Military recruiting crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How has this thread gone on for three pages without someone bringing up the historically low unemployment rate?

When the unemployment rate is low, it’s more difficult to recruit. It’s always been this way.

It was alluded to at 13:32

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, there have been many women concerned with the inability to get abortion services. This will have a big impact on woman and whether they will want to serve.

I thought the new DOD policy allows women up to 3 weeks of leave and reimburses them for travel expenses relating to abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Vast majority with warrior skills are masculine. Masculinity is highly correlated with conservative values. Military becoming hostile to conservative values. Warriors don’t see the military as prestigious anymore.

This is ridiculous. My husband is retired military. He told his son he could not join. The military is NOT hostile to conservative values, however, conservatives are hostile to providing that actual services that veterans need when they return home.

I look at how veterans are treated. No way I would have my kid join.

As a military wife, many things have changed. Military personnel used to have great retirement benefits - they no longer have those. If you go onto a base, it used to offer things that weren't offered off base, cheap products, recreational activities, those have scaled down considerably. The military has not made it attractive to join. They just keep cutting benefits while in, and then treating veterans like s*it when they get home.

They are still very good. spouse of military retiree

I don't know what you expect--you still get great retirement benefits and you are able to retire at a relatively young age.

Granted--VA leaves a lot to be desired. And, the PX has not had good deals for many, many years. But, it is tax free.

But, the push for training in things that have nothing to do with the mission is ridiculous. Diversity is important--but when drag queen shows are on post--that is over the top. Thankfully, they are reported to be cancelled.
No one ever thought of Fort Bragg as being named for a Confederate general until a few short years ago--they thought of it as "Airborne." But now, millions and millions of dollars are being spent to rename it--funds that could be better used helping soldiers pay for food -instead of giving them foodstamps.

Our military posts and bases being renamed - something that should've been done a long time ago (what country names their military posts after traitors and defeated enemy generals?) - is not why the military can't recruit. A big problem is that 77 percent of Americans between the ages of 17 and 21 are not eligible to serve in the military.

The top three reasons for ineligibility are failure to pass entrance exams, health concerns and prior criminal activity, including drug abuse. One of the main health concerns is childhood obesity, which Besal said counts for 30 percent of those who are ineligible.

https://news.usni.org/2022/12/01/tough-military-recruiting-environment-is-about-much-more-than-low-unemployment-experts-say

Back in the day they would enlist people who were overweight and the recruit would work off the weight in bootcamp. Do they not do that anymore?

Why would someone volunteer to go through bootcamp if they didn’t have to?

You have to go through boot camp if you want to be in the military.

Riiiiight. That’s my point. People don’t want to do that

“If you want to”. That’s what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the academies as competitive to get into as ever?

From what I have heard, applications are down.

Woah

Didn’t expect this

I just figured it was an enlisted issue but academics and rotc demand was still as high as ever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a related note, what do those of you with a military background think about the exemption for military academies in the recent Supreme Court affirmative action decision? A cynical person might say that the exception gives the impression that the SC thinks affirmative action is okay as a recruitment tool for the military but not okay as a way to remove barriers to accessing a quality college education. Thoughts?

A diverse military is a national security issue. Proper racial quotas at Harvard or whatever liberal arts college is not.

That’s dumb considering Harvard’s influence in staffing natsec roles of massive influence (nsc, White House, state, cia, etc)

If the natsec reason is why westpoint got a carve out then t20s should get a carve out as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Vast majority with warrior skills are masculine. Masculinity is highly correlated with conservative values. Military becoming hostile to conservative values. Warriors don’t see the military as prestigious anymore.

Since when is allowing women to fight and acknowledging that people of color exist hostile to conservative values? Unless you mean modern conservatism = snowflakes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Vast majority with warrior skills are masculine. Masculinity is highly correlated with conservative values. Military becoming hostile to conservative values. Warriors don’t see the military as prestigious anymore.

This is ridiculous. My husband is retired military. He told his son he could not join. The military is NOT hostile to conservative values, however, conservatives are hostile to providing that actual services that veterans need when they return home.

I look at how veterans are treated. No way I would have my kid join.

As a military wife, many things have changed. Military personnel used to have great retirement benefits - they no longer have those. If you go onto a base, it used to offer things that weren't offered off base, cheap products, recreational activities, those have scaled down considerably. The military has not made it attractive to join. They just keep cutting benefits while in, and then treating veterans like s*it when they get home.

Which is rather amazing given how the Congress continues to increase funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Vast majority with warrior skills are masculine. Masculinity is highly correlated with conservative values. Military becoming hostile to conservative values. Warriors don’t see the military as prestigious anymore.

Since when is allowing women to fight and acknowledging that people of color exist hostile to conservative values? Unless you mean modern conservatism = snowflakes?

Why do you think that "allowing women to fight" and "acknowledging people of color exist" were what pp was referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dont-want-their-children-to-join-510e1a25?mod=djemalertNEWS

They leave out a main factor. Trump has made the rank and file conservatives (who were formerly pro military) anti war and anti woke. Liberals who are pro war now do not join the military and never have. Here we are with proxy WW3 in Europe and China on the move with our military shrinking.

Whatever could it be? 20 years of useless war? And does anyone remember stop loss?

I challenge anyone to go on any military reddit forum and read the stories and ask if you'd join or would encourage your child to do so. And let's not even get started on the fact that children of families with means don't join.

And maybe we do need to consider whether we need such a large military. I feel like the concern about falling behind in the global power competition against China and Russia is an excuse for not conducting critical analysis of what we do and don't need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
On a related note, what do those of you with a military background think about the exemption for military academies in the recent Supreme Court affirmative action decision? A cynical person might say that the exception gives the impression that the SC thinks affirmative action is okay as a recruitment tool for the military but not okay as a way to remove barriers to accessing a quality college education. Thoughts?



A diverse military is a national security issue. Proper racial quotas at Harvard or whatever liberal arts college is not.

Education overall is a national security issue. At all levels and at all schools. Nothing is more vital to a functioning democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, there have been many women concerned with the inability to get abortion services. This will have a big impact on woman and whether they will want to serve.


I thought the new DOD policy allows women up to 3 weeks of leave and reimburses them for travel expenses relating to abortion?

https://www.tuberville.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/icymi-grassroots-army-supports-tubervilles-efforts-to-overturn-new-dod-abortion-policy/

Right now this senator is holding up promotions in the military because of this DOD policy. Do you think women want to take the chance that he gets his way on abortions?

[Anonymous]

It’s the religious exemption. White right wing Christians will not fight Russia, get vaccinated, serve with blacks/Hispanics/Jews/democrats/etc, on religion grounds. This is all protected by SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the religious exemption. White right wing Christians will not fight Russia, get vaccinated, serve with blacks/Hispanics/Jews/democrats/etc, on religion grounds. This is all protected by SCOTUS.

Have you ever met anyone in the military?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DC warmonger planners never let their kids in combat. Worst people on earth.

Who now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a related note, what do those of you with a military background think about the exemption for military academies in the recent Supreme Court affirmative action decision? A cynical person might say that the exception gives the impression that the SC thinks affirmative action is okay as a recruitment tool for the military but not okay as a way to remove barriers to accessing a quality college education. Thoughts?

A diverse military is a national security issue. Proper racial quotas at Harvard or whatever liberal arts college is not.

That’s dumb considering Harvard’s influence in staffing natsec roles of massive influence (nsc, White House, state, cia, etc)

If the natsec reason is why westpoint got a carve out then t20s should get a carve out as well

When the military needs people from certain racial or cultural backgrounds then they can recruit them without issue from whatever university. Harvard's affirmative action isn't needed.