Why do so few people consider military paying for college?

[Shane]

For those of us who have daughters, try watching this trailer and this one for the movie linked above, The Invisible War.

If you can watch both those trailers and still consider having your daughters join the military to save money on college, then you're braver than I am.

[randommadness]

I went to college for free without seriously considering any military options.  Every branch tried to recruit me, but finances were not an argument in their favor since it was clear college wasn't going to cost me anything anyway.  This is one side of the college-funding debate that no one seems to address here; about 5% of you will be able to send your kids to college for free because they are smart.

But not everyone gets scholarships.  If you're a mediocre student, and don't have rich parents, the military is certainly one way to pay for school.  Assuming you can handle the psychological implications of servitude, which I struggled with.

But on the plus side, the US government has strongly increased veteran's preference for civilian federal hiring.  With so many returning vets looking for work back in the state's, and facing a national epidemic of highly trained killers resorting to drug abuse and homelessness, the federal government hires them for almost anything.  I work in a federal facility and have been involved in lots of hiring over the past few years, and we basically never get to even interview candidates who aren't veterans.  HR can't even pass a non-veteran on to the interview committee because the point reward for military service swamps any of the points for qualifications for the jobs.  We routinely get hiring lists of six veterans with zero relevant experience, especially for jobs that don't require advanced degrees.  We still occasionally hire non-vets for PhD positions, but for any other job with the federal government you basically can't get hired anymore without a military record.

Interesting and good to know.  Does this still apply for those transferring from other types of governmental work?

Sol is overstating the situation. I'm in federal government and although there are a good many individuals who were in the military, there are just as many of us who are not. Yes all other things being equal, veterans do get a bonus in the scoring of applicants, but the way scoring works, an unqualified veteran should not be hired in favor of a qualified non-veteran. Like in any other job opening, it really comes down to who else is competing for the job. Qualified persons who are not veterans can and do get hired for a federal positions.

I haven't read all of the post yet but I wanted to +1 sol a bit. Having worked for the USAF for 6 years, most people were Vets, and now having worked for VA for about 4 years it's far and above predominantlyl Vet's. Just in my office area of 25-30 people I think there are MAYBE 2 non-Vets, me being one of them. I had to help with an interview panel and yeah, you HAVE to go through and interview the unqualified Veteran candidates before you can even look at anyone else.

[mm1970]

For those of us who have daughters, try watching this trailer and this one for the movie linked above, The Invisible War.

If you can watch both those trailers and still consider having your daughters join the military to save money on college, then you're braver than I am.

I'm not interested in watching the trailers, and I don't have daughters. I have no doubt that this is an issue.

BUT, as an anecdote, I was in the Navy for 5 years and never was a victim of any kind of sexual assault, and none of my friends were either.

[Shane]

Throughout this thread many posters have been going on and on about all of the great benefits that the military offers: paid for college, high tax-free salaries, great retirement benefits after only 20 years. On the other hand, other posters are getting all indignant that their "service" to their country is being questioned.

So, which is it? Is the military a rational, logical choice of a well-paying job with great benefits, or is it "service" which requires great sacrifice of its members?

Personally, I'd be fine with mandatory military service for EVERYBODY. If all of us had to serve in the military, then our politicians would never be able to get away with starting bullshit wars in other people's countries, because the people wouldn't put up with it. Right now, the U.S. Military is a mercenary force. If we pay people enough money and give them enough good benefits, they will do ANYTHING they are told to do without question. This isn't "service". It's people acting in their own self interest.

Towards the end of the U.S. war in Iraq, I met a group of Army Infantry. I overheard them talking and asked them what was going on, and one of the young soldiers told me that they had just found out from their command that they were NOT going to be deployed to Iraq. I immediately responded positively. I was like, "Wow, cool. Congratulations! I'll bet you guys must be pretty happy about that, huh?" They all just looked at me like I was from another planet. One of the soldiers explained to me that they were all DISAPPOINTED that they weren't going to be going over to fight in the war in Iraq. Another soldier mentioned that they were pretty bummed that they wouldn't be collecting their extra "hazardous duty" pay or whatever it's called. Apparently many of the young soldiers had been counting on this extra pay to buy new pickup trucks when they got home.

[Sailor Sam]

So, which is it? Is the military a rational, logical choice of a well-paying job with great benefits, or is it "service" which requires great sacrifice of its members?

You're creating a false dichotomy. It's not a question of either/or. Joining the military can be a monetary decision, which is also a service to society. I want to serve, and I also want to be paid. 

Personally, I'd be fine with mandatory military service for EVERYBODY. If all of us had to serve in the military, then our politicians would never be able to get away with starting bullshit wars in other people's countries, because the people wouldn't put up with it. Right now, the U.S. Military is a mercenary force. If we pay people enough money and give them enough good benefits, they will do ANYTHING they are told to do without question. This isn't "service". It's people acting in their own self interest.

Now come on. That was presented using unnecessarily hyperbolic assholery.

In the first pass, you've suggested the US Military as a whole is a mercenary force, where the Powers That Be commit know-nothing soldiers and infrastructure to the highest bidder. The war on terror sure has economic roots, but the economics weren't Iraq's neighbours paying the US to invade. And on the home front; Care to cite the latest military coup d'etat in the United States?

In the second pass, you imply each individual service member is a conscious-less mercenary who will shoot children holding puppies for enough money. That gets pretty damn personal. No doubt the US military has to evolve as times change. No doubt the civilian branches of govt must initiate and monitor the evolution. Do you really want to start the change by unilaterally stating  all 2.2 million service members are morally corrupt?

[Gin1984]

For those of us who have daughters, try watching this trailer and this one for the movie linked above, The Invisible War.

If you can watch both those trailers and still consider having your daughters join the military to save money on college, then you're braver than I am.

I'm not interested in watching the trailers, and I don't have daughters. I have no doubt that this is an issue.

BUT, as an anecdote, I was in the Navy for 5 years and never was a victim of any kind of sexual assault, and none of my friends were either.

That you were aware of.  I found out later about multiple relatives and friends being raped and/or sexually assaulted once I started talking about the issue.

[Gin1984]

Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things.  Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command.  Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani).  Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities.  It's also possible that you will.  Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.

GuitarStv,

Military member here.  I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform.  Have you served in the military in any capacity?  Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders.  It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works.  We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to.  We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners).  There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.

As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders.  Do people make mistakes?  Yes, of course - just like in any career field.  Does that make the military bad?  If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better.  I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc.  These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them. 

Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time.  I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc.  I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.  Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.

Cheers,

Dan

.001% of service members doing "bad things"?  Really?
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.

Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.

Gin,
Have you taken a look at the statistics on these types of things for the country at large? One in four college age women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
I won't defend the military on this other then putting it out there that we receive a lot of training to try to combat this issue. I think it is a problem in our society at at large and the military is a subset of society. Yes, it is probably not .001% when it comes to something like sexual assault or rape and ultimately we should shoot for 0.00%, but is it higher then the rest of society (by my estimates it is .282%, using the DOD numbers. Unfortunately, I am sure that the actual number is higher.)?

Yes, I am well aware of the statistics for rape in the US, in general.  But you just compare in the last year to within their lifetimes.  When you look at assault/rape in the military over one's lifetime you get one in three women.  That is a huge jump.  Then you have to look at the results of that rape.  Civilian women don't get fired from their jobs for attempting to report a rape, they don't have to go through their commander (sometimes the person who assaulted them) to report it. Rape victims within the military are more likely to have PTSD than civilians partly because of how the military responds.  So the classes are nothing because it is an institutional issue.  "Thirty seven percent of the attempted raped and raped women in the VA study also reported being raped more than once and 14% of them reported being gang raped. This study also discovered that 75% of raped women in the military failed to report it."
See: Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003.
Now I agree that some of the response and assaults are based on our current civilian culture but I would never tell my daughter to join with those risks.  Risks that she will be raped, risk that she will be jailed if she tries to remove herself from the situation.  Risks that she will be attacked because of reporting the crime.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/05/18/report-retaliation-against-sexual-assault-victims-rampant/27368747/
I can sue a school, I can keep my daughter from living in the dorms (epicenter of rapes on most college campuses), I can remove her from school and get her help if she needs it, if there is a rape or assault on campus.  There is nothing that a civilian can do, for a person (man or woman) who is raped while in the miliary.
"A 2014 survey conducted by the think tank Rand as part of that study found that 62 percent of women who reported unwanted sexual contact to military authorities experienced some form of retaliation. More than half of those women said they were retaliated against socially.

The Rand study also found 35 percent of women reporting sexual assault suffered an adverse administrative action, 32 percent suffered professional retaliation and 11 percent were punished for infractions after reporting. Similar statistics for male sexual assault victims were not available."
Please see this article for more info:http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/war/military-sexual-trauma.asp

Gin,
I think you have a valid argument against any yearly vs lifetime stat. That being said, I would be weary of using the "Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003." as the basis for your 1 out of 3 stat. Not that I think their numbers are suspect (although I do think 558 is a small sample size), but I have seen a fairly large cultural shift in the short 6 years I have been in Navy. Their interviews were completed Nov 96 through May 97 and was conducted with veterans from Vietnam though the first Gulf War. I would be interested in seeing if the numbers are the same today.

In regards to the statistics of the article: For the type of of they were doing 558 was actual a large sample size with a large effect size.  They had planned for less responses. 
That said, the 2007 article, Mental Health, Quality of Life, and Health Functioning in Women Veterans also had the 1/3 result.  And pretty much every article that compares finds an major increase from civilian sexual assaults/rapes vs military sexual assaults/rapes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202575
Methods
"Eligible participants were female veterans who were enrolled in a medical
or mental health clinic within the Veterans Administration North Texas
Health Care System. The sample included 270 women veterans who had
attended at least one outpatient appointment during the 5 years before contact
and were able to give informed consent. Participants were recruited via
flyers and face-to-face and telephone contacts. The mean age for the sample
was 46.7 ± 11.5 years (range = 23 to 79). Of the present sample, 64.1% were
White, 32.2% were African-American, 3% were Hispanic, and .7% were
from other racial backgrounds. The mean number of years of education for
the sample was 14.5 ± 2.0 years (range = 10 to 20 years). A total of 21.5%
of the women had never been married, 32.6% were currently married, 5.6%
were separated, 34.1% were divorced, and 5.9% were widowed. Participants
came from all service branches, with the majority from the Army (46.7%),
followed by the Air Force (30.4%), Navy (17.4%), Marines (5.2%), and the
Coast Guard (0.4%). Additional demographic characteristics for participants
based on type of sexual assault are presented in Table 1.
There were no significant differences between any of the demographic
variables, with the exception of age. Women veterans with a positive
history for sexual assault were significantly younger than those veterans
without a history of sexual assault (M = 45.55 vs. 48.77, p < .05)."

[mm1970]

For those of us who have daughters, try watching this trailer and this one for the movie linked above, The Invisible War.

If you can watch both those trailers and still consider having your daughters join the military to save money on college, then you're braver than I am.

I'm not interested in watching the trailers, and I don't have daughters. I have no doubt that this is an issue.

BUT, as an anecdote, I was in the Navy for 5 years and never was a victim of any kind of sexual assault, and none of my friends were either.

That you were aware of.  I found out later about multiple relatives and friends being raped and/or sexually assaulted once I started talking about the issue.

In my defense, I had all of 4 or 5 female friends (I am an engineer, after all), so statistically...

[Vilgan]

I agree that I would have second thoughts about recommending general army enlisted and especially infantry for any female. However, I haven't heard of many rapes of military officers which would be the rank after completing college having the military pay for it. If your daughter is thinking about committing to the military to pay for college, she is far likelier to get raped while attending college than in the 4 years following as she serves her time after ROTC. Does anyone ever say "I wouldn't let me daughter go to college, she might get raped!" ? Not really.

Does it suck that the military and especially the lower enlisted in the Army still have issues with sexual assault? Absolutely. Its something that needs to get cleaned up. But I'm also not sure its terribly relevant when considering whether or not to go ROTC to pay for school.

[Travis]

It's also worth mentioning that The Invisible War contains stories from the 1980s and early 90s (and at least one recent incident) back when the DoD simply didn't pay much attention to SA/SH problems in the force.  "You signed up, so get over it" was almost policy back then.  A lot has changed since then.  For the poll done a few years ago where the 26,000 figure came from, it asked about "unwanted sexual contact" all the way through rape.  In the DoD, unwanted sexual contact runs the entire gamut of sexual harassment in the office (involving touching) all the way through what everyone commonly thinks of as sexual assault.  The year that report was published there were 3400 sexual assaults reported which was a 6% increase from previous year, while the 26,000 figure was an extrapolation from a survey of a few thousand troops.  The powers-that-be believe the 6% increase is due to an increase in victims willing to come forward rather than an increase of actual assaults committed (hotly debated).  The number of assaults committed vs reported are pretty low in civilian and military sectors so a lot of this is statistical guesswork.  It also makes discussing the subject difficult since not everyone bothered to read the results of the survey and just ran with "26,000 rapes" when that number encompasses a scale of incidents.

[Gin1984]

Some people don't think a free education is worth becoming a part of a group of people who often do bad things.  Being in the military means subordinating your sense of right and wrong to someone higher up the chain of command.  Join up in the US and you could be in Guantanamo Bay torturing innocent people, in Afghanistan helping to keep pedophiles in positions of power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0), or bombing innocent people in the hopes that you get a bad guy in northern Pakistan (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani).  Sure, it's possible that you'll never end up being told to commit atrocities.  It's also possible that you will.  Couple that with general disagreement about how military is deployed, and I think you've got a very valid reason to steer clear of it for education.

GuitarStv,

Military member here.  I often here similar sentiments to yours from uninformed people who haven't spent any time in uniform.  Have you served in the military in any capacity?  Most of your problems with US service members can be rebutted with one simple truth: we are told when, where, and often how to fight by elected civilian leaders.  It says you are posting from Canada, so perhaps you don't understand how the US military chain of command works.  We are "bombing people in Pakistan"(?) because civilians ordered us to.  We man the walls in Guantanamo Bay because civilians told us to (keep in mind that Guantanamo would have been shut down years ago if there wasn't a NIMBY attitude amongst US civlians when it comes to moving those prisoners).  There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen in uniform; considering the hellish scenarios we are often put in, I think we do a pretty darn good job of doing the right thing.

As an officer, part of my duty is to NOT follow illegal or unlawful orders.  Do people make mistakes?  Yes, of course - just like in any career field.  Does that make the military bad?  If your definition of bad is .001% of service members doing "bad things", then I suppose so. Don't forget we often take the bottom 10% of society and do our best to mold them into something better.  I'm sorry you have a tainted view of what the military actually does; I would suggest that you not judge a group of people by what you see in the media, but as the whole package: all the work we do helping save lives in disaster preparedness, fighting diseases, etc.  These actions typically don't make the news, but that doesn't mean we aren't out there doing them. 

Last, since your experience with those who have served seems to come only from the media, feel free to PM me any time.  I grew up in a middle-class household and have a lot of life experience I could share with you; I've been both enlisted and officer, served time in some crappy places, went to a Big Ten university for both undergrad and grad school, etc.  I'll freely answer your questions (or those of anyone else), and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.  Hopefully that will help bridge the gap in your mind between perception and reality.

Cheers,

Dan

.001% of service members doing "bad things"?  Really?
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/04/pentagon-rand-sexual-assault-reports/19883155/
Preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men.

Is this really from .001% of the military, I think not.

Gin,
Have you taken a look at the statistics on these types of things for the country at large? One in four college age women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.
I won't defend the military on this other then putting it out there that we receive a lot of training to try to combat this issue. I think it is a problem in our society at at large and the military is a subset of society. Yes, it is probably not .001% when it comes to something like sexual assault or rape and ultimately we should shoot for 0.00%, but is it higher then the rest of society (by my estimates it is .282%, using the DOD numbers. Unfortunately, I am sure that the actual number is higher.)?

Yes, I am well aware of the statistics for rape in the US, in general.  But you just compare in the last year to within their lifetimes.  When you look at assault/rape in the military over one's lifetime you get one in three women.  That is a huge jump.  Then you have to look at the results of that rape.  Civilian women don't get fired from their jobs for attempting to report a rape, they don't have to go through their commander (sometimes the person who assaulted them) to report it. Rape victims within the military are more likely to have PTSD than civilians partly because of how the military responds.  So the classes are nothing because it is an institutional issue.  "Thirty seven percent of the attempted raped and raped women in the VA study also reported being raped more than once and 14% of them reported being gang raped. This study also discovered that 75% of raped women in the military failed to report it."
See: Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003.
Now I agree that some of the response and assaults are based on our current civilian culture but I would never tell my daughter to join with those risks.  Risks that she will be raped, risk that she will be jailed if she tries to remove herself from the situation.  Risks that she will be attacked because of reporting the crime.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/05/18/report-retaliation-against-sexual-assault-victims-rampant/27368747/
I can sue a school, I can keep my daughter from living in the dorms (epicenter of rapes on most college campuses), I can remove her from school and get her help if she needs it, if there is a rape or assault on campus.  There is nothing that a civilian can do, for a person (man or woman) who is raped while in the miliary.
"A 2014 survey conducted by the think tank Rand as part of that study found that 62 percent of women who reported unwanted sexual contact to military authorities experienced some form of retaliation. More than half of those women said they were retaliated against socially.

