Thirty-Somethings Find Home in the Army

(CBS)  It wasn't long ago that the U.S. Army was struggling to meet its recruiting goals as the military's increasingly unpopular presence in Iraq reached its peak. Now there's a steady stream of prospective GIs flowing through military recruiters' offices - and they don't fit the traditional profile.

A growing number of older Americans - "old" being defined as 30 and over - are enlisting in the Army, eager to take advantage of the stable income and valuable benefits offered by military life in an otherwise sluggish economy, according to a Los Angeles Times report Tuesday.

At the Los Angeles Recruiting Battalion, people holding master's degrees are showing up at a place normally reserved for those with just a high school diploma.

"I've been a recruiter for four years, and I've never seen that before," Staff Sgt. A.J. Calderon told the Times. "This is definitely a good thing for the Army."

In 2006, the Army raised the recruiting age limit to 42 as it struggling to meet its quotas. It had been 35 previously.

That decision produced 1,329 more active-duty soldiers in 2007 and 1,243 in 2008 - a help but a small percentage of the 80,517 total enlistments last year.

But the bump in older recruits is growing. More than 1,800 people over 30 have signed up for the Army in the first half of the 2009 fiscal year, which began in October. That accounted for a 59 percent increase over the same period in previous year.

Michael March is one of those new recruits - a 38-year-old struggling to find a job that paid well enough to allow him to complete a computer science degree. Faced with a decision of either taking out more loans for his education, he opted for the military, which will subsidize his schooling after completing his service.

While the experience, maturity and education of these new recruits benefits the Army, there is a slight downside - the older recruits see the Army as a short-term opportunity to weather the economic downturn and set themselves up for greater prosperity after service. That's opposed to younger recruits who more often view the Army as a long-term career.

[TPS2]

by hower4 August 12, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
There's a simple question that destroys everything you have just said........ how many innocent civilians have been killed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you going to claim they were all justified and unavoidable?

After you have answered that, you can then consider the ratio of civilian to military deaths and compare it to WWII. Why has it become hundreds of times worse? Smart weapons?????????
There were an estimated 30.5 million civilian casualties for allied and Axis nations combined in WWII. There were an estimated 25 million military casualties for allied and Axis nations combined in WWII. Your argument has no merit or truth. You obviously have an intense dislike for America/American military, and that is fine and well. You spout the same nonsense about each story printed about America's military. You know nothing of the facts yet you attempt to speak with authority on the subject matter. Educate yourself so that you make speak intelligently about a subject, then and only then, you might present an intelligent, informed argument. So far you have only demonstrated your inability to comprehend hard facts. Don't bother to post a reply; it will only reaffirm what is apparent to anyone who is unfortunate to read your pathetic child-like rants

[TPS2]

by hower4 August 12, 2009 2:46 AM EDT
No, it's how I feel about the corrupt, lying politicians who sent them there to kill and die that's relevant. Why the **** would I want to join and be forced to commit mass murder and perhaps become a victim myself?

There is no argument to make about the pathological liars who inhabit our government; however, your understanding of military affairs seems to be less than informed. No insult intended. You make statements about the military committing mass murder. Do you realize how many ridiculous restraints are placed on U.S. military personnel regarding rules of engagement? Understand that if full combat capability was brought to bear on our enemies, the results would be more catastrophic than they currently are (for enemy combatants and civilians). The insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq have no rules to abide by, and it would seem apparent that non-combatant casualties are of no concern to them. On the other hand, American military commanders are being asked to fight a very determined enemy with one hand tied behind their backs, while attempting to minimize "collateral damage." Your characterization of U.S. troops as "mass murderers" is way off the mark. I work with many of these young men and women every day, and the majority of them are honest, decent people. Unfortunately there have been instances where troops have conducted themselves less than honorably. The actions of a few should not be used to characterize an entire group of people.

[hower4]

There's a simple question that destroys everything you have just said........ how many innocent civilians have been killed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you going to claim they were all justified and unavoidable?

After you have answered that, you can then consider the ratio of civilian to military deaths and compare it to WWII. Why has it become hundreds of times worse? Smart weapons?????????

[erasmus111]

THIS WEBSITE SUCKS!!!

[russelllewis]

I joined when i was 30 back in '82 and kicked ass in boot camp because I had to prove to the "youn'ins" that I could perform at that "old age." I stayed for 22 years and now get to go back to school because of the GI bill and get relatively cheap medical care and a retirement check for the remainder of my life!

[russelllewis]

So much for trying to be cute, that was supposed to be "young'ns."

[erasmus111]

We know what you meant.: )

[credibility2]

That's funny that the age of 30 is considered "old". The government also considers the age of "40" as the starting point for age discrimination in the workplace. This doesn't say much about the intelligence of our society.

[Benton09]

I was in from '76 to '82, from 21-26 years old...except it was under Carter mostly until the Republican GOD took office in '80. Today, if I was 21 even, I would not join. The military is nothing today but a tool for the Military Industrial Complex, lives for profit and wars based upon lies. Good Luck Enlistees!

[hower4]

If you're just going to sit in a Humvee and get your legs blown off by an IED, it doesn't make much difference if you're 19 or 39.

[cbs_tom]

Nice optimistic outlook!

[TPS2]

You have made it abundantly clear how you feel about the U.S. military, so please spare us your drivel and provide an intelligent post for once. One alternative could be, that you take all of that tough talk and join up. Put your money where your mouth is. You won't do that though, because you lack the courage and prefer to hurl insults while sitting safely behind your key board. Hook it up tough guy and get some.

[Observer1504]

How time changes things. I was promoted to Staff Sgt. at the age of 21. I'd hate to be a 42 year old Private First Class.

[leeanna59]

I was in the Army from 1969 to 1972. I finally was able to complete my degree in 1999 while raising my children. I'm over the hill. I wish I could go back in the Army with my degree. Oh well!

[leeanna59]

I was in the Army from 1969 to 1972. I finally was able to complete my degree in 1999 while raising my children. I'm over the hill. I wish I could go back in the Army with my degree. Oh well!