How would you solve the military recruiting challenges currently facing DOD?

We need an Army that is 100% Army. Get rid of all the DOD, civilian jobs, etc. that displaced Army jobs. Cooks, clerks, post engineers, etc. I enlisted in 1962, and that was the way it was, and, it worked!!!

I joined the military because I wanted to use the G.I. bill to go to school afterwards
I did not waste my parents money to go to school because I wasn’t sure I would finish

You can offer the recruit something they want and sign papers that prove he’s gonna or she get what they want
You can always take the recruit to a post that deals with basic training and show them what they have to go through

I left out #5) Americans don't feel threatened. 9-11 was the last time I remember our country feeling truly threatened. My own daughter asked me if she should drop out of college and enlist. She wanted to bring the perpetrators to justice. WWII was one of the biggest military recruitment surges. Millions of men and women entered into service, and the folks back home built Victory Gardens, rationed goods, darkened their homes, hunkered down and sent care packages and letters to their loved ones fighting the war. Blessed be the Peacekeepers, but without challenges we never seem to see the heroism and sacrifice that we see during periods of conflict.

The problem stems from social media and wokeness. The kids today are pampered and wallow in their feelings without thought of hard work and effort. The worse part is that the current government encourages this behavior and lifestyle. From what I’ve observed, currently the drill sergeants and drill instructors are handcuffed and need to follow procedures that enable the new recruits to behave in ways that are unproductive in becoming a hard rough and ready military troopers.

The Retired USMC Commandant, GEN Charles C. Krulak, address the source of our present day recruiting and retention problems nearly a quarter of a century ago...

Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics (JSCOPE)
REMARKS AT JSCOPE 2000
By General Charles C. Krulak ,USMC [ret] { USNA '64 }
JANUARY 27, 2000

From someone who attended the annual Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics (JSCOPE) on 27-28 January, 2000.

GEN Krulak gave the keynote speech. It was a 'keeper.' He received a full-house standing ovation at the end. The text is transcribed below.

The Question & Answer session was also superb. You should have heard him defend his Marine Corps' 'no mixed-gender' basic training policy [he is not against mixed genders in the military, just mixed training ] before a gaggle of female USMA cadets and USNA midshipmen, after the Q&A session. The guy is absolutely magnetic. He charmed them while defending his position with enthusiasm, reason, and integrity. Even those who disagreed with him were positively impressed by his openness, sincerity, and honesty.

During the Q&A, Krulak came out and said that every one of the Joint Chiefs, in private, agreed with a 'no mixed-gender' basic training policy but none were willing to stand up to their civilian bosses to defend their professional military judgment -- sad. He said that it had become known within the Pentagon that 56 Marine General Officers would 'turn in their suits' if mixed-gender training were imposed on the Marine Corps, against their best military judgment.

The Marines drew a line in the sand, and the opposition folded.

GEN Krulak's Note to those to whom he sent this speech.

"JSCOPE is a Joint Services Organization that has been in effect for some 20+ years...they meet annually to talk ethics/values/leadership.

I gave that address yesterday in Washington...with a "header" and a 30-minute Q&A. It had students from all service academies plus officers from General/Admiral to ensign/2nd lt."

Begin text of GEN Krulak's keynote speech:

"We study and we discuss ethical principles because it serves to strengthen and validate our own inner value system ... It gives direction to what I call our moral compass. It is the understanding of ethics that becomes the foundation upon which we can deliberately commit to inviolate principles. It becomes the basis of what we are ... Of what we include in our character.

Based on it, we commit to doing what is right. We expect such commitment from our leaders. But most importantly, we must demand it of ourselves.

Sound morals and ethical behavior cannot be established or created in a day ... A semester ... Or a year. They must be institutionalized within our character over time ... They must become a way of life. They go beyond our individual services and beyond our ranks or positions; they cut to the heart and to the soul of who we are and what we are and what we must be ... Men and women of character. They arm us for the challenges to come and they impart to us a sense of wholeness. They unite us in the calling we now know as the profession of arms.

