Considering Joining the Military

[Winged_Splinter]

Hey all, just found out another branch of the military raised their enlistment age to 39, the Navy. Not sure I want to join the Navy as I've had my eye on the Air Force, and the main reason is because for a while they were the only branch that would allow you to do any job with no age limit (except be a pilot). I'm 37, and while I have the money saved up to get my Private - Commercial as long as there are no snags, I figured, heck, I could go serve 4 to 6 and then have them pay for my flight training.

(Hope my post doesn't get banned after this next part) I began looking up the GI Bill to make sure I would be able to use them for that purpose and I found out that I could. However, in my search, I found out that congress is trying to get a bill passed saying that veterans wouldn't be allowed to use the GI Bill for flight training anymore, because, get this, it would cost too much, because they passed the bill for the 1500 hour rule.

I wish the military would raise their age limit to be a pilot. If they would do that, I would go in tomorrow and sign a contract for 10 years.

Not sure what I'm going to do as every time I look up employment opportunities after obtaining my commercial I get discouraged about this whole thing.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

While there are some practical benefits, and leaving aside the issue of the risks in the event of seeing combat, a serious question to consider is the following - do you want to be signed up to follow orders to fight the kind of wars overseas which the US is largely involved in? And to follow the orders of who ever gets elected to the White House in the present climate? Because that is what signing up with them now involves.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Sure, I meant that everything you just said would have applied just as much 50 years ago to someone considering joining the Armed Forces as it would today. Some of the specific concerns might be different of course, but nothing has changed with respect to anything you mentioned. My original question was exactly that......how is now different in that respect? I.e wouldn't that have always been sage advice?

Yes, it has been a long time since people signed on for the duration of a specific conflict. I agree with @RJM62 that the nature of the conflicts has changed considerably and one would be well advised to be sure you can in good conscience fight in the type of conflicts the US presently engages in prior to joining.

At least with an all volunteer force people can make that choice, versus the draft we had from the Civil War until after Vietnam. A lot of those fighting in those conflicts did not choose to go freely.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Just because someone takes the oath of enlistment doesn’t mean they’ll be involved in some questionable war that might be in conflict with one’s conscious either.
.

I guess I don’t fully understand this. Do you just mean that the wars which get started and you are ordered to fight in might not violate your conscience? Or that there is some way once you have signed up to not fight in the war because you conclude it violates your conscience?

My understanding is you can refuse what you conclude is an illegal order, but short of that, you have to obey them or will be court martialled (or I guess even shot if in the heat of battle).

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well you have combat jobs (MOS) and ones that don’t involve combat. While one might take the oath of enlistment, they might very well be in a job that doesn’t involve direct action against the enemy.

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, some might also object to taking even indirect action to facilitate a particular war. Cheers.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Sure, if they’re a conscientious objector then they shouldn’t join the military then. Obviously the OP isn’t an CO, so it’s a moot point.

It’s a good point about a CO in general would not want to join. I am not sure it is completely moot, at least for others. Some might not object to fighting in a war like WW2 where the the US was directly attacked, but would object to fighting in Iraq, for example. That was sort of the point of my original post. You don’t get to choose the war once you sign up for the term.

But clearly the OP does not have conscientious objections in any case.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well I guess it all depends on how far you take the CO role. To me, “directly fighting” is just that. The person responsible for actions against the enemy. Those not involved with that should have a clear conscious.

Take @35 AoA for example. You gonna link his actions to the COAC at Qatar that assigns his mission? The “red shirt” that loaded his ordnance?. How about the cook working on the carrier that cooked his breakfast before his mission? Where do you draw the line on the limit of responsibility?

Also, we’ve been fighting wars for a long time that have nothing to do with direct protection of American soil or even remotely related to “support and defend the Constitution...” Forget the past 50 years. More like 200 years of conflicts on foreign soil.

Starting to veer onto politics and away from aviation, so I will simply state my view and leave it at that lest I get reprimanded. I understand you will likely disagree. We can discuss it in another forum or via PM further if you like.

I agree that the level of responsibility is more diffused for those further away from the battlefield. But I think COs can make an argument there is some there. I think anything voluntarily and knowingly done to aid the war effort bears some level of responsibility. Paying taxes is not necessarily voluntarily done so would not count.

I agreed that the US has been fighting wars for most of its existence and many having only an indirect connection to the protection of lives of people living in the US. I will put my view of those this way - I would not have chosen to fight in or support any of them.