The Rand study also found 35 percent of women reporting sexual assault suffered an adverse administrative action, 32 percent suffered professional retaliation and 11 percent were punished for infractions after reporting. Similar statistics for male sexual assault victims were not available."
Please see this article for more info:http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/war/military-sexual-trauma.asp

Gin,
I think you have a valid argument against any yearly vs lifetime stat. That being said, I would be weary of using the "Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. Am J Ind Med 43:262–273, 2003." as the basis for your 1 out of 3 stat. Not that I think their numbers are suspect (although I do think 558 is a small sample size), but I have seen a fairly large cultural shift in the short 6 years I have been in Navy. Their interviews were completed Nov 96 through May 97 and was conducted with veterans from Vietnam though the first Gulf War. I would be interested in seeing if the numbers are the same today.

In regards to the statistics of the article: For the type of of they were doing 558 was actual a large sample size with a large effect size.  They had planned for less responses. 
That said, the 2007 article, Mental Health, Quality of Life, and Health Functioning in Women Veterans also had the 1/3 result.  And pretty much every article that compares finds an major increase from civilian sexual assaults/rapes vs military sexual assaults/rapes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202575
Methods
"Eligible participants were female veterans who were enrolled in a medical
or mental health clinic within the Veterans Administration North Texas
Health Care System. The sample included 270 women veterans who had
attended at least one outpatient appointment during the 5 years before contact
and were able to give informed consent. Participants were recruited via
flyers and face-to-face and telephone contacts. The mean age for the sample
was 46.7 ± 11.5 years (range = 23 to 79). Of the present sample, 64.1% were
White, 32.2% were African-American, 3% were Hispanic, and .7% were
from other racial backgrounds. The mean number of years of education for
the sample was 14.5 ± 2.0 years (range = 10 to 20 years). A total of 21.5%
of the women had never been married, 32.6% were currently married, 5.6%
were separated, 34.1% were divorced, and 5.9% were widowed. Participants
came from all service branches, with the majority from the Army (46.7%),
followed by the Air Force (30.4%), Navy (17.4%), Marines (5.2%), and the
Coast Guard (0.4%). Additional demographic characteristics for participants
based on type of sexual assault are presented in Table 1.
There were no significant differences between any of the demographic
variables, with the exception of age. Women veterans with a positive
history for sexual assault were significantly younger than those veterans
without a history of sexual assault (M = 45.55 vs. 48.77, p < .05)."

I'm not sure how you are drawing that conclusion from the article. The purpose of the article was to determine the impact of military sexual assaults (MSA) upon female veterans, not the prevalence of civilian sexual assault vs. MSA. Unsurprisingly the MSA had a greater impact upon the women, but the article doesn't seem to support your claim that MSA is more prevent. Also, since this is a non-random reporting system a case can be made for sampling bias so you can't make claims about the military as a whole. "Military sexual trauma - A review of prevalence and associated health consequences in veterans" (http://tva.sagepub.com/content/9/4/250.short) works better as a survey paper but the 4% to 71% prevalence rate is indicative of the fact that it can be difficult to get handle on exactly how widespread a problem may be. Furthermore, it doesn't appear from the summaries that it was always distinguished between military assaulting military or civilians assaulting military.

I came to conclusion because the results stated it.  It compared the rate of MSA vs CSA as well as the effects. I included the methods so that people could see the group that was investigated, but I cannot legally post the entire article. 

[MoonShadow]

If I was to take a guess as to why a tour in the US military isn't a common solution to paying for college, I'd say it was a combination of the fact that the US is currently in hot combat in several theaters, thus a higher odds of a child getting shot at before the tour is up (lets call that a "risk cost" from a parental perspective) & the fact that the membership on this forum leans to the left, and are less likely to consider encouraging a child into military service generally.

[Gin1984]

I came to conclusion because the results stated it.  It compared the rate of MSA vs CSA as well as the effects. I included the methods so that people could see the group that was investigated, but I cannot legally post the entire article.

I have a subscription to the journal through my university. Most other journals I can get through inter-liberary loans so feel free cite any article.

With that said, I don't see how the article supports your claim that there are more MSAs then CSAs. As the authors even note:

There are several limitations of the present study. Our study was a single-site, retrospective study consisting of a convenience sample of women veterans using some self-report data.

The sampling methodology is not appropriate for a broad population claim, even more so given the focus of the article was on health outcomes and quality of life as opposed to rates of occurs in a broad population. That said, the background of the article provides other citations that support MSAs being more prevalent than CSAs (e.g. Sadler, Booth, Nielson, & Doebbeling, 2000; Surís, Lind, Kashner, Borman, & Petty, 2004), but it would be more appropriate to cite those than this article.

I did cite the article, for those who could access.  And I did say it was not the end all be all.  I said here was another article which also showed 1/3 and was a later date.  In addition, I pointed that other articles showed an increase from CSAs to MSA but since I was working I was not going to check every single one.  The general consensus is that MSA are more prevalent.  And I disagree that the methodology is not appropriate for a population claim, at least among the military especially given the previous and consistent data from other sources. 

[Gin1984]

And I disagree that the methodology is not appropriate for a population claim, at least among the military especially given the previous and consistent data from other sources.

At the risk of derailing this thread with a discussion about research methodology, the authors call out their own data as a limitation in the discussion:

There are several limitations of the present study. Our study was a single-site, retrospective study consisting of a convenience sample of women veterans using some self-report data.

That line does not exactly instill any sort of confidence that the data should be used for broad conclusions.

Yes it is a limitation, and yes I would prefer for them to repeat it over multiple VAs, however, that does not mean it cannot be used as support for a population claim given the multiple other studies. All I was using it for was to show that the 1/3 result has been shown at a later date.  Unless there is reason to believe the women using this specific VA were more likely to get MSA, the sample can be used to make inferences about the population. Having limitations does not mean you cannot make inferences.

[Shane]

Personally, I'd be fine with mandatory military service for EVERYBODY. If all of us had to serve in the military, then our politicians would never be able to get away with starting bullshit wars in other people's countries, because the people wouldn't put up with it. Right now, the U.S. Military is a mercenary force. If we pay people enough money and give them enough good benefits, they will do ANYTHING they are told to do without question. This isn't "service". It's people acting in their own self interest.

