Question about health and military readiness

[Anonymous]

Today’s Republicans seem to be adamantly against things like free school lunches and universal health care. I had thought that many of these types of measures were originally put into place decades ago by Republicans— concerned that large percentages of the population were physically unfit, and if a military draft were instituted, the US would be hampered in their objectives due to the lack of available, fit potential draftees.

So, are my assumptions wrong? If not, then what’s changed? Does military effectiveness no longer require the same levels of physical fitness? Is the distaste for anything resembling social supports or income distribution so high that the Republicans would prefer having a physically unfit population that is possibly also unfit in other ways when it comes to military service? I’ve read (Military.com) that 77% of today’s young people would be considered unfit to serve for various reasons. Are the Republicans concerned about this at all? What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Military unreadiness is the desired goal.

Otherwise why appoint Hegseth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Military unreadiness is the desired goal.

Otherwise why appoint Hegseth?

Honestly — if I had to imagine, it would involve something like giving all of the wealthy white kids student deferments, while drafting the rest to use as cannon fodder. This stands out because one group likely to be physically fit — with access to better food and opportunities for exercise— would be the wealthy kids.

[Anonymous]

My son's APUSH teacher did a poll on what the students would do if a draft happened and only 2 people in his class of 28 said they'd enlist. Others said they would either claim to be trans or draft dodge. I love it.

[Anonymous]

Let me try to put this delicately: the youth today don’t appear to suffer from a lack of food. They aren't turning away recruits for being malnourished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son's APUSH teacher did a poll on what the students would do if a draft happened and only 2 people in his class of 28 said they'd enlist. Others said they would either claim to be trans or draft dodge. I love it.

Why do you love that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Military unreadiness is the desired goal.

Otherwise why appoint Hegseth?

This.

Military readiness is why the US had a lot of these programs for children and mothers in the first place.

Apparently the Republican party isn't interested in military readiness anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Military unreadiness is the desired goal.

Otherwise why appoint Hegseth?

Yes, but it long predates Hegseth. The majority of the young aren't even American, they won't be easily conscripted as they have one foot in another country from birth. Add in obesity, mental health, and substance abuse and you don't really have the makings of a good army.

The American plan is therefore to depend on smaller but more elite units, except the last administration really turned off the "patriotic" sort, which is why they let Trump in to get those numbers up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me try to put this delicately: the youth today don’t appear to suffer from a lack of food. They aren't turning away recruits for being malnourished.

I don’t think you understand what “malnourished “ means. Poverty is one of the factors correlated with obesity in the US — and it’s more about the lack of high quality food — the about the lack of “food”. So, yes, they are turning recruits away for being “malnourished” — understanding this in terms of healthy nutrition rather than sheer number of calories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today’s Republicans seem to be adamantly against things like free school lunches and universal health care. I had thought that many of these types of measures were originally put into place decades ago by Republicans— concerned that large percentages of the population were physically unfit, and if a military draft were instituted, the US would be hampered in their objectives due to the lack of available, fit potential draftees.

So, are my assumptions wrong? If not, then what’s changed? Does military effectiveness no longer require the same levels of physical fitness? Is the distaste for anything resembling social supports or income distribution so high that the Republicans would prefer having a physically unfit population that is possibly also unfit in other ways when it comes to military service? I’ve read (Military.com) that 77% of today’s young people would be considered unfit to serve for various reasons. Are the Republicans concerned about this at all? What am I missing?

This post makes no sense.
The draft is for 18 and older; and you have to be out of high school so free lunches are not an issue.
More people do not qualify as a lot more pre-existing conditions eliminate large parts of population from serving….drug use (consistent), asthma, autism, epilepsy, etc.

All much more prevalent and diagnosed these days than during Vietnam when we last had a draft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s Republicans seem to be adamantly against things like free school lunches and universal health care. I had thought that many of these types of measures were originally put into place decades ago by Republicans— concerned that large percentages of the population were physically unfit, and if a military draft were instituted, the US would be hampered in their objectives due to the lack of available, fit potential draftees.

So, are my assumptions wrong? If not, then what’s changed? Does military effectiveness no longer require the same levels of physical fitness? Is the distaste for anything resembling social supports or income distribution so high that the Republicans would prefer having a physically unfit population that is possibly also unfit in other ways when it comes to military service? I’ve read (Military.com) that 77% of today’s young people would be considered unfit to serve for various reasons. Are the Republicans concerned about this at all? What am I missing?

This post makes no sense.
The draft is for 18 and older; and you have to be out of high school so free lunches are not an issue.
More people do not qualify as a lot more pre-existing conditions eliminate large parts of population from serving….drug use (consistent), asthma, autism, epilepsy, etc.

All much more prevalent and diagnosed these days than during Vietnam when we last had a draft.

You don’t understand a connection between better nutrition between ages 4-18 and better physical fitness for those same people at ages 18+?
I’d even go back to birth — looking at the impact of WIC as possibly being correlated with physical fitness later in life.

I’m happy to look at the other pre-existing conditions, as well as visual impairment and other factors. I’m also happy to look at factors that may impact drug abuse. I’m guessing— but will check — that obesity and failure to pass fitness tests account for the largest groups of ineligible potential recruits.

[Anonymous]

Being fat is a little over 10% for military rejections.

Most are medical, being arrested or drug use.

Not being able to do a push up is not a driving factor to being ineligible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being fat is a little over 10% for military rejections.

Most are medical, being arrested or drug use.

Not being able to do a push up is not a driving factor to being ineligible.

https://www.americansecurityproject.org/briefing-note-the-military-recruiting-crisis-obesitys-impact-on-the-shortfall/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being fat is a little over 10% for military rejections.

Most are medical, being arrested or drug use.

Not being able to do a push up is not a driving factor to being ineligible.

Thank you for this information. I had the impression that obesity was a much bigger factor than it actually is. Along with things like not being able to do a pull up.

[Anonymous]

Trump is cutting TBI research at DoD. Shameful administration!