will have trouble re-adjusting.

 

[paracowboy]

This dynamic has been in play since WWII.
Somewhere in "Bridge Over the River Quai" a British officer says to an American NCM "What are you man, 19?"
While the army can turn boys into men, this does not help, since it must turn men into soldiers. This is the fundamental difference in philosophy that distinguishes the American Marines from the Armies of Britian, Australia, and Canada.  The mistake made by the Americans has crept into even your thinking, since it is deceptively subtle:  A boy can be taught to kill, but it takes a man to kill and move on. 
The reason the American army has such a bad reputation is that they are dealing with what is left of a draft system.  The draft system is one of the reasons the Vietnam war failed; Once the army was done with Vietnam vets, it dropped them.  These soldiers were left with problems that they were incapable of dealing with.  The thinking behind this flawed system is that:
1) Nobody wants to serve, since it may mean death.
2) If anyone should die, it should be those with no other commitments; ie 18 year olds.
3) The military is full of kids, and goes through then like poop through a goose.
There would have been less trouble with Vietnam vets had their army been structured like Canada's:  Volunteer men who: can deal with what they face on missions, and who remain in the army. 
Once a man becomes a soldier, he is always a solider.  Keep him in the army, and he will become better over time.  Kick him out, and he will have trouble re-adjusting.

small flaw in your thesis: most of the soldiers currently in 3 PPCLI and 3 RCR are the same age as my first tattoo, and most of the Marines I have dealt with in the past 2 years have been over 25.

But, I like how you managed to rip apart an entire nation's military experience when you have none of your own. And to do so in such immensely broad generalities...wow!

 

[Red 6]

First of all, the US Army does not have a bad reputation. It is operating under the hot white glare of the media spotlight on a very demanding battlefied. The enemy is elusive and brutal plus there is an expectation that Soldiers and Marines operate in a gray area between peace enforcement and war. Given the constraints they are operating under and the number of boots on the ground I don't see how they could be doing much better. There are incredible pressures on our troops over there.

As far as Marines doing one deployment and getting discharged, that is just crazy. Many of the Marines and Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are on their second and third combat tours. The US armed forces are not hurting for retention. People are reenlisting in record numbers. The current system is not a remnant of the draft. That statement has no connection with reality. The US military is being sustained every day by recruiters who go into the trenches to find the young people to enlist. if you look back over the 30-some years of the volunteer military, there have beeen ups and downs in recruiting. Right now, the military is in a down cycle, but not critically so. Just because a Soldier in 19, doesn't mean he's a crazy teenager with a gun. There's a thing called basic training (or boot camp for Marines) where he learns something called core values. Then he is sent to a unit to serve under professionals with years, sometimes decades of service.

Civilians have been killed in every war. That's a sad statistic, but it's a fact. In World War II, millions of them died. The war in Iraq is more complex than any our forces have ever operated on. I wasn't a fan of attacking Iraq in the first place. I campaigned for Senator John Kerry in the last presidential election and have been a life long democrat. But, we have to stay the course here. To expect that you can put 125,000 of anything together and have zero mistakes/screw-ups is just not realistic.

 

[GAP]

From http://www.cfr.org/publication/10204/beyond_the_3block_war.html

The Marine Corps is superb at turning 18-year-old mall rats into stone-cold killers; it’s more difficult to turn them into goodwill ambassadors and intelligence analysts—both essential missions for troops engaged in stability work. It might help if the Corps got older.

Traditionally, the Marines have filled their ranks by recruiting 17-, 18- and 19-year-olds, sending them on one deployment abroad and then discharging them. This makes for a force younger and less-experienced than that of the other U.S. military services and many of America’s allies.

Now let me see....I was really thrown away after spending 26 months incountry (1-13 month tour, 2 extensions), then I should be running around shooting up granny's and such.

So if this article is anything but BS, why have I led a happy, productive life, proud of my service?

My question to you is....why are you so quick to believe everything written there, but when you speak to the professionals on this board you chose not to listen? Me thinks you need to broaden you horizons a bit....like about 20 years.

 

[Zarathustra]

Now let me see....I was really thrown away after spending 26 months incountry (1-13 month tour, 2 extensions), then I should be running around shooting up granny's and such.

So if this article is anything but BS, why have I led a happy, productive life, proud of my service?

My question to you is....why are you so quick to believe everything written there, but when you speak to the professionals on this board you chose not to listen? Me thinks you need to broaden you horizons a bit....like about 20 years.

Are you talking to me ?

The article isn't about life after the Corps. It's promoting older Marines for the purpose of the mission. Now if you disagree, that's fine. I posted this here to hear your opinions.

 

[geo]

The reason the American army has such a bad reputation is that they are dealing with what is left of a draft system.  The draft system is one of the reasons the Vietnam war failed; Once the army was done with Vietnam vets, it dropped them. 

The draft system was dispensed with some time and Many many volunteers ago.
The military had the ability to win the Vietnam war - many times over.  What it didn't have was their political masters "okie dokie" to proceed.  There wasn't a political will to take care of business & win the fight

 

[Red 6]

I read the article, and Max Boot might be a smart whatever-he-is, but quote frankly, he is clueless about the Marine Corps. First of all, he took General Krulak's words completely out of context. The Brute was one of the biggest proponents of the Marine Corps. Boot lifted a teensy snippet to imply the Brute didn't think the Corps was a necessary component of the US armed forces. That couldn't be further from the truth.

As far as the essential mission list for the MEU, it's built around warfighting. Military units are supposed to be trained for combat. That's what they do. Other missions are important, yes. But the #1 priority is wartime missions. The MEU is a flexible and powerful force that can be tailored to a wide variety of missions. Marine units come across the shore on many of their operations. That's why it's the Marine Corps. This debate about the Corps and its role isn't within. There's a long history of Marines having to justify their existence. After World War II, the unification fight opened some deep wounds that are still scabbing over. The Marine Corps doesn't have to prove anything to anybody.

In regard to the supposed youth of Marine leaders, so what? The truth is, the vast majority of Marines (and Soldiers) are doing a tough job in a respectable manner every day. All of the US services have an up or out policy. If you reach your high year tenure mark and aren't on a promotion list, it's your problem. We're not talking about people working in 7-11. Marines and Soldiers train hard for their deployments. (I know what I'm talking about here.)

 

[GO!!!]

This dynamic has been in play since WWII.
Somewhere in "Bridge Over the River Quai" a British officer says to an American NCM "What are you man, 19?"

You start your post with a quote from a movie (set several DECADES ago) , which aptly demonstrates both your disconnect from the modern military and a general lack of knowledge in general about the military and what they do. In my experience, people who quote movies in relation to real life can be safely ignored.

While the army can turn boys into men, this does not help, since it must turn men into soldiers. This is the fundamental difference in philosophy that distinguishes the American Marines from the Armies of Britian, Australia, and Canada.  The mistake made by the Americans has crept into even your thinking, since it is deceptively subtle:  A boy can be taught to kill, but it takes a man to kill and move on. 

I see. As such, you evidently are well acquainted with soldiers, soldiering, killing and "being a man". Funny your profile neglects to mention any of this, and your experience with the military (by reading your other posts) seems to be limited to watching war movies.

Our staunch allies to the south have kept us, most of Europe and parts of Asia free from Nazis, Communists and Fascists for the last century or so, with the overwhelming majority of troops leaving the services on good terms and leading productive lives afterwards, yet you classify their methods of training and discharge as a mistake, identifying them only as "failing to make a man".

A definition of "a man" would help, but not really, as both Canada and the US have had women serve in Combat. Are they "men" too?

The reason the American army has such a bad reputation is that they are dealing with what is left of a draft system.  The draft system is one of the reasons the Vietnam war failed; Once the army was done with Vietnam vets, it dropped them.  These soldiers were left with problems that they were incapable of dealing with. 

Where do you get this "bad reputation" from?

