Much like the police, people who join the military are not likely to be people who are educated, have marketable skills or have any other viable options. Garbage in, garbage out.

Not having options doesn’t make you garbage. I couldn’t afford school, so I joined the military to pay for it. What we should be asking is, ‘do we want to be creating a class of people that have to sell themselves to the government to have things most countries provide for free?’

I apologize. I did not mean "garbage in/garbage out" to suggest that folks without options are garbage. I meant it generally - and I agree with your final thought. The comparison to cops is also wrong.

Well, you’re absolutely wrong. I’ve known troops with graduate degrees. All officers must have an undergrad degree to be commissioned. Many have post-grad. Many, many join because they want to serve, not because they “lack options”. This is a horrible myth coming out of the US.

... the fact is, if you have marketable skills or viable options, the odds of you enlisting in the military is slim.

I am not referring to commissioned officers -- whom I am well-aware require degrees. Almost every enlisted soldier I've ever known either used the military to pay for school (a couple) or joined instead of going to school (vast majority) -- so my anecdotes cancel out yours...

And warriors aren't disciplined and have ethics...??? What about the Samurai and Bushido?👍

How did that work out for Japan during the most recent unpleasantness? Oh.

What "unpleasantness" are you referring to?

1937-45.

He doesn't realize "warrior" is from the Iranic word for *man* e.g. Peshawar, place of men. It's been appropriated by Germanics, probably from the Sarvarni (Sarmatian) knights of the Sarvani people who were native to what is now Poland & Ukraine before they were exterminated by Slavic immigrants.

"Canada doesn't need *warmongers* - It needs soldiers" would've been better, though I get the point you're making. My dad's been in since the mid-to-late 80s, and he talks about how even basic isn't nearly as rough as when he went through it. That said, I think he just needs a different perspective.

No, “warmonger” is a political term. “Warrior” comes up all the time when talking about military culture, which is why I use it in the piece. And, objectively, basic (ie: recruit training) has indeed become easier over the years, as have PT standards.

Okay, I'll concede that bit, is there any defense to those saying that "Warrior" isn't an apt term for it? I'm legitimately curious, as I'm far from knowledgeable on a number of things including the current condition of the military establishment.

(Just to continue) While I believe that it has become much easier since then, I do wonder if it necessarily needs to be tougher again, especially in the age of drones and cyber-attacks.

Thank you for writing this. I joined in the early 90's, after I retired I've left some vet groups online as they were saying modern troops weren't as tough as when they were in, we did ok in Afghanistan as far as troops with the right attitude. We don't need warriors wanting wars.

The attitude in question: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...

Brexited, not Brexit'd. America didn't brexit from the King's English. ("I've decid'd to write...Russia invad'd Ukrain...")

Hey, where’d you go? Haven’t seen you post in a while.