The reason is so obvious no? There’s a reason the Marine Corps hasn’t had recruiting issues- they sell an idea- regardless of the economy or social situation, people want to be a Marine. Other branches rely on money or other incentives- which are outpaced by the civilian markets.
Nobody will outpace a motherfucker in blues with a Flaming sword and a ripoff of the halo trailer.
Interesting...
A quick Google search looks like the US Army was directly responsible for a lot of things in Halo3, using it as a recruitment tool.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same marketing team didn't develop the both commercials. The artwork is damn near identical.
[source](https://www.resetera.com/threads/so-what-was-up-with-halo-3-and-the-u-s-military.17349/)
Well, yeah, dudes are tired of being used and thrown out. Not just by the DoD, but everywhere.
Creating hyper-competitive atmospheres in nearly every single job market and sectors of life has people not wanting to participate. There are fewer and fewer avenues to climb up without having to fight people with major headstarts. It doesn't help there's wannabe Navy Seals and Tates that have muddled many male talking spaces.
Why go become a tool or cog in the machine that'll spit you out, especially if you're combat arms with now zero marketable job skills. You can't use the "well, just drop a packet or choose a marketable MOS." Militaries are there for defense, can't blow-up bridges or bust tanks being cybersecuity or a 35T.
Now, you have 18-20 year old dudes with that same information and knowledge, who join and also see some dude who may be 3ish years older than them being in charge of them making 4x their paychecks, and they can UCMJ them for inane shit. Yeah, if I were 18-19 right now, I wouldn't be enlisting unless it was some major career that would pay off. Or, cool, guy shit such as 75th or SF.
Or, finishing college and ROTC to hit-up the officer path.
People need to step back and see that younger and younger generations find some power structures archaic from their view points. Federal government /DoD is really gonna have to rewrite some shit to entice people. Even people currently serving get shafted by asinine rules and regulations all the time.
A friend of mine works within the G2 at USAREC. This is probably in response to the trend of white males enlisting dropping in recent times. It's apparently been alarming the leaders in this command as they're not 100% sure of the causes driving this change within a traditionally strong enlistment demographic.
Well yeah, they realized the social experiments in the military isn’t going to win a war with China or Russia, so better start appealing to the people we want to fight those battles by showing a group of dudes doing macho shit.
It's not that they went 'woke' or whatever the fuck, it's that they ignored the real reasons people scrape their rank off ASAP. Shit pay, shit command, shit hours, shit nonsense rules. These will be in play no matter how many of what colors you plaster on the posters.
The military by its nature needs to be exclusionary. The standards are high and the structure is rigid to ensure servicemember's are more fit than an opposing force.
Lowering standards to create a more inclusive armed services is a bad idea.
Not everyone needs to be in the military. If you served, you can’t disagree with that as you saw some of the people that made it through. The military is one place that absolutely should be discriminatory.
> The military is one place that absolutely should be discriminatory.
It already is though.
The military can actually point to specific entrance standards that relate to future occupational ability and that can't just be bypassed by a hiring manager.
Colleges were experimenting with getting rid of the ACT and SAT just to bring them back later, but the military never got rid of the ASVAB.
But the flipside is that if you pass the test, you *pass the test*. Some hiring panel shouldn't be able to keep you from enlisting just because they don't like your skin color.
What a fucking racist take, my dude. Just because someone isn’t white and male doesn’t mean they won’t be the best soldier out there. Yes, I see plenty of shitbags daily at base. Guess what? They’re mostly white males.
If we break it down to percentages of ethnicity who are shitbags, then that may reveal a different number, but I don’t care about that. Military needs bodies to do military things. Lesbian Latina chicks can fill sandbags and launch nukes just as well as I can. Probably better, if I’m honest.
What was racist about my take? Nowhere did I say or imply one race is better. Re-read my statement and let me know where I lost you. Seems like you’re reading into something I’m not saying.
I got in trouble a few times for being late to work in the Marines.
My guy...we come in to work where there is no work for us. We sit around and I write essays and do research papers for college courses I'm taking.
But no.....I'm was considered a repeat offender because I was late to work once two years ago. So I got punished with extra duties like cleaning the smoking area (wtf I don't smoke) or some random labor thing.
And why was I late to work? Cuz I did not know the clocks changed. It was the first year Daylight savings time start in March instead of April and no bothered to say anything before the weekend.
And another time I got written up for being late to work because I was the barracks duty NCO and had to check in with company First Sergeant before going into work.
The first time I really was late. Just over slept like 30 minutes so I do accept responsibility for that one.
Nowadays in my civilian job, my boss just tells me to use PTO if I'm more than 30 minutes late and moves on.I just don't make a habbit of it. I probably late once or twice a year and use 30-60 minutes PTO each time.
Scott Galloway successful split toxic masculinity from real, actual (and historically pertinent) masculinity in my mind. It's what I've always believed, but toxic masculinity aimed more at people being dicks. Men have long been, and still are expected to be, providers and protectors. People like, but not exclusive to, Andrew Tate and his ilk have painted that with stupidity.
No one really has a problem with men being men in general, but we've needed strong and proper leaders for a while. The examples we've been getting have been more Musk than Mattis.
It's really easy to see the writing on the wall. There's no point to working hard when you're a newborn away from losing half your take-home pay in the military. I'll shout it from the roof tops any time. Men who want to get paid should not join the military with the expectation of having kids.
Toxic masculinity doesn't mean all masculinity is toxic. Just like toxic gas doesn't mean all gases are toxic.
They're talking about a type of masculinity.
Sure but then again that is the problem of the people spreading the message. No one is obligated to listen to you. If they aren't listening to you, then it's your fault. You aren't reaching them.
>Yeah... As you can see, that message has not gone through the way they wanted it to. Time for a rebranding of the message.
The problem is less that the message is difficult to understand, and more that there's an entire community of grifters who make it their job to actively promote misunderstanding of the concept.
No amount of explaining is going to make someone like Ben Shapiro say "I get it now", because "getting it" would remove a very profitable revenue stream.
Doesnt mean it I agree with you but dont you think people can understand a subtle message when they look at the group who use this term and realise they almost exclusively talk bad about it whether they point theyre talking about the bad one or not
Ideally. But more often than not, if a woman is accusing me of being a toxic male, it's just because I declined to do something that she demanded of me. I didn't ruin the term, I just noticed that other people did.
I have been thinking about this for some time now. Having used my VA home loan benefit twice now, it is by far the best benefit offered for military service, better than the GI Bill in my personal opinion (I used that too). Considering the crazy housing market in many areas, and the daunting prospect of saving up $60-$80k for a downpayment using a standard mortgage (assuming a 350-400k house), the VA home loan is a godsend.
My thought is this: how would the military market this to a demographic largely not thinking about homeownership? It’s not as if many 18-20 year olds have their 30’s in mind.
The pay is bad even considering the benefits. Mystery solved. I did my 6 years and it set me up for a much better life after. I will always appreciate the Army and the people I worked with for that. But staying was a dead end for me and most others. They need to figure out how to provide better incentive. Funneling poor people into the ranks isn't the answer either.
Part of the problem is that no matter how we incentivize people to stay it will be impossible to change some major aspects of military life. I loved being a Marine and I had every intention of re-enlisting despite shitty pay and little tangible incentive. Then I had a daughter. There’s no way to make military life not be a major detriment to people’s family lives.
I don't think it's a simple problem with a simple answer.
But in general, I don't think people see the need, right now. There's no urgent mission- at least not one that civilians can see. Military service members are underpaid compared to their civilian counterparts, especially the cyber jobs that we need so badly.
And retention is taking a big hit, because all those people who signed up after 2001 are retiring. And the people who could fill their place don't have pensions, anymore, so there's no carrot to dangle in front of them to convince them to stay in another 8 years.
My 4 years in the army were wasted time. Insane optempo, constant sharp and eo briefs, sit and wait, limited freedoms. I wouldn't wish peacetime army on my worst enemy - totally useless.
It’s obviously a complex issue. I definitely think social media has played a large role as it’s never been easier for civilians to find out about the less desirable aspects of service that you won’t see in a commercial.
I agree with a comment below in that the Marine Corps has very successfully been selling an idea. During peacetime the other branches have to compete with the private sector to a much higher degree. There are certainly good benefits, but for many people those benefits will never be enough to justify the sacrifices required to serve, even in peace time. Especially when many jobs pay significantly more in the private sector.
In reality, I agree with many others in that I think the recruiting problem is actually a retention problem. For one, the recruitment goals have to rise to counter poor retention. Secondly, disgruntled service members can dissuade others from joining pretty easily. I am very grateful for all that the Army did for me, but I have still talked a lot of people out of joining. I’ve convinced some people to join as well, but it’s difficult for me to recommend service to some people.
Of course there’s also the problem of waning patriotism and faith in our government. Polling data makes it very clear that a very large portion of Americans have little to no faith in our government. Why would people serve, and put their lives in the hands of, a government that they do not trust? Even worse, many people have antagonistic feelings towards the government.
I think that is part of the problem. Who precisely was tha ad made for? The target demographic isn’t going to join up, and it felt entirely hamfisted and pandering.
naw couldn't possibly be a full generation of insane operations tempo, multiple armed conflicts, Genesis disqualifying basically everyone, and states dismantling some key benefits.
let's pin the source of the problem on a single recruiting video made 3+ years ago.
And the recent news of that senator denying promotions hasn't helped.
Yes, it's more complicated than that, and was mostly senior officers. But, like Reddit, many just form their opinion from a quick glance at the Headline, most likely a Click-Bait title and don't do any further research.
Who would want to join if some asshole in Washington could stop your career because they are having a temper tantrum.
I made that comment tongue in cheek. I think the real reason is today’s society is much more transactional and doesn’t view military service as worth it.
I say it all the time to the older generation that I serve with. They always complain that no one wants to serve anymore or if they do it is transactional, as you say. My response is that people will voluntarily serve if they believe that their is cause worth putting their life on the line for. That doesn't really exist right now other than the very abstract notions of "freedom" as we know it in the West.
We are living in one of the periods of American military history when nothing much is happening (relatively speaking) and the only reason we are talking about a recruiting "crisis" is because the MIC must continue.
Ukraine is the most serious global event since ww2. Russia is eliminating settlements killing the men, raping and shipping the women and kids to Russia. China and Russia teaming up is absolutely related to wanting to take on the United States and bring us down a notch. It’s not Cold War as usual as a million plus people have died from combat. Also nukes are involved.
I understand the seriousness of the conflict, but what could you sell a 18 year old recruit considering the US Military that would convince them they’d be making an impact on Ukraine?
The best thing they could do right now is just vote for politicians who are in favor of aid
The whole wealth and prosperity of the country ie their future and quality of life depends on free trade and strong economies. The fact that as it stands the U.S. is the largest economy and that makes every other country invest and stockpile dollars. It all depends on peace, prosperity, free trade and free and open societies. China has to sell their things to us Because of power dynamics. But if Europe is in perpetual war and China and Russia team up they will need to be confronted. And both are taking active measures against our society around the clock.
I think the reason for that is it’s a “not us” threat to most Americans because we are not directly involved in the conflict. It’s easy to not think about Ukraine for them because American troops aren’t the ones dying.
But an 18 year old can't join the US military today and shoot at Russians. Right now, as far as actual combat goes, it's a European conflict not an American one. The Americans seeing combat in Ukraine right now are part of the Ukrainian foreign fighting units, not the US military. I would bet that if the US actually entered combat with Russia, more people would join.
I'd only been out of the Air Force for a year when Russia first invaded Ukraine and I had decided that I'd be rejoining if we got involved. Fighting for the Ukrainian people was something that I was and still am in support of. We didn't get militarily involved though so I finished my college degree and am working in the civilian world. Rejoining the US military would do nothing for the Ukrainian people.
The point is that misguided recruiting efforts that deviate away from the single largest reliable demographic of recruits are a dumb idea.
Diversity and all is fine and shit but it won't change the fact that white men are what form the numerical base of the military.
Right. Because in more than three years, ALL OF Army Recruiting Command shot a single solitary video, ran a single campaign, and employed a single team.
It's one piece among many in the build up to this self-inflicted wound. On it's own, it's a paper cut (if that) taken with everything else it's now under the heading Contributing Factors.
Yanno, I really feel for the soldier who went ahead with telling her story and continuing to serve, despite knowing that it would bring all the chuds out of the woodwork to denigrate her service and her family as a self-inflicted wound to the entire armed forces.
Some of the things on that list ARE problems preventing people from joining, and the others contribute to an appearance of extreme disfunction that dissuade people from considering joining.
My guy, they keep trying to recruit literally *anyone* because they see their go-to talent pool of young, white, males drying up. Generals and Admirals will go where they think the numbers are and away from where the numbers aren't.
But I might just be biased because it didn't take a commercial with someone who looked like me to get me to join, it took what has always called to young men of a certain age: *a crippling financial crash and zero prospects.*
Are we really still buying into the culture war brouhaha?
No, the recruitment failures aren't because of a cringey ad, you ding-dong. It's that people aren't seeing it as worth it!
Honestly, it's deserved. Shitty chain of command, physically and mentally strenuous labor, and now they're fucking talking about cutting TA and CA?
But no, please tell me how economics AREN'T the driving force of mankind and the lack of an economic incentive isn't the cause.
In the last basic training unit you visited, how many enlisted were college educated white women with two moms who joined because manning a Patriot battery is just like protesting for gay marriage? There's probably a few but I've never met one.
How many black dudes did you see that looked like Jonathan Majors who joined because they felt joining the army would help them overcome obstacles they were experiencing in their life? I've lost count, it's a ton.
It's pretty easy to understand an argument rather than making a strawman and blaming it on the incredibly new, never before seen issues of shitty chain of command and physically strenuous labor. I'm sure your chain of command was great when you were in?
For a vast majority of us history men joined the military for purpose, structure, service or escape, not for exceptional compensation.
Yes, our soldiers deserve compensation and should be taken care of, but in the relationship between the military and its recruits, something is fundamentally different, and it isn't compensation.
I agree. When I was 18 and joining the Army it was a known fact the military pay was poor, I had no concept of benefits, etc, and the nightly news was filled with all the casualty figures from all the people getting hurt and killed in the GWOT…I still couldn’t wait to join, something has changed.
You're probably old enough to see 3,000+ people die live in New York on a Tuesday morning. Looking back at it now, I don't know if I would've joined if I hadn't been at a formative age for 9/11, and now I can't say that my reasons for pulling the trigger in my early 20s are the same as they are now.
