Monday, April 22, 2024

The Best of Us

It’s no secret that the military is struggling.  Recruiting is in the tank.[1]  Readiness is near zero.  Maintenance is non-existent.  Gender, diversity, and environmental concerns dominate over warfighting.  The Secretary of Defense has listed climate as one of the top priorities.[3]  The fleet is shrinking despite the Navy stating that a war with China is imminent.  Ships are being retired decades early due to poor planning (LCS, MLP, AFSB, etc.).  Our reserve fleet is nearly non-existent.  Unbelievably, the Army is looking to recall retirees to active duty.[2]
 
The Army has launched far-reaching reforms that will transform how it attracts and recruits new soldiers, its top leaders said in a press conference today.
 
The moves come after the service failed to meet its recruiting targets for two consecutive fiscal years, which caused its end strength to fall from an original level of 485,000 in late 2021 to around 452,000 active duty soldiers today — its smallest full-time force since 1940, the year before the U.S. entered World War II.[1]

All these problems stem from the quality of the people populating the military.  These kinds of problems don’t just happen like the common cold.  They’re the result of decisions by people.  Bad decisions.  Cowardly decisions.  Stupid decisions.  Traitorous decisions.  Criminal decisions.
 
It’s the quality of our people and the quality of our decision making people is extremely poor.
 
What’s our solution?  Lower standards, of course!  We’re now looking to accept people who failed to pass high school.  We’re now looking to accept people with drug problems.  We’re looking to bring back retirees.  We’re looking to increase the proportion of women.  And so on.
 
Why are we not only accepting poor quality people into the military but actively seeking them out?  It’s because we’ve made the [bad, stupid] decision to purge the best of our personnel in the name of gender, diversity, and social representation.
 
Can you name the one organization in the country that is not, should not, and indeed, cannot be representative of society at large?  It’s the military.
 
Representative is another way of saying ‘average’.  A representative military would be the average of our society.  Do we really want our military to be average?  Of course not!  The military should be better than our average.  It should be the best of our society.  The military needs the best traits from our society and those traits are not present in the average of our society.  We want, and need, people who are stronger, braver, more focused, more aggressive, more combative, more patriotic, and have greater fortitude, integrity, and honor than society at large.  Sadly – and realistically – those traits are not present in equal proportion among all sub-groups in society.  Females, for example, do not embody most of those traits.  That doesn’t mean they can’t serve admirably in certain, limited functions but they are not the ones we want for combat.
 
We need to remember that the military should be the best of our society not the average.  It needs to embody characteristics that are not necessarily prevalent in society or in all sub-groups.  By definition, that means that the military will not, and cannot, be representative of society at large.  We need to recognize and embrace that concept and then recruit those individuals and groups that have those characteristics. 
 
 
 
________________________________
Posted by at
Labels:

30 comments:

  1. AnonymousApril 22, 2024 at 2:57 AM

    This is nothing really new. The Be All You Can Be ads of the 80s were overtly progressive, targeting women and minorities.

    The difference is that we had the Army of Excellence in thay era. And the message of Be All Yoi Can Be, for all its progressive stylings, was meritocratic: join the Army. Be challenged. Become all you can be.

    ReplyDelete
  2. deariemeApril 22, 2024 at 5:37 AM

    "the Army is looking to recall retirees to active duty." That should prove pretty effective at deterring young men from enlisting in the first place.

    Why can't the army just recruit more of the other 96 genders, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ack-ackingApril 22, 2024 at 6:10 AM

    I propose we bring back impressment. The british did it to us 200 years ago, so it's only fair we do it to them right? Just stop their ships and press-gang whatever sailors we can find. Or even better, do it to some Chinese cargo ships and we both bolster our own ranks and deplete theirs at the same time! (quality and loyalty of impressed sailors may vary somewhat from desired levels)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chinese GordonApril 22, 2024 at 7:28 AM

      The Iron Duke, said of his army at Waterloo.
      "I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."

      Delete
  4. Son of a SailorApril 22, 2024 at 7:05 AM

    Part of the problem is a labor shortage in all industries, including the military, as the unemployment rate has dropped to the lowest it's been since the 1960's.

    And part of the DEI thinking isn't just progressivism. It's also trying to expand the recruiting pool as numbers drop.

    I'm not defending the military's misplaced priorities. Just trying to add some context along the lines of "they might have been able to get away with this in worse economic times" and "it may be gross incompetence and not a deliberate attempt at traitorous sabotage."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 22, 2024 at 2:50 PM

      In attempting to expand the recruiting pool into demographics that haven't previously served and lack the desired qualities for service, the US military has alienated the demographics that have previously been most likely to serve and most likely the possess the qualities needed to serve well (i.e. young and masculine men).

      Delete
  5. AnonymousApril 22, 2024 at 7:54 AM

    In the good old days Militaries looked for Tough and Loyal Soldiers. But alas they are just words now.

