Posted on Jan 26, 2023
What can the DOD do to overcome its recruitment challenges?
137K
435
160
132
132
0
Most agree that the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) is facing historic and possibly unprecedented recruiting challenges. As the AVF turns 50 this July, military and congressional leaders are diagnosing the contributing causes and producing strategies to address them.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, summarized the problem last fall at an oversight hearing she chaired as head of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel.
“By the end of 2022, the active U.S. military will be at its smallest size since the creation of the All-Volunteer Force for which we mark the 50th anniversary next year,” Gillibrand said in opening the Sept. 21 hearing, where service branch officials testified. “All four military services here today have signaled significant concerns about the strength of their recruiting operations and their prospects for success in 2023.”
Why is this the case? Department of Defense (DOD) officials and lawmakers debated some reasons and solutions at December’s Reagan National Defense Forum. The Washington, D.C., event featured comments from:
Gen. David Berger, commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.
Gilbert Cisneros, under secretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois and an Army reserves Veteran.
Rep. Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin and a Marine Corps Veteran.
Youth less interested in military service
Observers cite the lower interest among young people to serve in the military as one reason for the recruiting deficiencies.
The fifth annual National Defense Survey, which the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute released in late December 2022, found that just 13% of 18- to 29-year-olds are “highly willing” to join the military, 25% are somewhat willing, 20% are not very willing, and about 26% are not willing at all. These and other results are based on interviews of 2,500 Americans conducted Nov. 9-17, 2022.
Trust in the military down
Fewer Americans say they have faith in the military, the Reagan institute survey also found. Just 48% of surveyed respondents said they had a great deal of trust in the military, compared with 70% who said that four years ago. Majorities said they had less confidence in the performance and competence of commanders-in-chief and the civilian military leadership. Other pollsters such as Gallup have found similar erosions in trust in the military.
The military needs to be creative in addressing these and other structural issues driving shortfalls in recruiting, Berger said at the forum and in an article for the U.S. Naval Institute published in November. This includes a long-term decline in the pool of service-eligible Americans who meet physical fitness and health requirements and who can pass the ASVAB, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test.
All of this is occurring in a society that’s more distant from the military, with fewer Americans having familial or community connections to military culture and careers, Berger wrote.
Negative news about an institution that Americans are less familiar with only saps confidence further, he said.
“If the only thing you know about (the military) is what you see on the news, it may not be good,” Berger said at the forum. In his article, he said other factors that have harmed public trust include the character of withdrawal from Afghanistan, military scandals, reports of military sexual assault, and a sense that military skills aren’t relevant to private-sector success.
Some of these perceptions can be shifted, especially now that recruiters can go back to meeting one-on-one with young people at schools, on campuses and in offices. But the old recruiter’s playbook won’t work, Berger and other panelists argued.
Service appeals that resonate with a new generation
Reversing trends in youths’ willingness to serve requires new recruiting strategies and messages that appeal to Generation Z, a cohort that Pew Research Center defines as those born between 1997-2012.
“Simply increasing the advertising budget to amplify existing narratives is unlikely to be effective in the future,” Berger wrote. “The services need new narratives and new vehicles for communicating those narratives.”
One way the military can break through to this generation is to showcase the benefits of military service. “We talk about service and what it does for the country,” Berger said, but less about “what it does for the individual.”
The military can do a better job communicating how even a few years of service can build skills that last a lifetime, he said. And it can demonstrate that service increases a person’s currency in the civilian job market.
Employers want to hire former service members, Berger said, because they know “they’re better citizens, they’re better employees.”
Duckworth said it’s also important to reach the parents of Gen Z, highlighting how service is a viable career path: Their kids “gain lots of experiences” in the military and “they’re going to be ahead of their peers when they come out in terms of a job.”
“That,” she said, is something “I don’t think we’re doing a good job of messaging to the American people.”
The senator noted that most people can understand how an Air Force pilot or medic has a path to a post-military career in aviation or health care. But the public may be less aware of other stepping stones that military service can provide.
Cisneros echoed this, arguing that potential recruits should know that the military can train them for other high-demand and well-paying jobs, including in trades such as in HVAC.
Make the AVF more permeable
The military needs to change how it operates to encourage more people to serve. Berger said it should be “easier to move between active duty and reserve in the civilian sector.”
“We have to make it a much more permeable All-Volunteer Force than we have (had) in the past,” he said. “People should be able to step out for two or three or four years, come back in.”
This would familiarize more people with the military, furthering heightening interest in service, he said.
Other ideas to boost recruiting
Other ideas for improving recruitment mentioned by panelists and in the article included:
Allowing the military to tap private-sector talent without requiring a full-fledged service commitment.
Replicating an Army “pre-boot-camp”-type pilot program that’s preparing young people physically and academically for military service.
Creating more opportunities for women and people of diverse backgrounds to succeed in the military.
Taking better care of service personnel and families by addressing food insecurity and other military quality-of-life issues.
Reforming leave policies to make it easier for women to serve.
Making sure the lower ranks can bring forth policy-change ideas.
Addressing generational gaps in recruitment planning so that strategies keep pace with social change and are relevant to the next generation of service members.
Learn more
Watch the forum discussion: https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/programs/reagan-national-defense-forum/rndf-2022
Read Berger’s piece: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/november/recruiting-requires-bold-changes
Watch the Senate hearing: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-status-of-military-recruiting-and-retention-efforts-across-the-department-of-defense
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, summarized the problem last fall at an oversight hearing she chaired as head of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel.
“By the end of 2022, the active U.S. military will be at its smallest size since the creation of the All-Volunteer Force for which we mark the 50th anniversary next year,” Gillibrand said in opening the Sept. 21 hearing, where service branch officials testified. “All four military services here today have signaled significant concerns about the strength of their recruiting operations and their prospects for success in 2023.”
