Do you think that an all volunteer force is sustainable in the future?

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Tue, 14 May 2019 07:07:14 -0400

Americans serving in the military are less than one percent of the population. 21% of those serving are the children of military veterans; only 10% have parents who never served. Do we have a civilian-military divide? Thoughts?

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made May 14 at 2019 7:28 AM

PVT Mark Zehner — Tue, 14 May 2019 07:28:19 -0400

Yes very much

Response by Sgt John H. made May 14 at 2019 8:50 AM

Sgt John H. — Tue, 14 May 2019 08:50:35 -0400

We have to do a better job of letting the millennials know what types of opportunities a career in the military presents. I understand the military has its risks but life itself is a risk. I am biased because I have an active duty child that is doing very well with her career in the air Force. there are not too many companies out there nowadays where you can have an actual career. It is much easier to hire someone new out of college and hold them for a couple of years and then let them go and hire a new group. All about profit

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made May 14 at 2019 8:51 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Tue, 14 May 2019 08:51:18 -0400

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made May 14 at 2019 8:52 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Tue, 14 May 2019 08:52:02 -0400

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made May 14 at 2019 8:59 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Tue, 14 May 2019 08:59:41 -0400

Response by SPC Kevin Ford made May 14 at 2019 9:14 AM

SPC Kevin Ford — Tue, 14 May 2019 09:14:50 -0400

I think as long as we stay in a perpetual state of war we're going to have problems finding diverse talent. Pretty much anyone who volunteers now does so with the understanding they are going to war. Not the chance of one, but the reality of getting sucked into a protracted conflict. At this point they are conflicts that are perceived by the public not to do much with our national survival.

So yeah, that's going to quickly start limiting the type of people who are willing to serve. Societal diversity in an all volunteer force really requires long periods of peace interspersed with what the public thinks are 'good wars'.

Response by MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 9:23 AM

MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 09:23:18 -0400

I think the all volunteer force is sustainable if we continue to maintain such a small military, in my opinion. What worries me about the young adults that are joining today is how many should not be in the military. The civilian world (main stream media and liberal institutions) has infected them too much and once they get in, they don't get their automatic trophies and promotions or get to do what they want and try to find the easy way out whether it be by saying they have harmful thoughts or life is too hard. This is still the minority of the overall numbers but that number is growing. And there are too many forums teaching these individuals how to work the system. We have an amazing amount of volunteers still but the military needs to be able to be more strict on who they allow in due to their problems and have more leeway to cull the fat quicker. This would save so much time and money and allow us to concentrate on all of our servicemembers that actually need help and not just the 1% taking up all of the time and resources who don't even want to be there in the first place. But I digress...

Response by Maj Robert Thornton made May 14 at 2019 9:46 AM

Maj Robert Thornton — Tue, 14 May 2019 09:46:47 -0400

Interesting question. Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball. I certainly hope that we can sustain an all-volunteer force. I do not want to see us return to the major problems we had with the draft.
I think if the military can focus on the opportunities available that would help.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 9:48 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 09:48:06 -0400

Yes, I think there is a civilian-military divide, but I don't think eliminating the all-volunteer forcce is the answer. We have enough problems with integrating many of the volunteers that are coming in now into the military culture. Can you imagine the issues we would face if we were to switch to compulsory service?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 9:51 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 09:51:13 -0400

This is a great topic of discussion Lt Col Charlie Brown!!! This could lead me into a long dissertation on paper, but I will try to keep is as short as possible...

1st, I am 76-years old, soon to be 77 in September... I graduated from high school, in the top 1/6th of my class of 669, in 1960. The selective service draft registration was still in play... That said, I went off to a liberal arts college after high school and hated it... I am more technically oriented... I left college, and decided that I still wanted an education, I wanted to be free from a domineering father (good man, but tried to run my life for his dream)... I went to all the military recruiters, took all the tests that were provided at the time and looked to learn what I could qualify for in each branch... I very much liked what the USAF had to offer me in terms of education and a chance to make a difference... so I joined the AF and never looked back... The one thing I regret is that I didn't get a degree first and become an officer first... My direction was just the reverse, but I accomplished my overall goals and objectives long term... Back to now!

