Okay, I'll say it ...

[Hawkmoon]

What we DON'T need is a military comprised of fat, slovenly, potheads.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/pentagon-may-ease-recruiting-rules-for-single-pare/

What we should do (IMHO), since we can't recruit enough soldiers who are good enough to be soldiers, is to reinstitute the draft. Let the National Guard go back to being the National Guard, and send some of the social justice warriors and special snowflakes out to see what it's like in the real world.

Most of the people I served with in Vietnam were draftees. We had some losers, and we also had some very fine soldiers. The more they lower the standards to maintain manpower in the all-volunteer military, the more obvious it becomes that rebooting the draft is inevitable.

[AJ Dual]

I'd think the question is if a fatbody XBoxer kid who's done some pot, but who wants to be there, and shapes up, is going to be a better soldier than some draftee who's farm job made him a hardbody but who doesn't want to be there.

Granted, I'm 43, and probably 4F for a bunch of reasons, but as much as I love America, I think I might have a problem being a Mamluk for it.

[Ben]

If they continue to go in that direction, it seems like the most sense would be to have a two part military. One with relaxed recruitment / fitness rules for everyone from accountants to computer geeks, and the other the trigger pullers or anyone who could be sent in-theater. Obviously computer geeks could be sent where bullets fly, so you might have something like "combat qualified" and "non-combat qualified".

They keep going lower and lower lowest common denominator for all though, and things are gonna get ugly.

[MechAg94]

Are we having trouble recruiting because there are not enough of the right kids out there or is it because we have cut benefits, sent the troops out to fight prolonged military occupations with their hands tied, and turned the military into a social justice experiment?

[Ben]

and turned the military into a social justice experiment?

Seems like that could be a big part of it. They don't want warriors, they want social justice warriors. The kind of person who would sign up to be the former would likely not want to put up with the bullshit of being surrounded by the latter.

[MechAg94]

I heard some podcast mention of this, but hadn't looked for any stories.  This doesn't sound like it will help.

Congress passes defense budget with troop benefit cuts
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/congress-passes-defense-budget-with-troop-benefit-cuts-1.319021


GOVERNMENT SLASHES MILITARY RETIREMENT
http://www.moaa.org/Content/Take-Action/Top-Issues/Currently-Serving/Government-Slashes-Military-Retirement.aspx

[Firethorn]

GOVERNMENT SLASHES MILITARY RETIREMENT
http://www.moaa.org/Content/Take-Action/Top-Issues/Currently-Serving/Government-Slashes-Military-Retirement.aspx

Won't help retention one bit.  If a soldier's been taking advantage of the 5% match, combined with the reduction in actual retirement pay, and he's much more likely to pull the ejection handles early.

That said, that could actually be the intention of congress - get them out with a relatively small bribe before they're eligible for all the bennies I get.

But, on the other hand, training us is expensive, so I'm not sure how having to train more people will help...  Plus, that's more replacement bodies you need.

[Fitz]

It's all part of the plan

[Hawkmoon]

Are we having trouble recruiting because there are not enough of the right kids out there or is it because we have cut benefits, sent the troops out to fight prolonged military occupations with their hands tied, and turned the military into a social justice experiment?

IMHO ... yes to both parts of your statement.

You left out one other factor ... multiple, prolonged deployments in combat zones. Who in his/her right mind would volunteer for that? I was RA (Regular Army -- enlisted, not drafted) in Vietnam. I enlisted knowing there was a good chance I would be sent to Vietnam, but also knowing that I was enlisting for one term, and that when my enlistment ended (if I was still alive) I would go home. There was no such thing back then as "stop loss," which is that when your term of enlistment is up the Army gets to say, Well, we know your contract is up but we don't have anyone to replace you, so stick around for awhile longer." That's not fair to the soldiers, it's not fair to their families, and the multiple deployments of National Guard are unfair to the companies that employ those soldiers and who have to keep their jobs open for them while they're off doing what the regular military is supposed to do -- except that we don't have enough regular military.

[RoadKingLarry]

We can blame "H.W.", Slick Willy and a host of feckless democrat and republican legis-critters for the deplorable state our military was in on 9/11. We can blame "W" and host of feckless republican and democrat legis-critters for letting it stay that way during "W's" term.

[wmenorr67]

 

The result has been a fighting force that is gleaned from rural areas at twice the rate of urban environments.

This isn't actually a bad thing.

[Jocassee]

Relaxing recruiting standards is one thing, and possibly not a terrible idea. Relaxing fitness standards is something else.

You don't have to be in *great* shape to start boot camp anyways--the beginning standard is very achievable.

[freakazoid]

Relaxing recruiting standards is one thing, and possibly not a terrible idea. Relaxing fitness standards is something else.

You don't have to be in *great* shape to start boot camp anyways--the beginning standard is very achievable.

This.
None of them bothered me, except the fitness standards.

[Blakenzy]

If you are having trouble recruiting soldiers you might want to rethink the battles you are fighting. US military intervention, as I see it, has lost a good deal of legitimacy in the eyes of the population.

I think that W. Bush and Iraq had a lot to do with that. They covered the problem with mercenaries for a while...

Hell, the Obama administration began relying on thrid party "freedom fighters" to intervene in Lybia and Syria, limiting the use of Armed forces to air support.

The US Government has gone upside down, from fighting the "war on terror" to supporting terrorist groups... As an American how would you feel about signing up to serve under a Government that bamboozles you and arms or facilitates the guys you are supposed to fight?