Now come on. That was presented using unnecessarily hyperbolic assholery.

In the first pass, you've suggested the US Military as a whole is a mercenary force, where the Powers That Be commit know-nothing soldiers and infrastructure to the highest bidder. The war on terror sure has economic roots, but the economics weren't Iraq's neighbours paying the US to invade. And on the home front; Care to cite the latest military coup d'etat in the United States?

I never suggested that Iraq's neighbors paid anything for the U.S. to invade. They didn't have to. Our vice president was the former CEO of Halliburton, which stood to make huge amounts of money if the U.S. invaded Iraq. Why else do you think the U.S. invaded? It obviously had nothing to do with the "War on Terror." None of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq.

In the second pass, you imply each individual service member is a conscious-less mercenary who will shoot children holding puppies for enough money. That gets pretty damn personal. No doubt the US military has to evolve as times change. No doubt the civilian branches of govt must initiate and monitor the evolution. Do you really want to start the change by unilaterally stating  all 2.2 million service members are morally corrupt?

I'm not suggesting that all 2.2 million service members are anything other than victims. I think they're being used by our politicians who are servants of U.S. corporations.

It's just like the way the Republican Party manages to convince millions of voters that the most important topics in elections are things like same-sex marriage, gun rights, "war on drugs", "war on terror", etc., when it's obvious the only real issue that matters is money. If Republicans can keep the people occupied arguing about abortion or same-sex marriage or some other bullshit, then it distracts everybody from what they're really interested in, which is the redistribution of as much of the country's wealth as possible from the lower & middle classes to a small minority of people at the top, people like the Koch brothers who already have billions and billions.

If the government came right out and said the truth, which is that they want U.S. service members to risk their lives fighting in foreign wars to enrich U.S. corporations, few people would take them up on it. So, to distract everyone, the marketing people who work for the military work hard to convince the public that joining the military is a wonderful, selfless thing to do, that it is "service" to our country, the Founding Fathers, rah rah U.S.A., patriotism, the flag, and whatever other bullshit they can come up with. In reality, it's all a smoke screen to prevent the people from recognizing the real agenda which is to get as much of the world's money as they can.

[mm1970]

I agree that I would have second thoughts about recommending general army enlisted and especially infantry for any female. However, I haven't heard of many rapes of military officers which would be the rank after completing college having the military pay for it. If your daughter is thinking about committing to the military to pay for college, she is far likelier to get raped while attending college than in the 4 years following as she serves her time after ROTC. Does anyone ever say "I wouldn't let me daughter go to college, she might get raped!" ? Not really.

Does it suck that the military and especially the lower enlisted in the Army still have issues with sexual assault? Absolutely. Its something that needs to get cleaned up. But I'm also not sure its terribly relevant when considering whether or not to go ROTC to pay for school.

Right - my experience is with ROTC.

I may or may not suggest military academies to my daughters, if I had daughters.

[Gin1984]

I agree that I would have second thoughts about recommending general army enlisted and especially infantry for any female. However, I haven't heard of many rapes of military officers which would be the rank after completing college having the military pay for it. If your daughter is thinking about committing to the military to pay for college, she is far likelier to get raped while attending college than in the 4 years following as she serves her time after ROTC. Does anyone ever say "I wouldn't let me daughter go to college, she might get raped!" ? Not really.

Does it suck that the military and especially the lower enlisted in the Army still have issues with sexual assault? Absolutely. Its something that needs to get cleaned up. But I'm also not sure its terribly relevant when considering whether or not to go ROTC to pay for school.

Right - my experience is with ROTC.

I may or may not suggest military academies to my daughters, if I had daughters.

I have seen no data to suggest that officers are raped/sexually assaulted at a lower than the military average.  Do you have any actual data to support that? 

[AllChoptUp]

I'm an active duty female officer with 19 years in.  No sexual assault/harassment experienced.  College was a huge, well-known party school where I and my friends were stalked at parties, culled from the herd towards frat rooms and made to feel hunted just walking on campus after dark.  From my perspective women in the Navy are far safer from sexual assault than university women.  It's just one data point but I endorsed both of my step-daughters in joining the military - one went Army after college (officer), one went Air Force out of high school (enlisted) - and I counselled the college-bound one far more about her safety than the one bound for boot camp.

 

[golden1]

Personally, I'd be fine with mandatory military service for EVERYBODY. If all of us had to serve in the military, then our politicians would never be able to get away with starting bullshit wars in other people's countries, because the people wouldn't put up with it. Right now, the U.S. Military is a mercenary force. If we pay people enough money and give them enough good benefits, they will do ANYTHING they are told to do without question. This isn't "service". It's people acting in their own self interest.

I'd be okay with this but not strictly military since not everyone is suited physically or mentally for it.  I'm all for mandatory national service of some kind.  We have a unique demographic problem in this country, as a nation of immigrants and other diverse peoples, where we don't have a lot of common shared experience or history.  I think having a year or two of mandatory national service gives everyone some skin in the game so to speak and might help bridge some of the divides we have currently. 

[Vilgan]

I agree that I would have second thoughts about recommending general army enlisted and especially infantry for any female. However, I haven't heard of many rapes of military officers which would be the rank after completing college having the military pay for it. If your daughter is thinking about committing to the military to pay for college, she is far likelier to get raped while attending college than in the 4 years following as she serves her time after ROTC. Does anyone ever say "I wouldn't let me daughter go to college, she might get raped!" ? Not really.

Does it suck that the military and especially the lower enlisted in the Army still have issues with sexual assault? Absolutely. Its something that needs to get cleaned up. But I'm also not sure its terribly relevant when considering whether or not to go ROTC to pay for school.

Right - my experience is with ROTC.

I may or may not suggest military academies to my daughters, if I had daughters.