Again in my view, every male and every female should serve their country for a 2-year period... Why, you ask? Simple!!! The majority of people do not have a clue what real life is all about... Responsibility, work ethic, other people, survival, and a whole lot more... John F. Kennedy began the "Peace Corps" and that was an awesome program for those folks who did not want to join the military, but wanted to do something constructive for their Country... In my time, Joining the USAF changed me from a 'BOY' to a 'MAN'...

I married at 20, and my 1st wife and I had our 1st child a year later, born at a military hospital... 4-more children followed over the years and I left the AF and began my civilian life and my college education and grew along the way... WIthout my total USAF 6-year Commitment and training I don't know what I would have done and where I would have wound up...

So with all that said, I believe we should reinsert a duty to country in the age group of 18-24...with incentives to help defray the costs of an academic degree... same for those with military desires...

I still serve where I can, with the DAV as a life member and as a Chapter Commander, and the VA when I can!

That's my story of the day and I am sticking to it, Charlie! LOL!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 9:59 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 09:59:35 -0400

For a long time I've believed that compulsory service should be instituted. A very short term activation. Send them to basic. Once it's completed they can choose a job they're qualified for, not just automatic infantry orders. It would be hard from the outset, but I believe that within a decade of children growing up knowing that they would be going into service the waters would smooth.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made May 14 at 2019 10:10 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Tue, 14 May 2019 10:10:48 -0400

Yes I do. I think we can sustain an all volunteer force for several reasons. 1.) There are a lot of young people out there that will serve because they want to learn a trade and don't want to go to college...they will probably get out after initial term. 2.) There are till a lot of people out there that want to serve out of patriotism...they may stay post initial term may not. 3.) There are those that want to go to college but can't afford it or get loans...they join because of the GI Bill and then leave after initial term to go to college. I think we can sustain the current levels because when we need to go to war we can't keep folks out of the recruiting offices. I believe people will step up and serve when our way of life is threatened...9-11 prime example...couldn't get folks in fast enough. When we need it our nation usually steps up and I think that will continue. I personally believe that everyone and I mean everyone to include physical handicapped (except mentally challenged) personnel should serve a minimum of two years. Those that are handicapped can sit at a desk or a clinic and push papers and open up more bodies to do the fighting etc...just my two pennies. But for the initial question, yes I can see us sustaining without a big divide because in history there has always been a divide.

Response by LCDR Joshua Gillespie made May 14 at 2019 10:12 AM

LCDR Joshua Gillespie — Tue, 14 May 2019 10:12:19 -0400

Not only do I think it's sustainable... I think it may become even more difficult to volunteer within a few years.

Indications are that we're in a post-conventional warfare era; information technology has become a strategic focus, the cost of manpower is skyrocketing, and special operations forces are arguably becoming the "standard" for direct action. I think we'll see widespread down-sizing in non-critical functions, tighter budgets, and increased physical/intellectual demands placed on new accessions.

If I put my tin foil hat on REAL tight... I expect genetic manipulation/cloning within two decades as a suggested means to fill the ranks.

Response by SSG Donald H "Don" Bates made May 14 at 2019 10:16 AM

SSG Donald H "Don" Bates — Tue, 14 May 2019 10:16:31 -0400

The answer is above my pay grade but, I have felt for a long time that compulsory service for at least two years should be brought back. I know that with today's young ones there are problems but, perhaps service life will straighten them out. Just my opinion.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made May 14 at 2019 10:21 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 14 May 2019 10:21:46 -0400

The problem has been created exacerbated by the idea we need supermen/women as our service members. Other than that it’s purely the comfort of home while attending institutions of higher learning in preparation for bigger salaries. Where I live, most respect our military.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 11:59 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 11:59:33 -0400

Sorry to say this, but there should be a national draft with the service obligation of 2 years active and 4 years in the active reserves. Some may think that this thinking is wrong, but every American should be willing to serve for this country. The all-volunteer military isn't working out as well as the hats in the Pentagon thought it would and the Generals today are looking for more ways to augment the forces. Bringing back the draft would be the way to do that. And 1-AO status could be brought back for those who are against weapons and killing someone who would kill them.