    When you have divided society into hundreds of genders, privileged -underprivileged, races etc, how can you expect one man standing and facing bullets for the man standing beside you. The society is now for the individual not the community or country.

    I am sorry to say this American infection is spreading around the world.

    -BM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsApril 22, 2024 at 9:30 AM

      "The society is now for the individual not the community or country."

      The core of the problem. Well said!

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 22, 2024 at 7:20 PM

      Disagree. Quite the opposite. The society is now for communalism, no longer is it for the individual. We have abandoned humanism and replaced it with tribal identity. No community or tribe volunteers...it is the young man, typically of traditional outlook, who decides that he himself wishes to step forward and put himself up for the challenge and adventure. We could use a little more celebration of the individual. We used to do that....and just by happenstance, it turns out that is good for the community.

      Delete
  6. BA 1959April 22, 2024 at 8:47 AM

    I look at the list of characteristics and the statement that females don't have most of them is wrong. Females can and do embody all, or nearly all of them. So, OK - keep them out of ground combat - but there are significant personnel that are doing maintenance, logistics, planning, supply, behind the front lines that need highly qualified, motivated patriots that are needed and we need to capture those individuals from every tranche of Americans. Set a high bar, pay the military well, and treat these people recognizing the valuable contributions they're making on our behalf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsApril 22, 2024 at 9:28 AM

      "Females can and do embody all, or nearly all of them."

      You're twice wrong.

      First, you're wrong that females embody 'all, or nearly all' of the desired characteristics. They don't. I've coached female high school and college basketball players. These are the best, most aggressive there are among females and they're woefully lacking in strength, aggressiveness, determination, toughness, combativeness, leadership, and individuality. Anyone who has worked with women in physically stressful capacities will attest to this. Yes, there are a very few individual exceptions but not many. This is not even debatable.

      Have you ever watched any of the YouTube videos showing women undergoing hand-to-hand training in the military? It's pathetic. The lack of the aforementioned characteristics is blindingly obvious. Your contention is delusional.

      Second, here's what I actually said about women in the military, since you clearly didn't read it:

      "That doesn’t mean they can’t serve admirably in certain, limited functions but they are not the ones we want for combat."

      Delete
    2. BA 1959April 22, 2024 at 4:32 PM

      I did read your piece, and it was the "limited functions" that triggered my response. I suspect it really is the vast majority of functions in the military that females can handle well, if not better at times. I suspect too that female school age basketball players are getting more and more of the characteristics that you deny them as the quality of their performance in that sport progress.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsApril 22, 2024 at 4:55 PM

      "I suspect it really is the vast majority of functions in the military that females can handle well, if not better at times."

      If you could assign them one of a limited number of jobs that don't require the common 'military' characteristics and GUARANTEE that they'd never be called on to perform any other job, that would be fine. However, in this day and age, actual combat can occur anywhere, anytime. When a base comes under attack we can't call on everyone except women to respond.

      "I suspect too that female school age basketball players are getting more and more of the characteristics that you deny them as the quality of their performance in that sport progress."

      Completely wrong. I coached for around 15 years and just recently retired from that. Over that period, I saw vast improvements in PERFORMANCE and absolutely no change in the inherent characteristics. The improvement in performance was due to better coaching at all levels, not any change in characteristics.

      I say this as gently as I can, if you haven't actually worked with women in stressful, physical activities, you can't possibly know what you're talking about. My advice is to listen to people such as myself who have worked with women.

      I've also seen the absence of these same characteristics in industry. I've worked with, for, and under women and, as a group, they lack the characteristics. As a group, men are decisive (sometimes decisively wrong!), confident, take charge, and assured. Women are consensus builders, feelings oriented, and often diffident - good qualities, perhaps, in a stress-free, peaceful environment but not as a squad leader or officer or some such in the military.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 24, 2024 at 5:23 AM

      I work in emergency response. As many of us do, I have sought psychological assistance through my organisation. The psychologist I was sent to also spends significant time with ADF personnel, and we had a discussion about exactly this topic a few weeks ago.

      She, a professional psychologist dropped a few interesting facts, like the fact that female recruits are massively overrepresented in active mental health issues, which ASPI recently discussed too. That in service they have all the issues that CNO discussed above, and are overrepresented in mental health issues upon discharge.

      As she bluntly put it, women have no place in the military.

      Delete
  7. greywolfApril 22, 2024 at 8:47 AM

    Demographics have changed. The town were I live has 2700 citizens as of the first of january. In 1970 there were about 45 births, in 1987 when I was born there were about 35, last year there were only 16. It's a common trend around Europe, the never generations are fewer in number, as older generations start to retire the number of open positions grows steadily. It will become an even bigger problem in coming years. I'm a public servant, with really good benefits, still we are unable to cover open positions, thereis no real interest. There is simply too much competition by positions that offer more flexibility regarding work hours, vacations, pay...

