ComNavOps abhors this kind of post but today’s circumstances demand it. I hope that I will not be forced to make this a regular occurrence. The following post is largely Army based but the concepts apply equally to all the services.
We’re talking about recruiting and standards. Redstate website offers an article on the subject[1] that is spot on.
Note: In the interest of fairness, Redstate is a politically conservative news site and the article’s author is a former Army officer who commanded an infantry company and was an Inspector General investigator in US Army Recruiting Command so he has extensive, first hand knowledge.
The article is well worth the time for a complete read. The author addresses recruiting standards, the rationale behind standards, the use of standardized recruiting assessment tests and how they’re interpreted. The author also drops a couple of hysterically funny comments which are all the funnier for being true. Read the article!
The author throws out gem after gem of wisdom.
Addressing the reason why dropping the diploma/GED requirement is a problem, the author states:
Quitting is a lifestyle choice. A kid that quits high school is exponentially less likely to complete a 3-year active-duty enlistment than an HSDG [High School Diploma Graduates], no matter the AFQT score.[1]
Any semi-intelligent person – meaning not a general officer – understands that a high school diploma, while hugely watered down in today’s world, still represents a demonstrated degree of determination and self-motivation.
The author goes on,
… if you are recruiting tens of thousands of soldiers each year, you have to focus on the profile of what makes a successful soldier and not on the high school dropout and convicted felon … [1]
We know what recruit profile makes for a successful soldier. That we’ve chosen to jettison that wisdom and aggressively recruit from outside that profile is unbridled stupidity.
The author notes,
The Army’s willingness to fill a substantial portion of the 60% of the FY2022 recruiting goal with kids who they know will not complete their first term of enlistment shows the level of desperation.[1]
Indeed!
The author laments the current situation.
Now the Army seems hellbent on destroying 40 years of hard-earned reputation for the sake of being woke and dying its hair magenta.[1]
The author addresses the crux of the problem:
The reason for the Army failing to meet its recruiting goals is simple, it has essentially declared that it has no use for heterosexual males or integrity.
Over the past decade, Army leadership has decided that woke indoctrination is more important than the credo of Duty, Honor, Country.[1]
The young men who are attracted to concepts like duty, honor, and country have nothing in common with today’s military. Is it any wonder that recruiting has become a crisis?
Without explicitly stating it, the author notes the reality that the pool of people who make up the actual, fighting soldier is no longer valued or sought after by the military.
Ever since Obama Defense Secretary Ashton Carter issued his fiat that all combat arms are open to women, the Army has been engaged in a war on its history and on the culture and demographic that has historically provided it with recruits and young officers.[1]
Consider this unattributed and uncaptioned photo accompanying the article.
Seriously, do any of these people look remotely like soldiers? For all I know, they could be actors in a recruiting ad. Regardless of who/what they really are, they are the absolute worst representation of soldiers I have ever seen. For starters, look at the stomach bulges. None of them can possibly meet even the dumbed down fitness tests of today. I can only pray that the photo is some type of spoof or satirical commentary. God help us if the photo is real.
It should be noted that you recruit not only inductees but also – and primarily - parents. Let’s face it, the biggest influence on children is their parents. If you don’t – or can’t – successfully recruit the parents, you’ll have little success with the children when they come of age. By abandoning the values that once made our military great, we’ve lost the parents and, therefore, their children. There is no one with more [former] respect for the military and its traditional values than me and there is no way in hell I’d allow my children to consider entering the military. That should scare military leadership to its core but it doesn’t. They have become so focused on weeding out the recruits (and active duty personnel) who embody the traditional values that they can’t even see the broken reality they’ve created.
_____________________________________
[1]Redstate website, “Army Backs off Enlisting High School Drop Outs but the Woke Cancer Killing Enlistments Remains Stronger Than Ever”, by streiff, 3-Jul-2022,
I comment on this in the past, too: many people who have served now actively tell their children to stay away from the military, and I can't really blame them for that.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, in a time of decline fringe ideological preoccupations trumps the fact pretty much everything until the whole shebang goes down, see the late-stage Soviet Onion.
Given that the modern "woke" young people seem to have been indoctrinated to believe that the US is an evil, racist, awful, not very good place, why on earth would our military leaders believe that they would be interested in volunteering to risk their lives to defend it?
ReplyDeleteThe military is creating an organization (can't call it a fighting force anymore) that is inherently unappealing to the very people they're trying to cater to. This is illogic and stupidity on a platter and speaks to the ignorance of our military leaders.
DeleteAbsolutely spot on. It is being driven from the (very) top, and is suicidal.
DeleteTodays military is hell bent on destroying the virtues that made it great. Why would anyone want their kid defending a country that doesn't defend such things as the equality of ideas and equal opportunity for everyone vs forced indoctrination and forced adherence to a certain set of ideas?
DeleteI want to see the woke person in the fox hole say to the enemy soldier has offended his feelings as they force the knife into his gut because he never learned to defend himself in combat.
The Babylon Bee is a conservative satire site. They have an "article" that addresses this well. The title is "Army Unsure Why Their New Slogan ‘America Is Racist, You Should Die For It’ Isn’t Getting Traction"
ReplyDeleteNo one with means and talent wants to sign up to live in the same bucket as a drop out or criminal. However big we need to be based on minimum standard is it. Make policies where healthy working people can safely afford more children.
ReplyDeleteWho is left for the Army after JSOC and the Marines grab all the fire eaters ?
ReplyDeleteElite Forces disease has been chewing on the Army
long before the Army went woke n' broke.
My youngest daughter has recently been talking to the Navy. Youre absilutely right about "selling the parents"!! Im very on the fence about it. One side of me desperately wants to see a third generation of naval service, and is easilly sold. The other side is very sceptical...
ReplyDeleteWhen i left in the early 90s, due to shrinking budgets, base closures, and yes, women aboard ship, my rationale was that I didnt want a job I couldn't quit, especially when I was already miserable. Being female, maybe my daughter wont have it so bad, but Im not sure its somthing Im recommending right now...
My oldest son will be a senior in high school this year.
DeleteHe is interested in the navy but I don't want him to join at this point.
Politically we are not on the same page as the military seems to be right now.
But that is not just having a poopy diaper that they aren't saying the things I want to hear.
In this environment, having the 'wrong' political viewpoints can lead to some pretty serious problems in the military.
Running afoul of UCMJ in some way will f--- up your life permanently.
Why expose your young self to that kind of risk, and on top of all that, maybe end up getting killed because the services are struggling with competence?
Lutefisk
FWIW. Looking at uniforms I do not believe any of those servicewomen are in the US military.
ReplyDeleteYou mean Emma Malonelord is not enough to get recruits flocking to sign up?
ReplyDelete..."sake of being woke and dying its hair magenta"
ReplyDeleteStomach bulges aside, none of the women in the photo have Magenta colored hair as I can see (or understand)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magenta
Or am I going color-blinded....
Just one more symptom of decadence. The folks running the show don't think war is a real possibility, so they don't analyze anything through the lens of whether it makes us better or worse at fighting and winning a war.
ReplyDeleteThe example par excellence of this was when the Marines presented the results of the test they did on mixed-sex infantry units, showing that they were worse at fighting (this was circa 2013 if memory serves). Nobody at the top cared - the decision had already been made for other reasons, and was not going to be unmade over so petty a matter as demonstrably and noticeably reduced combat effectiveness of some of our premier infantry.
I am a conservative. I always have been, and likely always will be.
ReplyDeleteDuring Covid, I was pretty angry at what I saw China doing to us. I'd just finished law school, but I did not feel like I could sit by and do nothing as our country was under assault. So, I made an appointment with a Navy officer recruiter and started the process of applying to be an officer (non-JAG fwiw, didn't think we needed more non-combatants).
However, I never finished that process. Shortly after that meeting was the precipitous pullout in Afghanistan, the imposition of the vaccine, and the more public wokification of the military. It became clear to me that the military had no desire to have someone like me in its ranks. If I signed up, I would likely spend more time battling against woke nonsense than focusing on the enemy. So, I decided to not proceed and get a job at a law firm.
Many of my friends are also conservative, and I ask them if they would ever consider a career in the military. Almost universally, the answer is a regretful no. Like me, they see that the military is actively purging conservative elements and they have no desire to deal with that. These are the kind of people who were most likely to join up, and now they won't.
"the biggest influence on children is their parents" a writer called Judith Rich Harris argued that the biggest is their peers. A wise parent might reply "I try to choose their peers".
ReplyDeleteThe problem you discuss is not restricted to the armed forces. To adapt your sentiment 'There is no one with more [former] respect for the university and its traditional values than me and there is no way I’d allow my children to consider doing a PhD.'
The West is going to hell in a handcart.