Response by SSgt Richard Kensinger made May 14 at 2019 12:15 PM

SSgt Richard Kensinger — Tue, 14 May 2019 12:15:22 -0400

I pray that we never get involved in a global conflict. During Vietnam at one point we had over 650,000 serving there. BTW, 60,000 were women! 70 % who served were "regulars". And as you know, we lost over 60,000 soldiers. And BTW, Pres. Johnson was so frustrated w/ Vietnam quagmire, over a 72 hr. period he considered using nuclear weapons. Glad he did not!
Rich

Response by SPC Douglas Bolton made May 14 at 2019 12:47 PM

SPC Douglas Bolton — Tue, 14 May 2019 12:47:13 -0400

Lt Col Charlie Brown We have a three generation military family. Three of my uncles fought in WWII. I served, and My son just retired as a Colonel. Proud family.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 14 at 2019 1:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:05:56 -0400

Yes the correlation from less than 1% serving to 21% of them having a veteran in the family exceeds random chance significantly. I would say there is a military class. The sustainability depends on our global missions.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 1:09 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:09:30 -0400

Forty plus years of an all-volunteer force would indicate to me that the answer is yes.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made May 14 at 2019 1:22 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:22:17 -0400

Lt Col Charlie Brown we absolutely have a civil-military divide. The military caste is either held on a pedestal and blindly revered or held in absolute contempt by those who do not understand the role of the military amongst the elements of national power: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic and the Clauswitzian politico-military-people relationship in the US. This relationship codified into law in our founding documents and laws.

When people just don't get something they have one of several reactions: strip it of resources and dispose of it; set it aside, ignore vigorously, and maybe it will go away; or dissect it and probe until you get tired of it or you get it.

The conventional response is National Service. This assumes that people love our country and 0will preserve it. After successive generations of post Vietnam nay sayers of exceptionalism; funhouse mirror politics and politicians; and infiltration of roles of authority by the very protesters themselves, particularly in education, cant imagine why this is a tough sell.

I see the one-two punch on the watering down of military service
- Secondary education and parents everywhere have become fixated on college education at the exclusion of skilled trades. Part of this was the move away from a manufacturing based economy to a service economy. Now the pendulum has swung so wide, we cant get people to fix the plumbing or the furnace. The belief that ANY college degree will get you a position in the service based economy is also patently false.
- If you were too stupid to do anything else (including a trade which your guidance counselor or parent has already crapped all over) then you join the military. You wont have to think, oblivious to what the military actually does and the fact that if you have a million people in all three components of the total Army, someone, somewhere has to be thinking just to keep the lights on.

The media depiction of the military is hokey, erroneous, and mischaracterized. If I could start anywhere it would be Beetle Bailey. The military moved on after 1950. But television and film have either imbued us with superhuman abilities and technology that just ain't so; preposterous/hokey/one dimensional story lines; made us all out to be irretrievably broken from our experiences; etc. To the point where you have an fairly accurate depiction and its dismissed as flag-waving tripe, as if patriotism is a dirty word, and I'm sure it is to the Show-Biz elite. Because this is all the public sees, the media gets to fill in the blanks. We have no real voice.