Really? I work with US troops frequently, from different services and accross the US and internationally as well. I have yet to meet one who was drafted, or who has  worked with, for or even heard of anyone after 1968 who was drafted.

I would say that the "problems" you mention were largely created by the anti - war hippie atmosphere created at home during the war, where returning vets were discharged into a nation where others in their age cohort denigrated their service. I suppose the army could have "dealt" with the peace movement - is that what you advocate?

The thinking behind this flawed system is that:
1) Nobody wants to serve, since it may mean death.
2) If anyone should die, it should be those with no other commitments; ie 18 year olds.
3) The military is full of kids, and goes through then like poop through a goose.

BS, all of it. <I actually laughed aloud when I read this>

If this is your personal opinion, give your head a shake, if you are simply parrotting what you've heard elsewhere, provide a source; this will undoubtedly provide a bit more context, because right now this sounds plagiarised right out of a Noam Chomsky rant.

There would have been less trouble with Vietnam vets had their army been structured like Canada's:  Volunteer men who: can deal with what they face on missions, and who remain in the army. 

Our Volunteer army seems to suffer a large amount of PTSD cases though, and a small number of men who face re-integration issues after stressful tours. How do you explain that? Some people will have adverse reactions to stressful situations - but not everyone!

Once a man becomes a soldier, he is always a solider.  Keep him in the army, and he will become better over time.  Kick him out, and he will have trouble re-adjusting.

WTF? Do you think we are subject to some sort of mind altering experience? That we are permanently re-programmed at some point in our training? I know scores of young men who have joined the CF, served 3-6 years and left for another line of work. Some of them killed in the line of duty, as was required of them. They have moved on to become students, police officers, tradesmen, technicians and a whole list of other jobs. They are most certainly not "always soldiers". The best term a friend of mine uses is "happy to sign in, happy to sign out" - that he was glad he served, but glad he left too. There is nothing wrong with that, people change jobs all the time.

In conclusion, I find your post to be riddled with rumours, inconsistencies and fallacies. You make sweeping generalisations about biased opinions from a half century ago, pass them off as learned truth and then use it as a supporting argument for an anti - US tirade. I would reccommend that you refrain from posting in topics in which it is painfully apparent that you know nothing about, other than what Adbusters, war movies and the political left tell you.

 

[Haggis]

Once a man becomes a soldier, he is always a solider.  Keep him in the army, and he will become better over time.  Kick him out, and he will have trouble re-adjusting.

A Reservist I know did a UN tour to pay for his schooling.  He went from high schooler to rifleman in Croatia to college student.  While in college he alternated each summer between student and Reserve Infantry BMQ/SQ/QL3/Machine Gun course instructor.  When he graduated and didn't immediately find a job in his chosen field, he went from college graduate to Section 2IC in Bosnia.  After that, he went from Section 2IC in Bosnia to responsible citizen and thence to soccer dad.

He doesn't seem to have had any trouble.  Or is he the exception to your "rule"?

 

[Franko]

Utter rubbish.

Quoteing a movie over 40 years old and using it to base an ideology on it, you can do much better than that.

I've read this entire thread and now I'm placing it on ignore.      :boring:

I suggest other do as well.

Regards

 

[Haggis]

I've read this entire thread and now I'm placing it on ignore.      :boring:

I suggest other do as well.

Regards

Agreed.  Back to more relevant and fact based stuff in "Radio Chatter".  ;D

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The draft system was dispensed with some time and Many many volunteers ago.
The military had the ability to win the Vietnam war - many times over.  What it didn't have was their political masters "okie dokie" to proceed.  There wasn't a political will to take care of business & win the fight

The majority of US soldiers to serve in Vietnam were volunteers, by the way. Check the stats on any US Vietnam veteran's site- I believe their VFW has the official figure.

 

[GAP]

Are you talking to me ?
The article isn't about life after the Corps. It's promoting older Marines for the purpose of the mission. Now if you disagree, that's fine. I posted this here to hear your opinions.