Why is this the case? Department of Defense (DOD) officials and lawmakers debated some reasons and solutions at December’s Reagan National Defense Forum. The Washington, D.C., event featured comments from:
Gen. David Berger, commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.
Gilbert Cisneros, under secretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois and an Army reserves Veteran.
Rep. Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin and a Marine Corps Veteran.
Youth less interested in military service
Observers cite the lower interest among young people to serve in the military as one reason for the recruiting deficiencies.
The fifth annual National Defense Survey, which the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute released in late December 2022, found that just 13% of 18- to 29-year-olds are “highly willing” to join the military, 25% are somewhat willing, 20% are not very willing, and about 26% are not willing at all. These and other results are based on interviews of 2,500 Americans conducted Nov. 9-17, 2022.
Trust in the military down
Fewer Americans say they have faith in the military, the Reagan institute survey also found. Just 48% of surveyed respondents said they had a great deal of trust in the military, compared with 70% who said that four years ago. Majorities said they had less confidence in the performance and competence of commanders-in-chief and the civilian military leadership. Other pollsters such as Gallup have found similar erosions in trust in the military.
The military needs to be creative in addressing these and other structural issues driving shortfalls in recruiting, Berger said at the forum and in an article for the U.S. Naval Institute published in November. This includes a long-term decline in the pool of service-eligible Americans who meet physical fitness and health requirements and who can pass the ASVAB, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test.
All of this is occurring in a society that’s more distant from the military, with fewer Americans having familial or community connections to military culture and careers, Berger wrote.
Negative news about an institution that Americans are less familiar with only saps confidence further, he said.
“If the only thing you know about (the military) is what you see on the news, it may not be good,” Berger said at the forum. In his article, he said other factors that have harmed public trust include the character of withdrawal from Afghanistan, military scandals, reports of military sexual assault, and a sense that military skills aren’t relevant to private-sector success.
Some of these perceptions can be shifted, especially now that recruiters can go back to meeting one-on-one with young people at schools, on campuses and in offices. But the old recruiter’s playbook won’t work, Berger and other panelists argued.
Service appeals that resonate with a new generation
Reversing trends in youths’ willingness to serve requires new recruiting strategies and messages that appeal to Generation Z, a cohort that Pew Research Center defines as those born between 1997-2012.
“Simply increasing the advertising budget to amplify existing narratives is unlikely to be effective in the future,” Berger wrote. “The services need new narratives and new vehicles for communicating those narratives.”
One way the military can break through to this generation is to showcase the benefits of military service. “We talk about service and what it does for the country,” Berger said, but less about “what it does for the individual.”
The military can do a better job communicating how even a few years of service can build skills that last a lifetime, he said. And it can demonstrate that service increases a person’s currency in the civilian job market.
Employers want to hire former service members, Berger said, because they know “they’re better citizens, they’re better employees.”
Duckworth said it’s also important to reach the parents of Gen Z, highlighting how service is a viable career path: Their kids “gain lots of experiences” in the military and “they’re going to be ahead of their peers when they come out in terms of a job.”
“That,” she said, is something “I don’t think we’re doing a good job of messaging to the American people.”
The senator noted that most people can understand how an Air Force pilot or medic has a path to a post-military career in aviation or health care. But the public may be less aware of other stepping stones that military service can provide.
Cisneros echoed this, arguing that potential recruits should know that the military can train them for other high-demand and well-paying jobs, including in trades such as in HVAC.
Make the AVF more permeable
The military needs to change how it operates to encourage more people to serve. Berger said it should be “easier to move between active duty and reserve in the civilian sector.”
“We have to make it a much more permeable All-Volunteer Force than we have (had) in the past,” he said. “People should be able to step out for two or three or four years, come back in.”
This would familiarize more people with the military, furthering heightening interest in service, he said.
Other ideas to boost recruiting
Other ideas for improving recruitment mentioned by panelists and in the article included:
Allowing the military to tap private-sector talent without requiring a full-fledged service commitment.
Replicating an Army “pre-boot-camp”-type pilot program that’s preparing young people physically and academically for military service.
Creating more opportunities for women and people of diverse backgrounds to succeed in the military.
Taking better care of service personnel and families by addressing food insecurity and other military quality-of-life issues.
Reforming leave policies to make it easier for women to serve.
Making sure the lower ranks can bring forth policy-change ideas.
Addressing generational gaps in recruitment planning so that strategies keep pace with social change and are relevant to the next generation of service members.
Learn more
Watch the forum discussion: https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/programs/reagan-national-defense-forum/rndf-2022
Read Berger’s piece: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/november/recruiting-requires-bold-changes
Watch the Senate hearing: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-status-of-military-recruiting-and-retention-efforts-across-the-department-of-defense
DoD
Recruit
Recruiting
Training
United States Senate
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 66
45
44
1
It has ups and downs- now the woke crap is in the majority- have no love of country, nor giving for somebody else. Brainwashed, coupled with the fact so many are so out of shape, they are a heart attack waiting to happen. Don't forget parents unable to raise their kids, and send them to drug land. land
(45)
(1)
1SG Mark Rodgers
This "Woke" thing is blown out of proportion by ppl that are idiots! Some of the things or conclusions reached, are reality even for me in the mid 70's. I wanted an occupational opportunity, that's why when they offered me a bonus to be a tank driver I said NO. If it doesn't offer a leg up 2 yrs or 20 later, then it's not worth it.
There is a need to get into their heads early, before they are 19, and show what can benefit them in the long run!
Oh and I graduated at 17, from high school, basic and advanced training before I turned 18. My ASVAB scores were high enough to get recruited while in high school. Knew what I wanted and the military could provide some of it. My career started with me graduating helicopter repairman training, UH-1H, with a 89.7 gpa. I became a crew chief and was in the air over the Korean DMZ for Operation Paul Bunyan. I was short and volunteered to go back up.
Get in their head! But maybe they are scared to die!
There is a need to get into their heads early, before they are 19, and show what can benefit them in the long run!
