allow options that preclude any foreign/overseas service. After all, that's what most people envision when they say 'defend my country.' Its a common speculation that a large contributor to ALL of our branches of the military suffering recruitment shortfalls is due to prospective recruits not wanting to be used to proliferate a global military empire. Only about 10% of our service members serve outside the US. I'm not sure if the Navy is factored into this, I assume US Naval vessels are essentially 'US Soil' or equivalent regardless of where in the world they sail... But regardless, there are plenty of positions to be filled in our military, plenty of work to be done that doesn't require the soldier/sailor/airman/marine to leave US territory. I doubt I'm the only one that came very close to joining up, but ultimately wasn't willing to risk being sent to 'X foreign country' to destabilize their functioning dictatorship, arm extremist dissidents or destroy everything looking for WMDs that never existed... This isn't to say that foreign conflicts are never necessary or always 'imperial', sometimes the best defense really is a good offense. But its also true that FedGov is notorious for engaging in offensive activity using 'defense' as a flimsy or outright preposterous excuse. This causes some people who would love to defend their country rather hesitant to commit to do so. And its not just me saying it. According to retired US Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor- “We’re having problems recruiting for a very simple reason: people that have been through this over the last 20-30 years have said, ‘What are we doing? What’s the point of being in the military?’ We go to these places. They look around in Iraq or they look around in Afghanistan and they say, ‘There’s nothing here. What am I doing here?’ Oh, well, you’re building democracy. And people burst out laughing. It’s nonsense.” US Military Struggles to Recruit Due to Foreign Intervention Policy – Former Army Colonel (infowars.com) So lets create an option for service that precludes potential involvement in Foreign Intervention.
I can tell you right now that will be a no go from the service chiefs. You can't even get that guarantee in the National Guard. The military has to have flexibility in deployment. If the balloon goes up, and you have a large chunk of the force undeployable, you're screwed.
How much of the force has to be deployable to maintain flexibility? Surely its not 100%, unless there's a situation where we would ever leave the homeland completely undefended...
Well it's impossible to be 100% due to medical, maternity, and other issues. Plus a few jobs likely only have positions in CONUS. But the services want the flexibility to move people around, so enlisting people who are from the start non deployable limits their use. Plus why would you invest training time for someone who's never going to be in theater?
CONUS is a theatre. It may not often be 'active', but it does always have some deployment. Increasing recruitment and overall availability of manpower isnt a good enough reason?
Yes. Is there any military contingency that would require no one being around to defend CONUS? If not, then it is essentially a perpetual 'theatre' of the US military, even if there isn't any active threat. I would think, anyway. I mean, we're always gonna have some troops here...
If they want to boost recruitment, they are going to have to increase pay. Maybe what they could do is not even actually increase immediate pay, but start setting some money aside for that person's retirement account. They could improve the quality of the food they serve. Nothing fancy, but just with fresher ingredients, more preparation. Another thing that might help increase recruitment is not trapping recruits into obligatory contracts. An idea is they could just withhold maybe 15% of the pay, which the recruit will not get if they leave too early. Worries over mandatory vaccinations might also be reducing recruitment levels.
Actually the ancient Hebrew version says 'thou shalt not murder.' The KJV is based on the translation from ancient Greek, which was either incorrect, or deliberately altered, depending on your opinion of people like Roman Emperor Constantine.
who decides which of God's children people can kill without it being considered murder? The Government?
I reckon that if its you or them, God will understand your choice. Outside of that, its prolly murder.
is that what it is, if a government tells someone to kill someone, it's ok cause they might try to defend themselves
Well I don't think so. I didn't join the military in part because I was concerned the govt might try to send me to kill some folks that didn't need killing. I thought I made that clear in the OP...
people want special privileges to sign up.... that is the topic do you not think more Christians would sign up if they did not have to agree to violate the 10 commandments and kill people?
nope, I think everyone should be up for everything, no special privileges.... ... but I do think special privileges like I mentioned would increase recruitment, which is what the thread is about and why you want to derail the thread and make it about me, I will never know, but have fun with that....
the problem I see with special privileges for certain groups is that the military is tough, serving deserves respect, if you sign up and get a cushy privileged job, it should just be considered a gov job, not a military job like being a soldier that can be deployed anytime onto the front lines