I have seen no data to suggest that officers are raped/sexually assaulted at a lower than the military average.  Do you have any actual data to support that?

Have you seen any data that it isn't at a different rate? I tried to find any evidence of any female officers getting raped and it is virtually nonexistant. All the studies/examples/etc I was able to find seemed to point to rank being a huge factor w/ almost everyone being a low or possibly mid ranking enlisted. The only evidence of anything close was the academies but that's more of a confirmation of college being a risk. According to statistics in The Lonely Soldier 90% of female rape victims are low ranking enlisted with an average age of 21. Everything else I've found while searching suggests that the remainder is primarily mid level enlisted or the rapist was their husband or ex-husband or something along those lines.

Given that striking an officer is a huge offense and an officer getting raped is a danger to chain of command which the military prioritizes highly, I think its clear that the primary risk group is not your female officers. As I said previously, if you go ROTC to pay for college - the main period of risk is while you are going to college not the military service that follows.

[fitfrugalfab]

I'm an active duty female officer with 19 years in.  No sexual assault/harassment experienced.  College was a huge, well-known party school where I and my friends were stalked at parties, culled from the herd towards frat rooms and made to feel hunted just walking on campus after dark.  From my perspective women in the Navy are far safer from sexual assault than university women.  It's just one data point but I endorsed both of my step-daughters in joining the military - one went Army after college (officer), one went Air Force out of high school (enlisted) - and I counselled the college-bound one far more about her safety than the one bound for boot camp.

I went to 2 military academies and had no issues either.

[Sailor Sam]

I'm an active duty female officer with 19 years in.  No sexual assault/harassment experienced.  College was a huge, well-known party school where I and my friends were stalked at parties, culled from the herd towards frat rooms and made to feel hunted just walking on campus after dark.  From my perspective women in the Navy are far safer from sexual assault than university women.  It's just one data point but I endorsed both of my step-daughters in joining the military - one went Army after college (officer), one went Air Force out of high school (enlisted) - and I counselled the college-bound one far more about her safety than the one bound for boot camp.

I went to 2 military academies and had no issues either.

Hells bells, how did you manage that?

[Villanelle]

Aren't all these issues and problems actually reasons to encourage the good people in our lives to join the military?  Or is this like those people who say they want our education system to improve, and then withdraw their kids?  Let someone else sort out the problem.  They want to talk about it, but putting skin in the game is asking too much.  It's sort of a NIMBY thing.  You want it, but in an abstract way that asks nothing of you beyond bitching on the internet. 

There are plenty of great reasons not to join the military, and it certainly isn't right for everybody, or even most.  But spewing vitriol from the sidelines is kind of pathetic. 

[Pigeon]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

[GuitarStv]

Aren't all these issues and problems actually reasons to encourage the good people in our lives to join the military?

I guess.  It's the same reason that you bought a house in the poorest, highest crime rate, worst schools provided area of the city you live in, right?  Because the need for your family to personally change things for the better outweighs all the risks?

[Vilgan]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.

[dramaman]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

Well, it was an open question to anyone, regardless of eligibility to serve or having children eligible to serve.

One may disagree with GuitarStv's view of the military, but in terms of answering why someone might not want to consider joining the military to pay for college, I doubt he is alone in that viewpoint.

[GuitarStv]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

My vitriol has been directed towards certain practices . . .  torture, support for pedophiles, and executing foreign civilians.  To my knowledge, there is no plan to end any of these policies.  They are still going on today.  People in the military are being ordered to perform them.  Why do you support these practices?

I have no beef with anybody in the military who isn't involved in these activities, and there are an awful lot of people who aren't.

[Gin1984]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.

Given that the data is for the entire military population, not the junior enlisted and there has been no actual data to show that officers have a lower rate, you are incorrect.  Post one, single research article that focuses on those officers and compares to the entire population (what the actual studies that been focusing on).

[Villanelle]

Aren't all these issues and problems actually reasons to encourage the good people in our lives to join the military?

I guess.  It's the same reason that you bought a house in the poorest, highest crime rate, worst schools provided area of the city you live in, right?  Because the need for your family to personally change things for the better outweighs all the risks?

I certainly have lived in less affluent, higher crime areas, within the cities where I lived.  So I guess that's a yes. 

[Pigeon]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.

The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots.  These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.

What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.

[MoonShadow]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.

The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots.  These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.

What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.

And this is why society needs moral & upstanding children to become soldiers & officers.  And here you are bragging about keeping the US military from gaining from your morally superior childraising techniques.  Are you sending them to Canada for college, too?

[Pigeon]

When my children are legal adults they can make their own decisions. Until then, no the military does not need them. I think the practice of trying to recruit them as minors is unethical.

[Travis]

When my children are legal adults they can make their own decisions. Until then, no the military does not need them. I think the practice of trying to recruit them as minors is unethical.

You can join if you're 17 with parental permission.  You can go through training as a minor, but you cannot be deployed until you're 18. 

[davisgang90]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.

The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots.  These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.

What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.

All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials.  Take it up with them.  Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.

[dramaman]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.

The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots.  These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.

What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.

All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials.  Take it up with them.  Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.

I don't think you can blame EVERYTHING on civilian officials and even if you could, that doesn't absolve the military from responsibility. 'The Just Following Orders' defense doesn't cut it.

[Pigeon]

I don't see any vitriol being spewed here.  I see people pointing out legitimate issues with the military and expressing reasons why they wouldn't encourage their kids to join or consider it for themselves.  Which, after all, was the original question...

No vitriol? Almost every post by GuitarStv in this thread has certainly felt that way and he's not even eligible to join or have a child join and instead just wants to throw lots of pot shots from the sidelines.

The rest has seemed on topic even if the rape discussion incorrectly (imo) extrapolated rape risk for junior enlisted out across the entire miiltary population including ROTC officers.

The military has done horrific things. Water boarding, sexual humiliation of prisoners, use of land mines, etc. not so long ago, the napalming of civilians. These are documented practices, not pot shots.  These are legitimate reasons why one might not want to join.