Way to Bridge the Divide: An excerpt from another discussion on this topic of Mandatory National Service:

3.5 million kids were projected to graduate high school in 2016-17. All components of the Army are about one million. We would have to support all these people. Come up with something meaningful for them to do (so they don't resent it). It would be at least 24 months to get anything from them from a utility stand point. The nation would have to really accept the fact that we would take to take off the gloves compared to an all volunteer service and its policies, benefits, and culture. We would have to give carte Blanche to Company Commanders and more importantly, NCOs. Can you imagine the social media butt hurt from draftees? We would also likely have to bring back CCF and local stockades. Americans are able to endure drafted service and the privation (real or imagined) if they see the purpose in it. If they don't buy it, then it will be bad for all the professional centurions who have to keep the Army rolling along. But grass, motor pools, rocks, parking lots, PMCS, command inspection checklists would look great. No excuses, oodles of people to do all that. Part of the soldier task invention we would need to keep them busy. I don't want anyone fighting beside me that doesn't want to be there, resenting the military. Service must be valued, meaningful, and useful.

Equipping all these youngsters. I think the clothing bag value is about $500. CIF will issue them $4-6000 worth of kit. Each one will need to be issued a $500 rifle. Each will receive in aggregate $1M in training just to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We would likely have to invent a few MOS's. Each one getting three hots and a cot every day for 18-24 months. Installation functions could revert to Soldiers by MOS or by BMM. I would prefer the former.

We would have to build installations, possibly out of virgin land, probably done by these same draftees who need something to do. Would need MILCON in the trillions for barracks, motorpools, DFACs just to make the self licking ice cream cone work.

How much more materiel would we need to procure: vehicles, tanks, Bradleys, APCs, aircraft. Can't just have a bunch of millenials running around in the woods with sticks.

Some say national service is the answer. I personally don't think treading water for a year or two cleaning up inner city neighborhoods is going to resound with the same value as surviving the forge of initial entry training in the armed forces. Another option I think has merit is that the UN consistently suffers from the lack of standing formations for urgent humanitarian missions. This could be a source of do gooders to go deal with disaster and genocide rather than people expressing moral outrage for 15 minutes on social media.

The real question is will the nation accept the burden and will the country benefit from the investment?

We need a draft system in case of total war. Citizens need to be prepared for national service if it comes to that. To your question, I think the problem is "we protect what we love". Each successive generation since Vietnam doesn't really feel that love of country in the passion and volume as before. They have been raised in a time and climate where people in authority have out right contempt for our government, and political leadership hasn't given them much to cheer about. Robert Heinlein once said that if no one wants to serve we should let the whole damn thing fall. At the end of it all, I think people will benefit and be better citizens if they had some skin in the game. Frankly most Americans today, have no idea how good they have it. I didn't realize fully how good we had it until I saw other places, ironically the Army is how I got to see t with my own eyes and no agenda driven narrative to go with it. I took it on faith that I was raised with that we had the best thing going, however flawed and problematic our system is. No one enjoys the freedom or security we take for granted.

- if you disqualify large swaths of the conscription pool, you would negate much of what you are driving to achieve. This and liberally applied exceptions is what rotted the system out in the 1960s. We would have to expand the content and duration of IET to handle the poor physical conditioning. Those that test positive for drugs after conscription would need to finish the duration of their federal service as a military corrections prisoner, discharged with a felony record. Made further troublesome with the ongoing liberal agenda marijuana legitimacy experiment.

The question on the upfront cost is whether the nation is willing to bear it. I think the result could be worth it. The government would have to raise it and spend it, the people pay it. Perhaps with a VAT instead of income taxes.

Introduction of a larger military would be an economic win in the economies of towns and cities with existing or new bases. We could have more forces forward deployed and afloat. Of course we'd need a Naval build out that American shipyards are hard pressed to deliver.

In other posts I have proposed having an Army equivalent to Fleet Week where you plop and Army BCT on say Boston Common and say here ya go. I see it as a big target in the budget process, but a possibility, if we all agreed that our public needs to be formally introduced to our military.

I dont know how we ultimately bridge that gap. We could let it boil over and let a national emergency galvinize the nation. A gamble. as Mobilization of the people is only the last part of national preparedness. The industrial and materiel preparation must be years in advance. With technology in war fighting systems where it is, I think we cant wait to mobilize, we need a targetted and measured warming pad system that keeps materiel, R&D, and low rate production going continuously so that we can ramp up and know where the capacity/capability gaps are with mitigation plans and risk acceptance in place. I have merged strategic preparedness into the civil-military divide, because they go together. If you dont have skin in the game then you dont care. Plain and simple.

Response by SP5 Peter Keane made May 14 at 2019 1:28 PM

SP5 Peter Keane — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:28:30 -0400

Curious as to what and how the other 69% would be described.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made May 14 at 2019 1:32 PM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:32:18 -0400

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made May 14 at 2019 1:42 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:42:53 -0400

Yes I do because there will always be people who put their country before six figure incomes. Frankly the days of massed armies on the battleground are behind us. Technology has made that warfighting style obsolete so the military of today does not need the numbers of days past. What they need is a corps of highly trained technicians and fortunately our education ststem still does a good job of producing them. Even with a smaller and smaller percentage of the population choosing the military we can meet the needs IMO.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made May 14 at 2019 1:44 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:44:17 -0400

It runs in cycles... when jobs are plentiful, and the pay is there, some don’t stay in... others do to get the educational bennies.

Response by SP5 Jeannie Carle made May 14 at 2019 2:35 PM

SP5 Jeannie Carle — Tue, 14 May 2019 14:35:53 -0400

I was Pers REc Spec at the beginning of VOLAR - yes, ma'am, I certainly do see a divide. " I don't have to do............ because I volunteered to enlist". "you need me, I don't need you". "You can't make me do that". Omigosh. I can't even imagine what my Army is like now.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 3:20 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 15:20:36 -0400

I absolutely think a volunteer force is sustainable in the future. If it doesn't, I think the most probable cause isn't a lack of patriotism but rather because politicians keep sending our military into undeclared and unwinnable conflicts that have no end in sight. I don't think giving politicians the power to conscript young people to fight in these types of conflicts is the answer.

Response by CPL Thomas Precella made May 14 at 2019 3:25 PM

CPL Thomas Precella — Tue, 14 May 2019 15:25:27 -0400

Yes because it will be all machines. Tom

Response by Sgt Vance Bonds made May 14 at 2019 3:39 PM

Sgt Vance Bonds — Tue, 14 May 2019 15:39:45 -0400

Yes.... Sort of......Frkm a game boy maybe

Response by GySgt Charles O'Connell made May 14 at 2019 4:17 PM

GySgt Charles O'Connell — Tue, 14 May 2019 16:17:20 -0400

Sustainable...yes. Effective.... Here in lies the question. Our Armed Forces must remain first and foremost lethal. Ready to respond rapidly to threat. Well trained and well equipped, with the overwhelming mindset that service in the Armed Forces is about defence of the nation. All the other things, the perks so to speak, that come with service are secondary to the overall mission, defence of the nation. When we start down the path of making serving, "just another job", then we lose, and lose big.

In regard to the Civilian/Military divide... While on recruiting duty I can recall speaking to parents, who while being perfectly polite, would say things like, "Oh, I think what you people do is so important, but my son/daughter is too smart to be in the Marine Corps." Most of these parents had never served, and take there few of military service from movies or t.v.

Sadly I don't think there is an easy fix to change this mind set, as I think it has been present for too many years. Everyone thinks we're great, but not so much so they would consider service a profession for their son/daughter.

My response to them is...It is a profession. One requiring intelligence, hard-work, and dedication. One that requires a 24 year Cpl to make life and death decisions.

