Troubled Army Recruits Become Soldiers, More Troubled; Who’s Responsible?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Boston Globe reports that 11 percent, more than 1 in 10, of Army recruits this year were given waivers because they have criminal records (more than 6,000 soldiers). Now this is hardly news, the Army has been systematically lowering standards for years—aptitude and fitness levels, health status, moral conduct, down; age and bonuses, up—in fact each year more and more recruits with waivers (and tattoos) join the ranks.

But the coverage is missing the mark somewhat on the full extent of what these lowered standards mean. Partly they mean what the media is focused on, that we have a compromised armed force, that we are putting men with guns in combat situations, where some of our fighters five years ago wouldn’t have been considered fit for such a battle. After all, the Pentagon established standards, whether it be for asthma or high school diplomas, for reasons, reasons they also let slide during Vietnam, under similar circumstances.

Really, is anyone surprised? The Globe criticizes the Pentagon for failing to emphasize the increase in waivers in announcing the “good news” that the army is meeting its recruiting goals. It’s been meeting those goals for years, precisely because of lowered standards.

What no one is talking about is this: 20 percent of recruits with waivers (medical, criminal, moral) means more than a compromised fighting force; it complicates matters back at home immensely. Doctors in veterans’ hospitals across the country are trying to diagnose soldiers who are disturbed, troubled, injured, trying to decide whether their PTSD, their psychological issues, their physical ailments, are combat-related, a call that, if made, means $2500 a month per soldier, for life. A past of mental health issues, a criminal record, pre-exisiting health conditions, these are all up for grabs in the diagnosis. Clouds the burden of war, makes doctors jobs nearly impossible, and make us wonder, who’s responsible once soldiers return home?


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend