Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. administers the oath of reenlistment to 15 soldiers during a ceremony at the Pentagon, July 1, 2008. Casey said "Men and women like these are the heart and soul of our Army - our soldiers, families, and Army civilians are who separate this Army from any other Army in the world, and separate our Armed Forces from any other force in the world." U.S. Army photo by D. Myles Cullen
Washington Times: Military eyes 16-year-olds as ranks and candidates dwindle
The best way to fix the U.S. armed forces’ recruiting challenges may involve dipping further into the nation’s high schools.
As the Army, Navy and other services contend with a thriving economy and a directive to expand their ranks, there is a growing debate over whether the military should consider lowering the minimum enlistment age from 17 to 16. More than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, already have adopted the policy.
Critics say the idea is deeply flawed and presents a host of societal problems, but supporters argue that the Pentagon needs to think outside the box if it wants to continually overcome one of the toughest recruiting environments in decades.
Neither the military nor lawmakers have given any indication that they are entertaining the idea, but some analysts say that opening the ranks to younger Americans could provide unique benefits and may be the kind of fundamental overhaul the recruiting system needs for the 21st century.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I personally think 16 is too young. But here is a little bit of history. The Roman Army's minimum enlistment age was 14.