Response by SMSgt Gerry Mitchell made May 14 at 2019 4:41 PM

SMSgt Gerry Mitchell — Tue, 14 May 2019 16:41:36 -0400

Can we sustain it sure. Make the benefits worth the while to young people and they will still join. BUT, do I think we should have just an all volunteer military, NO. Every young citizen should be required to register for the draft and provide one or two years benefit to the country.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2019 10:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 May 2019 22:33:38 -0400

Most of today's society is a bunch of fairies. Then we have the small portion who aren't. So, will need doctrine and strategy for smaller, harder hitting force.

Response by SSG Phil Miller made May 14 at 2019 10:35 PM

SSG Phil Miller — Tue, 14 May 2019 22:35:34 -0400

One thing our Patriot Employee Network does is volunteer at local schools. We are out there teaching kids how to fold flags, letting the see and handle a soldiers gear. They get to decorate Blue Star Moms packages before they are loaded. Some of our members who are in the National Guard show up in uniform.
The students love the interaction and it develops a sense of patriotism in them. The schools love it (it also gets money for them). The volunteers love it.
Many of the students say they are going to be in the military when they grow up. Of course life changes everything, but an early start helps and we are visible and in the schools a lot.

Response by SPC Darcel Depweg made May 14 at 2019 11:23 PM

SPC Darcel Depweg — Tue, 14 May 2019 23:23:22 -0400

there has always been a divide. and that is ok. I personally believe we will always have enough young people who volunteer. People go in for myriad of reasons. It is nice this option exists. We are the only country that offers the military as an option.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made May 14 at 2019 11:44 PM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Tue, 14 May 2019 23:44:03 -0400

Col Brown, I hate to answer a question with a question, but in 1973, when the end of the draft was announced, did you really believe it was ended?
True, the first national draft was for the Civil War, but prior to that the colonies, and then the states had laws requiring able bodied men be part of the state militia, which was then called upon to serve as necessary for establishment and then protection of the states and the union.
For WWI, an all volunteer force was initially attempted, but when that failed, men were drafted.
The difference between the draft as we remember it, and the traditional draft or conscription was that our draft was declared in 1940 when we were not (yet) engaged in a war but it continued through WWII, Korea, the Cold War (when the belief the communists were going to be rushing over our shores was real), and then Viet Nam. Although you look much to young to remember 1973, we were barely recovering from the insurrections and draft protests of the 60s, Watergate, the assassinations and many other situations that made the state of the union quite tenuous. The declaration that the draft was ended was only one of the concessions made to attempt to bring some semblance of order back to our nation.
At the peak of the Afghan and Iraq wars we had approximately 180-190,000 US armed forces personnel in those theaters, not even half of the over 500,000 we had committed during Vietnam at its highest level. But we had to call up our reserve forces to do that.
Since WWI ended all wars and the League of Nations assured that premise, we reduced our armed forces to a skeletal state. When the world situation made it obvious to all but the most rigid isolationists that WWII was on the horizon, we instituted a peacetime draft. It seems there has been periodic discussions of whether women should be required to enroll in our still existing draft register. Many believe the existence of nuclear weapons makes another widespread war impossible, but I have faith that humankind, just as it has in the past, will somehow imagine another method of warfare that doesn't depend upon general use of the nucs. When we figure that war out, we'll react with a draft to provide the manpower necessary to kill each other on a mass scale.

Response by COL Gary Gresh made May 15 at 2019 1:05 AM

COL Gary Gresh — Wed, 15 May 2019 01:05:01 -0400

Yes, we have a major problem maintaining the volunteer army into the future. I believe we will need some form of universal service..but not the draft! Our country was built on the citizen soldier militiaman concept. People need to serve to protect our freedoms. But there are many ways to serve. If a young adult served two years after High school in mandatory service to our country we could keep the volunteer army concept by just sweetening the deal. Have all young men and women choose between a large list of service to country organizations like the Armed Forces, Fire, Rescue, Police, Red Cross, FEMA, volunteer corps, Applachian corps, Peace Corps, Department of social service etc.... But if they choose to pick one of the five armed services, they would also get free college through the GI Bill... such a proposition would make the armed services the premier service organization. It would also require every Amercian, over time, to give some form of service to their country for the freedoms we all enjoy.