Oh and I graduated at 17, from high school, basic and advanced training before I turned 18. My ASVAB scores were high enough to get recruited while in high school. Knew what I wanted and the military could provide some of it. My career started with me graduating helicopter repairman training, UH-1H, with a 89.7 gpa. I became a crew chief and was in the air over the Korean DMZ for Operation Paul Bunyan. I was short and volunteered to go back up.
Get in their head! But maybe they are scared to die!
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SPC Michael Brown
Capt Seid Waddell - Why would you assume that I did not know what it meant? I simply pointed out if this is the only comeback you can come up with to sound like you can make a argument you already lost the debate.
(0)
(0)
SGT Salvador Feliciano
1SG Mark Rodgers - Are you me!? LOL! I did the same. Graduated at 17 and was in the Army (Delayed entry program) at 18. I scored high and elected aviation maintenance Uh-1H Helicopter repairer. Became Crew Chief. Another duty station, floor phased maintenance supervisor. Pushed out in 92 during RIF. Army got rid of Huey's and no longer had need of me, refused to let me transition to anything else such as Black Hawk, Chinook, Apache etc. My son is 24 and wanted to join the military but he's autistic. Recruiter told him no. We have been a military family since the Korean war. The way things are now, I don't blame the younger generation for not wanting to join. The military has changed drastically.
(0)
(0)
25
25
0
I listen to Christian radio and they have interviewed servicemembers who have recently separated from active duty. ALL have said money is being spent on "woke policies". You can't expect people to want to join the military when they know their very faith will be a detriment.
(25)
(0)
SGT Salvador Feliciano
Just give it up. The comments you are receiving already back up your comment on your post.
(2)
(0)
SPC David C.
Since so many of you are completely clueless to what Shoafstall was saying, allow me to educate you. Because infantry is what I know, I'll use that as my first example. As infantry, anything that is not specific to killing the enemy, or that can be applied to combat, is a waste of time. That means mandatory training on how to address ANYONE by pronouns. If I have a rank and a name, use one or the other. Not a fucking pronoun...WOKE as fuck. Recruitment efforts specific to transgendered persons...less than .003% of the US population, who obviously have mental health issues, that takes money away from training for war. WOKE as fuck. The military paying for transgender surgeries and medications that guarantees that service member is non-deployable during times of war...WOKE as fuck. The military changing PT standards, because select social groups politicians want in specific job roles but can't meet the standard. WOKE as fuck. Taking tens of millions of dollars away from training and equipment to change base names...WOKE as fuck. Service women being told to "toughen up" when they don't want to share shower facilities with male transgendered soldiers...WOKE as fuck. Required cyber training on domestic abuse...Yeah, because THAT'LL stop some abusive asshole from being an abusive asshole. If you don't know not to beat a woman before you go in, a 10 minute exercise in mouse clicking isn't going to change anything. Those are but a few examples. For those of you who attacked Shoafstall and completely twisted what he posted, I can forgive your ignorance, I won't forgive your cowardice or laziness in accepting these policies because you're morally weak or bankrupt.
(5)
(0)
CW3 Donald Mann
“WOKE as fuck” . . . Yep, you sure are.
“Morally weak or bankrupt?” Yep, you sure are.
“We” don’t want or need your forgiveness. And “we” are not ignorant . . . but it does appear that you are. Nor are “we” cowards or lazy by accepting these policies.
“Woke” is not a pejorative. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “woke”: “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”
As you vulgarly use the term: “often used in contexts that suggest someone's expressed beliefs about such matters are not backed with genuine concern or action.”
Being Infantry, I would think being “woke” would be an asset, especially in combat. I would hope you would be “aware” of your position and surroundings.
Now, as to your legitimate and vocabulary correct concerns . . . You seem to be a strongly biased gun toter who thinks the rest of the military MOS are insignificant and inconsequential, or as you said, “anything that is not specific to killing the enemy, or that can be applied to combat, is a waste of time”.
So, Mr. Expert on military “wokeness”, educate us. Don’t all those other MOS exist to support the Combat Arms (infantry, armor, artillery, etc)? You need the cooks (to feed you), mechanics, admin personnel (to keep your pay, leave squared away), supply (beans and bullets), truck drivers, pilots and aviation mechanics, computer geeks, engineers, electricians, doctors, nurses, medics, generator operators, lawyers . . . you know, all the same folks in the civilian world that keep society functioning. Those same folks are necessary to keep the military functioning, too.
Not everyone is a macho hero special forces wannabe racist misogynist like you appear to be. But that’s OK . . . We need everyone to fill the necessary jobs to keep the military functioning well. Why do you care who processes your paycheck as long as you get it on time? Why do you care who runs the warehouses or delivers your bullets or washes your uniforms or keeps the water running in your showers or keeps the parts coming to maintain your tanks and trucks? What difference does it make if any of those soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines are “different” in any physical way than you as long as they are capable of doing their job and do it at least as well as you do yours? The obvious answer is that those “woke” are among your myriad personal biases and dislikes, therefore deserving of your hate and rage and are unacceptable . . . and should not be allowed to serve their country in whatever capacity they are willing and capable.
Perhaps if your mother and father taught you how to treat everyone the way you want to be treated the military would not need to train you in such basic human get along with everyone skills and traits. You know, respect, empathy, compassion, teamwork. Those are not weaknesses. You are no better than anyone else and deserve no more respect and dignity than what you give to others. Your job and job related skill are not in question. Hopefully the military recognizes and positions and promotes you according to your merit and capabilities, not your gender, race, ethnicity, or religious or political beliefs.
Now then, if “recruitment efforts specific to transgendered persons...less than .003% of the US population” is true . . .then it’s gotta be a similar .003% of the military population, and therefore can’t be a significant amount of money taken away from training for war.
And as an infantryman, I’m sure your training for war makes you an expert on their mental health issues.
“The military changing PT standards, because select social groups politicians want in specific job roles but can't meet the standard.” I, myself, was a helicopter pilot in the Army, then a city cop in a large department for 25 years. I was the department RangeMaster and also trained in the academy. I was dismayed by the lowering of PT standards, but that was the only way to get enough “qualified” recruits (both male and female). But I will tell you, I found several women and blacks and other ethnic minorities and even a few homosexuals that I would rather have backing me up in a dangerous situation than many of the white misogynistic men that were hired. Attitude, ethics, courage, common sense, as well as training was more critical than their pronouns or gender or ethnicity or religion. We all bled “blue”. It really does not matter what a person “is” as long as they can do the job assigned.
Your comment on cyber training on domestic abuse . . . you are correct . . . a 10 minute exercise in mouse clicking isn't going to change anything. That abusive asshole should never have been recruited . . . those men truly have mental health issues inconsistent with any job in the military or civilian society. But if you exclude that demographic, you would lose a sizable segment of the misogynist white male population who are actually attracted to the military. The military knows this, hence the need for the domestic abuse training. BTW . . . I know this because of my 25 years as a white male cop . . . a disproportionate number of domestic violence abusers are white males, and frequently substance abusers as well. They are also misogynists (feel superior to women and treat them as less than equal) and have anger issues.
By the way . . . where do you get your information that the government is taking tens of millions of dollars away from training and equipment to change base names? And why should military bases be named honoring traitors to the United States of America?
Again . . . Thank You . . . for educating us on being “WOKE as fuck.”
“Morally weak or bankrupt?” Yep, you sure are.
“We” don’t want or need your forgiveness. And “we” are not ignorant . . . but it does appear that you are. Nor are “we” cowards or lazy by accepting these policies.
“Woke” is not a pejorative. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “woke”: “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”
As you vulgarly use the term: “often used in contexts that suggest someone's expressed beliefs about such matters are not backed with genuine concern or action.”
Being Infantry, I would think being “woke” would be an asset, especially in combat. I would hope you would be “aware” of your position and surroundings.
Now, as to your legitimate and vocabulary correct concerns . . . You seem to be a strongly biased gun toter who thinks the rest of the military MOS are insignificant and inconsequential, or as you said, “anything that is not specific to killing the enemy, or that can be applied to combat, is a waste of time”.
So, Mr. Expert on military “wokeness”, educate us. Don’t all those other MOS exist to support the Combat Arms (infantry, armor, artillery, etc)? You need the cooks (to feed you), mechanics, admin personnel (to keep your pay, leave squared away), supply (beans and bullets), truck drivers, pilots and aviation mechanics, computer geeks, engineers, electricians, doctors, nurses, medics, generator operators, lawyers . . . you know, all the same folks in the civilian world that keep society functioning. Those same folks are necessary to keep the military functioning, too.
Not everyone is a macho hero special forces wannabe racist misogynist like you appear to be. But that’s OK . . . We need everyone to fill the necessary jobs to keep the military functioning well. Why do you care who processes your paycheck as long as you get it on time? Why do you care who runs the warehouses or delivers your bullets or washes your uniforms or keeps the water running in your showers or keeps the parts coming to maintain your tanks and trucks? What difference does it make if any of those soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines are “different” in any physical way than you as long as they are capable of doing their job and do it at least as well as you do yours? The obvious answer is that those “woke” are among your myriad personal biases and dislikes, therefore deserving of your hate and rage and are unacceptable . . . and should not be allowed to serve their country in whatever capacity they are willing and capable.
Perhaps if your mother and father taught you how to treat everyone the way you want to be treated the military would not need to train you in such basic human get along with everyone skills and traits. You know, respect, empathy, compassion, teamwork. Those are not weaknesses. You are no better than anyone else and deserve no more respect and dignity than what you give to others. Your job and job related skill are not in question. Hopefully the military recognizes and positions and promotes you according to your merit and capabilities, not your gender, race, ethnicity, or religious or political beliefs.
Now then, if “recruitment efforts specific to transgendered persons...less than .003% of the US population” is true . . .then it’s gotta be a similar .003% of the military population, and therefore can’t be a significant amount of money taken away from training for war.
And as an infantryman, I’m sure your training for war makes you an expert on their mental health issues.
“The military changing PT standards, because select social groups politicians want in specific job roles but can't meet the standard.” I, myself, was a helicopter pilot in the Army, then a city cop in a large department for 25 years. I was the department RangeMaster and also trained in the academy. I was dismayed by the lowering of PT standards, but that was the only way to get enough “qualified” recruits (both male and female). But I will tell you, I found several women and blacks and other ethnic minorities and even a few homosexuals that I would rather have backing me up in a dangerous situation than many of the white misogynistic men that were hired. Attitude, ethics, courage, common sense, as well as training was more critical than their pronouns or gender or ethnicity or religion. We all bled “blue”. It really does not matter what a person “is” as long as they can do the job assigned.
Your comment on cyber training on domestic abuse . . . you are correct . . . a 10 minute exercise in mouse clicking isn't going to change anything. That abusive asshole should never have been recruited . . . those men truly have mental health issues inconsistent with any job in the military or civilian society. But if you exclude that demographic, you would lose a sizable segment of the misogynist white male population who are actually attracted to the military. The military knows this, hence the need for the domestic abuse training. BTW . . . I know this because of my 25 years as a white male cop . . . a disproportionate number of domestic violence abusers are white males, and frequently substance abusers as well. They are also misogynists (feel superior to women and treat them as less than equal) and have anger issues.
By the way . . . where do you get your information that the government is taking tens of millions of dollars away from training and equipment to change base names? And why should military bases be named honoring traitors to the United States of America?
Again . . . Thank You . . . for educating us on being “WOKE as fuck.”