What do you expect? Should every person turn a blind eye to this because rah, rah, rah? I think the military is important but There are significant issues that should not be glossed over. I don't allow recruiters to contact my minor children.

All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials.  Take it up with them.  Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.

The question posed was why don't people join the military for college expenses.  If you are in the military, and you are ordered to do these things or other things that are perhaps legal but you find unethical, you don't have much of a choice.  It doesn't matter where these orders come from.  If you are a civilian, and your boss tells to do terrible things, you can quit.  That's an answer to the question that was asked.

[MoonShadow]

When my children are legal adults they can make their own decisions. Until then, no the military does not need them. I think the practice of trying to recruit them as minors is unethical.

You can join if you're 17 with parental permission.  You can go through training as a minor, but you cannot be deployed until you're 18.

I can personally attest that, while you can join as a minor with both parents' consent; the idea that they can't do anything is a flexible concept.

[Shane]

All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials.  Take it up with them.  Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.

No one is "scapegoating the people who serve." We're answering the OPs question by explaining why we would not consider the military as a means to pay for college.

People in the military always try to claim, "It's not our fault. We're just doing what the politicians tell us to do." That's a bunch of bullshit. No matter what politicians tell the military to do, they don't HAVE to do it. If everyone refused to sign up and fight when our elected officials decided that they wanted to start a war in some other part of the world, then they wouldn't be able to fight their war. The only reason the politicians are able to do the things they do is because individual people volunteer to join the military and do the work for them. When the military couldn't get enough people to sign up to fight voluntarily during its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they started increasing the reenlistment bonuses for people who had already been deployed once or twice overseas. For somebody who comes from a poor family, a $10K or $20K reenlistment bonus is a lot of money, and there were tons of people who made a conscious decision to risk their lives in exchange for the extra cash.

There's no fucking way I'm going to let military recruiters anywhere near my daughter until she's an adult. Those guys have no business going anywhere near our children. The reason they like to get young kids is because they can mold them more easily. As people get older, most of us think a little more before doing things, so there's no way we'd do the stupid shit they tell you to do in the military.

The military trains people to follow orders instinctively without asking any questions. "Ours is not to ask why. Ours is but to do and die."

[Yaeger]

I think they should bring back compulsory conscription.

Before you completely flame me, I think there are serious issues that we need to address. First, I think we're developing a type of warrior-caste. The majority of people serving more than likely have a family member that has served, or know someone that has. I know several people that has multiple generations of family (men and women) that have served. If you grow up in the military community, you're more comfortable with it and more likely to join.

Secondly, I think the population in general has ZERO idea what the military does, what it's like, or how politics affects our use of the military. This lack of knowledge, understanding, or familiarity with the people responsible for the defense is reprehensible. Not only would the voters have a better idea what the military does, but it connects the actions of the military to the average person on a personal level if they know someone that serves. Worse, this unfamiliarity with this vital public service is becoming more common in our elected representatives.

Third, I think it's essential that the military accurately represent the populace that it serves. The military is a public good provided by the taxpayer and needs to reflect the people.

[davisgang90]

All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials.  Take it up with them.  Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.

No one is "scapegoating the people who serve." We're answering the OPs question by explaining why we would not consider the military as a means to pay for college.

People in the military always try to claim, "It's not our fault. We're just doing what the politicians tell us to do." That's a bunch of bullshit. No matter what politicians tell the military to do, they don't HAVE to do it. If everyone refused to sign up and fight when our elected officials decided that they wanted to start a war in some other part of the world, then they wouldn't be able to fight their war. The only reason the politicians are able to do the things they do is because individual people volunteer to join the military and do the work for them. When the military couldn't get enough people to sign up to fight voluntarily during its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they started increasing the reenlistment bonuses for people who had already been deployed once or twice overseas. For somebody who comes from a poor family, a $10K or $20K reenlistment bonus is a lot of money, and there were tons of people who made a conscious decision to risk their lives in exchange for the extra cash.

There's no fucking way I'm going to let military recruiters anywhere near my daughter until she's an adult. Those guys have no business going anywhere near our children. The reason they like to get young kids is because they can mold them more easily. As people get older, most of us think a little more before doing things, so there's no way we'd do the stupid shit they tell you to do in the military.

The military trains people to follow orders instinctively without asking any questions. "Ours is not to ask why. Ours is but to do and die."

Your lack of understanding about the military is laughable.  Your hatred is based on your ignorance.

[fitfrugalfab]

All of the things you blame the military for have been imposed by elected civilian officials.  Take it up with them.  Or keep scapegoating the people who serve so you don't have to.

No one is "scapegoating the people who serve." We're answering the OPs question by explaining why we would not consider the military as a means to pay for college.

People in the military always try to claim, "It's not our fault. We're just doing what the politicians tell us to do." That's a bunch of bullshit. No matter what politicians tell the military to do, they don't HAVE to do it. If everyone refused to sign up and fight when our elected officials decided that they wanted to start a war in some other part of the world, then they wouldn't be able to fight their war. The only reason the politicians are able to do the things they do is because individual people volunteer to join the military and do the work for them. When the military couldn't get enough people to sign up to fight voluntarily during its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they started increasing the reenlistment bonuses for people who had already been deployed once or twice overseas. For somebody who comes from a poor family, a $10K or $20K reenlistment bonus is a lot of money, and there were tons of people who made a conscious decision to risk their lives in exchange for the extra cash.

There's no fucking way I'm going to let military recruiters anywhere near my daughter until she's an adult. Those guys have no business going anywhere near our children. The reason they like to get young kids is because they can mold them more easily. As people get older, most of us think a little more before doing things, so there's no way we'd do the stupid shit they tell you to do in the military.

The military trains people to follow orders instinctively without asking any questions. "Ours is not to ask why. Ours is but to do and die."

Your lack of understanding about the military is laughable.  Your hatred is based on your ignorance.