Response by SPC Michael Gellin made May 16 at 2019 7:09 PM

SPC Michael Gellin — Thu, 16 May 2019 19:09:46 -0400

If we wait for millennials to volunteer, we will all be speaking Russian or Chinese

Response by CW4 Craig Urban made May 16 at 2019 8:44 PM

CW4 Craig Urban — Thu, 16 May 2019 20:44:28 -0400

Yes. We are going to require some type of national service to supplement the force. Conus based service to free up the enlistees to go overseas.

Response by Michael Enderle made May 20 at 2019 9:16 AM

Michael Enderle — Mon, 20 May 2019 09:16:14 -0400

I'm visiting Taiwan right now and last night I met a kid who's in the military. He's completing his 4 month conscription (reduced from the former 2 years) and he couldn't care less. He just says he's so board and can't wait for it to end. There's definitely cultural differences but the Taiwanese people don't seem to have much confidence in their military. I'm sure there's a ton of service members who are masters of the trade of arms but having these video game addict, selfie stick wielding 18 year olds isn't helping national defence or inspiring confidence in the public. I disagree with conscription on moral grounds because it violates individual liberties. And this sounds harsh but if a nation can't muster up individuals to sacrifice and serve, a stronger people will rule. This shocks our civilized senses but if we can't sustain the armed forces with willing volunteers, we don't deserve the right to exist as a nation.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made May 21 at 2019 9:24 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Tue, 21 May 2019 21:24:33 -0400

Great question, Ma'am!

I hate to be a cynic, but.... I'm a cynic. As long as we have under-/ un- educated poor people, we will have a pool for enlisted folks. I worry about maintaining a pool of quality Officers. It seems to me, with absolutely no facts or research to back it up, that military Officership is more heredutary than enlisting, so that will help SOME, if true. But even then, fresh blood is needed to prevent stagnation (or inbreeding, but I digress).

As to the civil/military divide, it is real. I find that things are cyclical - During WWII, all Soldiers were heroes. Full stop. They defeated evil, and protected America. 30 years later, all Soldiers were disgusting baby killers. 30 years after THAT, all Soldiers were heroes again. This has started to wane. But where we are right now does not help with the divide. Many may think about joining, and think they aren't hero material. Many aren't up for the sacrifice of herodom.

The military never has been, and never will be, "just another profession." But as long as we continue to hoist it on a pedestal - for good OR ill - there will always be a barrier for most of the people. If we can treat it like any other profession, as a society, then we will have a more diverse representation of society joining.

Response by Lt Col Vincent Ziccardi made May 22 at 2019 6:54 PM

Lt Col Vincent Ziccardi — Wed, 22 May 2019 18:54:54 -0400

Yes, but I think the force will be more and more outside the mainstream younger society....it really is today, but that separation will become more and more a reality as more high school graduates see brighter horizons going to college where they will be further influenced by "progressives" rather than patriots. Priviledge and affluency are not the parents of warriors.

Response by CPT Jim Gallagher made May 27 at 2019 7:24 PM

CPT Jim Gallagher — Mon, 27 May 2019 19:24:11 -0400

I worry about the radical changes in our society over the past 10 to 15 years and how those born in this generation are being taught socialism and that America is the bad guy. I see it being sustainable for the short term but if we don’t reverse the tide I find it doomed to fail in the long term. My thought is Liberalism with the Socialist political beliefs could be the death of us.

Response by CW4 Eric Clayton made May 29 at 2019 12:08 PM

CW4 Eric Clayton — Wed, 29 May 2019 12:08:25 -0400

Make every branch of service tax free after graduating AIT. You will have too many people signing up. Make BT hard as hell with the ability to peer people out. Make training realistic like it was in the mid 90’s. Fail an APFT, you’re gone. Fail height and weight, see ya. DUI or fail a urinalysis, bye bye. Get rid of the PC mindset and prepare those coming in for the harsh realities of combat. No more social experiments using the military as the test bed. An all volunteer force can work with the right mindset and tools in place.