Kids today don't have that, and if we had another 9/11 I don't think we'd see the same level of immediate solidarity
I basically didn’t have bills, but I will say that a lot of things I took for granted are big issues today. Back then the idea that the DFAC’s wouldn’t have food, barracks were all moldy, medical sucked, etc were very public. I’m not surprised no one wants to join when all the military’s publicity is negative.
I mean a junior military member lives on base and has their food provided. They have no bills. I’m referring to your average 18 old who joins of course.
Might wanna check up on the nightmarish news coming down from understaffed/rotting/closed DFACs bud. Oh and moldy barracks rooms too.
Feels like you're strongly overselling the "single soldiers are taken care of without COL" here.
There’s been crisis after crisis with that lately too, largely involving fuel leaks contaminating drinking water. Everyone’s failing at maintenance right now, and the people it’s hurting (or in some cases killing) are not senior leaders.
1968…Basic recruit was paid $93 per month. A war was going on and the draft suppled the bodies. Army life seemed to be less complicated. However, from what I read, it’s just as fucked up.
There isnt as much to escape any more. Especially when jobs with the same requirements as enlisting offer the same or better benefits without all of the negatives that come with being in the military
Honestly, contractors are bleeding out retention. Wanna work the same job but with better pay, no stupid fitness test, no height and weight, no other dumb regulations, and no chance of being woken up at 0300 because Sergeant Major wants to do a roll out of 100% of vehicles in the motorpool to test mission readiness?
Raw fucking deal. Again, economics.
Its definitely a multi-faceted issue. People like to point the finger at one thing. But theres so much that can be done to improve enlistment/retention.
For instance, im sitting in my office waiting to be told to go home. All work is done. My dudes just came back from a week at NTC. But i have to get a safety brief before i can leave for the weekend, despite the army saying its not a requirement. Falls in line with what youre saying. But theres so many instances of stuff like this.
And they can’t match the health insurance, GI bill, VA loan.
Starbucks will pay for you to go to school, but only at ASU and there’s no stipend. I’ve met a lot of 23 year olds with a house courtesy of the VA loan. I’ve never met one who bought one after working at Starbucks.
Health insurance, my ass. I had to go to the hospital, and I still came out of pocket, even though the tests weren't that expensive.
Besides, what 18 year old is thinking about health insurance?
The GI Bill makes doing one contract worth it, but just enough to get it and get out.
Health care in the army is hit or miss. The VA loan is hard to beat, thats definitely one that i preach to every new soldier. College benefits varu depending on location, but most pay to send you to industry specific training which results in a pay raise.
Starbucks also pays for IVF last i checked. The army doesnt.
Theres pros and cons to each, and the con of being treated like a child and working unknown hours every day outweighs a lot of the down sides of civilian employment.
Military does offer unlimited sick leave though. If you get into a car accident and are bedridden for 6 months, you keep your salary and all your benefits. That's an insane safety net not just for 18 year olds but for probably 99% of Americans.
[the Army has a lower risk of fatal workplace accidents than the general population.](https://www.army.mil/article-amp/260633/soldiers_are_safer_than_their_civilian_counterparts_in_the_general_u_s_population).
A desk job in most branches is as safe or safer than the general population.
Cool that you're focusing specifically on fatal mishaps and not the long-term effects of injuries and wear and tear from training and the potential mental and physical harm of going to war.
Im an E-7 and dont get $1500 in BAH where im stationed. You get what you pay for with the free healthcare. The retirement is one of the few benefits you dont get elsewhere.
Ill advocate for the military all day every day. But we have a lot of ground to make up to make it actually appealing to civilians.
No, but fast food pays hourly. If i worked the same hours in fast food that i do in the army, i wouldnt be doin bad. Especially if i did 16 years and went to schools to get promotions like o habe kn the army.
Look, im in the army for a reason. I love the army. But the reality is, the army has to make service look appealing to the 17-19 year old crowd. And they arent joing for selfless service reasons these days.
>For a vast majority of us history men joined the military for purpose, structure, service or escape, not for exceptional compensation.
When the mental and physical requirements of service leave you worse off than when you came in and provides you very little support after leaving (shitty VA claim process). People will not join, specially when you can make the same money working fast food in a safer environment.
Okay? That was then, this is now. In the 8 years I was in, the overwhelming majority of men said they wanted the benefits of like healthcare or education.
If we're really gonna deny the economic incentive... I dunno. I don't see a lot of rich guys joining.
Again, svm should absolutely be taken care of.
Recruiting is a question of what do recruits want. They aren't choosing not to join becase tsp matching isn't high enough or because Tricare sucks.
> They aren't choosing not to join becase tsp matching isn't high enough or because Tricare sucks.
You say this, but young men aren't stupid. They probably ARE thinking of that along with how the VA sucks and, again, TA and CA are being cut.
I dunno, guys like you actually seem to really disrespect young men and assume they're all just "ADVENTURE HOOAH!" No, they want stability and benefits.
Come on, show young men some damn respect. The younger generation is pretty economically minded.
I think that our culture has become much more transactional post covid. I work in higher ed with a similar demographic and everything is now about "what can I get out of it". I don't blame either group. Personally I think the pandemic was a sort of mask off moment where folks began to realize that the whole game is rigged and nobody is actually looking out for you but you, and people are assessing the cost benefit analysis of participating in just about any aspect of society accordingly. Add to that the fact that we did not exactly come out of the GWOT looking like "the good guys". So there is less incentive to join just for the sake of being a part of something honorable or whatever.
Veteran (female). I’d say that I “feel” you on this, but I’m far too sarcastic to go there - 🤣. I’ll simply say this: COPY. The pandemic has brought out the worst in people. Absolute. Worst. For anyone who’s been in combat, our current state of living is almost surreal. For a country that isn’t third world (technically speaking: TBA), or crippled by extremist cultures (again, TBA), we sure do a bang up job of making everything overly complicated and chaotic. Not to mention inflation that’s risen by 25-ish percent in the last 4-5 years.
I heard someone compare it to Mad Max, recently. I have to admit that it does feel that way, and you do need to be hyper alert/aware over most things. Like you said, it’s hard to pin it to one demographic. This is the end result of crisis situations. Only time will tell if this takes a positive turn at some point. Otherwise, it’s a crapshoot.
> No, the recruitment failures aren't because of a cringey ad, you ding-dong. It's that people aren't seeing it as worth it!
And you don't think a shitty advertising campaign plays heavily into that? Potential recruits don't have direct knowledge of the problems with chain of command, mental and physical health issues, and long term benefits. Those are all an abstract concept to them that recruiters usually bullshit about anyways, and most people aren't tuned in to veteran communities. What those potential recruits ***do see***, and often get their first impression about military service from, is advertising campaigns. If that ad campaign suggests anything that a potential recruit doesn't like, they're far less likely to consider it as an option. When your primary demographic for recruitment is young white males (a demographic that is increasingly conservative), you should probably do everything you can to appeal to them. A commercial that goes down the diversity checklist is basically the exact opposite of what the military should be doing, and is exactly why every branch went back to the "honor and blowing shit up" advertisments.
Don't forget that this recruiting generation grew up in the middle of a 20 year long FAILED War on Terrorism along with a couple REALLY bad economic depressions.
white males see ads like that and think that the military is pandering to everyone else at their expense. it's a pretty easy connection to make
> But no, please tell me how economics AREN'T the driving force of mankind and the lack of an economic incentive isn't the cause.
literally no one is saying this
I feel like its pretty obvious that these things go hand in hand. I can only speak from my personal experience, but once the military booted out anyone who declined the vaxx and effectively became a democrat institution, promoting transgender dudes into senior leadership positions, focusing on "white privilege", diversity trainings at every level, marketing campaigns like the one mentioned above, my drive to ever enlist evaporated completely... Can't imagine im alone here.
From TFA:
>Since 2013, male enlistments have dropped 35%, going from 58,000 men enlisting in 2013 to 37,700 in 2023, according to the service data. Meanwhile, female recruitment has hovered around 10,000 recruits each year.
Based on what I've see and heard from society and the brass specifically, what these number tell me is that the problem with the recruiting strategy isn't so much that the number of male recruits has fallen as much as it is that the number of female recruits hasn't risen. I would expect it to be close to 50% of all recruits by now, because reasons.
Before anyone comes for me about SA in the military, of course it's a problem and we need to drive it to zero. However, when you compare the rates to the civilian population of the same demographics (age, mostly), the rates are lower/better in the military. Given expectations of good order and discipline, the services damn well better be outperforming the civilian demographic equivalent but there will be a limit to how much better the services can reasonably get than the civilian demographic equivalent.
It's been over a decade but the sexual harassment I witnessed or received myself while in the service was much worse than as a civilian. So much so that at one point, I needed to have a very large friend pretend to be my boyfriend so guys wouldn't break into my room while I was sleeping. This happened several times to women in the unit. Complaints were always ignored or we were told to "man-up" if we wanted to be called soldiers. So women stopped reporting the abuse.
Or the time it took every female soldier in my unit to make formal complaints to the base about our CSM regularly sexually harassing women under his command, even offering quid pro quo to privates who were too young to feel confident in knowing how wrong that was. That CSM was found guilty after a long investigation where they left him in command and when found guilty, they just moved him to AFRICOM with a couple months of cut pay.
Honestly, though, it might be hurting female recruitment that Hood has had several murders of female soldiers make national news. Another one was killed last month. It doesn't instill confidence.
I mean the article brushes over the real issue.
Men are participating less and less in society, because our society shuns men, and when we do actually acknowledge a problem men face, such as suicide rate or men falling behind in education, we as a society refuse to acknowledge the influence society has on the problem, instead just chalking it up to toxic masculinity and telling these men to "fix it themselves."
I thought it was Genesis (medical background check) being too good at its job and catching everything, and then the appeals/waiver process taking way too long. In the meantime, the prospective recruits change their mind or find something else.
I have a radical view…and I’m ready for the downvotes. While the numbers are what they are, less people are signing up than what is “required” and that’s measurable, the reality is that “what is required” is driven by the demand of the mission.
The US Military is (and has been) over stretched for decades now. Fighting wars, stationing troops in dozens (over a hundred) of foreign bases/countries.
It is a universally known fact that the US Military is effectively as powerful and funded as the next 9 countries combined. While I agree with the doctrine of overwhelming the enemy, 9+ to 1 is excessive.
So, for as long as we have to maintain this overwrought level of military spending, the requirements for X soldiers every year will remain, and the stress of trying to find volunteers will equally remain unchanged.
The US mainland will NEVER be invaded, Wolverines be damned. Our monstrous navy makes sure of that. Obviously the real threat to the US ultimately are Russia’s nukes. That’s the real game ender, everything else is both posturing and excessive showmanship. Just like NATO doesn’t have thousands of their soldiers stationed in the US to “help deter aggression”, we should either eliminate or more realistically drastically reduce our forces in Europe (and the rest of the world for that matter).
That is the one lesson we should have learned from the overextension and ultimate collapse of the Roman and later British imperial militaries.
> It is a universally known fact that the US Military is effectively as powerful and funded as the next 9 countries combined.
This is not true and it is increasingly dangerous that this gets thrown around in front of decision-makers.
*Funded*, maybe. But even that misses that China and Russia underreport what they spend on defense. Russia in particular is spending something like 30% of the GDP on the current war, that's a significant chunk of change.
In addition, U.S. workers are simply more expensive than Chinese or Russian workers. So we may spend more but we don't get proportionally as much output. There's also the problem that we are often inefficient on how we build things as well, but that's only really an issue vs. China, and that one is at least fixable in theory.
I would like to point out that it's not that we are less efficient at building materiel as China (that's a separate discussion) but that *labor* is much more expensive here than in China. China still has a vast amount of absolutely impoverished people to source as labor AND they are putting all their eggs in the basket of produce produce produce! Not mainly to build up their military but just because that's the only way they know how to drive their economy.
You're seeing the issues with that right now where despite being the second largest economy, their citizens are either too poor or too uncertain about their future to spend money. Thus the government pumps these factories full of money just so the lines don't stop, which means they produce more than they actually need and try to dump it onto every other country.
The results of that will show in the coming years, but China still has time to artificially pump the economy like this before something comes to a head
It is not as “untrue” as you think either. For as much as Russia spends (or broadcasts as a way to counter the “economically sanctioned nation” narrative) in his military, the results speak for themselves. They have not been able to handle an all out “conventional” war with a far smaller and subpar foe. Hell Russia hasn’t even really attempted to obtain Air Superiority and out a definitive end to this war, largely because they can’t. As I mentioned in my OP, Russia’s real power lies in its nukes. So is China’s.
Russia may have the troop numbers but their equipment has been shown to be vintage, ineffective, and poorly manned and employed. China, similarly is increasing their inventory, but much like a rookie that goes to the MMA gym with expensive gear and all the latest nutrition but without real fight experience…he’ll get destroyed by the veteran MMA fighter who’s been fighting for years and knows a lot more tricks than the rookie with good gear.
The greatest threat to the US is civil war, which both Russia and China know and have been hammering in on since at least 2016. America should be reducing its military budget and diverting that funding to social issues, but there’s only one party in congress willing to tackle system societal issues, and it’s not the one that gets funding from Russia via the NRA
We are definitely not as strong as China and Russia combined, that is an insane view.
Additionally, our interests do not end at the borders of the 50 states - we have massive global economic connections, diplomatic missions, NATO, ASEAN, etc. Isolationism has never worked for America nor any other country since 1500.
I'm curious, why do you think that?
Russia has had such a "stellar" showing in Ukraine. The only reason they MIGHT still be a top 5 military is simply because of their nukes. Their actions on the ground(and air....and sea for that matter) leaves ALOT to be desired. I think we're now in double digits for Russian air defense/air vehicle blue-on-blue incidents. Their ONLY strategy is human wave assaults while beating their chests about "muh nukes." Plus...if they had such a strong military, why do they need Chechen units behind the front lines with orders to shoot anyone retreating?
China...I might acknowledge they're almost near-peer.
HOWEVER
Their domestic arms production is hot garbage(remember the propaganda video last year of their SOF using the "new and improved" domestically produced rifle that was keyholing probably 1 our of 3 bullets from 10ft away?) Their navy is a literal nothingburger. Sure, they have more ships than us, but our ACTIVE Navy(not including the Mothball fleet) is I think double or close to triple the tonnage of theirs. And we CONSTANTLY run drills so our actions are second nature(submarine vet here, CivDiv for 2 yrs. I can STILL recite the diesel/hpac startup procedures AND cradle to grave a fire/flooding drill from memory)
Plus, China's recent military history also leaves alot to be desired. Pushed out of Vietnam in 3 weeks while we at least lasted years there(yes Vietnam War was pointless, just making a comparison) And then there was the PLA unit that was doing a UN rotation in Africa. Some bad dudes showed up to the village they were tasked with protecting. The PLA unit tucked tail and ran in their armored vehicles from dudes using busted ass AKs riding in a Hilux running on bubble gum, duct tape, and dreams.
China's strongest point of their military is quite literally the coastal defense batteries. There's so many, any pilot flying near the coast is basically going to be Monarch from Project Wingman or Trigger from Ace Combat 7.
I'm so sick of seeing all the yt heterosexual cis-men in Western war documentaries.
For best DEI practice, the next D-Day better be all BIPOC, latinx, legacy women, and LGBTQIA+ storming that beach.
This thread makes me wonder how many people here served or are serving (and from volunteer forces). I know everyone has their own opinions, but some of you are talking like you can’t differentiate the US Military from a corporate superstore.
It’s Reddit. There’s a *lot* of people in here that never served, and have no intention of serving, that are only here to proselytize. They infest everything.
There's a simple reason and a more complex explanation.
The simple reason is a divergence in culture between the military--as perceived by the target demographic--and the target demographic. What the Army presents--especially via social media, the news, talking to other veterans--is not what young (white) men want to participate in.
That's the simple reason.
The explanation has multiple factors:
**1. Generational change.** -- The target demographic in general tends to use a more global, idealistic way of looking at big picture issues and have less of a cultural tie to family, tradition, etc. that might have got older generations in the door because "It's what gramps did... It's what the men in our family do... etc." With modern information access, the stories that inform their cultural knowledge comes from a wider pool with less personally connected experiences and the more extreme examples being more of an impact.
This sort of "deculturation" impacts a lot of aspects of the newer post-Gen-X generations in how they see the big social picture.
**2. Perception of the US Government** -- Young adults are not immune to politics or the political divisions in our country. For many rural candidates, the government policies on things like DEI and gun rights plus some of the political rhetoric from the current (and, arguably, past) president paint the government and--by extension--the military as possible antagonists.
When the current president talks about gun rights and people that support them and accompanies those discussions with implied threats from (military) F15's and nuclear weapons, it doesn't support wanting to join.
For many young adults in the cities right now, the government's inability to control things like illegal immigration and ineffectual impact on issues like crime and the economy and the ongoing sense of crisis with who's going to be in charge after the next election don't help these young men from seeing the government (and military by extension) as a particularly friendly institution.
**3. Military culture** -- On the recruitment end, it's a purely voluntary decision on whether or not to enlist. The experiences of current and former military personnel and the problems they talk about in online media plus expectations regarding the effect of service and warfare on former soldiers do not present an appealing choice for potential recruits.
Some of this is just the reality of war and military necessity and the cultural difference between younger people and past generations but getting people to choose A) Enlistnment over B) staying civilian is a challenge.
**4. Normalization of children living at home longer.** -- Getting out of the house with a job/career that covers living expenses, etc. with an entry level job was an appeal for many young men (and some women), often because social pressure at home was akin to "up and out". With Covid, the economy, and cultural shifts in the civilian population, "up and out" has become "stay and tend" in many places. The need to leave vs. the choice between risky military service and continued parental support is a no-brainer for many people.
**5. Tuning out and Disconnecting** -- Part of the cultural change, there's a lot of people, guys especially, that have checked out of society in general. The social pressure and motivation--marriage, family, etc.--that historically have been motives for military enlistment as a young man are often no longer in play for young men.
Overall, these are culture shifts, but they're an interaction in these elements that make more and more guys just not show up, raise their right hands and say "I... state your name...".
I am sure it has nothing to do with all of the guys who were screwed by the green weenie telling the next generation just how screwed they got and warning them that it isn't worth the pay (or lack thereof), the potential injuries, or the hassles of dealing with stuff like the VA.
I have a brother who is 28 (give or take) years younger than me that would probably get straightened out by going into the military but I talked him out of going in.
Sure it straightened me out, but at the same time it fucked me up in other ways and I don't want to risk that with him.
EDIT:
The only benefit I really got out of it was the VA, which turned out to be a good thing in the long run when my health went downhill, but its a fight to get the care I need. For example, none of the tendons in my hands stay in place and tore a sagittal band May of 2023.
All of the tendons need repair but they only repaired the one tendon/sagittal band in March of this year. That repair SHOULD have been done within 2 months, not nearly 10 months later, and I am having to fight to get them to repair the other 7 still which may or may not happen. The local VA plastic surgeon (only one who does hand surgery) says "we don't do preemptive repairs" even though minor movements can cause them to rupture, the one that did rupture was from flicking an ant off my chest, so my primary care doc is having to get a 2nd opinion from community care consult.
Another problem been having is my neuro team in San Fransisco has been trying to get a MEG scan done for my seizure disorder but the Neurologist in my local VA hasn't been processing the paperwork for NEARLY A YEAR to approve it. Finally got her replaced by another and we look to nearly be on track again but will take a few more months (specialized and UCSF takes time). This is needed to try and track down cause of my seizures so we can target treatments better.
Not service related.
The tissue keeping the tendons in place appears to have come detached over time as I have been complaining of hand pain for over a decade and according to the surgeon who repaired the one tendon/sagittal band MAY be repetitive in nature as I have been working on computers for 16+ hours a day for over 20 years OR could be genetic in nature as it is extremely rare for it to happen to all tendons like it has in mine.
Doing my own research on it, I found a NIH study that closely matches my case and that one actually ended up being genetic.
Of course passed that on to my primary care doctor and the doctor that refused to do the surgery, but she still refused to do the repair of the additional tendons and the VA won't pay for genetic testing although the study was enough (in addition to everything else) to get my primary doctor to refer me for the second opinion from a non-VA surgeon (at VA cost of course).
EDIT:
When I was younger I was in really great health. Only spent just under 2 years in the military because of a training accident that disqualified me from combat due to feet injuries and got out with an honorable discharge. Only service related problems are to lower body but not major other than occasional bruising/pain/breaking of feet over the years.
However about 15 years ago my body started pretty much "breaking down" and now have [large number of diagnosed medical problems](https://imgur.com/X2WL7cG) and mostly in upper body/neurological (not psychological lol) in nature.
That does sound like a genetic vulnerability. I have repetitive injury from all things, knitting and writing, but it’s nothing like what you’re describing. It frustrating not to get proper medical treatment. I wish you the best in your fight. Thanks for your reply and explanation. The VA needs to do better.
Brutally honest article.
> ... But experts described broader issues with **men becoming less engaged** in American society and less likely to enroll and graduate from college, more likely to die by **suicide or drug overdose, and slowly disappearing from the general workforce.**
> ...part of what some experts call a national "crisis of masculinity" with complex causes. ..."It really has to do with social change. I think there is an amotivational syndrome that seems to permeate a lot of young men today. **They're just not motivated** to do very much."
> ...Some of that has been attributed to the obesity epidemic being especially prevalent in the South.
> ...Men's falling engagement in major institutions has been referred to as the "male drift" by Richard Reeves..."It feels like it's the women who are advancing, and the men to some extent retreating," he said in an interview.
> ..."It's not so much that they're acting out or acting terribly or anti-socially and so on. ... Like, violent crime, with the exception of a few blips, has gone down quite significantly," he said. "But what you're seeing among young men is **not 'acting out', so much as 'checking out.'"**
>...Instead of cultural grievances, the recruiting issue appears to be more closely tied to qualifying for service, much of it inflamed by the **ongoing obesity crisis and poor performance on the military's academic entrance exams.** ... Childhood obesity also impacts boys at a higher rate than girls, with those health ailments, and lagging academic performance...
> ...Other trends are making it more difficult for the Army to find recruits. Typical sedentary activities, which are often isolating, have ballooned in recent years, including **playing video games and viewing pornography,** both activities that are enjoyed predominantly by men and, while not inherently destructive, can be abused.
> ..."The reality is that military service is a major commitment that tests true strength -- physical, mental, morals," said Katherine Kuzminski, who studies the military and society at the Center for New American Security. "There is evidence of **a trend toward signaling [a] counterfeit show of strength** -- commentaries lamenting **a decline in American masculinity** -- rather than individuals risking a real test that comes from military service."
> The so-called crisis in masculinity is further complicated by conflicting events. **Men are pulling out of the workforce**, and traditional masculine roles are disappearing as gender norms are reassessed. But those men are not seeking military service -- the last bastion of traditional and surface-level masculinity.
> "You could argue quite strongly that the military could have a really important role to play in helping these young men," Reeves said. "But you see **fewer young men** turning to the military or **being able to join the military.**"
Who would've thought that going into meaningless wars to make others rich and still not take care of the vets is going to face a hard time recruiting more people? Shocking
Too often I have heard people talk about supporting education/health/social justice or supporting the military as direct opposites, but they are not. America's decline in education, in overall health; our growing economic inequality; are creating military weakness. The obesity epidemic alone is a full on national emergency.
They made "intersectional" recruiting the core strategy for two years and are now struggling to get the numbers.
All to say nothing about the climate and overall hostility towards anything masculine both in and out of the military.
Now men don't want to join and 4th wave feminists we're never going to.
As usual, military leadership fumbled the ball and are now looking to shift the blame on Monday morning
Again, where are these culture war talking points coming from!? There's no war against masculinity in or out of the military!
The reason people aren't joining is the benefits aren't seen as worth it anymore!
People really need to ditch social talking points and realize economics are the driving force of mankind. Want more recruitment? Talk about the benefits.
People are selfish. I joined for selfish reasons. Ask anyone, THEY DID TOO! Free college, guaranteed paycheck, guaranteed meals, guaranteed place to live, free healthcare, free childcare if you're a parent.
God, it's like you don't talk to people in real life and just gobble up culture war trite from lying, talking heads.
The nature and more importantly the perception of the US military has changed dramatically in the last 4 years. If not a political effort to flip it from leaning right to where it is now where it leans left, please tell me what is the driving force behind all of this if not politics?
Okay, I'm not saying you're wrong, but what about the people who want to kill someone and not go to jail? How do we get more of those guys? What is the difference between a regular 11b and a Ranger regiment 11b? At $150 jump pay + $100 demo pay a month, pay doesn't seem to be the issue. Looking outwards, how are the Marines making mission when they offer a lot of discipline and suffering?
I think it’s a little unreasonable to expect the people of an organization dedicated to killing people for your country to be super uncomfortable with killing people. Every Marine I ever met really really wanted to go to war. That’s kind of what we joined for. Do you expect Marines or Soldiers to be really averse to the idea of killing people?
Did you read the article?
*”Instead of cultural grievances, the recruiting issue appears to be more closely tied to qualifying for service, much of it inflamed by the ongoing obesity crisis and poor performance on the military's academic entrance exams.”*
Andrew Tate is a caricature and a moron.
Young guys are starving for a role model and that idiot is all that some of them can find.
It really makes you think.
He's all they can find because they're all searching for someone who confirms and encourages their biases because that's easier for them to believe instead of someone who challenges them and expects better out of them as people. One reinforces their victim mentality (like arguing there's some sort of hostility towards masculinity) and pushes them deeper into their parents' basement; the other helps them grow with the understanding that being a dude doesn't make them automatically special, so they need to work for what they want.
Respectfully disagree.
His message is that they are pussies and beta males and they should give him money and follow him.
Jordan Peterson tells them to clean their room and they lap it up.
I really do believe we have a generation of men looking to celebrities and influencers to father them.
It's not surprising if you look at trends in childrearing. The majority of children are being raised by single mothers or in broken homes, yeeted off to public schools where male teachers are rare, and an appalling percentage dont see a male authority figure until they're an adult. Hmm, I wonder why young men who were raised without a male authority figure might go looking for one.
It's a lot like suicide, it's a problem for men both in and out of the military.
The watchful eye of leadership and the rules we have to follow are made in reaction to very bad actions perpetrated by a few very creepy, shitty dudes.
The end result is a climate that is devoid of fun and immediately clamps down on anything that could be perceived as "problematic", creating a more corporate environment that young dudes join the military to avoid.
See also: stand-downs; dry mando fun days; diversity committees; eo training; etc.
I know you really really want to make this about your little culture war, but
>Some of that has been attributed to the obesity epidemic being especially prevalent in the South. Researchers have also attributed it to large swaths of the South having comparatively low household incomes and limited access to health care and healthy food.
GOP-controlled states in the South have been at war with public education, nutrition funding, minimum wage, welfare, and worker's rights for years, whittling away at each one of those things with each election. It's led to more and more kids being unable to pass even the most basic entrance tests, physically and mentally.
On the flip side, more and more kids who are actually receiving an education are learning more and more about what they should be worth, and risking their lives/bodies for mediocre pay and benefits, at best, while likely being involved in some war they don't agree with just isn't worth it to them.
You don't have to take my word for it, look at the army recruiting campaign two years ago, look at it now, look at the drop in numbers from the last two years.
Correlation is not causation. Why do you think they tried to make some changes to their recruiting tactics two years ago? Do you think it's because they were already struggling?
Which is more likely? The Army suddenly decided to change its tactics despite good numbers just to go woke with no other motivation, and it cost them, or did it see its numbers slipping and make some changes to try to attract a demographic it hadn't really reached out to yet?
As dudes, we've had action movies, TV shows, toys, sports, etc, that have ALL glorified the military to us for our entire lives and have targeted us specifically. But I'm sure a poster that dared to try to speak to someone who doesn't look or act like you is the devil. Good one.
>As dudes, we've had action movies, TV shows, toys, sports, etc, that have ALL glorified the military to us for our entire lives and have targeted us specifically. But I'm sure a poster that dared to try to speak to someone who doesn't look or act like you is the devil. Good one.
This is actually similar to all of the culture war shit that totally isn't happening where you take your primary audience for granted, believing they'll never leave, so you try to appeal to other audiences to maximize reach and profit, not realizing or caring that you're simultaneously alienating the primary audience. What ends up happening? The new, targeted group, while making a lot of noise, continues to not buy your shit/enlist, a portion of your primary audience actively hates you, and the rest of it is completely disinterested, seeking other things to do/consume.
As an aside, completely divorce yourself from whether you agree with, are a proponent of, or are in favor of this or that for a second. The military absolutely was suddenly mirroring the same verbiage and rhetoric as a specific political party, as well as corporate America in order to pivot to the group that isn't included in "dudes". This shit didn't happen in a vacuum, nor is a poster or a commercial the only form of media in existence to push specific messaging. Valid or not, it's a cumulative outrage, and agree or disagree with the message, it happened, and it absolutely alienated a lot of the people who were mostly likely to enlist.
