"Only 1% of Americans serving in military is ‘problematic’" Topic

The New York Democratic representative Pat Ryan said that having only 1% of Americans serving in the US military is "deeply problematic as a democracy"…

The Guardian: link

Ah yeah ! This clearly is nowhere near the Greatest Generation. As we see, with woke, CRT, DEI, Trans, etc. that has been supported by US leaders and introduced into the military. What could possibly go wrong ?

The shortage of troops for many units only makes those units weaker. No matter how many drones, AI, etc. are supporting the units, they can't replace all the people. At least not yet ….

The military has detailed data on why the target population is not signing up. Woke barely registers as a reason as I recall. There is something more ingrained and systemic going on with this group. They are afraid to serve. They will miss family and friends. The values are off. How much history do they know? Do they get how lucky they are? I don't know for sure, but wonder.

The media gives them negative spins about their country 24/7. I think you are not going to sign up if you watch cable news because it sounds like the wheels fell off already. A stream of negatives from a candidate- "America is a failing nation". No faith or trust in the fake negatives. No call to duty. Exhausted by the overexposure of alternate facts. No inspiration from leadership in public service.

Afghanistan….after the disaster there, nobody ran off to join, I bet. Scared off more likely.

We took out a lot of Houthi rockets, defended allies,…but did we win? Do we ever win? I think they might ask these questions.

"Gettysburg..Wow…" we need young people to know our story and be inspired. Woke does not help, IMO, but blatant ignorance is useless. Watch that candidate's speech. Does it tell you anything about courage and commitment?
Would you go "up the hill" for him? Does he sound like he knows what he is talking about?
This stuff is killing us, IMO.

escapee many things you say are true.

"The military has detailed data on why the target population is not signing up. Woke barely registers as a reason as I recall. "

Of course not! They cannot admit that with the current administration in charge. 🙂 But I know a few currently serving in a specific military branch and woke leadership and DEI priorities are some of their main complaints. It detracts from their readiness and their beliefs on merit based promotion.

Anyway, just throwing out the other side IMO.

Of course mandatory service is a possibility. They are talking about it in many parts of Europe. After watching all the protesters and riots in the last 8 years, especially around our colleges, a little discipline and fear might actually be a good thing. 😉

Escapee – I agree with most of your post. I do think without some sort of history and patriotism injected into the school at all levels certain has it affect. We see what some HS teachers are telling their students.

As well as we see our some of[supposed?] top universities have become cesspools of woke progressive socialist, etc. dogmas, etc. being taught. With many drinking the cool aid in big gulps. Resulting in the pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic, etc. riots. On campus or in the streets. And once again, the leaders of many of these institutions show little real leadership.

Reflecting their intellectual academic credentials. That may work in some of the classrooms, but not in the real world. And note many of the elected and appointed officials of our gov't suffer from the same or similar beliefs. They should not be anywhere in any position in high gov't. But in the classroom or mopping floors …

E.g. the A'stan debacle, the continued soft ball treatment of Iran and other terrorists, not listening to intel on the Russia build up on Ukraine's border, etc., etc., etc. 'nuff said …

35th +1

When the leader of the non/anti woke and all his family didn't serve ever I think that it speaks volumes. Then you are talking about "woke" not registering?

Note many of our leaders, even in the highest offices or their family members are not Vets/have not served …

I am not happy with the choices, period. Leaders have some sort of aura, at every level, I think, that makes you want to jump through hoops for them. They earn their followers trust. They have been where they must send others, or they have acquired the essential elements through close contact sometimes.

BS does not cut it. We are being conned all the time. Kids are not stupid, they have figured out these candidates. They are not going to follow these guys in great numbers. At least not based on my current experience as a college coach.

I think compulsory service should be considered.

With this current generation and even their mommy & dada, a draft would be a bigger problem than during Vietnam.

Plus, about 70% of the draft age males can't qualify to be in the military. For a number of various reasons. Lowering standards IMO is not an option.

And it has already been vetoed by Congress, females can't be drafted. Which makes sense to me … However, IIRC, Obama opened up combat arms to females. To make them all equal to the males. For promotions, higher level positions, e.g. JCS, etc., etc. Like affirmative actions for the military. Or an early version of DEI ….