Yes, I am talking to you
I think Go!! said it far better and succinctly than I did, I just called the whole thing rubbish, to be polite  :

In conclusion, I find your post to be riddled with rumours, inconsistencies and fallacies. You make sweeping generalisations about biased opinions from a half century ago, pass them off as learned truth and then use it as a supporting argument for an anti - US tirade. I would reccommend that you refrain from posting in topics in which it is painfully apparent that you know nothing about, other than what Adbusters, war movies and the political left tell you.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, I am talking to you
I think Go!! said it far better and succinctly than I did, I just called the whole thing rubbish, to be polite  :

But Go!!! replied to exsemjingo's post, not to the article I posted. That's why I asked if you were referring to me.

 

[GAP]

But Go!!! replied to exsemjingo's post, not to the article I posted. That's why I asked if you were referring to me.

My responses were to the crud the article espouses, and it was wrong on my part to assume you were flipping it out there as a mantra. The last line of the 1st post   

Comments ? I'm wondering what you think because I'm in the recruiting process and I have more maturity than youth

kinda explains it. I apologize

 

[paracowboy]

I've put the article in the original post in a quote box to hopefully prevent further misunderstandings.

 

[exsemjingo]

I see. As such, you evidently are well acquainted with soldiers, soldiering, killing and "being a man". Funny your profile neglects to mention any of this, and your experience with the military (by reading your other posts) seems to be limited to watching war movies.

Our staunch allies to the south have kept us, most of Europe and parts of Asia free from Nazis, Communists and Fascists for the last century or so, with the overwhelming majority of troops leaving the services on good terms and leading productive lives afterwards, yet you classify their methods of training and discharge as a mistake, identifying them only as "failing to make a man".

A definition of "a man" would help, but not really, as both Canada and the US have had women serve in Combat. Are they "men" too?
Where do you get this "bad reputation" from?

Really? I work with US troops frequently, from different services and across the US and internationally as well. I have yet to meet one who was drafted, or who has  worked with, for or even heard of anyone after 1968 who was drafted.

I would say that the "problems" you mention were largely created by the anti - war hippie atmosphere created at home during the war, where returning vets were discharged into a nation where others in their age cohort denigrated their service. I suppose the army could have "dealt" with the peace movement - is that what you advocate?

BS, all of it. <I actually laughed aloud when I read this>

Our Volunteer army seems to suffer a large amount of PTSD cases though, and a small number of men who face re-integration issues after stressful tours. How do you explain that? Some people will have adverse reactions to stressful situations - but not everyone!
WTF? Do you think we are subject to some sort of mind altering experience? That we are permanently re-programmed at some point in our training? I know scores of young men who have joined the CF, served 3-6 years and left for another line of work. Some of them killed in the line of duty, as was required of them. They have moved on to become students, police officers, tradesmen, technicians and a whole list of other jobs. They are most certainly not "always soldiers". The best term a friend of mine uses is "happy to sign in, happy to sign out" - that he was glad he served, but glad he left too. There is nothing wrong with that, people change jobs all the time.

Holy cow!  I put "Jingo" into my name, and I still get called a hippie-peacenick!  I'm getting all the military experience I can get as fast as I can... that is to say it is out of my hands.  I have worked with kids, and can only imagine most of the ones I've worked with would be useless in combat.
For the record, I recognize the Americans as the best friends we could ever have in the whole world.  Their military has been effective, but that does not mean I would want to join the American Army.  They seem to be geared towards military service as education, rather than service as a career, which is what I'm after.  I looked into requirements for their equivalent to the D.E.O. program to find that I would be ineligible since I have a wife. If I'm wrong, go ahead and correct me.
When I said "once a soldier, always a soldier" I meant that retired servicemen (and women!) retain their positive soldiering skills of tenacity, duty, and what-not.  Why would a hopeful recruit mean this negatively?
Finally, when I used the word "men", I meant as opposed to "boys".  I'm not the only one to do this; it's still leading Seaman and not leading Seawoman, or Seaperson.