+1. You obviously haven't served so you have no idea what actually goes on. It's also amazing to me that you bash all the military when they are honorable men and women.

signed, a veteran.

[Vilgan]

Secondly, I think the population in general has ZERO idea what the military does, what it's like, or how politics affects our use of the military. This lack of knowledge, understanding, or familiarity with the people responsible for the defense is reprehensible. Not only would the voters have a better idea what the military does, but it connects the actions of the military to the average person on a personal level if they know someone that serves. Worse, this unfamiliarity with this vital public service is becoming more common in our elected representatives.

This thread has pretty solidly confirmed your 2nd point I think :)

[The Happy Philosopher]

Some may have moral reasons or certain preconceived notions about the military, but setting those aside for a moment I believe the biggest reason is freedom.

People that are drawn to the mustachian way of life seem to value freedom higher than just about anything. This translates into an enormous desire to achieve FI and do whatever the hell they want. The military is a great option for some, but at it's core you are trading your freedom for money when the military pays for school. What you gain in degrees of financial freedom at some later date, you are giving up a huge chunk of freedom up front. At the end of the day when you belong to the military they can tell you what to do, where to live and to pick up a gun and go kill someone.

I had plenty of opportunities to pay for school using the military, but ultimately the potential loss of my freedom was too great to consider it. At least with debt I had my freedom.

Now this is not to say it is not a great path to early FI - it is - but if it is done solely for financial reasons I think it has a great chance to lead to misery and regret.

[Brawndo TQ]

And this is why society needs moral & upstanding children to become soldiers & officers.

Definitionally it is impossible to be moral & upstanding and to join a voluntary military. You are describing a contradiction.

[Sailor Sam]

Definitionally it is impossible to be moral & upstanding and to join a voluntary military. You are describing a contradiction.

Too grandiose. Is it immoral to join as a doctor or nurse? What about a chaplain? To serve as the PA to a prison? Is it immoral to join a life saving service?

[Shane]

I think they should bring back compulsory conscription.

As has been said several times in the thread above, this would be great. If everyone served in the military, politicians would be unable to start random wars, because we, the people, wouldn't put up with it. If President Trump got on TV and said he'd decided to invade Iran, the people would laugh in his face if everybody had to send their kids to fight. With our current all volunteer military, if President Trump ordered them to attack Iran, they'd all salute and march off to follow the Commander in Chief's orders.

[sol]

Definitionally it is impossible to be moral & upstanding and to join a voluntary military. You are describing a contradiction.

Too grandiose. Is it immoral to join as a doctor or nurse? What about a chaplain? To serve as the PA to a prison? Is it immoral to join a life saving service?

I think you lose all ability to claim yourself as morally upstanding any time you voluntarily subjugate your own decision making to another party.  You may be moral, but if you pledge allegiance to an immoral party that can compel you to participate in immoral activities then your own morality isn't really relevant anymore. 

I think most soldiers are good people.  I think the US military is trying to do good things.  I know that some US soldiers have done terribly immoral things, and millions more have inadvertently supported them.  Even the guy who procures groceries for the staff at Gitmo is complicit in torture.

[Shane]

Your lack of understanding about the military is laughable.  Your hatred is based on your ignorance.

+1. You obviously haven't served so you have no idea what actually goes on. It's also amazing to me that you bash all the military when they are honorable men and women.

signed, a veteran.

If you two have knowledge about the military which might help us to understand why we should encourage our children to join up to get help paying for college, why not enlighten the rest of us? Just writing, "Well I'm a veteran and you don't know shit about the military because you obviously never 'served'," doesn't really help us to get a better understanding.

I stand behind my claim that politicians aren't the only ones to blame for the two ridiculous wars our country has been involved in in the last ~14 years. W. and his merry band of Neocons started the wars, but individual members of the military were responsible for fighting the wars. If individual Americans hadn't been willing to sign up and fight in our government's stupid wars, they wouldn't have happened and over a million people would still be alive today.

Individual members of the military are the ones who fought the wars, and for what? So they could get some extra bonus pay so they could come home and buy themselves a new F-150? We're much less safe today than we were in 2001, BECAUSE of the wars members of the military chose to fight. Members of the military could've just said, "Fuck you!" to W and his buddies, and they would've had to come up with a different plan, but instead they CHOSE to go over and fight.

[Yaeger]

If you two have knowledge about the military which might help us to understand why we should encourage our children to join up to get help paying for college, why not enlighten the rest of us? Just writing, "Well I'm a veteran and you don't know shit about the military because you never 'served'," doesn't really help us to get a better understanding.

I stand behind my claim that politicians aren't the only ones to blame for the two ridiculous wars our country has been involved in in the last ~14 years. W. and his merry band of Neocons started the wars, but individual members of the military should be held responsible for fighting the wars. If individual Americans hadn't been willing to sign up and fight in our government's stupid wars, they wouldn't have happened and over a million people would still be alive today. Individual members of the military are the ones who fought the wars, and for what? We're much less safe today than we were in 2001. BECAUSE of the wars members of the military chose to fight. They could've just said, "Fuck you!" to W and his buddies, and they would've had to come up with a different plan.

Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.

Also, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic. If a major competitor like China were to close all trade moving through the South China sea, it would cripple our economy. This is turn would cripple our military (example: targeting Japanese oil tankers instead of ships during WW2 won us the war). So when people ask why the US military cares about dissidents in the south Philippine islands, it's complicated and usually at the request of the local government through the State Department, but global economic stability is a vital area of our national security strategy.

The problem is, once you sign the dotted line you're required, by law and threat of imprisonment, as an officer to support and defend the Constitution. The President in the commander in chief, but principally you answer to Congress as they have the ability to raise and support the military, declare war, set manning levels, etc. I think it's vital that we leverage the right, moral people into these difficult positions to prevent catastrophes like we've seen in the past like the Mai Lai Massacre. You say you're too moral to fight our wars, I'd say that you're dead wrong.