Looking closer at the.photo, it must be a joke or some setup... Everything about the umiforms and decorations is wrong. That being said, how far off from representing some things can it be?? My recent visit to the recruiting office wasn't exactly impressive. In my day, boot camp CCs, recruiters, etc were squared away sailors. Excellent, top notch examples to see and follow. The recruiters I met were awful close to needing remedial PT, their uniforms werent too crisp, and frankly the most squared away sailor I met was a female 2/c, who clearly was taking her duties and appearance/professionalism mych more seriously. If the Navy (or any service) cant put their best foot forward for the public, how are they ever going to convince potential recruits and their parents ???
ReplyDeleteAre those all American servicewomen? The two on the right don't look like our uniforms.
ReplyDeleteCan't tell but whoever's military they are is in sad shape, assuming the photo is even real and not some sort of prank.
DeleteHopefully they're not allies. I'd hate to have to depend on whatever military they represent. This is one of many reasons I argue against wasting time cross-training with allies. Too many foreign militaries are focused on social aspects rather than combat ... and now we're following suit.
I searched the picture through Google Lens. Apparently, these are not actors, but foreign service members who attended the Perspectives on Transgender Military Service from Around the Globe, organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, which was held Washington, D.C. in October, 2014.
DeleteThe second from the right is Major Donna Harding of the Austrailian Army.
They look like combat ready, mad dogs at the peak of training and readiness.
DeleteEven the Canadian military is becoming woke, which really tics me off. I agree completely that this is likely NOT going to help recruitment goals. Who wants to serve beside this nonsense?
DeleteAs far as face tattoos being allowed, that only works if you are a Maori.
"Under the new rules — which were released Tuesday and go into effect in September — CAF will allow military personnel to, among other things, colour their hair and grow it to any length, and to sport face tattoos."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/caf-new-dress-instructions-1.6510961
Not sure I care much about haircuts or face tatoos. In fact: multiple warrior cultures had a culture which encourged these. Maori, Sioux, etc.
Delete"Not sure I care much about haircuts or face tatoos."
DeleteYou're completely missing the key aspect. It's about uniformity, discipline, and coherence OF THE GROUP NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. In the examples you cite (Maori, Sioux) the entire culture adopted the markings which made it a culturally BINDING, not dividing, affectation - a uniform of sorts. That's a good thing.
However, when each individual of the organization can go do their own affectation (colored hair, any hair length, tatoos, etc.) then it is no longer a binding, cohesive act, it's a divisive act that flaunts discipline, cohesion, and uniformity and says that the goals of the individual are more important than those of the group. The group is no longer striving towards a common goal but is pursuing numerous, separate, individual goals. That kind of individualistic mindset is not conducive to successful combat which demands a singular approach, singular identity, and singular ethos by every member of the group in order to be effective.
An effective military promotes pride in and of the group not pride of the individual over the group.
"They look like combat ready, mad dogs at the peak of training and readiness."
DeleteHow many trigger-pullers does the Army or Marine Corps need? What percentage of Air Force or Navy personnel are true combatants?
Most of the military is composed of combat service support-type troops. They are mechanics, technicians, ammunition handlers, transportation drivers, and the like.
Honest question, no gotchas. Would you let a transgendered nurse or doctor treat you in an emergency? I would. Not that I would normally otherwise seek medical treatment from a transgendered medical professional, because I wouldn't. But, I would make the exception for an emergency.
And, I don't see why transgendered troops can't serve providing they meet all requirements and the standards aren't compromised. Maybe they aren't suitable for some of the combat fields, but there's always transportation, medical, communications, and electronics jobs that need to be filled.
" support-type troops"
DeleteIf you could guarantee me that no 'support-type troop' would ever be involved in combat then you'd have a point. However, that is not the case. At any time, anywhere, anyone can find themselves in a combat situation. A long range rocket/missile or UAV can suddenly turn a quiet rear area support location into a mass casualty event. A terrorist can turn any location into a combat zone (Pentagon on 9/11, for example). A disgruntled soldier can create a mass-shooting scenario anywhere, anytime (multiple examples of shooters on US bases). I don't want to depend on any of the people in that photo to drag me to safety, carry me to medical aid, pull me from a fire, race to obtain life-saving medical supplies, fight off commandoes, etc. That you even think there's such a thing as a non-combat job demonstrates that you have no grasp of the realities of the modern world and modern military.
Forget about combat. What if someone has a heart attack during normal working hours or has to be carried from a burning building. None of those people are going to be able to do anything about it.
