Somebody who’s a chronic fuckup such as you describe above will be a fuckup, whether in the military or not. Hardly Uncle Sam’s fault.
That sounds like something from the twilight zone. I enlisted a long time ago, but I remember going to the recruiter’s office one day to get information. I went home and came back a few days later when they had me scheduled to take a physical and some tests.
Then he called my house the day after the testing and said they’d take me, but I had to come get a form and get my mother’s notarized signature on it.
After I did that, they called me again and told me when I’d be shipping out. I had to come in that morning to sign the final paperwork. They sent me home to have dinner with my family (went to girlfriend’s house instead) and I showed up at the airport that night to catch my flight. I had plenty of opportunity to talk to friends, family, change my mind and so forth.
Now I’m kinda’ pissed! They didn’t put me up in any hotel, buy me meals or drinks, any of that stuff.
No, but giving that fuckup the impression Uncle Sam is going to write his ticket is pretty questionable, if you ask me. Dangle a lot of the overly-romanticized bullshit about the service life along with it, and you’re into pretty dubious ethical territory. Used car salesmen who sucker the credulous and irresponsible because they can aren’t held in high esteem. Why should recruiters be?
Oh, I don’t think there’s too much difference between recruiters and other salesmen. If someone enlists when it’s not in their best interest to do so, whose fault is that? Same thing if people buy a car or appliance they can’t afford, or send their banking information to a Nice Man[sup]TM[/sup] in Nigeria.
At least in the case of the recruiters, they are offering employment and educational opportunities for those who have the initiative to take advantage of those opportunities.
Definitely. That’s the key: All this “serve your country”, “see the world”, “gain respect”, “be all you can be” stuff is great, but at the end of the day, it’s a big corporation, like any other. The business, in this case, is war, so the stakes are rather high. You might find a poor career path gets you killed a lot faster than you would like.
It’s all about what you want to get out of it. If you want to be meat, that’s fine. If you want something more, then you have to actively and aggressively look out for your own interests, because no one really important is. You’ll never even see the folks who really decide whether you have a good chance of surviving or not, so you’ve got to be pretty shrewd. And frankly, a lack of shrewdness is preyed upon.
:rolleyes: SHIT. World of SHIT, maggot! Trouble is a goddamned pop-o-matic child’s game! Beat your face, you ingnorant crack-baby! I’ll show you a world of shit…etc.
:sigh: I miss that. Really, I do.
In boot camp you should work your ass off to distinguish yourself as a fine candidate. I’m talking about working the system, not openly defying it at every opportunity.
OK, sounds reasonable. I’m just curious: My understanding was exceptional overall performance is your friend after boot camp. Are you saying you might get stuck on a high-risk track if you appear to be too good a combat?
Now that I think of it, that’s exactly what happened to my Dad. He was among the best marksmen in his entire brigade, and wound up getting fast-tracked into Ranger training. Of course, if you want to enlist and get picked for special forces, that’s great, but he had been drafted for Vietnam…
IME, exceptional performance got you a ‘leadership’ role where you could then be held responsible for other peoples screw-ups as well as your own. That’s not a desirable position in boot camp. I don’t know that it would have any effect on your career beyond boot camp. IIRC from USAF basic training, the TI (equivalent to the army’s Drill Sergeant) didn’t have any input on what job you were assigned. But then again, as I said earlier I went in with a garaunteed job, so I didn’t pay much attention to that process.
Er, well no, it isn’t; not always. You see, to get that money, you must be enrolled full-time. No part time allowed. And any school for which you want to spend the money must be VA approved (that’s not really a biggy, though). Oh, and you have a ten-year limit within which to spend that money. After that, it’s gone, and you can’t get it back.
So, since I couldn’t run back to Mommy and Daddy to mooch off of them while I went to school, and I wasn’t academically talented enough to go to school full time and work full time (you know, for those pesky little things like rent, utilities, food), my G.I. Bill/College Fund was essentially stolen from me by the Army and V.A.
And my enlistment contract didn’t say a fucking thing about it.
purely out of curiousity, why not borrow from Uncle Sam whatever it took to make up the deficiency between your GI Bill money and full time tuition/living expenses? I borrowed enough to go to law school tuition and books and rent and room and board and so on.
I always tell young people of my acquaintance that are thinking of enlisting the same thing. Before you raise your hand and pledge, remember this. You commanding officer will use your life the same way you will use a single bullet. No hesitation and no regret. If you know that going in, you have no reason to feel abused.
I don’t think that military service is necessary to have an educated opinion about war and military (like the editors, etc. that he mentions). Nor do I think military service is a prerequisite for Presidency.
My platoon can be lead by newbie piece of shit who is fresh out of college and doesn’t know jack shit about leading or moving troups in combat. Officers at the platoon level are not seasoned veterans. They are practically privates!!! Hell most PFCs have more time in service than they do! This is a much bigger deal to me than an editor or politician or educated man who has not served in the military making political decisions.
So why do people make a big deal about a President making decisions about war if he hasn’t been to war. His job is to be a politician.
Isn’t it a fallacy to believe a person needs prior military experience to make political decisions which effect the military?? Decision effecting the military, even the decision to go to war should stand alone. Whether the person making those decisions has been to combat himself is irrelevant to me. As long as he’s not the one leading the fight. That’s why we have Generals and Chiefs of Staff. Military strategy is the job of the military, but foreign policy is that of the politicians and the people who elect them.
Bear: I can’t disagree with what you’ve said, but there is one thing I think every politician with any control over the military must know: what the military is there for, what it can do, what it can’t do, and how the military does what it does, including its “institutional memory.”
And the best way to learn that is probably by being in the military.