Geezer Brigades

The armed forces of the United States stand astride the globe, it is true, and moreover, nominally represent all that is essentially and uniquely American. Favor the current American policies if you will, or disdain them if you are so disposed: the pre-eminence of American military power is undisputed. The tradition of the military’s embodiment of American ideals is far too ancient and hoary for controversy.

Be that as it may, the military has institutionalized policies and practices of its own which are egregiously un-American. As a consequence, our armed forces fall short of optimum effectiveness, and this in time of war. And goodness knows, a massive increase in force levels may soon be, well, forced upon us.

The fact is that the US military imposes arbitrary, unfair and frankly uneconomic criteria on recruiting, assignment, training, promotion and discharge practices.

The most widely publicized and controversial of these practices are, no doubt, those related to women in the military. There are numerous allegations that military standards have been reduced to accommodate an arbitrary class of citizen volunteers: women. There seems little doubt but that this is true, however, it is also true when the advocates for women in the military counter with the observation that similarly arbitrary adjustments of military standards are in place for men. For example, none can deny that physical fitness standards for 35-year-old male Marines are lower than those for their 19-year-old comrades. It’s all right there on the PTT Chart.

Anecdotal evidence of the most credible kind suggests that this arbitrariness carries through to training and assignment. We read plausible news reports that female soldiers are assigned to drive trucks whose tires they lack the physical strength to change. The cost in force effectiveness is paid by the diversion of a stronger individual from another assignment, inasmuch as the truck tire must, after all, be changed.

The American way is to judge individuals as individuals, with respect to their individual capabilities, characteristics and potentials, and without regard to membership in this or that identity group, such as race. If the US military’s policies and practices were truer to this credo a world of worry would go away and along with it a maelstrom of unproductive and tiresome ideological contention.

As a new Prime Directive, let all arbitrary standards be abolished from military practices.

One surprising and very promising consequence of such a revolution in military affairs would be an stunning increase of about 100 million in the pool of citizens eligible for military service. Did some one say “recruiting shortfall” ? The Army is not doing well just now, and the other services are not looking toward the future with serenity. Could it be that 100 million new prospects might look pretty good to the personnel chiefs in the Pentagon ?

Whence the 100 million ? Well, the armed services currently impose age limits on volunteers to the active-duty and reserve arms. Where the active-duty Army is concerned volunteers over the age of 34 need not apply. There are signs the Army is aware of the arbitrary, and manifestly silly nature of this criterion. The Army Reserve recently increased the recruitment age limit from 34 to 39, adding 22 million eligibles to the recruit pool with the stroke of a pen. This is a three-year experiment, and if the results are satisfactory, the Army Reserve may consider raising the age limit even higher.

And why not ? It’s all a matter of standards, and their consistent application from recruitment through assignment and training. If a 50-year-old citizen demonstrates the capabilities the Army Reserve requires of a recruit 30 years his or her junior, why on earth should the older citizen be denied the same opportunities to serve as would be available to the younger ?

Where the active-duty arms are concerned, raising age limits would require Congressional action. If only the Congress were aware that there are about 100 million Americans between the ages of 35 and 59, the idea of abolishing age as a military criterion might gain some traction, unless, of course, Congressman Rangel’s proposed resurrection of the draft is more appealing.

The doors to military service should be thrown open to all citizens who meet standards that assure a maximally effective force, while maintaining justice and equity. If Henry Ford could famously identify more jobs in his factory suited to blind people than there were blind people, the Pentagon should be able to set standards for each and every military assignment which put the right person in the right slot, while ignoring irrelevant characteristics such as race, sex and yes, age.

That’s called optimizing the application of human resources, and the result is optimized force effectiveness. It’s also the American way, the fair way. It will keep service people away from assignments in which they’re in over their heads, and minimize waste of individual capabilities in assignments below their fitness levels.

Some may not like the outcomes of a military personnel doctrine based on individual fitness for assignment. It’s possible, for example, that a wave of gung-ho greybeards, rushing from the neighborhood gyms to the recruiting stations, would displace some women from some classes of duty to which they’re presently assigned due to political pressure from Congress, or, shortages of men. It’s also possible that a cohort of sturdy, vigorous middle-aged ladies will displace slovenly, beer-bellied men from specialties they currently monopolize.

Tough. We’re at war, and we need lots of the best people we can get. Let the chips fall where they may.

Medical technology, improved nutrition, changing lifestyles and other factors have greatly extended the vigorous years of our lives. A 10-minute visit to any neighborhood health club provides convincing evidence of this trend, a tectonic shift in demographics which the armed forces of the United States should be compelled to recognize and act upon.

Let’s run our military the American way. Let’s process volunteers according to their individual capabilities and potentials, and assign them to the jobs they can do best. If the results offer insult to this or that identity group lobby, well, let’s remind them that Karl Marx had it backwards. Equity is justice. Where opportunity is concerned , to each (not from each) according to his or her abilities.

Mr. SecDef, Congress: tear down those walls !