Yep it is "easier" and yep it was a different kind of war (WWII). I have said for the past year that we (military personnel and family) are better off than those men and women those sacrificed so much during WWII and Korea. It is hard to imagine what they went through.
While many of them volunteered as well, it is extremely difficult today to have a viable army if the soldiers are going in for the "duration". Too many politics involved.
Even though he was overseas for only one year, my son lost 3 years of college more or less and he is in the National Guard not regular army. His high school classmates have all graduated college (or are on the 5-6 year plan.) At 23 he is basically taking freshman level classes once again.
But we digress from the purpose of this thread.
"wpr" wrote:
Just to digress a bit further (I'm a academic, digressing is what I do. 🙂 )..
.I'd rather have more of your 23-year olds with that experience in my classes than 18-year olds without it.
(Even as I wish no one had to get such experience anymore.)
But mostly I was suggesting one of those "unintended consequences". Politically, you aren't going to get volunteers without the one-year limitation. But the consequence is that you make it easier for the politicians to go to war, and end up with more 18-year olds having to do more hitches.
"Wade" wrote: