- Reaction score
- 9,681
- Points
- 1,360
ModlrMike said:To counter: one case does not prove the rule.
No but this isn't the only case, it's only logical that if your military average age is higher fitness levels across the force will drop as will the overall health of the force. As people age their physical abilities tend to dwindle and they become more susceptible to illness, this is something we cannot control. This does have an impact on readiness and you're putting your head in the sand if it doesn't. Age limits are a control measure that could be enacted to counter this.
dapaterson said:Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O. Not everyone joins the combat arms.
Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO? Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?
I agree completely that many of them do bring valuable skills that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF and this would be something that would need to be weighted against other factors. I personally like the idea but we would also need a cultural shift within CFRG and the Ottawa Bureaucracy for it to work.
Right now CFRG uses a system heavily weighted towards quantitative recruiting practices, perhaps a paradigm shift to a system with heavier weight given to qualitative analysis of potential recruits would be more appropriate?
For the record, I am not against recruiting 40 year olds entirely but until the recruiting system changes from a spreadsheet based system of number punching to one with far more qualitative analysis, I cannot support it and I view age limits as a viable "control measure" for keeping unfit folk out of the military.
Beadwindow 7 said:3. There is a fine line between abuse, and let's call it enthusiastic method of instruction. If I tell people who have had nothing to do with the military some of the (now) amusing or tougher things that staff along my career have performed, said to me, made me do, implied, described, threatened upon me, they are horrified. Because to them it's something that is so far out of their comfort zone, that they don't recognize the requirement for it. Which is fine, they don't need to deal with what we do. My issue is that now, as an institution with more corporate interest in not looking bad and protecting the feelings of new members, we are taking away from the training value that prepares military members for the exigencies of service that nobody else will ever have to deal with.
Couldn't have said it better myself