Raise the fighting age

By: JOHN VAN DOORN - Staff Writer | Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:03 PM PDT ∞

It's a truism: If American men and women are old enough to fight for their country, they're old enough to drink.

No argument. The subject came up this month with the disclosure that the Marine Corps is lowering the drinking age of its stalwarts to 18, on base and in certain situations. Why not? A man can't sensibly be half a Marine, a boy in some instances and a man in others, no matter what loving parents, wives and friends like to say. We all do: "He's still a kid."

Yet that is the predicament that the United States has so often found itself in. Hoping for the best when it has sent its boys to war, and getting men back who haven't a single mark of their boyhood left.

There is a path through this odd but fundamental predicament, and it is this: Forget about lowering drinking ages or even paying much attention to them. Instead, raise the fighting age.

Permit no man or woman to get into battle who is under the age of 25.

Until about the age of 22, most male humans are still boys. (Most female persons have become women by then.) They may have the hand-eye coordination requisite for part of the work a combatant does, but in most cases -- not all -- they are not up to other parts of the job.

In the war in Iraq, we have seen too many instances of young soldiers and Marines forced to make decisions of uncommon complexity, often involving death, and have seen, too, that they were not ready for that, and awful things resulted.

Most of the young men there to "fight for freedom" have no concept of such lofty thinking; they're trying to stay alive and to do what they can to watch their buddy's back. Even if they have glimmers of the mission or cause, they are quite often not yet equipped -- because of youth and inexperience -- to apply it, to work within its parameters, to think in abstract terms.

Not when roaring madness is everywhere. They are not, in a word, seasoned.

Raising the age of going to war to 25 seems rational and humane. Such fighters would have infinitely more training because there was time for it. They'd have tasted a good deal more of life and had time and opportunity to rid their systems of some of the crazed behavior that is called youth. Their decisions would probably be sounder, saner, safer than those of kids of 18 and 19.

Not always, of course. You just can't generalize when it comes to boys and men. Some males have shown themselves in Iraq to be combat veterans while still in their teens. They have come up wise and calm, just as a 25-year-old might. They have displayed leadership qualities of older comrades, and bless them all.

But older warriors will have had a chance to grow up, to mature, to think a bit more and more deeply. This is not to say that things in Iraq would be better if the minimum age of combat were set at 25. Nobody can know that. Maybe the number of casualties over there would still be in the 3,000-plus range, and maybe not.

But there is a golden chance that certified men would understand better what they were setting out to do than boys would. But there'd be no guarantees.

Somehow there is something cleaner, something far more decent in sending men to do men's awful work than dispatching kids to try to figure out in hysteria and fear why they have to draw so close to death to get a first glimpse of the fleeting wonder of life.

A poem by Siegfried Sassoon, written in the trenches of World War I, seems to apply.

"I knew a simple soldier boy/Who grinned at life in empty joy,/Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,/And whistled early with the lark."

"In winter trenches, cowed and glum,/With crumps and lice and lack of rum,/He put a bullet through his brain./No one spoke of him again.

"You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye/Who cheer when soldier lads march by,/Sneak home and pray you'll never know/The hell where youth and laughter go."

The truth is that sending anybody to war is atrocious.

Sending boys must surely be criminal.

-- Contact columnist John Van Doorn at (760)739-6647 or jvandoorn@nctimes.com.

More Stories

Tags:

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Dave wrote on May 29, 2007 8:05 PM:I like the idea. At least raise it to 21, so they can come home and I can buy them a beer to say thanks for going there. And, all the good reasons you gave too.

WOW! wrote on May 30, 2007 3:55 AM:I've never heard anyone suggest this before. It just makes so much sense. The feds will hate it as age increases wisdom and wise people make better informed choices. John, you will not be a popular man in federal circles. What will become of war if all of this fresh meat should become unavailable? This one column has redeemed you from every other misguided opinion that you have shared. You nailed this one BIGTIME!

John wrote on May 30, 2007 7:09 AM:Raise the fighting age so that Van Doorn can serve a tour of duty on the front lines in Iraq!

Gil wrote on May 30, 2007 8:02 AM:WOW is right. I have been trying to get my hands on this for years; the concept that many of our very young men-older boys-just don't have the sense to be in a war situation. Yeah, I know about WWI, WWII, and Korea; the difference is that in Viet Nam and now Iraq, we are an occupying army which requires a much higher intelligence and maturity level than our past wars. We are so callous to our young soldier's combat situation and then we have the gall to stonewall them when they need psychological and medical help when they come home. And, yeah, I know about the tragedy of 9/11, but what we are doing in its name is wrong, just wrong, for us, the Iraqi people, the Middle East and the world.