It's also clear that none of the people in those photos come from a military with any physical standards ... at least none that are enforced.
"mechanics, technicians, ammunition handlers, transportation drivers, and the like."
None of the people in that photo are physically qualified for any of the support jobs you listed.
You're clearly bending over backwards to try to excuse people who are grossly unsuited for military service.
"How many trigger-pullers does the Army or Marine Corps need? "
DeleteToday, EVERYONE is a potential trigger puller at any moment. There are no rear areas anymore.
"How many trigger-pullers does the Army or Marine Corps need? What percentage of Air Force or Navy personnel are true combatants?"
DeleteIn a peer war casualties are massive and it's not uncommon for cooks and mechanics to be thrown into the fray either due to enemy breakthroughs or due to need to replenish casualties.
In WWII both Germans and USSR pulled sailors from ships and sent them into battle as infantry. Germans also used the same thing with Luftwaffe ground crews. Japanese did the same but in a more ad hoc fashion.
Current war in Ukraine but also previous high intensity combat in Nagorno Karabakh and Syria show attrition rates to be massive.
US has only fought colonial wars over last 20 years or against really low tier opponents ala Iraq so has not idea about what is required in peer-to-peer combat (but is seeing it in action in Ukraine).
Ugh.
DeleteOne of the things that repeatedly saved the German army on the eastern front was their ability to pull together ad-hoc fighting units from support units and use them as combat troops to blunt Soviet breakthroughs.
Lutefisk
To those who think that only "trigger pullers" need to be "combat ready" or "in shape", Anyone who is on a US Navy ship needs to be able to participate in Damage Control. The Sick, Lame and Lazy (as well as the weak and worthless) cannot help in a true DC situation.
ReplyDeleteWhoa, let's not get our personal prejudices get in the way of the facts. Both Israel and Ukraine let people serve regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and their wokeness doesn't seem to hamper their combat effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to recruiting challenges, it may well be that wokeness is a problem. On the other hand, there is also a labor shortage causing historic unemployment across many sectors of the economy. And the youngest people in this country are the most woke / least likely to be deterred by these issues. I get that the military runs conservative, but you could have made the same argument in the 40's and 50's that having a racially integrated military would destroy the services. Maybe we need to just accept anyone who wants to fight for their country. Maybe a free and open country is what we want to fight to protect.
Related note - let's not conflate two different issues. If the folks in the photo aren't combat effective because they're fat and out of uniform, let's call them fat and out of uniform. That would be the case regardless of gender or orientation. If they were fit, polished and trans would that still be a problem?
"If they were fit, polished and trans would that still be a problem?"
DeleteYes, it would because it raises all kinds of privacy issues such as berthing, heads, showers, etc. How much of our limited budget (to hear the Navy leadership whine about it) are we willing or obligated to spend to accommodate the needs/desires of a very small percentage of the entire group? The Navy has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars refitting submarines to accommodate women. Do we have to spend hundreds of millions more to accommodate every new variety of gender that seems to pop up on a daily basis? At what point do we tell that [literal] one in ten thousand person that we just can't justify the cost of accommodating them?
To use your example of Israel, are you aware that Israel did not integrate women into combat units? They created separate, all female units because of the myriad problems they cause. Further, the female units are restricted to non-combat support functions. My understanding of this is a few years out of date so they may have changed ... or they may not. So, yes, by all means let's look at the 'data' from Israel. While we're at it, let's look objectively at our own data on gender integration from the Marine's extensive study which showed that not only do female units perform poorly, so do mixed units - meaning that the presence of women drags down the men's performance. So, by all means, let's set aside our personal prejudices and look at the data instead of ignoring it as we've done because it didn't fit our social experimentation wishes.
The desire to change gender also tells me something about the mindset of the person. From my experience, such a person is not possessed of a rock solid self-confidence and combat mentality. These are people who are mentally disturbed and uncomfortable. I'll leave it at that as far as the mental state.
Another serious issue is the military's lowering of standards in order to accommodate all these genders. We have already dropped our standards in order to ensure that women can serve in any job they want. I'm sorry but some people are just not suited for military life. If you want to push social boundaries, do it in the civilian world not the life and death world of the military.
This entire issue does not even remotely equate to racial integration.
"Real talk - overwhelmingly, the people I see reenlisting are people I never wish to work around again, while many of those getting out it has been a pleasure to serve with. I don't know what that says about my unit, the Army culture, or myself, but I can be confident that this post is why retention is so low." - anon.
ReplyDelete