(2)
(0)
20
20
0
Excellent post. Thank You for sharing this. I think one way would that the Navy never should've came with that High Year Tenure stuff. A lot of active duty Navy Sailors were involuntarily seperated. The same went for the Navy Reserves. I knew a lot of active duty Sailors who were involuntarily seperated. And one E-8 Senior Chied in the Navy Reserves who was involuntarily seperated. Ironically, He was planning to retire as well. The same goes with the active duty Army. They call it Retention Control Program or something by that name. Now, recruiters are having a hard time recruiting individuals.
(20)
(0)
CW4 Don Nicholas
Sort of like the "up or out" program that looks good on paper but overlooks that a good SFC might not be an effective 1st Sgt.
(0)
(0)
SFC Gene Garcia
RCP retention control points are placed for a reason, if you are not bettering yourself and getting promoted why does the military want to carry dead weight.
(1)
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
SFC Gene Garcia -
Normally Gene I'd Agree With You; But If You Look On My Shoulders You'll Only See 2 Lousy Stripes Because Uncle Sam Had Me Working In Various Fields Outside My AFSC.
Now Then That's Done To An E-3 Or Anyone Else For That Matter, How Could I Be Rated? I Wasn't Working In My Field, I Was Under A Different Command Whom Couldn't Rate Job Performance In My ASFSC, Because I Wasn't Working In It, I Was Working For Them, And My ASFC Was In A Different Field. When I Left The USAF I'd Almost Bet I Had The Most Time-In-Grade As An E-3 Than Anyone Else In The USAF ~ And I Didn't Even Get A "Participation Trophy" ~ LMAO~ And I LOVED Every Minute Of It! ~
Sorry Uncle Sam, NO REFUNDS On That Deal.
Normally Gene I'd Agree With You; But If You Look On My Shoulders You'll Only See 2 Lousy Stripes Because Uncle Sam Had Me Working In Various Fields Outside My AFSC.
Now Then That's Done To An E-3 Or Anyone Else For That Matter, How Could I Be Rated? I Wasn't Working In My Field, I Was Under A Different Command Whom Couldn't Rate Job Performance In My ASFSC, Because I Wasn't Working In It, I Was Working For Them, And My ASFC Was In A Different Field. When I Left The USAF I'd Almost Bet I Had The Most Time-In-Grade As An E-3 Than Anyone Else In The USAF ~ And I Didn't Even Get A "Participation Trophy" ~ LMAO~ And I LOVED Every Minute Of It! ~
Sorry Uncle Sam, NO REFUNDS On That Deal.
(1)
(0)
10
9
1
I was going to suggest the military should sell itself as a place where the constantly changing norms of society are replaced with the very real and urgent need to be prepared to defend our fellow Americans. Instead of reducing standards, hold true to what has been established for fitness, preparedness and fighting ability. That was my initial thought.
But after reading the remarks from what appear to be from current generation veterans, the inherent lack of tact and respect seems to indicate that it is too late for that.
I have known veterans from as far back as WWII until current. This current generation seems to be the most disgruntled of all in spite of being better taken care of than any.
I'm not saying there aren't those that have slipped through the cracks and were not given the treatment they needed. For those of you railing against the mistreatment, go visit a Vietnam Vet or too. They came back to nothing but hate and a broken VA health system.
Now, as far as recruiting today's generation: I am at a loss. If they are listening to the minority of vets that are well represented in the responses here, there is little hope. But again, I believe it really is the overwhelming small few that scream the loudest at being oppressed and mistreated.
I hope that most of our veteran community that served during the last 20 years still believe in the mission. Bad decisions were made at the political level, that cannot be denied. But what we did was right. It kept the battlefield from hitting our shores.
Maybe there is something in that idea:
"Protect America from becoming a place where individual choices are not allowed. Sacrifice your individuality for a few years to ensure it will be there when you get older."
I know I will receive several vulgar responses to this, so hey man, FU2.
But after reading the remarks from what appear to be from current generation veterans, the inherent lack of tact and respect seems to indicate that it is too late for that.
I have known veterans from as far back as WWII until current. This current generation seems to be the most disgruntled of all in spite of being better taken care of than any.
I'm not saying there aren't those that have slipped through the cracks and were not given the treatment they needed. For those of you railing against the mistreatment, go visit a Vietnam Vet or too. They came back to nothing but hate and a broken VA health system.
Now, as far as recruiting today's generation: I am at a loss. If they are listening to the minority of vets that are well represented in the responses here, there is little hope. But again, I believe it really is the overwhelming small few that scream the loudest at being oppressed and mistreated.
I hope that most of our veteran community that served during the last 20 years still believe in the mission. Bad decisions were made at the political level, that cannot be denied. But what we did was right. It kept the battlefield from hitting our shores.
Maybe there is something in that idea:
"Protect America from becoming a place where individual choices are not allowed. Sacrifice your individuality for a few years to ensure it will be there when you get older."
I know I will receive several vulgar responses to this, so hey man, FU2.
(10)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT Michelle Jones - Sorry to hear about your son. Although that doesn't paint the the whole picture of the military. Especially since we are only getting one side of the story. And I assure you we don't get "hazing, beat of daily".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SrA Michele Burgman - You already know you can read my reply and figure it out. But.... Instead of reading my last reply to (since obviously you knew I proved you wrong) you just come with they "oh I forgot about you bla bla". That is VERY weak.
(0)
(0)
SPC David C.
PO3 Justin Bowen - Correction...POS Bowen, YOU have done nothing since Jan 2021 to protect the US. I'm not sure when you served but I suspect you didn't do too much to protect the US then either.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Maybe fix the whole rapists-being-protected thing and people might have a slightly better opinion of the military.
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
Here I sat thinking, should I or should I not, then I read Bills (SGM) note and smiled.
Most people think about serving for multiple reasons, the main being the camaraderie and (yes) discipline they hear of because most people need structure in their lives and if they hear one thing on the street, in the news, or in movies, service e members as a whole are disciplined.
