Why nobody wants to join the Army this year

But then you have the bigger picture.

The entire military is designed to take in X number of new people each year, to fill in Y number of slots with Z number leaving each year due to retirement, injuries/deaths, or just those who decide they do not want to stay in.

Well, if you keep on more and more X2 individuals who are say half-way to retirement, then they are taking up that number of Y slots, which means you can not bring in more X personnel to fill in the lower positions.

In the Infantry, that would be like say having so many Sergeants that you would have to field entire platoons of Sergeants. And when that happens, you have no places to put any new Privates that are recruited and trained.

In a very small military that is possible, as your numbers can be very easily adjusted as you have a very small intake in the first place. Or in a very large military, where you can spread those that are technically "over rank for the position" around so it does not have as much of an impact.

Either way, the solution as far as I can see is one of two things. Either you increase the size so you can absorb more of those in that situation. Or you change the TO&E to accept those higher ranks in those positions. Then of course you have to reduce the numbers coming in. Less accepted at Colorado Springs, less going through Flight School. Because there is nowhere to put those new 2nd Lieutenant pilots. Or things remain as they are.

I admit, I am rather unique in that I have served in two branches, first putting on the uniform in the first Reagan Administration, and just retiring a bit ago after serving my seventh President. I have seen a hell of a lot of changes during that time, and yet many things that I still laugh at.

Like remembering when a lot of the equipment we still use was brand new. When I first joined, we were getting almost brand new everything, as we were finally discarding all the old leftovers from Vietnam and everything was being upgraded. And returning 14 years later, I was shocked to see that a hell of a lot of what we used was that exact same early 1980's equipment over 2 decades later. It is not a joke when I was in PATRIOT missiles, I was the only person in my Battalion that operated a launcher that was actually older than my launcher. They were all circa 1980-1983, and this was in 2009. And it is now over a decade later, and unless something changes by the time my grandson is old enough to join the military, they will still be trying to use those same launchers.

 

Yep, I was pretty sure that casualty included such things as sprained ankles before I posted that, but I f'd around attempting to dial in the definition of the word, Googled it, and then incorrectly skimmed the results and stepped on myself by incorrectly defining the word in my post. As usual, thanks for correcting that.

I have a lot of respect for you, but this comparison you made between draftees and women that served during WWII I have to admit irks me a bit. You've not offered a single link to back up your assertion nor have you backed off of it and I assert that draftees in the Nam era fought valiantly on behalf of the United States just as they did in WWI and WWII.

Better in fact according to this page:
https://www.vva310.org/vietnam-war-statistics

This page asserts that draftees experienced 30.4% of combat deaths during our efforts to forestall the advance of communism in the Vietnam War while representing only 25% of total forces in country.

This site is by no means an authoritative source and I'd prefer to see the numbers from a dot gov site, but haven't yet found them.

Such as it is this site isn't fully internally consistent with the numbers.
It lists 47,359 hostile deaths.
It lists 17,725 draftee deaths as 30.4% of combat deaths.
But 17,725/47,359 is about 37%.

So at least I've provided one link that seems to support my argument, I'll wait to see whether you provide one to support yours or concede that you were likely mistaken.

***
And yes, again you've correctly dialed in the exact status of my contract as 2 years inactive reserve.
I believe the only requirement that I "blew off" was one physical exam.

 

You've likely identified the keystone / crux of the matter with respect to both retention and recruitment in this post.

 

It is the exact same thing in the EPC industry. When there are plenty of projects available the EPCs are in hiring mode and there are abundant opportunities for existing staff and new hires. When the operating companies withdraw capital expenditures from their budgets the EPCs contract and it becomes painful for the existing staff as well as the new hires.

 

It's the 20/80 rule isn't it? 20% of the people do 80% of the work?

The business environment here in Houston was massively contracting or maybe going through a RIF would be a better description and as I looked for any help I could among my project team I realized that there were no reinforcements available. Snuffy over there making probably $120k/y was barely keeping up with just doing the requisitions for motor operated valves. Susie had spent two years on making it a profession to spec & req 200 throttle valves and she was always forever bowed up and busy as hell, but the majority of it was simply that she was going around in circles. Several other fellow nerds had been working for two years spec'ing and req'ing pneumatically actuated cutoff valves. Then there were the technical admins they called project engineers who planned and took credit for progress based on the number of meetings they attended.

What exactly is your job as a purely managerial advisor? If you don't mind my asking? I'm curious about this as I noticed that I misread your probable rank earlier in this thread by assigning your CSM remarks to yourself from the OP. But you're not the Battalion CO? That would make you an O5, possibly but unlikely an O6 on a stateside role. Curious what rank an active US Army officer and former enlisted man holds in addition to being a PF moderator that opens a post bitching that the woke Army is hurting recruitment. No mention of or apparent awareness of economics that have been discussed in the thread now in the OP. Would you like to clarify your bullshit from the OP as not the likely leading decline in the strength of the US military's recruitment efforts? Sir? All of the potential recruits are avid 4Chan folks that now know to stay away from the woke military? Please....

 

It is just simple math.

Over 66% of the US military force were draftees, yet less than 25% in Vietnam were draftees. So in the military, they fulfilled the jobs stateside and in other areas that would otherwise have been done by enlistees so they could send over that 75%.

Reverse the numbers, 34% of the military were enlistees, yet they made up 75% of those in Vietnam. So have a draftee in the US working on trucks for their 2 year enlistment, that allowed them to send a truck mechanic with more experience on a 4 year contract to go there, even go there twice. Because very few draftees were in the combat arms. Not unlike the use of women in WWII. Not in combat roles, but freeing up those that could go into combat areas.

And with only 2 years, it simply was not practical to send somebody on such a short contract over there. But you could send somebody on a 4 year contract over twice. And when they return for the second time, they actually have some first hand experience they can pass on to others.

That was very different than in say WWII, where the draft completely replaced the volunteer enlistment process. There around 70% were drafted, and it was almost impossible to actually "enlist", unless you had a critical skill they really needed. Most do not realize that by the middle of 1942, you could not just go down to the recruiting office and enlist. Doing that simply locked you into the branch of service and possible job, but you still went home and waited for your number to be called in the draft.

Unless say you were already trained as an aircraft mechanic, pilot, medical, or say a linguist. Those and others they would take immediately. If you wanted to be infantry, a tanker, or almost anything else you waited for the draft, as ultimately over 16 million served (over 11 million in the Army alone), and the draft replaced enlistment as it was the only way they could process and train that many people.

And once again, the comparison with the females in WWII. They did not need the same level of training, as they were doing more technical and administrative jobs. No need for 2 weeks of combat training, they were going to be spending their enlistment in Kentucky, or West Germany. And this also showed, as the 25% of draftees that did make it to Vietnam were also 30% of the deaths, as they were not trained for combat so when a base got attacked they had not been trained in how to react properly.

 

I've served with Vietnam era veterans and from them, my understanding of the draft at that time was that if you drafted you didn't get choice of MOS; it was needs of the Army. You could be a cook, or you could be an infantryman. Some people actually enlisted in order to beat the draft and get their choice of MOS.

 

Exactly, if you want more and better people pay them for it. The same thing applies to teaching etc
It's high time that RW understands that everybody, even soldiers, works to make a living instead of for the good of democracy. And it's not right to take advantage of people that do anyway.

We spend more money on our military than anything else, but some TRILLION dollars have been spent on the F35, which continues to kill more of our pilots than the enemy has even thought of. Meanwhile, our new recruits need food stamps to feed their families. Our Congressonal military paymasters need to be "woke" indeed; to simple reality.

 

That is true. But relatively few were placed in the Infantry, as there was little use for infantry that could not deploy to a combat zone at that time (or any other combat arm like artillery, armor, etc). So most were sent through non-combat schools of 90 days or less.

 

"We" who? Because obviously you are very wrong if you are talking about the US.

Oh, and yes, over a Trillion Dollars has been spent on the F-35. That is the entire cost of the program since 1983, as well as over 850 aircraft.

Care to amortize that cost over 39 years? That is actually under $40 million a year. Looked at that way it is actually pretty damned cheap.

 

The cost of the military just this year gone was 840 billion. What costs more?

 

Oh, we can start with the over $1.3 trillion for the HHS for a start.

And I know you are going to vomit up the usual pie chart and try to scream that is wrong. And as always, it will say on it "Discretionary Spending".

Of course, that is not the entire budget, just a breakdown of a small part that often misleads people. But the fact is, the mandatory spending far outweighs all of the discretionary spending combined many times over.

 

I have to admit I've lost the plot how it even became a point of discussion in this thread about Vietnam era draftees, much less your assertion that they mostly had light duty.
I seldom find an argument here that I have any desire to stick with, but I've got a bit more interest in this one.

