http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28truscott.html
The author is USMA Class of 1969. The article talks about the possible loss of junior officers (lieutenants) who are dismayed by what is going on in Iraq. I’d be interested in getting some feedback from the military types on this forum (especially armytriguy).
He notes that his class set the record for resigning their commissions within a few years of fulfilling their five year commitment (50 percent!), due to their disgust at what the military had become during Vietnam.
The military has and will always be a huge bureaucracy like any large company. The disgust that civilians have in their jobs is no different in military life.
This is nothing new. My dad was a senior career air force officer and resigned several years before full retirement back in the early 70’s because he thought that his last posting was a “non job” where they had relegated him to a paper pusher behind a desk.
People in civilian life often become bored or disillusioned with their jobs and leave their employers to work elsewhere. In fact I’ve read that the average worker is now expected to change careers seven times. It’s understandable that many military officers may find out that it’s just not for them.
The Viet Nam era and immediatley afterwards was not a good time for military recruiters. Despite growing up as a military brat, I believe it was being a teenager during the Nam experience that turned me off a military career.
Disillusionment about the purpose of the organization (almost always more noble in the case of the armed forces) and its direction though is different. I think that is the point that the author is attempting to make, not sure.
I don’t think it comes as any surprise that more people decide to get out of the military during a time that they could or are being sent to combat. it’s really easy to stay in for 20years and collect earn your pension when you don’t actually have to worry about getting shot at or killed. In any all volunteer force, you’re going to get people who signed up for free college or to have a job after college or whatever. It can be a cold slap in the face when all of the sudden you’re now in actual danger of being shot by an enemy, and there’s bound to be people who decide it isn’t for them anymore either because they’ve been to Iraq and don’t want to return, or because they don’t want to go in the first place.
It more has to do with the fact that military folks are actually being used for combat now whereas before they enjoyed the longest period of peace and lived fairly cushy lives without being called up for duty.
Combat is combat. Soldiers don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing the cause for which they’re fighting.
Brian286 - before what period?
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1556/
Above is a link to a study of retention rates compared to hostile/non-hostile deployments from 1990 up to, but not including the current Iraq war. It does show some correlation between higher loss rates and more hostile deployments. But, interesting to note that when surveyed, the highest dissatisfier (by far) with military service was with basic pay. Also interesting that the highest retention rates were USMC.
The 70’s were a period of very low military pay as compared to civilian pay. There were also other problems associated with the Vietnam War that had nothing to do with the politics of the war–low morale and discipline among draftees, low readiness rates of equipment due to budgetary constraints, etc., that generally led to officer dissatisfaction because they couldn’t effectively accomplish their jobs within those constraints. (I was there in the 70’s, I remember it.)
If you look at unemployment/hiring trends, you will see a strong correlation with military recruiting and retention. If people can get a higher paying job elsewhere, they will often opt out of militay service. When the airlines were hiring, the military couldn’t keep pilots. Now, the airlines are not hiring and the military has too many pilots.
Another thing to remember is that officer requirements models are pyramid-shaped. In other words, far more O-1 through O-3 officers are needed than O-6 and above. If retention is too high, then the military has to separate people against their will because there are not enough billets for them. So, some losses are good and expected, too many are bad–and same reverse for retention.
The likelihood of finishing a 20-30 year career is highest for officers commissioned out of the academies, next highest for officers coming out of ROTC, and lowest for OCS. A 50 percent loss rate for academy officers after the end of their initial obligated service rate is probably high, but a 1-year sample size isn’t necessarily representative, nor does necessarily it infer dissatisfaction with the war.
“But, interesting to note that when surveyed, the highest dissatisfier (by far) with military service was with basic pay”
No kidding? People don’t think we’re paying them enough to get shot or blown up? Greedy bastards. 
Seriously, you make a good point about compensation, but right now, we’re not doing too badly. About 10 years ago, there were some serious issues with pay and retention. Now I think it has more to do with the idea of actually going into harm’s way, especially in the Army or Marine Corps.
Also, although people who have resigned their commissions may say it was because of policy or the direction the military is taking, I’d be willing to bet that a goodly portion of those just don’t want to say that they were scared to go into combat.
Interesting that the study results and some of your observations mirror exactly what is found in any services organization. There has to be enough recruitment of new talent to keep things moving, but due to the pyramid shape there has to be a very specific ration of senior/junior staff, etc.