Scott wrote on May 30, 2007 11:00 AM:Is it Age or Experience that makes a soldier a better soldier? I think one of the reasons why 25 year-old soldiers are better than 18 or 19 year-olds is simply because they've had more experience in soldiering. But the age were raised to 21 or 25 then that necessary experience would only be delayed a couple more years so that 28 year-olds would be good soldiers and the 25 year-olds would lake experience. I do agree that we need to assess why we allow individuals to fight at one age and not another, but I think that the experience component is also an important explanation for why older soldiers are better, not simply age.

Reality.. wrote on May 30, 2007 4:40 PM:Once again Van Doorn doesn't know his facts, doesn't research anything, just spouts out stuff. Van Doorn, how many soliders are serving now who are middle age, all the reservist's, medical staff, etc. I would guess alot more then the young folks! Do some research before writing!!

Louise a Mother wrote on May 31, 2007 2:50 PM:I'd like to see them RAISE the age to enlist to 21....an 18 year old is to young to make either decission

Harold wrote on Jun 1, 2007 12:56 PM:I was 18 when I was drafted and sent to SE Asia. Couldn't have a legal drink for 3 years by that time I had done 2 tours over there. Funny wasn't old enough for a beer, but qualified for death in Asia, never could figure out the elites who run this county, then and now.

Carter: wrote on Jun 2, 2007 11:17 AM: I enlisted in the Navy at age 18. A year earlier, I quit high school and started work in a coal mine, because I was bored. I enlisted in the Navy just ahead of a draft notice and because I thought there would be rapid advancement. I did very good on all the pre-assignment tests, completed many technical schools, and made the Navy my first career. I can tell you that allowing very young men to drink will be no good for them or the military. Legal alcohol consumptions requires maturity, which the majority of people under 21 do not have, and a great many people will never have. As far as the military is concerned, it is costly beyond belief and most of it coming from those under 21. The loss of man-hours due to bad conduct that can be linked directly to alcohol consumption is enormous. Young men return to their quarters after drinking, lie down on their back and drown in their own puke. There are some, not to wise military people, who say it is a way to sort out the immature- those that should not be in the military. That is irresponsible and lacking in leadership. As far as fighting men being over 25 are concerned: Young men fight much harder and win more battles than older men, even those twenty-five. That is a dumb statement by people who do not know what they are talking about. The older military men need to provide leadership. There is a saying in the military, or at least there was when I was in: " Up or Out." The best the military could do to help themselves is to enforce no alcohol until 21 with vigor. For the love of Pete - look at US industry and read the figures on the loss of man-hours and money due to abuse of drugs and alcohol. As far as The poem is concerned, there is a great effort put forth to sort out the young people that need mental help rather than being in the military. In twenty years in the Navy I encountered three cases that slipped by, one of which shot himself, and he had been in over 6 years. Once again compare this to industry and you will find a much better record for the military.

Chris wrote on Jun 2, 2007 11:21 AM:I have a better idea. Why don't we just eliminate the military. We can distribute to Americans all those dollars we use for defense. But of course, we wouldn't be free Americans. We would then be subjects of whatever country or terrorist group who would then invade us. I keep thinking of heroes like Audie Murphy who joined at the age of 17. Or David Hackworth who joined age 15. For those of you who don't know...Murphy was the most decorated soldier of WWII being awarded the Medal of Honor. Hackworth was one of the most decorated soldiers they Army had. Maybe we should not allow people to vote until they are 25 years old. If they are not mature enough to serve in uniform, then they are obviously not mature enough to make a decision as to who will lead our country. America has a history of real patriots who were underage and answered the call to duty. It's contributions of those who made us great.

Lina V wrote on Dec 5, 2007 11:28 AM:John,I agree with your stance one hundred percent. I am a high school senior and I am constantly hearing about classmates that have already signed up for the military. I really do not think that these BOYS undersatnd how being in war will change their lives. All most of them are after is the glory. I understand that we need soldiers to protect our country and I find military service very honorable. But the majority of them are not thinking about service, they are thinking about an easy way out. They think that the military is an easy option; when they actually see the reality of being a soldier, especially in a time of war, they realize that is not the case.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos