US military force at 80-year low, Pentagon urges ‘national call to service’

[Vambram]

US military force at 80-year low, Pentagon urges 'national call to service'

The U.S. military will enter 2024 with the smallest force in over 80 years after multiple branches missed recruitment targets in 2023.

americanmilitarynews.com

The United States military will have the smallest force in over 80 years as it prepares for the start of 2024. The Pentagon recently informed Congress that the U.S. military faces one of its “greatest challenges” as it navigates the “difficult recruiting environment” that resulted in multiple military branches missing recruitment targets in 2023.

According to the $886 billion National Defense Authorization Bill that was passed by Congress last week and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden, the number of active-duty U.S. troops will drop to 1,284,500 in 2024.


The Daily Mail reported that the number of active-duty troops forecasted for 2024 represents the lowest number of troops since before the United States fought in World War II in 1941.

Ashish Vazirani, the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary for personnel and readiness, recently told the House Armed Services Committee that the military missed its 2023 recruitment goal by 41,000 personnel.

 

[Pommer]

US military force at 80-year low, Pentagon urges 'national call to service'

The U.S. military will enter 2024 with the smallest force in over 80 years after multiple branches missed recruitment targets in 2023.

americanmilitarynews.com

The United States military will have the smallest force in over 80 years as it prepares for the start of 2024. The Pentagon recently informed Congress that the U.S. military faces one of its “greatest challenges” as it navigates the “difficult recruiting environment” that resulted in multiple military branches missing recruitment targets in 2023.

According to the $886 billion National Defense Authorization Bill that was passed by Congress last week and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden, the number of active-duty U.S. troops will drop to 1,284,500 in 2024.


The Daily Mail reported that the number of active-duty troops forecasted for 2024 represents the lowest number of troops since before the United States fought in World War II in 1941.

Ashish Vazirani, the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary for personnel and readiness, recently told the House Armed Services Committee that the military missed its 2023 recruitment goal by 41,000 personnel.

Socialism’s best chance at taking over the Nation resides in the Military and yet shows its own faults by not being sustainable.
How do we prop-up our military-industrial complex?
Never “why?”.

 

[Ana the Ist]

US military force at 80-year low, Pentagon urges 'national call to service'

The U.S. military will enter 2024 with the smallest force in over 80 years after multiple branches missed recruitment targets in 2023.

americanmilitarynews.com

The United States military will have the smallest force in over 80 years as it prepares for the start of 2024. The Pentagon recently informed Congress that the U.S. military faces one of its “greatest challenges” as it navigates the “difficult recruiting environment” that resulted in multiple military branches missing recruitment targets in 2023.

Forcing soldiers to take the shot or quit was a stupid idea. Many quit. Biden or whomever came up with that plan is just plain dumb.

According to the $886 billion National Defense Authorization Bill that was passed by Congress last week and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden, the number of active-duty U.S. troops will drop to 1,284,500 in 2024.

Seems a little bit short.

The Daily Mail reported that the number of active-duty troops forecasted for 2024 represents the lowest number of troops since before the United States fought in World War II in 1941.

Well hopefully we don't have to fight any nation with a billion people or more.

Ashish Vazirani, the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary for personnel and readiness, recently told the House Armed Services Committee that the military missed its 2023 recruitment goal by 41,000 personnel.

This is the one time I'm all for racial justice and DEI.

Since the military has disproportionately been comprised of white men (and we all know they ruin everything) I'm all for packing the military full of racial minorities, women, gay people, and non-normal genders, fatty-boom-batties, and everyone else who has been whining about white privilege for the past 10 years.

I'm sure they'll do phenomenal, after all...they'll be diverse....so they'll work better as a team (they're so diverse after all). I'm certain they'll achieve a swift victory against anyone....and if they don't, at least the survivors won't describe being misgendered as "trauma", or words as violence anymore....because they'll finally be acquainted with actual trauma and violence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Socialism’s best chance at taking over the Nation

The "Nation"?

resides in the Military

Huh??

and yet shows its own faults by not being sustainable.

Socialism has never been about sustainable anything. It's just a fantasy version of how economics works...and some people have to learn this the hard way...by implementing Socialism.

How do we prop-up our military-industrial complex?

Subsidies and contracts.

Never “why?”.

Of course not...that's a pretty obvious answer. History is filled with nations and empires that relied far too much on foreign or disloyal military strength.

Perhaps you've heard of the Roman Empire?

 

[Tuur]

Never “why?”.

I thought the "why" is self-evident, like buying a descent lock when you live in a bad neighborhood. OTOH, someone who doesn't think they have anything worth protecting might not bother.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I think bouncing from one pointless war abroad to another might have more to do with dwindling recruitment numbers than one single vaccine dose out of countless the military are required to take, no questions asked, no exemptions or any kind of diversity training they have recently had.

While certainly, some have probably left for these silly, and very petty politically charged reasons, I think not wanting to die for Israel or Ukraine or Afghanistan might have more to do with people seeing through the complete nonsense that is recruitment today.

 

[durangodawood]

Probably a sign that people are finding decent private sector jobs at a very high rate.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Since the military has disproportionately been comprised of white men

Is that true? The US military was integrated before most of the rest of American society, and AFAIK, the military and other civil service jobs have, at least since WW2, been considered a viable path to the middle class for poor minorities.

While certainly, some have probably left for these silly, and very petty politically charged reasons, I think not wanting to die for Israel or Ukraine or Afghanistan might have more to do with people seeing through the complete nonsense that is recruitment today.

Probably a sign that people are finding decent private sector jobs at a very high rate.

Yeah, I think the last 70 years of misadventures have caused military service to lose its luster. We’re no longer a country of poor, opportunity-starved farm kids being given the opportunity to save the world from Nazis. The military wants to professionalize and attract the smarter, more capable candidates while providing compensation and work environments below what those same candidates could find in the private sector.

 

[Fantine]

Technology has allowed us to run a tighter ship, and during the recent wars the National Guard became a sort of temp agency where people were deployed as needed.

Right now, in peace time, I think that focusing on the Guard would be the best approach.

And certainly using technology where we can.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Technology has allowed us to run a tighter ship, and during the recent wars the National Guard became a sort of temp agency where people were deployed as needed.

Right now, in peace time, I think that focusing on the Guard would be the best approach.

And certainly using technology where we can.

The guard is largely state run ( while yes the president can call them up, but the guard was "designed" as it were to be mostly run by and handle state issues. The reserves are the ones that are federal and unlike the guard only certain jobs are in the reserves ( although most jobs are included) As to technology the biggest being that it can take longer to be trained on it. In other words if something were to break out there is no more getting 1000s of recruits training them to shoot and other basic tasks for six weeks to two months and sending them off.

 

[Tuur]

Probably a sign that people are finding decent private sector jobs at a very high rate.

Suure.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is that true? The US military was integrated before most of the rest of American society, and AFAIK, the military and other civil service jobs have, at least since WW2, been considered a viable path to the middle class for poor minorities.

If you want to get technical...I think whites and blacks are both overrepresented...Hispanic/Latino are around the average or equal distribution to their population size (which isn't easily known) and everyone else is underrepresented.

That's the last time I recall giving it a look, which was probably less than 5 years ago. I would imagine that the further back we go...the whiter it gets.

Obviously, men are far overrepresented in relation to women.

Yeah, I think the last 70 years of misadventures have caused military service to lose its luster.

Or perhaps it never had much luster, and increased visibility of the horrors of war has destroyed the illusion of heroic righteous battle. It's hard to say what the exact cause is.

We’re no longer a country of poor, opportunity-starved farm kids being given the opportunity to save the world from Nazis. The military wants to professionalize and attract the smarter, more capable candidates while providing compensation and work environments below what those same candidates could find in the private sector.

Well the military has always been a less than adequately compensated opportunity. It's been a giant source of misery for many families over the years...and we all probably know someone (or knew someone) damaged by the their time in service.

As for attracting smart and capable candidates...I don't know if that's wrong...but it's not the message that has worked in the past.

"Be all that you can be" is clearly a call to the poor and opportunity stricken.

Then there was something like "Be an army of one" which was an appeal to friendless loners without ties or responsibilities.

The current message seems to target disillusioned loners apathetic to the superficial and hollow nature of our modern society. It's not exactly a message to the smart or professional imo.

Obviously, my post was in jest...I don't think anyone should be pressed into racial/marginalized quotas to make up for their lack In the past. I just thought it was a funny post to make pointing out how everyone believes that they are entitled to seats in CEO boardrooms but no one is demanding to be represented in the position of cannon fodder.

 

[Hans Blaster]

US military force at 80-year low, Pentagon urges 'national call to service'

The U.S. military will enter 2024 with the smallest force in over 80 years after multiple branches missed recruitment targets in 2023.

americanmilitarynews.com

The United States military will have the smallest force in over 80 years as it prepares for the start of 2024. The Pentagon recently informed Congress that the U.S. military faces one of its “greatest challenges” as it navigates the “difficult recruiting environment” that resulted in multiple military branches missing recruitment targets in 2023.

According to the $886 billion National Defense Authorization Bill that was passed by Congress last week and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden, the number of active-duty U.S. troops will drop to 1,284,500 in 2024.


The Daily Mail reported that the number of active-duty troops forecasted for 2024 represents the lowest number of troops since before the United States fought in World War II in 1941.

Ashish Vazirani, the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary for personnel and readiness, recently told the House Armed Services Committee that the military missed its 2023 recruitment goal by 41,000 personnel.

Recruiting is tough in a strong economy with near full employment. Military pay isn't that great.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If you want to get technical...I think whites and blacks are both overrepresented...Hispanic/Latino are around the average or equal distribution to their population size (which isn't easily known) and everyone else is underrepresented.

That's the last time I recall giving it a look, which was probably less than 5 years ago. I would imagine that the further back we go...the whiter it gets.

Obviously, men are far overrepresented in relation to women.




Or perhaps it never had much luster, and increased visibility of the horrors of war has destroyed the illusion of heroic righteous battle. It's hard to say what the exact cause is.





Well the military has always been a less than adequately compensated opportunity. It's been a giant source of misery for many families over the years...and we all probably know someone (or knew someone) damaged by the their time in service.

As for attracting smart and capable candidates...I don't know if that's wrong...but it's not the message that has worked in the past.

"Be all that you can be" is clearly a call to the poor and opportunity stricken.

Then there was something like "Be an army of one" which was an appeal to friendless loners without ties or responsibilities.

The current message seems to target disillusioned loners apathetic to the superficial and hollow nature of our modern society. It's not exactly a message to the smart or professional imo.

Obviously, my post was in jest...I don't think anyone should be pressed into racial/marginalized quotas to make up for their lack In the past. I just thought it was a funny post to make pointing out how everyone believes that they are entitled to seats in CEO boardrooms but no one is demanding to be represented in the position of cannon fodder.

My (rather limited) understanding is that the only branch hitting their recruitment numbers are the Marines and it’s not because of enlistment incentives but because they’ve consistently done a good job with their tough guy branding. Being “a Marine” still has some cache where being “a sailor” or “a soldier” apparently does not. It would seem that “cannon fodder” is the one job that people are still signing up for, if for no other reason than it comes with clarity of purpose. I guess I understand how that can appeal to some, even if I’m not one of them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Recruiting is tough in a strong economy with near full employment. Military pay isn't that great.

Keep in mind though that there are other benefits such as free medical, housing ( or extra money for housing if married. There is also the "free food in the dining halls or if you are married you get to keep that money to off set the cost of your food. This of course does not include the benefits you get upon getting out including education, preference for certain jobs and even in many cases discounts from private businesses ( though you usually have to asks for them about it.

In short, I am not saying that service members do not deserve to get paid more, but I am saying that many people forget ( especially young people that the money in your bank account is only a part of your pay there are a number of things that are included with your military service that civilians must pay and budget for on their own.

 

[DaisyDay]

Since the military has disproportionately been comprised of white men

Is that true? The US military was integrated before most of the rest of American society, and AFAIK, the military and other civil service jobs have, at least since WW2, been considered a viable path to the middle class for poor minorities.

I think the phrase "has been" is the catch - in 2011 that's true, but in 2023 it is not.

According to Active Component Demographics (army.mil):

White, Not Hispanic: 53.6%,
Black, Not Hispanic: 20.3%,
Hispanic: 17.6%, ​

According to the US 2020 Census:

White, Not Hispanic: 57.8%,
Black, Not Hispanic: 12.1%,
Hispanic: 18.7%, ​

Men are over-represented as compared to women at all levels. White people are over-represented as officers as compared to enlisted. Black people are over-represented as enlisted as compared to officers.

Yeah, I think the last 70 years of misadventures have caused military service to lose its luster. We’re no longer a country of poor, opportunity-starved farm kids being given the opportunity to save the world from Nazis. The military wants to professionalize and attract the smarter, more capable candidates while providing compensation and work environments below what those same candidates could find in the private sector.

The pandemic years were hard on most people. I hope we can manage to stay out of the coming wars.

 

[durangodawood]

Why would anyone want to sign away so much of the freedom they enjoy just to end up damaged one way or another from a useless escapade like Iraq II ?

 

[Desk trauma]

Do what any other organization trying to get more workers does, increase compensation to get them. They just got $886 billion, should be a dollar or two still around.

 

[Tuur]

Keep in mind though that there are other benefits such as free medical, housing ( or extra money for housing if married. There is also the "free food in the dining halls or if you are married you get to keep that money to off set the cost of your food. This of course does not include the benefits you get upon getting out including education, preference for certain jobs and even in many cases discounts from private businesses ( though you usually have to asks for them about it.

In short, I am not saying that service members do not deserve to get paid more, but I am saying that many people forget ( especially young people that the money in your bank account is only a part of your pay there are a number of things that are included with your military service that civilians must pay and budget for on their own

The big draw I saw on Career Days (representing our company) was post-military college benefits for those who didn't want to make a career of it. Know of a person who that dazzled to the point that his family was stunned when he was deployed (Hellooo...you join the military, you're subject to deployment). This was decades ago, BTW, so it wasn't a new development.

What I suspect is the problem is things like the soldiers expected to pay for equipment left in Afghanistan. (See Soldier blasts Biden after getting charged for gear he left in Afghanistan ). That doesn't inspire confidence. I also suspect, but cannot prove, that many who would otherwise be attracted to military service is not exactly enamored with the current administration.

What no one seems to be mentioning is that if the US Army can't keep numbers up, we may well see a return of the draft.

 

[Desk trauma]

What no one seems to be mentioning is that if the US Army can't keep numbers up, we may well see a return of the draft.

I don't see many politicians willing to jump on that grenade.