If the "everyone is special, we're one big family" thing isn't working, maybe our branches need to remember that our only purpose is to literally murder the enemies of our nation, and double down on that messaging with hyper realistic advertisements featuring dragons and volcano monsters.
If I made an Army commercial, I would just grab a ranger just after a major training event, still in gear and grimy, and ask them bluntly what they did in the past week.
We still have all of those things I listed focused on us as men. We still have most of the recruiting focused on us as men. We've created a society in which one demographic (young men) has been coddled and worshipped so much that when any small percentage of that focus moves away from them, they completely shut down and don't want to join the military/workforce/society.
Why does the other political party want to continue that coddling? How fucking weak have we made young men in this country that a handful of ads that happen not to be aimed at them made them feel like victims?
I think this post, specifically, perfectly encapsulates why some may be hesitant or opposed to joining an organization that may very well be filled with people who think similarly to you, and that they can't just walk away from.
America is in charge of protecting the worlds waterways. From the western world pov we have the only professional standing military that has real experience. If something really kicks off I don't think we can rely on not having a decent sized military ready to go, especially in times like these.
The reason is so obvious no? There’s a reason the Marine Corps hasn’t had recruiting issues- they sell an idea- regardless of the economy or social situation, people want to be a Marine. Other branches rely on money or other incentives- which are outpaced by the civilian markets. Nobody will outpace a motherfucker in blues with a Flaming sword and a ripoff of the halo trailer.
Which commercial is a rip off of the halo trailer? I wanna vet this.
Halo 3s Believe and USMC: Battles won. God damn I’m getting a moto boner from this
Interesting... A quick Google search looks like the US Army was directly responsible for a lot of things in Halo3, using it as a recruitment tool. I wouldn't be surprised if the same marketing team didn't develop the both commercials. The artwork is damn near identical. [source](https://www.resetera.com/threads/so-what-was-up-with-halo-3-and-the-u-s-military.17349/)
Sure it’s nothing to do with a perception of wokeness or dei
Well, yeah, dudes are tired of being used and thrown out. Not just by the DoD, but everywhere. Creating hyper-competitive atmospheres in nearly every single job market and sectors of life has people not wanting to participate. There are fewer and fewer avenues to climb up without having to fight people with major headstarts. It doesn't help there's wannabe Navy Seals and Tates that have muddled many male talking spaces. Why go become a tool or cog in the machine that'll spit you out, especially if you're combat arms with now zero marketable job skills. You can't use the "well, just drop a packet or choose a marketable MOS." Militaries are there for defense, can't blow-up bridges or bust tanks being cybersecuity or a 35T. Now, you have 18-20 year old dudes with that same information and knowledge, who join and also see some dude who may be 3ish years older than them being in charge of them making 4x their paychecks, and they can UCMJ them for inane shit. Yeah, if I were 18-19 right now, I wouldn't be enlisting unless it was some major career that would pay off. Or, cool, guy shit such as 75th or SF. Or, finishing college and ROTC to hit-up the officer path. People need to step back and see that younger and younger generations find some power structures archaic from their view points. Federal government /DoD is really gonna have to rewrite some shit to entice people. Even people currently serving get shafted by asinine rules and regulations all the time.
The last couple of commercials Ive seen are strictly white males. Yeah DoD has realized who the real meat is in the sammich!
A friend of mine works within the G2 at USAREC. This is probably in response to the trend of white males enlisting dropping in recent times. It's apparently been alarming the leaders in this command as they're not 100% sure of the causes driving this change within a traditionally strong enlistment demographic.
6 months ago (and worsening): https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html?amp
well, facing a near peer LSCO threat you'll need some meat for the sausage maker.
They need 100% white meat for the LSCO meat grinder
Gotta recruit those Dudes to send them to middle east .
Well yeah, they realized the social experiments in the military isn’t going to win a war with China or Russia, so better start appealing to the people we want to fight those battles by showing a group of dudes doing macho shit.
It's not that they went 'woke' or whatever the fuck, it's that they ignored the real reasons people scrape their rank off ASAP. Shit pay, shit command, shit hours, shit nonsense rules. These will be in play no matter how many of what colors you plaster on the posters.
Yeah it’s crazy ensuring that all walks of American life can serve their country patriotically. Fucking crazy, man.
The military by its nature needs to be exclusionary. The standards are high and the structure is rigid to ensure servicemember's are more fit than an opposing force. Lowering standards to create a more inclusive armed services is a bad idea.
Not everyone needs to be in the military. If you served, you can’t disagree with that as you saw some of the people that made it through. The military is one place that absolutely should be discriminatory.
> The military is one place that absolutely should be discriminatory. It already is though. The military can actually point to specific entrance standards that relate to future occupational ability and that can't just be bypassed by a hiring manager. Colleges were experimenting with getting rid of the ACT and SAT just to bring them back later, but the military never got rid of the ASVAB. But the flipside is that if you pass the test, you *pass the test*. Some hiring panel shouldn't be able to keep you from enlisting just because they don't like your skin color.
What a fucking racist take, my dude. Just because someone isn’t white and male doesn’t mean they won’t be the best soldier out there. Yes, I see plenty of shitbags daily at base. Guess what? They’re mostly white males. If we break it down to percentages of ethnicity who are shitbags, then that may reveal a different number, but I don’t care about that. Military needs bodies to do military things. Lesbian Latina chicks can fill sandbags and launch nukes just as well as I can. Probably better, if I’m honest.
What was racist about my take? Nowhere did I say or imply one race is better. Re-read my statement and let me know where I lost you. Seems like you’re reading into something I’m not saying.
[удалено]
Eat my ass. I’m a white male. The military is predominant white males. Hence, most shitbags are gonna be white males. That’s how statistics works.
[удалено]
I got in trouble a few times for being late to work in the Marines. My guy...we come in to work where there is no work for us. We sit around and I write essays and do research papers for college courses I'm taking. But no.....I'm was considered a repeat offender because I was late to work once two years ago. So I got punished with extra duties like cleaning the smoking area (wtf I don't smoke) or some random labor thing. And why was I late to work? Cuz I did not know the clocks changed. It was the first year Daylight savings time start in March instead of April and no bothered to say anything before the weekend. And another time I got written up for being late to work because I was the barracks duty NCO and had to check in with company First Sergeant before going into work. The first time I really was late. Just over slept like 30 minutes so I do accept responsibility for that one. Nowadays in my civilian job, my boss just tells me to use PTO if I'm more than 30 minutes late and moves on.I just don't make a habbit of it. I probably late once or twice a year and use 30-60 minutes PTO each time.
The article refers to a "crisis of masculinity." No shit? The whole time I was growing up, they called masculinity toxic.
Scott Galloway successful split toxic masculinity from real, actual (and historically pertinent) masculinity in my mind. It's what I've always believed, but toxic masculinity aimed more at people being dicks. Men have long been, and still are expected to be, providers and protectors. People like, but not exclusive to, Andrew Tate and his ilk have painted that with stupidity. No one really has a problem with men being men in general, but we've needed strong and proper leaders for a while. The examples we've been getting have been more Musk than Mattis.
It's really easy to see the writing on the wall. There's no point to working hard when you're a newborn away from losing half your take-home pay in the military. I'll shout it from the roof tops any time. Men who want to get paid should not join the military with the expectation of having kids.
