Leaving the more general question of the purpose of army (defense, anyone) off, and getting back to re-enlistment. You paint two different pictures with these two phrases:
Of course, they presumed that Army is just some special welfare institution created for no other reason then to get them through college.
and
There is no way that a person who does not want to re-enlist can be pressured into it.
So, who is serving in the army: complaining weaklings or the pride and joy of the nation? To believe your second phrase, I would have to also believe that army consists exclusively of strong-willed individuals with well-established life goals. While some people in the army (just as anywhere else) belong to this category, it is somewhat silly to expect this to apply to every single soldier.
The difference in opinion: you think re-enlistments come from the strong-willed individuals who want to continue to serve out of whatever their honorable motivations are. I think current success in re-enlistment is attributed to additional pressure put forth on people who would have been let go in a peacful year.
So, who is serving in the army: complaining weaklings or the pride and joy of the nation?
Mostly pride of the nation. But, of course, there are few weaklings. I have no idea why you decided to use one of the very few as an example.
As it is, I do not get your point. Of course, when a valueable team member tries to leave, his superior will likely pressure him to stay. I have been there. However, in my case, better job prospects in the ewn place outweighed all the pressure and salary raises they threw at me in the old one. So? If a soldier stays, it is because this pressure (P), sense of the mission (M), sense of duty (D), and, yes, money (m), benefits (b) - all of this together outweighed the hardships of the service (H). Now, when you talk about re-enlistment, you talk about people who know fucking well what those harships are. You can say whatever you want, but those guys weigh their options KNOWINGLY.
So, what are you driving at? P+M+D+m+b > H. If P << H, then you whole story is meaningless. Otherwise, you must claim that the pressure that is put on the soldiers to re-enlist is comparable to the hardships of serving a year in a combat zone - including a chance to be killed, unbearable heat in summer, MRE and so on. Basically, all Iraqi insurgents combined are less fear some then one screaming platoon sergeant, asking you to stay, right?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Of course, they presumed that Army is just some special welfare institution created for no other reason then to get them through college.
and
There is no way that a person who does not want to re-enlist can be pressured into it.
So, who is serving in the army: complaining weaklings or the pride and joy of the nation? To believe your second phrase, I would have to also believe that army consists exclusively of strong-willed individuals with well-established life goals. While some people in the army (just as anywhere else) belong to this category, it is somewhat silly to expect this to apply to every single soldier.
The difference in opinion: you think re-enlistments come from the strong-willed individuals who want to continue to serve out of whatever their honorable motivations are. I think current success in re-enlistment is attributed to additional pressure put forth on people who would have been
let go in a peacful year.
no subject
Mostly pride of the nation. But, of course, there are few weaklings. I have no idea why you decided to use one of the very few as an example.
As it is, I do not get your point. Of course, when a valueable team member tries to leave, his superior will likely pressure him to stay. I have been there. However, in my case, better job prospects in the ewn place outweighed all the pressure and salary raises they threw at me in the old one. So? If a soldier stays, it is because this pressure (P), sense of the mission (M), sense of duty (D), and, yes, money (m), benefits (b) - all of this together outweighed the hardships of the service (H). Now, when you talk about re-enlistment, you talk about people who know fucking well what those harships are. You can say whatever you want, but those guys weigh their options KNOWINGLY.
So, what are you driving at? P+M+D+m+b > H. If P << H, then you whole story is meaningless. Otherwise, you must claim that the pressure that is put on the soldiers to re-enlist is comparable to the hardships of serving a year in a combat zone - including a chance to be killed, unbearable heat in summer, MRE and so on. Basically, all Iraqi insurgents combined are less fear some then one screaming platoon sergeant, asking you to stay, right?