Of all the moral and ethical guideposts that we have been brought up to recognize, the one that, for me, stands above the rest ... The one that i have kept in the forefront of my mind ... Is integrity. It is my ethical and personal touchstone.

Integrity as we know it today, stands for soundness of moral principle and character - uprightness - honesty. Yet there is more. Integrity is also an ideal ... A goal to strive for ... And for a man or woman to "walk in their integrity" is to require constant discipline and usage. The word integrity itself is a martial word that comes to us from an ancient roman army tradition.

During the time of the 12 Caesars, the roman army would conduct morning inspections. As the inspecting centurion would come in front of each legionnaire, the soldier would strike with his right fist the armor breastplate that covered his heart. The armor had to be strongest there in order to protect the heart from the sword thrusts and from arrow strikes. As the soldier struck his armor, he would shout "INTEGRITAS", (in-teg-ri-tas) which in Latin means material wholeness, completeness, and entirety. The inspecting centurion would listen closely for this affirmation and also for the ring that well-kept armor would give off. Satisfied that the armor was sound and that the soldier beneath it was protected, he would then move on to the next man.

At about the same time, the praetorians or imperial bodyguard were ascending into power and influence. Drawn from the best "politically correct" soldiers of the legions, they received the finest equipment and armor. They no longer had to shout "INTEGRITAS" (in-teg-ri-tas) to signify that their armor was sound. Instead, as they struck their breastplate, they would shout "HAIL CAESAR", to signify that their heart belonged to the imperial personage - not to their unit - not to an institution - not to a code of ideals. They armored themselves to serve the cause of a single man.

A century passed and the rift between the legion and the imperial bodyguard and its excesses grew larger. To signify the difference between the two organizations, the legionnaire, upon striking his armor would no longer shout "INTEGRITAS", (in-teg-ri-tas) but instead would shout "INTEGER" (in-te-ger).

Integer (in-te-ger) means undiminished - complete - perfect. It not only indicated that the armor was sound, it also indicated that the soldier wearing the armor was sound of character. He was complete in his integrity ... His heart was in the right place ... His standards and morals were high.

He was not associated with the immoral conduct that was rapidly becoming the signature of the Praetorian guards.

The armor of integrity continued to serve the legion well. For over four centuries they held the line against the marauding goths and vandals but by 383 AD, the social decline that infected the republic and the Praetorian Guard had its effects upon the legion."

See also: https://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Krulak00.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHPUhlE7fTw
https://youtu.be/GN7_wG7rBEM?si=pYx7bejVcRYkDzt5

Give back all the benefits! Medical care, Dental care, and retirement benefits. I no longer think all the trade-offs are currently worth joining.

Dump social experimentation.

Bottomline: Demoralization

I will focus my point on the 82.5% who typically bear the burden for national defense -- men. The US Military will continue to find it difficult to recruit men willing risk their lives to protect a nation when:

1) They've been taught by the culture they were raised in that this nation has been to sole source of evil in the world since before its very inception;

2) That if that believe point 1 is not true, they must be a domestic terrorist or political extremist;

3) That of ALL the evil things that walk or crawl within that nation, that THEY are the primary source of all the problems, simply because of the XY chromosome combination they were born with;

4) They will likely be treated as lab rats for suspect medical treatments or absurd social reengineering experiments (usually premised on points 1 and 2, above) or face ruthless punishment/purges for noncompliance;

5) They will have to pledge blind fealty to senior "management" more concerned with point 4 and their next promotion than they are with preparing them to fight and win wars.

Obesity and Physical fitness pose problems, indeed, but establishing realistic body mass expectations (i.e. stop using outdated BMI standards from previously malnourished generations) and functional fitness programs with a strict adherence to passing the standards prior to release from basic training are easy to implement... provided we have leaders with the moral courage to implement them. But even these problems are mere symptoms of the root problem: a demoralized culture.

Start with quality vs quantity. And start taking care of your domestic violence. When the Army makes the news it's only after a female has been killed on are off-base.