From what I understand, females are in Infantry and Armor units, etc., even made it thru Ranger School …

Maybe I'm just too old school …

The 1% existed among the prior two administrations as well. Politics means little when your eligible demographic is only 1 in 4 to begin with. Criminal records, inability to pass the ASVAB, and primarily too fat means you are starting out reduced to 25% of the pool to begin with. Add in the significant economic and quality of life (horrid on base housing, family PCS etc.) issues and an economy where there are still high demands for labor and the shortfall is unsurprising.

My two sons served/are serving but they are fairly scornful of the quality of the enlisted overall. The solution is pretty simple and little related to politics. Make the military attractive to the people you want with rational leadership ( both my and my sons experienced good and horrid leadership), quality living ( no black mold barracks) and compensation a family can live on.

1% is quite a lot these days. In Britain we struggle to get 0.2% of the population in the military.

I think you lot are looking at this from the wrong angle. Young people across the western world are largely not interested in joining the military. You have to put up with discomfort, danger, discipline, and the pay ain't great. Why put up with that when you can sit on your arse all day in an air-conditioned office?

Nothing to do with woke, leadership, or patriotism…

McKinstry +1

The military has detailed data on why the target population is not signing up. Woke barely registers as a reason as I recall.

No. I know multiple patriotic youngsters who have decided not to serve, whose families have a history of service. I know one brilliant young man who was deeply discouraged to hear that USAF no longer credits or weights an applicant who, by 18 has worked to obtain a pilot's license, and that the USAF is weighting non-white applicants on top of that. Screw that, he's going Commercial. Others are told by Veterans in their family to delay service or not serve given not only Woke issues, but deeply practical issues like a sh!t VA and VA hospital system, sh!t housing and pay, and being stretched too thin on deployments.

Woke hurts, as does a Military that doesn't care for its Enlisted and Veterans, not to mention seeing Senior Officers more interested in chasing their next Star than they are winning wars and are never held accountable for their failures.

"Kids are not stupid, they have figured out these candidates."

If those we are seeing at the pro-Hamas "protests" are representative, then "stupid", falls far short of an accurate description. 😉

If out of shape is a problem, you increase boot camp and have so many weeks of fat camp to whip them into shape. Bring back the old requirements and discipline. Of course that is if we Reinstitute a draft. Doesn't work with a volunteer military.

SB I am sure you know some who are affected, but the data says they are few.

35th. this spring I was on 3 different campuses, including Duke for commencement. The protest was small and respectful. Seinfeld was held up for maybe 5 minutes, and the group seemed pretty tiny. I think there was a media play here for more ratings. I saw plenty other schools on tv though. I still do not know what percentage of students were not involved, but my guess is most of them.

Cedric is right…and the data shows it. We have often pushed for better treatment for the military here. Mckinstry has first hand knowledge. Maybe there is no single answer. Drafted or volunteer, there is no excuse for bad living conditions. And maybe the service is a place to shape some marginal people up., although many may be hopeless.

Legion, why no women? I have met some seriously tough college athletes in recent years. But they are exceptional. It seems like we need everyone who can play a role.

As I understand it the Air Force has very few black pilots, maybe 2%. There are probably less than 100 fighter pilots out of the total number of black pilots, which is maybe 350. I do not know the story here. But it helps recruitment to have role models, I would think. We have discussed this before. I don't remember all the details.

How to make it a career choice with record low unemployment and jobs still going begging, many of them well paying?

We need to treat people right to get them in and stay in, drafted or not.

But it helps recruitment to have role models, I would think.

Yes, but it doesn't help to nullify the military's general history of meritocracy and announce an explicit racial goal at the expense of others.

No it certainly does not! Just recruit/ promote the best people. This has not always been the case, apparently, but your young friend's credentials have nothing to do with this issue.

I left active duty more than two decades ago, but at the time I knew two men who were working in G-1 related activities, and they both told me in no uncertain terms that they had falsified or omitted key readiness data that might create the perception of what we then called a "political correctness" problem for their commanders. Both of them also stated that it was a common practice. That was secondhand knowledge, but since I had worked for both of them, I am pretty confident they were telling me the truth.

I would not be greatly surprised if data are still being distorted or suppressed. Heck, the clear inability to forecast the rapidity of the collapse of Afghanistan suggest that we have a giant undiagnosed problem: we are probably making a lot of decisions on the basis of falsified or distorted data.

Served from 1974 to 2003. 9 pound round don't be surprised because that is what's happening.

I'm not. That's why so much of the debate is, to crib from Shakespeare's simile, "full of sound and fury."

In that vein, Donald Trump's cheapest real estate deal may be the rent-free space he has in so many heads- but I doubt he'd claim it, because it's mostly distressed property.

Legion, why no women? I have met some seriously tough college athletes in recent years. But they are exceptional. It seems like we need everyone who can play a role.

Well as I said, Obama opened combat arms to females in the US Military. And again some are in combat arms units as well as graduated from Ranger school.

If you mean why not draft women. Well Congress has spoken. No women will be drafted if there ever is a draft again. I can't imagine some members of Congress allowing their Yale Grad debutant daughters getting drafted and sent to some of the 3d World holes the US Military goes.

But they can volunteer like the men do now without a draft. I was assigned to a CBT SPT BN at the Bde Cdr's "request". He believed he needed a few Grunts in the mix with all those Support branches. And yes, there were many females in the C/S BN. I even had a female driver/clerk typist in my section. She did pretty much everything everyone else did. As did all the females in Bn. Many of the C/S Bn truck drivers were female, as all were the medics, etc., etc. So yes, everyone has a role to play.

I also saw some manipulated data appear on reports to legislators at times regarding investigation field work.. These were generated by mid to upper level people who found ways to reclassify numbers. But it's anecdotal. Afghanistan was a top down @#$& up in my mind, not corrupted data, maybe both. . But no one can say for sure.

It would be unlikely in an organization the size of a large city like the Army for data to be perfect. But in the case of low recruiting, there is a lot of new info in the last three years. Including what target recruiting groups said about why they would not enlist. Woke is one of the less cited reasons. Physical danger and leaving friends and family are the most. This seems like it might be the case.but again, and especially since we no longer trust our institutions, there is no way for us to confirm the veracity. Google the recruiting crisis and the last three years have produced a lot of articles. Not necessarily answers.

more than two decades ago, but at the time I knew two men who were working in G-1 related activities, and they both told me in no uncertain terms that they had falsified or omitted key readiness data that might create the perception of what we then called a "political correctness" problem for their commanders.

saw some manipulated data appear on reports to legislators at times regarding investigation field work..

Yep nothing new, during Vietnam IIRC it was called the "5 O'clock Follies" … Of course, one could always say it was classified for national security …

Yes, records sealed, not to be discussed. I had several cases close abruptly based on political influence. Unlike on tv, there was not much I could do.

When I get asked about joining the army I advise people to join the RAN or RAAF if they really want to serve. I'll be blunt- the politicians and civvies don't deserve the sacrifices made to serve in an arms corps role. The injuries and possibility of being killed, the long hours, the low pay (with deductions to pay for your rat's and accommodation), p**s-poor support from DVA, spineless and totally politicised service chiefs- and civvies that despise you for not having a "real job" and laugh at concepts like "honour", "loyalty" and "honesty".

So why should they serve? They can't even get a pension when they retire, since they killed off DFRDB in 1991, but have to wait until civvie retirement age. Much of the above applies to the emergency services as well- police, ambulance, firies, etc. From what I read on TMP, the US is in the same place as far as serving the country goes.

From what I read on TMP, the US is in the same place as far as serving the country goes.

At this point, yes sadly …

The peacetime army has traditionally been small, with few exceptions since the Revolution. We have relied on the Citizen-Soldier, where citizens join up or are drafted during wartime and then return to civilian life afterward.

Throughout American history, there has been a deep-rooted fear of a large standing army. However, I believe that the responsibility of defending the country has been disproportionately placed on a narrow socio-economic group.

This is unhealthy for the nation as a whole. We need people from all walks of life to share the burden of defense, encompassing diverse economic and political persuasions. Perhaps we need to bring back the peace time draft.

I believe the whole woke thing has been exaggerated, overblown and is a red herring.

The current leadership of the military has a solid track record of screwing up with no accountability. They mismanaged the withdrawl from Afghanistan, abandoned people duuring the withdraw and left an impressive weapons cache to the Taliban. Then they kicked out members over the vaccine then tried to get them back without apology. Witheld information regarding China spying on the US until their balloons were photographed by the public and then they had to acknowledge their presence and forced to take action. There is no ownership for the various bad decisionsand people have lost their trust.

All true but this mostly worries us old guys to the point where we repeat it all the time on TMP. Not millenials, I believe. The trust issue is with elderly candidates for office.
The most common reason for not joining the military today are fear of physical harm or death, or PTSD per the late 2022 Army survey of target recruiting populations. A large percentage think that joining the Army means combat. The second, as I recall is missing family and friends. The third, I think, was Army lifestyle. These kids have different priorities. They grew up with Afghanistan, terrorists, school shootings.

Bad decisions go all the way back to Reagan and Beirut. They happen too often, regardless of politics. The kids in general have no idea about these things that concern us. They live in a great country, great lives. Not sure they get how it got this way and stays this way. Some do. But we need to make the Army a meaningful career choice,teach the history, the heritage, and the values that are the foundations early in schools, provide decent pay, benefits, medical care, housing,if we want to attract at least some of the best of this new generation. IMO.

So why should they serve? They can't even get a pension when they retire, since they killed off DFRDB in 1991, but have to wait until civvie retirement age. Much of the above applies to the emergency services as well- police, ambulance, firies, etc. From what I read on TMP, the US is in the same place as far as serving the country goes

Dal , I was a young crafty at 2 CAV when they were pressuring people to switch over to MSBS … best decision I never made and then after 27 years of service, i was glad to pick up my fortnightly pension

Crafty? Well met, brother. I became a boffin after I had to leave grunts and had a couple of det's to the eagle freezers.

I know what you mean about MSBS, mate, and it was another condition of service we lost. I was TST 8/12 at the time and they pushed too hard, which made us wonder why- and got our backs up. At 15 years in there was no way I was going to switch. Most of the blokes in the regiment with 10 or more told them to stick MSBS (and the 15 year bonus), which didn't go down well with our head shed. But I'll bet the CO and BC's didn't bloody transfer, either, for all the pressure they used trying to get us to transfer.

Dal – we love Aussies, but what the @#$& does some of this mean?

"Crafty? Well met, brother. I became a boffin after I had to leave grunts and had a couple of det's to the eagle freezers"

tried to understand this and had some ideas. I am American born and raised, but also live part time in Scotland. A boffin would be some nerdy science guy? But dets to the eagle freezers?

Now here is a group that should March right down to the Enlistment office. Because they are just going to a burden on we taxpayers sooner than later. Also we will be paying off their student loans soon as well.

Subject: Citizen Free Press on X: "NYU graduates proudly tell you about their Majors. Keep in mind, they paid roughly $300,000 USD for their degrees. This is not satire, just real life in America. t.co/UTzhRVIXwh t.co/QUgRu14jX9 / X

😊 Enjoy
link

Shark 630 +1

G'day, Tort/Escy. It's just jargon, mate:

Crafty- short for "Craftsman", the "private soldier" in the Royal Corps of Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RAEME).

Boffin- An electronics technician (fomerly radio or radar mechanic, instruments and optics maintenance, or calibration technician) in RAEME.

Det's- short for "detachments"- where you're temporarily detached from your unit to another (for any number of reasons).

Eagle freezers- a term designed to greatly annoy members of the Australian Army's 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CAV). I don't know whether it's still used.

2CAV's mascot is a wedge-tailed eagle, called "Trooper Courage". Not, I'm not joking ( link ).

When their first mascot died (late 80's) the blokes on guard duty found it in the bottom of the cage. Unsure of what to do, someone (versions vary between guard commander, the orderly sergeant or the duty officer) decided to put it in the officers mess freezer, to preserve the corpse. The surprise presence of a dead eagle in their freezer apparently caused a small amount of concern to the cooks working in the officers' mess kitchen- and the fate of 2CAV's mascot was rapidly known to the rest of 1 Brigade.

And 2 CAV got a new nickname.

PS "Grunts" in Oz jargon is the Royal Australian Infantry Corps.

Us Yanks use the term "Grunt" for our Infantry too ! 😎

Usually with affection 😉

Thanks Dal! Grunts, I knew… affection…and great respect for doing the hard work.

It was the eagle freezers that was the most, er…unclear. Thanks for the history lesson on that, and the connection going back to North Africa, a period I game.

Those eagles live for 20 years, it seems! But no Courage III? I hope that's not more cost-cutting!

9 lbs … +1

I thought an Eagle freezer would be the opposite of a budgie snuggler …

Somebody has to escort the forward observer from hilltop to hilltop……

Those eagles live for 20 years, it seems! But no Courage III? I hope that's not more cost-cutting!

I don't know, mate. There's been a lot of traditions scrapped for budgetary reasons- no more unit messes on the main bases, just combined "food troughs", for example, with separate OR, SNCO & WO, and officer dining areas (all run by contractors, of course). Mascots are funded through the regimental funds, so it's probably not a budget measure. More likely there's just not been a suitable wedgie available, from a zoo or wildlife sanctuary, for 2CAV to raise and train. It's illegal to trap native fauna, so they can't just go out and find their own. Possibly even objections from animal liberationists or conservationists, so a vote-watching or activist pollie has intervened. As far as I know the other units still have their pet zoo/farm escapees.

I hope they are able to locate one without raising some politicized objection from civilians. Esprit d' corps has taken enough of a hit around the world.

"The Pentagon likes to say our diversity is our strength. What a bunch of garbage. In the military, our diversity is not our strength. Our unity is our strength."

IMO this says it all. In the old Marine Corp, they broke you down and then built you back up into a Marine. The Roman Legions did the same.

Your individualism was put aside and you became a cog of a machine. You were not individuals, you were soldiers.

Reasons to initially fight may disappear, but in the end most seem to fight for their comrades and stay because of loyalty to their comrades in arms. I'm talking at the very base level of the unit, your immediate buddies.

Dwelling on your differences, only destroys cohesion, unity and camaraderie

I know a lot of vets, and very very few of the ones who came out of the combat arms have any sympathy for that worldview or the summary of it you are quoting, 35th.

I think you may see more of that stuff among the JAGs and the cooks, bakers and candlestick makers, as one of my boxing instructors liked to describe the CSS functions.

Nine pound: all I have talked to, said in the end they were fighting for their buddies. They did not want to let them down. You took care of each other. You were not black, red, white, yellow, gay or straight. In combat that did not exist.

I was just talking to a current soldier and he said the same.

IMO pushing diversity divides the soldiers. You start to pay attention to what someone is. You start to believe people are prompted because of their race and or sexuality, not their competence.

These are the views of those who I have talked to, who were in combat(WW2, Korea, Nam, and Middle East Wars). I assume your experiences have been different than mine, which is fine.

The quote is from a military veteran of at least two wars(Iraq and Afghanistan). Awarded 2 bronze stars and has the combat infantry badge, as well as others.

Is there a lot of pushing and dwelling going on, 35th? Some here say it's not much of a factor. Mckinstry's sons are active military. I don't want to speak for him or them, just recalling a related post.

The Chinese are a good example of politicized training in the military, said to be as much as 40%. Are they any good? Not really sure… But they have unity, I would say, maybe the hard way. Just speculating though.

What is the relationship between diversity and unity, one way or the other? I don't know that either.

Well, there's a good demonstration of the gaps in understanding that come from not serving. When it's given the mission to do something, military culture doesn't do it halfway. Whether it's "don't drink and drive," or "celebrate diversity," you don't get to opt out, or politely evade it.

Nine Pound not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying pushing diversity in the military is a good thing? Such as they are currently doing with pride month. Or are you saying if you are in the military, you have no choice?

Well I remember the military forcing the Covid vaccine down the soldiers throats and 8000 fought back and refused and were dismissed. They fought back. Only 43 have returned. It has been proven since that the vaccine did NOT prevent you catching the virus and it did NOT stop you from spreading it. The troops because of age and health, were in little danger. 8000 good troops lost for nothing but agenda.

Well, IMO fostering diversity "differences" is doing the same thing, causing good soldiers not to reenlist, or to not enlist in the first place and causing career military to not recommend it to their children. It does not foster unity or camaraderie, it only fosters difference.

