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

[RDKirk]

Since then we have fought with bizarre rules about killing only certain people and what is considered "immoral" in warfare. We bomb enemies...give them band aids....and tell them we're friends. They smile, pretend to agree, and continue killing us. Eventually we realize they aren't giving up and go home...and why would they??? We aren't going to take their land or stuff...nor will we kill the women and children. As long as they keep fighting...we will eventually leave...something our enemies have known since Vietnam. We haven't learned much since then....except that we are terrible at nation building.

A lot of that was a matter not picking the best hills to die on. Or, to say another way, picking the hills we're truly willing to kill the enemy on.

This reminds me of a discussion I was in on a gun forum over this question: If you were carrying a concealed weapon while in a convenience store and suddenly someone pulled a gun and began robbing the cashier...what would you do?

Virtually all of us would do nothing more than let a simple robbery take its course. It would take a severe raising of the stakes, such as someone else being shot first, or being absolutely convinced that was about to happen. And even then...there would be conditional factors involved. One factor was whether our intervention would cause more death than it would prevent. Why the reticence? Because we were armed for the protection of ourselves and our own loved ones primarily...we were not the police and we didn't have the protection from fatality errors that police have.

The police get to kill the wrong people without repercussion. They get to shoot too soon without repercussion. The police have to be 'way, 'way wrong before they suffer repercussion. As armed civilians, we don't get to be wrong. We don't even get to look wrong at first glance. So, intervention becomes a matter of being very careful choosing the hills we die--or kill--on.

The US hasn't been that careful in recent years. That was something Colin Powell and other generals who were "graduates of Vietnam Academy" talked about in various ways.

 

[Laodicean60]

As armed civilians, we don't get to be wrong. We don't even get to look wrong at first glance. So, intervention becomes a matter of being very careful choosing the hills we die--or kill--on.

Yes, even home invasion we have to be careful.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

My father was in the military for 30 years and finished as high up on the food chain as he could given his age and location.

He has said for awhile that recruitment was way, way down, and his pointed at two things: low wages and the realization by young millennials and younger that college is no longer seen as the be all and end all it once was. He said a majority of people came in to take advantage of the GI bill (himself included), but as more people realize the advancement-to-debt ratio of a life with a degree, the only people who joined for it were people going into nursing or medicine. He said when that stopped being a selling point, people stopped joining.

Then when the pay became non-competitive people really stopped joining. Around here, our labor market is very unbalanced and people are begging for workers. My 16-year-old just got his first job ever, no experience, closed availability because he is in high school, at a chain counter service eatery… $18.75 not including tips. On weekends, he’s pulling down $20-21 an hour in tips. If he stays 3 months working 2 shifts a week, he gets a $1k hiring bonus. If he stays 6 months, they’ll help with his college. If he stays a year, they’ll help more. If his degree is even loosely related to his job, they’ll help even more.

With those kind of benefits, why on earth would he ever consider joining the military? Same with all his peers… His best friend works 3 shifts a week at McDonalds for $18, plus benefits, plus a hiring bonus, plus help with college. He’s not even doing college locally, but he has a job waiting at the McDonalds near his college at the same rate of pay. Another is at BK, same deal. Despite moving to Texas to go to A&M, he has a job waiting at the same rate of pay. A whole group of them signed on to work at Jersey Mikes for the same reason. An even bigger group joined Target for the same reason. An even larger group is doing the same via Dunkin.

Heck, I’m considering second job at Target even though I work at a place where I’m very well paid. I was offered a job there (through poaching) where I’d walk in the door with experience to a 25 hour or less a week CSM job getting paid $25 with bonuses. If I don’t take their insurance, which I wouldn’t, I’ll get paid more. I compare that to my Dad who joined the military in his late 20s/early 30s to get GI Bill help and pad his retirement… Something I don’t need to even think about because I’m getting it handed to me at Target.

Absolutely none of them are considering the military because if they choose the right first job, they get everything they need without the hassle of joining the military.

 

[FireDragon76]

Testosterone in young men is more basic than that. The military can start with 19-year-old men who are out of shape and put them into shape in a few weeks. It gives 19-year-olds the ability to jump out of planes, suffer microfractures in their ankles and knees, and heal virtually overnight to do it again in a couple of days. It gives 19-year-olds the ability to walk around all day with 90 pounds of gear--again suffering microfractures in their ankles and knees, healing with a few hours of sleep, and doing it again the next day.

Older men and women...not so much. A much larger proportion of older men and women will break quickly and permanently.

Younger people now days aren't just out of shape. Almost 50 percent of Gen Z and younger are obese. You aren't going to fix that in boot camp.

WHy would anyone want to risk their neck just to guard poppy fiels/oil fields.diamond mines or clean water? The US military is just hired out to secure international business interests. Nobody is fighting for freedom or democracy. If they were, they may have been successful in the past90 or so years. the lobbiests with the most money get to mover the military where they want to destablize the region in order to rape that region of their natural resources.

I agree. That's pretty much what the US military has been doing since the 1960's. And it's largely been a losing strategy. The American public aren't dumb.

 

[DaisyDay]

I'm sorry....does that matter in some way?

Do facts "matter" in some way"? Surely in some way facts matter - even if we don't really care...well, why should we care about them when they don't care about us

I didn't realize that calls for diversity have absolutely nothing to do with historical events or past trends of diversity.

Uh-huh, I find that hard to believe.

I am certain nobody would agree with the statement that diversity has something to do with this year and this year alone....or even just last year.

Okay but so what being as no such statement was made or implied.

Wasn't the whole point of diversity an attempt to "correct" whatever past trends in racial representation were? Does it only matter what they currently are?

Matter? Yeah, there ever was only one point for the call for diversity - the subjugation of white men.

For example, I thought the whole reason why those who claim to care about diversity never mention the NBA, NFL or any other sports leagues was because the underrepresentation of white athletes was justified by the exclusion of minorities from these leagues for so many years.

Oh well, fortunately you have explained quite thoroughly, over and over in many, many threads that no one really cares about these things! It's come to the point where, apparently, merely posting a few statistics is enough to trigger these rants.

Also....while you're explaining this....

Posting a few stats is self-explanatory. The cites were provided for your convenience.

I'm certain that past levels of disproportionate participation was due to racism (that's certainly what you'd say about the disproportionate whiteness of officers, for example) so is the current over-representation of black enlisted people also due to racism?

Wow, are you really demanding that I explain the stats to you? Isn't providing them enough?

Or is it something else?

Could there possibly be complex causes? What a bewildering mystery this might be!!

I mean, obviously I don't believe any of the diversity issue is anything more than the thinly veiled racist beliefs of whomever came up with this political rhetoric but I'm sure you have a coherent explanation...

Well, obviously.

I'm sure you wrote that wrong...black people are over-represented as enlisted military members as compared to officers?

Yeah, you are often sure that I am wrong and that, no matter what I may think I mean, you realize that I am mistaken and think something entirely different than what I think I mean. We are so lucky to have you here to explain ourselves to ourselves!

Isn't every group over represented compared to officers? They're officers after all...there are less of them by design.

Gosh, you're right! Officers do outnumber enlisted personnel by a healthy margin! And only 69% of them White!

Fewer.

Uhh...how many candidates are seriously campaigning on keeping us out of wars? Trump and Ramaswamy?

And candidates are well known for keeping their campaign promises.

Also the only candidates that don't require large contributions from the military-industrial complex to run for office....as if that is somehow connected lol.

I think as long as the Democrats succeed in keeping Joe...war is definitely going to be the norm, as well as any mainstream Republican candidates. I forget if DeSantis is pro-ukraine or not....but if I had to guess, he is.

Also, it's worth pointing out, it doesn't matter what candidate gets elected....we are going to support Israel. We could elect Tlaib and we would be supporting Israel. It literally doesn't matter how unpopular it becomes on the right and left. As a foreign policy decision...the only other option is not helping Israel...which is disastrous if they begin to lose a conflict. No president wants to be the one known for sitting out while the Holocaust 2.0 happened. If they are winning...the least anyone should expect is weapons sales to Israel, aid packages, intelligence sharing, etc...even if we don't put boots on the ground I'd expect boats in the water.

We essentially have one friendly ally in that entire region and we use them as leverage against everyone else. No president will give that up for nothing....and there's nothing gained in supporting Palestine or even larger nations like Syria, for example.

 

[RDKirk]

Younger people now days aren't just out of shape. Almost 50 percent of Gen Z and younger are obese. You aren't going to fix that in boot camp.

I was talking specifically about the testosterone factor of young men. And that continues to be a factor, because young women and older men today are just as, if not more, obese. So, out of a group of obese young men, obese young women, and obese older men, the testosterone factor is still going to produce more success with the obese young men.

 

[Larniavc]

Around here, our labor market is very unbalanced and people are begging for workers.

Off topic of me but this is actually the perfect balance.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Off topic of me but this is actually the perfect balance.

I don’t disagree because it has forced cheapo employers to pay a livable wage and include benefits.

 

[RDKirk]

WHy would anyone want to risk their neck just to guard poppy fiels/oil fields.diamond mines or clean water? The US military is just hired out to secure international business interests. Nobody is fighting for freedom or democracy. If they were, they may have been successful in the past90 or so years. the lobbiests with the most money get to mover the military where they want to destablize the region in order to rape that region of their natural resources.

To be honest, the role of the US military from the very beginning was to secure international business interests. That's why the Navy was mandated by the Constitution and the Army was not.

 

[Fantine]

Older men and women...not so much. A much larger proportion of older men and women will break quickly and permanently.

You are right.

My nephew went into the reserves after 8 years in the Navy. When he was 39 he went to Iraq for year building bridges and it nearly did him in.

But after 27 combined years he can draw a Navy pension at 59...

 

[dogs4thewin]

It could, at the very minimum, not enslave people to fill recruiting quotas.

People are paid for their service whether they are drafted or volunteer they are not slaves.

 

[Desk trauma]

People are paid for their service whether they are drafted or volunteer they are not slaves.

Ah, pay them while forcing them to join at gun point and it’s ok.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Ah, pay them while forcing them to join at gun point and it’s ok.

at gun point? As much as I have very little respect for people who chose to evade the draft ( though I have even less for people who back out of the delayed enlistment programs while waiting for a bed at basic training I am pretty sure that they did not shoot people for evading the draft incarcerate yes, but and I am too young to remember the last draft, but it was my understanding that at least as far as the government went evading was NOT a death sentence in and of itself.

 

[Desk trauma]

at gun point?

That’s how laws are enforced.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That’s how laws are enforced.

I would say that most laws are enforced ( in the first world by at worst the threat of incarceration ( very few crimes in today's time are punishable by the death penalty by the government.

 

[Desk trauma]

I would say that most laws are enforced ( in the first world by at worst the threat of incarceration ( very few crimes in today's time are punishable by the death penalty by the government.

By unarmed officers without a threat of force if resisted?

 

[dogs4thewin]

By unarmed officers without a threat of force if resisted?

In the VAST VAST majority of cases there was some resistance even if it is later discovered that the resistance was NOT with a deadly weapon if the person behaves in such a way that the officer believes they are a threat the shooting is justified. Moreover, when in fact it is determined that an officer did act too quickly or with too much force that officer can and often does face charges.

 

[Desk trauma]

In the VAST VAST majority of cases there was some resistance even if it is later discovered that the resistance was NOT with a deadly weapon if the person behaves in such a way that the officer believes they are a threat the shooting is justified. Moreover, when in fact it is determined that an officer did act too quickly or with too much force that officer can and often does face charges.

I’m sure that made sense to you.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I’m sure that made sense to you.

What makes sense to me the fact that a person can be shot without a dangerous weapon? In fact it does make sense IF the person is behaving in a way that would make a reasonable person BELIEVE they have a dangerous weapon.

 

[Desk trauma]

What makes sense to me the fact that a person can be shot without a dangerous weapon? In fact it does make sense IF the person is behaving in a way that would make a reasonable person BELIEVE they have a dangerous weapon.

Gobbledygook.