Crusin for a bruisin: let's raise the enlistment age

I was struck by this piece on today's cnn.com, in which young soldiers in the more tranquil areas of Iraq express their desire to get involved in the "real fighting" in Afghanistan, in order to "prove themselves in battle." As I read about these guys, most of them in their late teens and early twenties, eager to shoot their guns at some enemy other, my first reaction was a bit of disgust, even anger. You've got some kid lucky enough to be stationed in an area where he is not likely to be harmed or killed, yet he's itching to be placed in the middle of some violent battle. These are the kinds of guys who, in their overzealousness and macho stupidness, end up shooting civilians or abusing detainees. These are the guys that give American troops, and America in general, an ugly image in the world.

But, in paying attention to quotes from several older soldiers, who had experienced the "real battle" that these young recruits sought after, I understood a different perspective on this "itching for a fight" psychology. To wit:

Soldiers who have experienced combat stress note that it is usually young
soldiers on their first tour who most want to get on the battlefield. They say
it is hard to communicate the horrors of war to those who have not actually
experienced it.

"These kids are just being young," said Sgt. Christopher Janis, who is
only 23 but is on his third tour in Iraq. "They say they want to get into battle
until they do, and then they won't want it anymore."

Certainly, while some of those with a compulsion for battle might simply be jerks eager to shoot somebody, there are likely a good number who view the American mission as honorable and important, and their drive is fueled by a desire to contribute to something bigger and better than themselves. False though it may have been, the narrative of the noble American, fighting to liberate Iraqis from the chains of dictatorship and save the world from Islamofascism, is one that still holds sway over the minds of many Americans, and, almost certainly, holds sway over many of the young soldiers with a desire to shoot their guns in the name of freedom.

If that's the case, these soldiers itch to fight can probably best be attributed to their age and inexperience. When I think back to when I was 18, 19, 20, 21, and compare my relative maturity just a few years later, at 25 or 26, I shudder to imagine that a youth as young as 18 might be sent overseas with the delicate mission of winning over the hearts and minds of an occupied people. Perhaps in years past, when life expectancy was lower and people typically started working full-time and raising a family at anywhere from 16 to 20, 18 to 20 year olds possessed the experience and maturity necessary to make the tough choices and face the moral dilemmas of war. But in modern America, where high school graduation is the new middle school graduation, and many extend their childhood well into their 20's by living off student loans or their parents generosity, attending classes intermittently and playing video games throughout the day, our youngest men (especially our men) are ill-equipped to handle the profound difficulties of war. Those who are the most anxious to fight likely envision their first battle as something like a game of Halo 3, them and their compatriots stealthily diving about rocks and buildings, strafing the enemy with gunfire and achieving a high score when its all done. As the older soldiers noted in the article, many of those young soldiers aren't ready for the trauma of being shot at, the panic of having to actually shoot some one, the pain and devastation of your friend lying next to you in pool of blood.

Maybe there is an argument to be made for raising the age limit for military service? Thinking about most of the 18 year-olds I know, it seems actually quite absurd to imagine that any of them would be entrusted with our national security and our national image. 21 might be a good starting point, and it would actually have some legal precedent, in that (a) it's the most common drinking age and (b) its the common law age at which "infancy" ends, for purposes of enforcing contracts. Of course, in a day when it is increasingly difficult to recruit young people into the military, I would imagine that the top brass views the relative naivete of its youngest recruits as one of the few things working in the recruiters' favor. But it's hard to imagine that the immaturity and inexperience of our soldiers hasn't been one cause of the Iraq war's harm to our national image and the strength of our forces. Upping the age requirements would be a solid, though not adequate on its own, step toward improving that strength and image.