Maybe I'm alone in this belief on TMP, but I don't think I am. I know I'm not based on talking to current and past military.

Subject: Navy and Coast Guard sail into Pride Month with colorful posts | News | gazette.com


link

Subject: Official US Navy Special Forces page draws backlash for ringing in Pride month: 'Navy SEALs have gone woke' | Fox News


link

Subject: DIA celebrates Pride Month: ‘Be proud of who you are' > Defense Intelligence Agency > Article View


link

Definitely not. What I meant is, when the word comes down to conform to some requirement, the military doesn't have a culture that says "dissent is OK," or "you can sit this one out." Even people who don't believe in something have to comply, and commanders tend as a rule to take enforcement seriously- because they're being pushed to, as well.

Discipline can perform a lot of functions. It's no fun being told to do something you don't believe in when UCMJ stands behind it (for example, I recently came across an article by a JAG arguing it could conceivably be a UCMJ offense now to "misgender" someone).

Nine, I can understand that.

FYI, I have no issue with diverse individuals serving. But once you are in the military, the differences should be put aside and you are now a soldier. It is the government who seems to want to push the differences to the forefront. You are no longer a soldier, you are a gay soldier, or you are a black soldier, or you are a red soldier….. this does nothing for unity or cohesion. You should all be soldiers serving for a common goal.

I hope this changes in the future and we do away with celebrating this month or that month in the military. We just celebrate the soldier.

Much I agree with. I don't think that the principles of building a cohesive force is unique to the military. Looking only at objectives,mission statements, and authoritarian structure, D1 football is manic. Unity is the key, diversity is not an issue for its own sake. Nobody cares what your race is. Hyper focused on objectives related to the mission. Ultimate team performance. Obviously far less at stake. Diversity changed the game, made it stronger, IMO. But it is merit based unity.

I think law enforcement has similar, but not exactly similar qualities. There is more leeway to express opposition within certain parameters via the union. Protect and serve is the mission, and nothing should get in the way, but there are ways to be heard without that happening. Diversity mirrors community demographics, which promotes unity, IMO.

Merit should be the basis for building cohesion. Diversity is critical by necessity, as it is in the Army, which would be much smaller without it. Woke has been shown not to deter enrollment. My question still is – does diversity affect unity, and how do we know? This last part is critical to get to. Anecdotes are only part of the story, I think.

I would not want to issue orders in any organization in a decisive situation where I had to stop and think about how to use a plural pronoun to direct a single individual. Who, including me, would know who I am talking about?

Are soldiers affected by political views? They are unified by authority, you seem to be saying. It took the Army a long time to become diverse. Is it less cohesive as a result? I am not saying I know. I am NOT looking for a fight here.

Please don't confuse diversity composition, with "political" diversity agenda. I think that is what is going on.

Having a military made up of all aspects of the country is fine.

The issues are:

Pushing the "differences" to the forefront in the hopes of garnering votes from constituencies. Fostering a culture of differences, not commonality. Celebrating Pride month in the military. Why? What purpose does it accomplish, other than pointing out differences and creating divisions. "Why are they celebrating a month for the LBGTQ and not one for the majority of us who are heterosexuals?". Differences may be obvious, as in color. But the military should be fostering the notion that we are all soldiers. We are all 101st Airborne. When we are in combat, we have to rely on each other, no matter our differences. As I said earlier: "You are Marines".
If you are wounded, do you care if the guy carrying you back is gay, black, white?

Promotions based on filling quotas and not on qualifications. Please don't deny it happens. It does. I mean it happens in business. I saw it often. We have to have this color. It must be a woman. We have to have a LBGQT individual. In many cases less qualified than other individuals. We need the best to be promoted. If they fit a criteria, great! But only the best. The President himself has done exactly this in his appointments in the military and elsewhere. He promised a black, woman Supreme Court Justice, in exchange for an endorsement. Qualifications be dam#ed. Agenda must be met. You may get away with it in the private sector, but in the military, all our lives are on the line!

I know officers who felt the same about the "old boy network" of promotions. "West Point, promotes West Point". Probably still goes on.

"Are soldiers affected by political views?"

According to those I've recently talked to who are combat infantry, yes. Back Echelon troops, Air Force, Navy, I can't answer for.