Should Enlistment Contracts be a thing of the Past?

No way, SSG Izzy Abbass. Good piece in Army Magazine; however, there is a carrot and stick approach that will be beneficial to the service and the recruit/re-enlistee. If there are no binding contracts, then we risk a loss in readiness, a decline in accountability, and an overall decrease in expectations. I appreciate the perspective of COL Charles Williams in this thread as well.

Very interesting SSG Izzy Abbass. I think we are talking contracts for those after initial service obligation? I think we need contracts for new recruits to guarantee them what the recruiter and MEPS agreed to? Now, the service obligations that come from education (ROTC, West Point), military schools, etc... I believe we need them, don't we?

I did my Masters Thesis on why kids go to West Point, and what their career intentions where and how they changed over 4 years. They take a survey around R-Day, and before graduation. Understanding it is hard to determine how truthful the new Cadets are when they the initial survey... Not because they are not truthful, but because they may want to answer the questions in a manner that will be thought of as correct. Like, why did you choose West Point... Because it was free, because it is a good school, because I want to serve my country, etc. Or, what are you intentions when you graduate... Make the Army a career, wait and see, or get out as soon as possible if not sooner. I can tell you, for ROTC and scholarships, and especially military academies, many would leave at graduation, if the could. Many are warn out after 4 years... And they have another 5 plus IRR to go.

But, I think for NCOs who decide to make the Army a career perhaps they need to serve like commissioned officers... that is until we resign or request to resign, or the Army decides they have no further need for our services.

Interesting.

The "Contract" issue is extremely coercive in nature, however it has to be in some regards. First and foremost, the Government is providing significant investment. Whether Officer or Enlisted, there is training time which must be "paid back." It just costs a lot to "build a troop." During my first enlistment I went through about 1 year of "formal" schooling including Boot Camp, MCT, MOS School, and a few "Nickel & Dime" schools. Add in Leadership schools, Correspondence Courses, and that quickly racks up time. I know USMC officers in my field tend to be even longer. So 1 year of training for 3 years of Active Service and 4 years of Reserve Service is not unreasonable. It's merely a case of recouping investment.

When we get into the subsequent enlistments, this becomes less of an issue, but continuing education does exist, and things like Command & Staff, War College, Amphib Warfare School, and even specialty schools like Recruiter or MSG, all add up.

Now, if we were to do something more "at will" we would have to re-envision our already coercive pension system as well. Right now it takes 20 years to fully vest in the retirement program, but in a system where both sides can end the arrangement at any time, retirement would have to be rebuilt from the ground up.