    ReplyDelete
  8. CDR ChipApril 22, 2024 at 3:21 PM

    You mean, Emma MaloneLord isn't packing them in?

    ReplyDelete
  9. G2milApril 22, 2024 at 3:41 PM

    The Army is short 33,000 soldiers, and these are new junior ones who man combat units. The Army should scrap two divisions to compensate, but will hollow out instead.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousApril 23, 2024 at 2:25 PM

    You want a good job so do others. Expect others to spill their blood for your whatever "values" deserve to be disappointed.

    If you are asked to fight wars outside the nation because others have "great", "very great" wishful geopolitical "patriotism" but offer you a salary far far lower than should be plus a hostile working conditions, will you die for their passions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsApril 24, 2024 at 8:04 AM

      I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be upset about what you feel are inadequate pay and working conditions?

      People serve for various reasons but high among them is the desire to be part of something greater than themselves. People who desire that can happily live with less desirable pay and conditions because the satisfaction is worth it.

      Athletes, for example, gladly put up with conditions that most of us would find abusive and physically excessive because they want to be part of a team and find the intrinsic rewards to be worth it.

      You seem not to grasp the idea of being part of something beyond self. Give it some thought.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousApril 23, 2024 at 7:57 PM

    This post is utter nonsense. The military is short personnel and your solution is - restrict the recruiting pool!? To only half - or less - of otherwise eligible and willing Americans? Wow that’s brilliant! If nothing else this premise fails basic math. If one of us had posted this, you’d hammer us. And appropriately so.

    Your astonishing claim that the best of our personnel (who are these people? defined how?) have been “purged” from the military is stated as fact without either explaining what that really means nor offering a single example in support, much less a well cited body of evidence such a sweeping claim demands.

    If you have an issue with diversity in the ranks or leadership - fine, let’s have that debate. You offer nothing as to how that relates to a recruitment shortfall, which, as others have mentioned here, ban be well explained by historical factors like size of workforce/eligible recruitment pool, employment rates, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LonfoApril 24, 2024 at 1:05 AM

      "This post is utter nonsense. The military is short personnel and your solution is - restrict the recruiting pool!? To only half - or less - of otherwise eligible and willing Americans?"
      According to your logic, the military should be extending their recruitment efforts to retirement homes, so they'd have a larger pool to pick from.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 24, 2024 at 2:13 AM

      Totally agree - great post.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsApril 24, 2024 at 7:58 AM

      "your solution is - restrict the recruiting pool!?"

      No, my solution is focus on the portion of the pool that is WORTH recruiting and that will make superior soldiers.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 27, 2024 at 5:30 AM

      If only we had a historical analogy to follow.... say a nation with a total population of 135 million individuals.... that thought thru what it would take to win a world war.... (look up Maj. Albert C. Wedemeyer)..... and found the 16 million recruits to man a planned 90 Divisions and the worlds largest Navy and Air Corps..... sigh..... Our forefathers did all this before yet we seemingly can't learn any lessons..... (not to even mention the industrial planning... where many of the women who were NOT going to be drafted for combat, more than pulled their fair share of the load)

      Delete
  12. Big BillApril 24, 2024 at 6:24 AM

    The military defends society, it can never reflect it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ComNavOpsApril 24, 2024 at 8:08 AM

    I've deleted several comments, not because they disagreed with the post but because they resorted to personal attacks and vulgarity. Feel free to disagree but do so respectfully and politely. Have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  14. buntalanlucuApril 25, 2024 at 3:39 PM

    Im curious what is your take on possibility of using military to expedite immigrant's path to citizenship ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsApril 25, 2024 at 4:23 PM

      I assume you're talking about illegal aliens since legal immigrants can serve in the military. Illegal aliens are criminals as denoted in the phrase ILLEGAL aliens. It would be the very height of stupidity to not only condone a criminal act but to then reward the criminal with citizenship. People whose very first action getting into the US is a criminal act are not people we want.

      Part of entering this country is the time and effort that goes into that entry. That effort becomes an initial point of pride and accomplishment for the immigrant to begin building their life in America. Starting with a criminal act is flat out ... well ... criminal and anyone who supports that notion is stupid, wrong, and un-American. America is a nation of law. Rewarding criminal entry into the country is un-American.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsApril 25, 2024 at 4:25 PM

      You asked. I answered because it was a specific military question. However, this is a naval blog so we're not going to entertain a general discussion of the legalities or politics of illegal aliens.

      Delete
  15. CDR ChipJuly 5, 2024 at 3:37 PM

    "We need to recognize and embrace that concept and then recruit those individuals and groups that have those characteristics."

    Can we get all the people we want that way? Maybe, maybe not.

    But perhaps more importantly: We will want the peole we get.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)