The Ageless Call to Serve

The following is an excerpt from: Ageless Call to Serve: Rethinking Military Service for a Changing World by Lt. Col. Lanny L. Snodgrass MD, PhD.

If you were to ask random people on the street in the U.S., most would probably tell you that the lower age of 18 and the upper age of 65 are enshrined in some important document. Such is not the case. Although the U.S. military has endlessly studied the minutiae of war, the institution suffers from severe myopia. To my knowledge, there has never been a study about the military’s upper and lower age limits. Indeed, in the past 50 years, no Pentagon general or congressional committee has even considered age or other screening criteria. For whatever reason, the topic is not one that any senior official in the military sees as an urgent mandate that needs attention. What was good enough in 1971 is still good enough in 2024. We live in an era when looking at brain development instead of chronological years to screen candidates is possible. We also have the means to extensively test people before service to exclude or include candidates, regardless of age. Despite those advantages, the U.S. military still relies on rules and regulations established nearly 50 years ago.

Joining the military is often depicted as an adventure. Indeed, some older veterans argue in favor of teens enlisting in the military to serve in a war, like former German soldier Roland Bartetzko. He fought with Croatians in the Bosnian War. He said age 19 is perfect for an infantry soldier because “you won’t feel any back pain after you’ve slept for three weeks in a forest … you’re impressionable and won’t criticize your commander’s decision. You also don’t know how extremely precious life is. You’ll be more ready to risk it than someone who is 30 years of age.” Captain Jeff Bamberg, who served in the USAF for eight years, agrees. “The upside of having younger, less fully developed intellectual people is that your brain still hasn’t kicked in to understand that everything is here to kill you. You feel invincible, and you can go out and do the things that military people need to do.”

Other veterans would disagree with him and offer no justification for 18- and 19-year-old soldiers to be placed at the combat front, who thought they were “cannon fodder,” as a Vietnam veteran commander quoted. In a 2023 interview, John P., who enlisted at age 17 to fight in the Vietnam War, serving one year and then another year to spare his older brother from deployment, said, “I was young and didn’t know anything, I was stupid… Hell No.” Vietnam-era veteran LTC Crile Doscher sees it this way in a 2022 interview: “They are totally fearless at that age. And maybe they don’t have the greatest judgment they will have in their lifetime, but they are fearless… it’s not the nicest age in the world. It’s your child.”

As a medical doctor, psychiatrist, and therapist, I have treated numerous individuals whose lives were deeply scarred by their experiences serving in the military at a young age. These men and women carried the weight of their service throughout their lives. There are countless reasons why the policy of sending teenagers to fight wars is flawed, and if it were up to me, I would never permit such decisions.

However, I recognize that I am fighting an uphill battle. Veterans and military leaders with whom I have spoken unanimously acknowledge the issue. Still, they also emphasize that because teenagers lack a full understanding of the risks and long-term consequences, they are willing to charge into battle bravely. These young people are needed to defend us, as they are less likely to question orders or retreat from an imminent threat.

While I do not have the authority to make policy decisions, it is essential for those who do to grasp the long-term consequences. Sending young people into perilous situations for which they are psychologically and mentally unprepared can lead to adverse outcomes. PTSD, depression, suicide, and self-destructive behavior are just a few of the long-term challenges faced by these individuals. Although we appreciate their service, we must also consider the lasting price that both they and society must bear.

Studies have found that younger soldiers are more susceptible to developing PTSD, related to higher rates of experienced trauma and insufficient coping mechanisms (Shea et al., 2013). In a recent study by Dohrenwend et al. (2013), it was discovered that soldiers who enlisted before the age of 25 and served in combat were seven times more likely to develop PTSD syndrome than their cohorts who were 25 or older. This research also showed when adding two additional factors (problems in childhood and harming the innocent) would increase their risk of developing PTSD following combat to a 97 percent chance. Addressing moral injury—spiritual, psychological, or emotional harm experienced due to a moral conflict—is crucial when discussing the morality of sending young individuals into combat (Litz et al., 2009). This ethical burden can be lifelong, affecting relationships, mental health, and the ability to reintegrate into society.

While there may be military necessities for lowering age limits in times of war, we cannot ignore the psychological and moral implications. As a society, we must strive to fully understand the impact on young lives and take measures to support them before, during, and after their service. Though victories may be won on the battlefield, healing the invisible wounds of war remains an ongoing struggle. Our youth deserve our deepest care and wisdom as they take up this solemn duty.

_____________________

This first appeared in The Havok Journal on September 17, 2024.

Dr. Lanny Snodgrass, a renowned psychiatrist, has left an indelible mark in academia and clinical practice across multiple states. A respected figure in his field.  His extensive medical practice spans Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Washington.

Earning his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Oregon in 1977, he pursued further medical studies and received his M.D. from the Autonomous University in 1980, followed by residency training at Menninger’s and UCLA.  His professional distinctions underscore his proficiency in psychotherapy, psychiatry, and addiction psychiatry, certified by the esteemed American Board of Medical Psychotherapists and the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology.

His service to the military has been recognized with numerous accolades, including the Army Achievement Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Superior Service Award Department of Defense, U.S. Army.

An expert in PTSD and military psychiatry, Dr. Snodgrass is also adept in biofeedback, stress management, and clinical applications of hypnosis. His cross-cultural study of non-verbal communication also stands testament to his comprehensive approach. His scholarly contributions have been widely published in distinguished medical journals, and his insights have been shared through over 50 presentations at international conferences and symposia, reinforcing his status as a respected global voice in psychiatry.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.