What they don’t respond to well is hearing how government is forcing the military to make changes that are not conducive to good order and discipline, and in the meantime supporting a soft approach to daily discipline and standards. While I am not on board with this same agenda, I know many of the people at senior levels in the military and can say that those I know are succumbing to pressure with their overt support of most of these changes.
Military forces while they come from a pool of all of us, gain aren’t looking for what our pool offers, or they would not have joined in the first place.
I am not going to pick woke apart, as sone things are just true of society and by law must be. When it is by law, that is when the military must evaluate, and determine how that law applies. They have never bad will never function when they are in front of laws to be part of a political party. The Commander and Chief is no longer a private citizen when performing in that capacity, he must apply changes only after they become law and the military (not following and agenda) evaluated and adopts after long standing revaluation and determination. Not because a political idea springs to the forefront of society.
What a shame to see the very fiber of that entity be shredded by politics. We need Generals and Admirals and CSM (Senior Enlisted Advisors) who do just that. Their job is to speak out and reject (in the appropriate setting) notions springing from political agendas.
Our nations young adults will not serve if they cannot feel as if the e leaders of their Teams don’t look out for them, provide them structure, development and the feeling of belonging.
For decades we have sent our Service members back into society a better citizen and employee. Can we say that now. When the military sucomes to an agenda what are we then returning to society to fill the ranks as Doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. if we accept mediocrity, allow political agendas to change society where are we, what have we accomplished. I want Service members who readily fight all enemies foreign and domestic, not who question every order before them and look to the private sector for clarification. The military cannot shift ideology like the wind and earn and maintain the type of honor to service and discipline required to win in battle, to not falter in the face of adversity and to support they fellow Service members and place their needs above their own.
I guess I did it again. A-political, the military needs to be the same. Service members need a purpose not CLIN flam from their leaders.
Most people think about serving for multiple reasons, the main being the camaraderie and (yes) discipline they hear of because most people need structure in their lives and if they hear one thing on the street, in the news, or in movies, service e members as a whole are disciplined.
What they don’t respond to well is hearing how government is forcing the military to make changes that are not conducive to good order and discipline, and in the meantime supporting a soft approach to daily discipline and standards. While I am not on board with this same agenda, I know many of the people at senior levels in the military and can say that those I know are succumbing to pressure with their overt support of most of these changes.
Military forces while they come from a pool of all of us, gain aren’t looking for what our pool offers, or they would not have joined in the first place.
I am not going to pick woke apart, as sone things are just true of society and by law must be. When it is by law, that is when the military must evaluate, and determine how that law applies. They have never bad will never function when they are in front of laws to be part of a political party. The Commander and Chief is no longer a private citizen when performing in that capacity, he must apply changes only after they become law and the military (not following and agenda) evaluated and adopts after long standing revaluation and determination. Not because a political idea springs to the forefront of society.
What a shame to see the very fiber of that entity be shredded by politics. We need Generals and Admirals and CSM (Senior Enlisted Advisors) who do just that. Their job is to speak out and reject (in the appropriate setting) notions springing from political agendas.
Our nations young adults will not serve if they cannot feel as if the e leaders of their Teams don’t look out for them, provide them structure, development and the feeling of belonging.
For decades we have sent our Service members back into society a better citizen and employee. Can we say that now. When the military sucomes to an agenda what are we then returning to society to fill the ranks as Doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. if we accept mediocrity, allow political agendas to change society where are we, what have we accomplished. I want Service members who readily fight all enemies foreign and domestic, not who question every order before them and look to the private sector for clarification. The military cannot shift ideology like the wind and earn and maintain the type of honor to service and discipline required to win in battle, to not falter in the face of adversity and to support they fellow Service members and place their needs above their own.
I guess I did it again. A-political, the military needs to be the same. Service members need a purpose not CLIN flam from their leaders.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
PO3 Justin Bowen - You can't* lump the ideology... (no longer able to edit comments?)
(0)
(0)
PO3 Justin Bowen
SSG (Join to see) yes, I can. I just did.
Your ideological ilk said it about Black people and the emotionally frail Southerners. Women. LGBTQ people.
Your ideological ilk have been proven wrong every single time. The people you and your ideological ilkare afraid of have not been proven unfit for service. Their presence has proven your ideological ilk unfit for service.
Your ideological ilk said it about Black people and the emotionally frail Southerners. Women. LGBTQ people.
Your ideological ilk have been proven wrong every single time. The people you and your ideological ilkare afraid of have not been proven unfit for service. Their presence has proven your ideological ilk unfit for service.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
"Just did"... Well than you'd be absolutely wrong for doing so. Talk to anyone in the medical field that speaks honestly. They'll let you know real quick how horrible this whole new trans thing will get in the future.
One ideology was unacceptable and looked back on as an unreasonable atrocity for any time in history. (←----- And this is coming from ME. See how wrong you were about me?) Feel free to check out my profile. If ANYTHING you said about me was true than I wouldn't have lasted that long in the military.
The other is a tiny group of people that are a detriment for women (and themselves actually) and trying to force their way into women's sports, steal women's scholarships, women's restrooms, and forcing people to play along with their fairy tale. ← Show me ONE instance this was happening with any group being marginalized in the era that you were referring to or another time in history where I wasn't born yet. GOOD LUCK!
One ideology was unacceptable and looked back on as an unreasonable atrocity for any time in history. (←----- And this is coming from ME. See how wrong you were about me?) Feel free to check out my profile. If ANYTHING you said about me was true than I wouldn't have lasted that long in the military.
The other is a tiny group of people that are a detriment for women (and themselves actually) and trying to force their way into women's sports, steal women's scholarships, women's restrooms, and forcing people to play along with their fairy tale. ← Show me ONE instance this was happening with any group being marginalized in the era that you were referring to or another time in history where I wasn't born yet. GOOD LUCK!
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
PO3 Justin Bowen - 2 months and no reply? Seems about right. Especially since I proved you wrong and definitely wrong about me personally.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
When you grow up and are taught the past actions of your country that you live in were horrible and were led by racists, and nothing good was done without nefarious motives,,, you just don't feel the desire to defend it.
The Service has seen such a protracted drop in volunteers that they are watering down the Threshold standards of fitness, drug charges not being an instant NO from Meps' to deny the person entrance, that gang affiliation is no longer considered as a no. There are just not any healthy, patriotic youth around that can make up the difference in the number deficits in Recruitment at even these new " standards".
The Service has seen such a protracted drop in volunteers that they are watering down the Threshold standards of fitness, drug charges not being an instant NO from Meps' to deny the person entrance, that gang affiliation is no longer considered as a no. There are just not any healthy, patriotic youth around that can make up the difference in the number deficits in Recruitment at even these new " standards".
(5)
(0)
Amn Dale Preisach
PO3 Justin Bowen we're in the midst of 2 generations that have and are being taught such things. As for college grads are already engrained with America being bad.
Yes , we had legal slavery. But a Civil War was generally fought in Part to end Slavery. I like the deftness of sarcasm you use. It had me thinking WTH . I re read it. Such blatant racist and trolling language.
Now, as for political parties. I'm an independent. There is a lot of horses asses in both Parties.
We get choices between tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.
But the madness goes merrily on.
I favor neither party. But with such prospective choices we are given turn out to be the same as the tweedles throughout all offices up for election. Duty Honor Country are nearly foreign terms to these generations on Part.
Most have a sense of Honor. But lack the desire for or to Duty / Country.
We are on track to be a secondary World Power.
As was The former Soviet Union at its collapse. The only thing that saved them were the massive number of Nuclear weapons. They became basically a paper Tiger. But even this paper tiger can do a great deal of damage..
Now... we support Ukraine . But if it is politically expedient, even that will change.
The Republicans gave up their support of the newly freed Slaves to get their nominee into the Presidency.
Leaving many to the kindness of their former owners.
I care not for one party or the other. You do know what Socialists used for light before candles??
Electricity.
Doubt me?? See how Cubans lived under Fidel.
I am a capitalist and a socialist.
The two are not antagonist of each-other, they compliment each-other. As Pythagorus found to be true.
Yes , we had legal slavery. But a Civil War was generally fought in Part to end Slavery. I like the deftness of sarcasm you use. It had me thinking WTH . I re read it. Such blatant racist and trolling language.
Now, as for political parties. I'm an independent. There is a lot of horses asses in both Parties.
We get choices between tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.
But the madness goes merrily on.
I favor neither party. But with such prospective choices we are given turn out to be the same as the tweedles throughout all offices up for election. Duty Honor Country are nearly foreign terms to these generations on Part.
Most have a sense of Honor. But lack the desire for or to Duty / Country.
We are on track to be a secondary World Power.
As was The former Soviet Union at its collapse. The only thing that saved them were the massive number of Nuclear weapons. They became basically a paper Tiger. But even this paper tiger can do a great deal of damage..
Now... we support Ukraine . But if it is politically expedient, even that will change.
The Republicans gave up their support of the newly freed Slaves to get their nominee into the Presidency.
Leaving many to the kindness of their former owners.
I care not for one party or the other. You do know what Socialists used for light before candles??
Electricity.
Doubt me?? See how Cubans lived under Fidel.
I am a capitalist and a socialist.
The two are not antagonist of each-other, they compliment each-other. As Pythagorus found to be true.
(1)
(0)
Amn Dale Preisach
PO3 Justin Bowen your response to the pppst i texted puts nearly every word i wrote truth.
I was taught History to include those topics you texted. As well as the fighting spirit of Americans to make Changes that benefit all parties concerned. You talk of racism and looking down onBlack and " beige people. There are those about in the world / the USA that are racist.
Hatred is as perennial as .the seasons. It's endemic to all racists. In case you did not know this, some of those from different nations, let alone races hate other citizens / races just because they're from a different nation/ race.
Racism ; It's not just done by White people.
You seem rather versed in the past sins that have been at least rectified. If not in the midst of rectifying the sin .
And you bring up the past as though it is still going on legally/ politically. Barrack Was POTUS for 8 years and did not do squat to make more amends.
The most powerful position in US politics and nothing was done.
I was taught History to include those topics you texted. As well as the fighting spirit of Americans to make Changes that benefit all parties concerned. You talk of racism and looking down onBlack and " beige people. There are those about in the world / the USA that are racist.
Hatred is as perennial as .the seasons. It's endemic to all racists. In case you did not know this, some of those from different nations, let alone races hate other citizens / races just because they're from a different nation/ race.
Racism ; It's not just done by White people.
You seem rather versed in the past sins that have been at least rectified. If not in the midst of rectifying the sin .
And you bring up the past as though it is still going on legally/ politically. Barrack Was POTUS for 8 years and did not do squat to make more amends.
The most powerful position in US politics and nothing was done.
(1)
(0)
SrA Michele Burgman
Amn Dale Preisach - President Obama couldn't get much done after the dems lost the house and senate. You act like racism and the effects of it just ended after 1865.
(1)
(0)
Amn Dale Preisach
SrA Michele Burgman this is what i'm talking about. Racism is as old as the ages. You instantly jump on my back and presume what i think.
And you, being at a higher Enlisted grade means if we were in service - you and i, i would be target #1 because you know what i think / belive just from one text.
Then i'd go through the rest of my hitch with you spreading to others what you" know " about me.
When i was in, nobody talked about politics except to make jokes. And everyone voted however they wanted to with no flak from anyone else. Now, if you don't believe in X then you're fair game for hazing/ increased extracurricular inspections, set ups to make sh!t harder for me.. all based on " that you know everything i believe and think and like." All from a post on a blog.
Congratulations, you just exemplified what i texted in my original post that you replied to.
No one wants to go into a force where, which party/ belief, news agency viewed, project how you get treated for the rest of your hitch.
Politics have no part in the Service.
We are / were to operate to the best of ability without bias because of a politician that we don't like is in charge.
Now, it's a political country club , and if you are not just another one of the " In Group" you get to go on fatigue duty for an indeterminate length.
You are just another reason any good persons that would've wanted to join aren't . Right away you went to politics and supposition.
I may be expecting a retort from you, but ijdgad
And you, being at a higher Enlisted grade means if we were in service - you and i, i would be target #1 because you know what i think / belive just from one text.
Then i'd go through the rest of my hitch with you spreading to others what you" know " about me.
When i was in, nobody talked about politics except to make jokes. And everyone voted however they wanted to with no flak from anyone else. Now, if you don't believe in X then you're fair game for hazing/ increased extracurricular inspections, set ups to make sh!t harder for me.. all based on " that you know everything i believe and think and like." All from a post on a blog.
Congratulations, you just exemplified what i texted in my original post that you replied to.
No one wants to go into a force where, which party/ belief, news agency viewed, project how you get treated for the rest of your hitch.
Politics have no part in the Service.
We are / were to operate to the best of ability without bias because of a politician that we don't like is in charge.
Now, it's a political country club , and if you are not just another one of the " In Group" you get to go on fatigue duty for an indeterminate length.
You are just another reason any good persons that would've wanted to join aren't . Right away you went to politics and supposition.
I may be expecting a retort from you, but ijdgad
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Improve retention. Instead of asking how can we get more people.. A better question is how can we keep the people we have. Most of recruitment is replacing losses.
SP5 (Join to see)
SSG Ryan D To improve retention/reduce skilled personnel losses the
Army must rethink the "up or out" policy. The old Specialist ladder was an approach to keep skills in place and reward their function. There are those individuals who are both happy and productive at their personal maximum levels, and who are beneficial to the units where they are assigned. As long as they can meet the physical requirements of their specialties, leaving them in place would seem to be a solution.
My dad - June 1928 to June 1956 - had pre WW2 stories of EM who stayed at PVT/PFC fir their full 20 years.
Army must rethink the "up or out" policy. The old Specialist ladder was an approach to keep skills in place and reward their function. There are those individuals who are both happy and productive at their personal maximum levels, and who are beneficial to the units where they are assigned. As long as they can meet the physical requirements of their specialties, leaving them in place would seem to be a solution.
My dad - June 1928 to June 1956 - had pre WW2 stories of EM who stayed at PVT/PFC fir their full 20 years.
(2)
(0)
PFC Edgar Mosier
SP5 (Join to see) - Brother, you said a mouthful: Some people can work wonders with equipment... Some can work wonders with people. Few are the ones that can do both well - They are called "Mister".
Nothing more interesting than a seasoned WO..., no matter the Grade.
Nothing more interesting than a seasoned WO..., no matter the Grade.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
SP5 (Join to see) - I was pushed into retirement because I did not pick up LTC while in the ICU taking care of COVID patients as an RN.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The way the government treats the troops is sometimes very bad. For example discharging all of those who would not comply with COVID shot mandates. My opinion.
(4)
(0)
SPC Thomas Lansing
Airman, I have to agree with you on your point! Although if you stop and think about it, who knew what all those shots were for in Reception Station! It seemed like, every time we turned around, we were getting stuck for something. And if it wasn't stuck with A needle, it was being shot with one of those pneumatic Hypodermic things, that could rip through skin tissue like it was nobody's business! Then when I was in AIT at Fort Sam, we actually learned about how too administer vaccinations and other shots, but we used Normal Saline and it was injecting the Normal Saline into each other! The good part of that was we all knew our kidneys were in good operating order.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
PFC Edgar Mosier
Think about Judas... Can more money buy Loyalty?
Just like Jesus educated and Blessed Judas... A person can still fail.
Just like Jesus educated and Blessed Judas... A person can still fail.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Justin Bowen
PFC Edgar Mosier - And in the real world where we have contracts, the terms of which are governed and enforced by real-world laws and regulations, there are consequences if a person fails to abide by the terms of the contract that governs their enlistment or acceptance into OCS (and subsequently the duration of their time as a commissioned officer).
Back here in the real world, people are increasingly less likely to want to work for peanuts. Younger people have more options these days. If the military wants to convince the best and the brightest not to take jobs that offer better pay, better quality of life, more safety, a lower likelihood that they'll have to do something that violates their personal sense of morality, and a brighter future that is less likely to involve suicide, then it needs to overcome one or more than one of those factors.
The military can't offer better quality of life than a large percentage of civilian jobs. The military definitely can't offer a safer work environment. The military definitely can't offer a lower likelihood that potential employees will have to do something that violates their personal sense of morality. The military definitely can't offer a brighter future that is less likely to involve suicide.
It CAN offer more money. And it needs to offer A LOT more of it. And whether it buys loyalty or not, it absolutely CAN be recouped (or the military can at least attempt to recoup the monies (you can't get milk from a dead cow)).
Back here in the real world, people are increasingly less likely to want to work for peanuts. Younger people have more options these days. If the military wants to convince the best and the brightest not to take jobs that offer better pay, better quality of life, more safety, a lower likelihood that they'll have to do something that violates their personal sense of morality, and a brighter future that is less likely to involve suicide, then it needs to overcome one or more than one of those factors.
The military can't offer better quality of life than a large percentage of civilian jobs. The military definitely can't offer a safer work environment. The military definitely can't offer a lower likelihood that potential employees will have to do something that violates their personal sense of morality. The military definitely can't offer a brighter future that is less likely to involve suicide.
It CAN offer more money. And it needs to offer A LOT more of it. And whether it buys loyalty or not, it absolutely CAN be recouped (or the military can at least attempt to recoup the monies (you can't get milk from a dead cow)).
(1)
(0)
1LT Brandon Brackett
PFC Edgar Mosier - the Sanhedrin paid Judas, so they had his loyalty. Being with Jesus costs everything. You have it backwards
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google