Response by CW4 Eric Clayton made May 29 at 2019 1:53 PM

CW4 Eric Clayton — Wed, 29 May 2019 13:53:16 -0400

Yes we have a military/civilized divide! However it starts at home where there is NO sense of service unless it’s self service. The all about me generation couldn’t care less about anything or anyone else. Liberal arts colleges discourage military service. The new retirement system adopted by DoD just makes recruiting and retention even more difficult.

A mandatory compulsory military mandate will not work either. Remember the draft during Vietnam. The poor and minorities were drafted much more than those with the means to escape the draft. Considering today’s state of affairs and us being in a state of perpetual war, a draft won’t be good. Now that women can serve in the infantry and other combat MOS’s the selective service is pretty much superfluous. Besides, there was no equality in the draft when women were exempt. Keep the volunteer force, sweeten the pot but make it a priority and an honor to serve.

Response by SSG Herman Bauman made Jun 9 at 2019 10:26 PM

SSG Herman Bauman — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 22:26:03 -0400

I believe that it has already failed. Why else would the military open up all combat arms mos"s to women. They weren't getting enough men to fill them.

Response by CPL Joseph Elinger made Jun 9 at 2019 10:52 PM

CPL Joseph Elinger — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 22:52:03 -0400

Not to forget the % of Americans who are "unfit" for service: physically, mentally, background issues, substance abuse, etc...

Response by CPL Joseph Elinger made Jun 9 at 2019 11:00 PM

CPL Joseph Elinger — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 23:00:08 -0400

Yet the #1 Rule you learn is: Never volunteer for anything.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Jun 11 at 2019 12:56 AM

CW3 Harvey K. — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:56:10 -0400

Looking back at my experience as a "Cold-warrior", the concept of Universal Military Service was a good one, but was poorly executed. There were too many exemptions, and it was too little likely to be drafted, even with those vast numbers of people exempted. Besides, your country did not need everyone of your generation, so why should you suffer that inconvenience?

Only two of my friends and I chose to enlist rather than try to "beat the draft". Several others I knew got deferments as college students, or got married to discourage their draft boards from selecting them for the military. That "teenage marriage" proved a terrible ploy, ending in hardship and divorce for many of them.

Ultimately, the UMS failed because it was NOT "Universal". If it had been, it would have been fair, and no one would feel that he was getting screwed, while everybody else still had his freedom.

Making UMS work would require a drastic re-alignment of governmental thinking -- the draft would not be based on the projected defense needs of the country, but on the population of military-aged youth who must be inducted and trained, serve a short period of active military duty, then return to civilian life as a reservist. The expense entailed would vary with that military-aged population.

Response by MSgt Michael Ivey made Jul 1 at 2019 11:00 PM

MSgt Michael Ivey — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 23:00:35 -0400

I don't see any way that it can be sustained. I worked with recruiting service with the Air Force Reserve for 15 1/2 yrs. All I heard from potential recruits was, I need money for school. I need training. I need this, I need that! Constant whining. But, I really believe the downfall has been Base Closures, constant wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! What the hell are we still there for? Didn't we defeat the Taliban and now we are negotiations with them? WTF? There is very little exposure to the Military anymore, except at sporting events! But, there are other reasons too! Kids to fat, lead a sedentary lifestyle, can't pass physicals, and surprisingly enough a good percentage can't pass the ASVAB! Depending on whether the USA ever decides to win a war again, the volunteer force may survive. But, if we ever have to go it alone, No way we win a war with China. One more thought, we can send our troops all over the world, but we can't put them along our own border with a real military mission to stop the illegal invasion, and that includes shoot to kill orders!

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 9 at 2019 10:20 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Fri, 09 Aug 2019 22:20:30 -0400

YES!