Would I join the Army today if I were 19?

by David Grand
January 3, 2007

Can't say for sure. But it just so happens that's how old I was when I did in 1951 during the Korean War.  And looking back at what motivated me to raise my right hand and be sworn in, I can honestly say that it wasn't out of patriotic fervor, or because I couldn't find a job and certainly not because a judge had given me the option of joining up or going to jail.

No, it was much for the same reason as Art Buchwald said thousands of men welcomed World War 11, "as a way to escape their humdrum lives rather than a chance to fight for God and country."

And back then, the Army recruiter didn't offer me any inducement to sign-up, unlike now when they offer a smorgasbord of such goodies as: a $20,000 signing bonus, a starting pay of $1,300 a month (mine was $75), $70,000 towards a college or vocational education, a $400,000 life insurance policy, 30-days vacation time each year, a VA home loan up to $470,000, discounted travel fare, and re-enlistment rewards as high as $150,000.

How could any young man or woman turn down such a generous package, when all they have to do in return is to run the risk of being killed or permanently maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Easily, as recruiters have found out as they've failed to meet their goals of adding  10,000 people per year within the current all-volunteer system.

And that's so, despite the Army and Marine Corps. boosting bonus money, hiring hundreds of new recruiters, raising the recruitment age from 35 to 42, and accepting those with lower test scores and criminal records involving, for example, repeated instances of substance abuse and misdemeanors.

Hey, if they're that desperate for recruits, they should consider offering those in prison for non-violent, drug-related crimes their freedom in exchange for the opportunity to do something worthwhile for their country and with their lives. What with upwards of 70 percent of those in prison falling into that category, I'm sure there'd be enough qualified volunteers to meet the military's recruitment needs for decades to come.

To me, that's no more far-fetched than the Pentagon currently weighing the possibility of tapping into a large, unused manpower pool of illegal immigrants. As David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland said, "they're here anyway, and if they're willing to lay their lives on the line  to put them on a faster track to U.S. citizenship, I think that makes them more worthy than somebody born here and never done anything for his country." (Currently, there are about 30,000 non citizens in the U.S. armed forces, with over a hundred killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

And ridiculous as it sounds, some top military leaders believe the Pentagon should go so far as opening recruiting stations overseas. A recent change in U.S. law gave it the authority to bring immigrants here if it determines it's vital to national security. But so far, the Pentagon hasn't taken advantage of it, probably out of concern they'd be open to criticism for essentially using mercenaries to defend the country.

A day after Bush said he was considering sending more troops to Iraq, his secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jim Nicholson, ignited a firestorm by saying, "that  society would benefit if the country brought back the draft."

And even though he later retracted his statement--no doubt after receiving a heated call from the White House--he's the first and only one in the administration, in my recollection, to face up to reality.