Apparently here is a source,
https://vva.vietnam.ttu.edu/images.php?img=/images/695/6950101003.pdf
for the numbers posted here,
https://www.vva310.org/vietnam-war-statistics

And here is some rather interesting reading,
http://www.military-money-matters.com/infantry-in-vietnam-was-a-higher-percentage-of-draftees.html

Now, let's go ahead with the simple math aspect of the your argument.
Let's look at the numbers from just this page for the moment, maybe at some point one of us will find a more definitive source,
https://vva.vietnam.ttu.edu/images.php?img=/images/695/6950101003.pdf
8744000 active duty military 5AUG64 - 28MAR73
1728344 draftees 65-73
timeline mismatch excluded this comes out to about 20% of the services were draftees, therefore 80% were volunteers.
Another number from this link,
2594000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam 1JAN65 - 28MAR73
Very confusing this wording, were these all active duty US military?
Does the verb "served" provide 100% clarification of the question?
Total draftees 65-73, again 1728344
Actually served in Vietnam, 38% = 656771
656771/2594000=25%

This is obviously not an internally consistent source of data which makes it unreliable.

I will assert however, that if X1% of the military were draftees and X2% of those that served in country in Vietnam is greater than X1 then your argument fails.

How about some links my man?

 

Ugh, I did it again. Sorry, I understand that light duty is a bureaucratic military term: what I mean is stateside or Euro theater or general non-combat roles.....

 

One of my uncles made the casualty list on the Phillipines in WW II. He was drunk and fell out of a 2nd story window in a brothel during a brawl and broke his arm. Since he was fighting sailors and was outnumbered his XO recommended him for a Purple Heart. Didn't get it but it's the thought that counts.

 

Better job opertunities else where, that the younger generation has been trained to hate theor own cou try, and that many co serrations who love their country are turned off by the woke nonsense put in place by the Biden admin. Add in that few people are having kids so there are fewer young people out there to begin with.

 

Draftees were better soldiers because more of them died? I thought the best soldiers made the bad guys die... and lived to fight another day.

 

More on the continuing recruiting crisis.

The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Families to Join

The children of military families make up the majority of new recruits in the U.S. military. That pipeline is now under threat, which is bad news for the Pentagon’s already acute recruitment problems, as well as America’s military readiness.

“Influencers are not telling them to go into the military,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview. “Moms and dads, uncles, coaches and pastors don’t see it as a good choice.”

 

Pathetic innit when general officers play sociologists rather than sticking to the most basic facts.
Dipshit Mullen is blaming a lack of "influencer" advocacy rather than uncompetitive pay for the most restrictive employment opportunity available to 17 year olds that have seen the results of the Cheney operation....

 

My friends group are all veterans that I've served with over the years, and I've seen zero interest in wanting their kids in the service. You have to trust the leadership that they are going to be responsible with the lives of your children, and nobody is feeling that these days. Leadership sure failed my son when he was in and that left a bad taste in my mouth regarding current military (particularly Army) leadership.

 

Saly, I agree with you. I am coming up on my 50th West Point Reunion. I understand that what West Point WAS and what West Point IS are entirely different things. West Point has become rife with sex scandals, CRT indoctrination, DEI, and more. Lloyd Austin was a friend of mine as a cadet... but times have changed there too. It would be so wonderful to see old friends and reminisce, walking around all the old places. But the place has changed so much... I'd love to see all the new things.

I'd love to go and renew old friendships and create fond new memories. But I am afraid that I might come home angry and upset instead.

 

The continuing recruiting crisis...

The Army Suddenly, and Chaotically, Told Hundreds of Soldiers They Have to Be Recruiters Immediately

Without warning, hundreds of noncommissioned officers were ordered via email to report to the recruiting school at Fort Knox, Kentucky, in less than a week, with hundreds more set to start at the school in December -- a sudden unexpected move by the Army as the service scrambles to boost its recruiting force by 800 by the end of the year.

The orders came after a breakdown in how the Army tracks how many recruiters it has coming through the pipeline along with retention of existing ones, according to Lt. Gen. Douglas Stitt, the Army's top personnel officer. The sudden depletion of recruiters caught Army planners flat-footed, with officials unable to provide a clear explanation as to what went wrong. Now, NCOs will likely have to move during the holiday season and in the middle of the school year, sowing chaos for families.

Good luck...

 

To that point, I saw this Army recruiting commercial on twitter this morning:

https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1721665315078127697

That looks like an old fashioned 1980's style ad. Although the Jonathan Major's Army ads actually looked pretty cool too before they pulled them.

But I feel sorry for those NCO's that got their other orders and plans yanked to take on a thankless job in this environment. Now that military legacy families such as mine are no longer encouraging their kids to enlist, I'm not sure where they are going to get recruits. They may have to lean hard into that trans, purple haired type they were flirting with.