trillian

I think any armed force should put aside (like a 401k or something) a portion of an enlisted's salary to protect against their investment.

If the enlisted decides he/she is a CO and are not willing to fulfill the remainder of service, which the armed force has expected, and the army has no other efficient use of that soldier- they should be dismissed and forgo any monies to which they would have been entitled had they completed their service. It is their choice.

Thus, as it is a volunteer army in the US, the person would have full knowledge of this when they enlisted, and maybe it would compel them to really think hard about whether they are up to the task of real war if called to do so. US tax dollars should not be going toward bad investments on soldiers who "breach the contract".

Ovazor

There are plenty of civillian jons where the company has to spend large amounts of money to train the person before he/she can start working. Yet nobody expects a quitting eployee to repay those expenses. Why should armed forces have any special rights to recoup losses a normal emploer doesn't have?

Also, when somebody is coerced to do work that strongly conflicts his ethical views that person will not work as well and efficiently as a more willing person. It would be a better investment to let the CO (provided he has a real conviction) to go and hire somebody more motivated in his place.

Psycho Economist

First of all, most civilian jobs are employment at-will where enlistment is a multi-year contract. Secondly, my point was that he acquired benefits (e.g. the training, not necessarily the expense) that he would keep after being discharged... dishonorably or otherwise. Lastly, armed forces or civilian company... if you misrepresent yourself to get hired, then suck up training, pay and benefits for a while and quit try to quit before actually doing the job you were hired for: it's fraud.

I don't think anybody was disagreeing with that...

Shake

Right on, PE! The military is NOT just some regular job. It IS volunteer, but when you volunteer, you have also agree to give up certain rights (i.e. not publicly protesting against the administration, etc.). Your talk about it being fraud is dead on!

COAS, as for views changing during service, I agree that can happen. But in this case, the doubts had appeared early. Let me repost the pertinent quote:From my experience, I noticed that the military is a bit more lenient if you have a change of heart during basic training, rather than some time later (especially in the face of an oncoming war).

Anyway, whether you're signing up active, Guard, or Reserve, I believe the oath is still the same, that you agree to defend the Constitution against all enemies. I'm not saying that all CO's couldn't have changed their beliefs during their term of service, but if you're unsure going in, you should maybe take some time to figure out if it's really for you.

For anyone thinking of joining the (US) military in any of the above mentioned roles, Guard and Reserves can be called up at any point to supplement regular forces. They were in Desert Storm, and are being used more and more extensively as the active duty force has been drawn down. Once you've raised your hand and sworn your oath, you can be called.

Psycho Economist

Never mind that this is in CS&S and started out over whether it was constitutionally appropriate for him to have to talk to a chaplain who'd have a key role in deciding whether he just gets the boot, or serves time in Levenworth prison first...

Dark Jedi

Well, that was addressed. AS an aside, but addressed.

The chaplain has become a generic office of mediation, of sorts. When a soldier is at odds with command, he is sent to the chaplain, who then acts as mediator on his behalf.

I agree with the concept of the office, just not the religious basis of it. When I found myself at odds with a fundy commanding officer because I wanted "atheist" on my dogtags, I was told to go see the chaplain.

Jabu Khan

You could have volunteered for the duty of protecting your country and its interest, but not like the thought of taking part in a campaign of unprovoked agression against another nation. Would that classify as a C.O. ?