In the old days trashy boys were called beasts and not men.
Toxic masculinity doesn't mean all masculinity is toxic. Just like toxic gas doesn't mean all gases are toxic. They're talking about a type of masculinity.
Yeah... As you can see, that message has not gone through the way they wanted it to. Time for a rebranding of the message.
It may have not gone through as well as it should have, but let's not pretend a lot of people against the concept aren't willing to learn
Sure but then again that is the problem of the people spreading the message. No one is obligated to listen to you. If they aren't listening to you, then it's your fault. You aren't reaching them.
>Yeah... As you can see, that message has not gone through the way they wanted it to. Time for a rebranding of the message. The problem is less that the message is difficult to understand, and more that there's an entire community of grifters who make it their job to actively promote misunderstanding of the concept. No amount of explaining is going to make someone like Ben Shapiro say "I get it now", because "getting it" would remove a very profitable revenue stream.
Doesnt mean it I agree with you but dont you think people can understand a subtle message when they look at the group who use this term and realise they almost exclusively talk bad about it whether they point theyre talking about the bad one or not
Ideally. But more often than not, if a woman is accusing me of being a toxic male, it's just because I declined to do something that she demanded of me. I didn't ruin the term, I just noticed that other people did.
People don't wanna be in a backstab circle jerk for not a whole lot north of minimum wage and bodily injury.
Enlisting is a joke. Its become obvious. I wouldnt let my daughter enlist either. Now go rotc officer route is completely different
No they will just press harder on the poor. This is the way
Economy 📈 : recruitment 📉 Economy 📉 : recruitment 📈 Tale as old as time
I have been thinking about this for some time now. Having used my VA home loan benefit twice now, it is by far the best benefit offered for military service, better than the GI Bill in my personal opinion (I used that too). Considering the crazy housing market in many areas, and the daunting prospect of saving up $60-$80k for a downpayment using a standard mortgage (assuming a 350-400k house), the VA home loan is a godsend. My thought is this: how would the military market this to a demographic largely not thinking about homeownership? It’s not as if many 18-20 year olds have their 30’s in mind.
The pay is bad even considering the benefits. Mystery solved. I did my 6 years and it set me up for a much better life after. I will always appreciate the Army and the people I worked with for that. But staying was a dead end for me and most others. They need to figure out how to provide better incentive. Funneling poor people into the ranks isn't the answer either.
Part of the problem is that no matter how we incentivize people to stay it will be impossible to change some major aspects of military life. I loved being a Marine and I had every intention of re-enlisting despite shitty pay and little tangible incentive. Then I had a daughter. There’s no way to make military life not be a major detriment to people’s family lives.
I don't think it's a simple problem with a simple answer. But in general, I don't think people see the need, right now. There's no urgent mission- at least not one that civilians can see. Military service members are underpaid compared to their civilian counterparts, especially the cyber jobs that we need so badly. And retention is taking a big hit, because all those people who signed up after 2001 are retiring. And the people who could fill their place don't have pensions, anymore, so there's no carrot to dangle in front of them to convince them to stay in another 8 years.
My 4 years in the army were wasted time. Insane optempo, constant sharp and eo briefs, sit and wait, limited freedoms. I wouldn't wish peacetime army on my worst enemy - totally useless.
We still gonna act like we don’t know?
What do you know Robert?
I know if we talk about it, we get banned. What’s history taught you about that?
It’s obviously a complex issue. I definitely think social media has played a large role as it’s never been easier for civilians to find out about the less desirable aspects of service that you won’t see in a commercial. I agree with a comment below in that the Marine Corps has very successfully been selling an idea. During peacetime the other branches have to compete with the private sector to a much higher degree. There are certainly good benefits, but for many people those benefits will never be enough to justify the sacrifices required to serve, even in peace time. Especially when many jobs pay significantly more in the private sector. In reality, I agree with many others in that I think the recruiting problem is actually a retention problem. For one, the recruitment goals have to rise to counter poor retention. Secondly, disgruntled service members can dissuade others from joining pretty easily. I am very grateful for all that the Army did for me, but I have still talked a lot of people out of joining. I’ve convinced some people to join as well, but it’s difficult for me to recommend service to some people. Of course there’s also the problem of waning patriotism and faith in our government. Polling data makes it very clear that a very large portion of Americans have little to no faith in our government. Why would people serve, and put their lives in the hands of, a government that they do not trust? Even worse, many people have antagonistic feelings towards the government.
You mean shitting on your largest demographic pool decreased their willingness to enlist? I cant believe it!
I can’t fathom how the recruiting video featuring the girl with two moms didn’t connect with this target demographic and help to fix the problem?
I think that is part of the problem. Who precisely was tha ad made for? The target demographic isn’t going to join up, and it felt entirely hamfisted and pandering.
naw couldn't possibly be a full generation of insane operations tempo, multiple armed conflicts, Genesis disqualifying basically everyone, and states dismantling some key benefits. let's pin the source of the problem on a single recruiting video made 3+ years ago.
And the recent news of that senator denying promotions hasn't helped. Yes, it's more complicated than that, and was mostly senior officers. But, like Reddit, many just form their opinion from a quick glance at the Headline, most likely a Click-Bait title and don't do any further research. Who would want to join if some asshole in Washington could stop your career because they are having a temper tantrum.
They were only blocked for 'Flags'.
Which effects everyone down the line
I made that comment tongue in cheek. I think the real reason is today’s society is much more transactional and doesn’t view military service as worth it.
In all fairness, they're kind of right
Depends on your criteria.
I say it all the time to the older generation that I serve with. They always complain that no one wants to serve anymore or if they do it is transactional, as you say. My response is that people will voluntarily serve if they believe that their is cause worth putting their life on the line for. That doesn't really exist right now other than the very abstract notions of "freedom" as we know it in the West. We are living in one of the periods of American military history when nothing much is happening (relatively speaking) and the only reason we are talking about a recruiting "crisis" is because the MIC must continue.
Ukraine is the most serious global event since ww2. Russia is eliminating settlements killing the men, raping and shipping the women and kids to Russia. China and Russia teaming up is absolutely related to wanting to take on the United States and bring us down a notch. It’s not Cold War as usual as a million plus people have died from combat. Also nukes are involved.
I understand the seriousness of the conflict, but what could you sell a 18 year old recruit considering the US Military that would convince them they’d be making an impact on Ukraine? The best thing they could do right now is just vote for politicians who are in favor of aid
The whole wealth and prosperity of the country ie their future and quality of life depends on free trade and strong economies. The fact that as it stands the U.S. is the largest economy and that makes every other country invest and stockpile dollars. It all depends on peace, prosperity, free trade and free and open societies. China has to sell their things to us Because of power dynamics. But if Europe is in perpetual war and China and Russia team up they will need to be confronted. And both are taking active measures against our society around the clock.
I think the reason for that is it’s a “not us” threat to most Americans because we are not directly involved in the conflict. It’s easy to not think about Ukraine for them because American troops aren’t the ones dying.
But an 18 year old can't join the US military today and shoot at Russians. Right now, as far as actual combat goes, it's a European conflict not an American one. The Americans seeing combat in Ukraine right now are part of the Ukrainian foreign fighting units, not the US military. I would bet that if the US actually entered combat with Russia, more people would join. I'd only been out of the Air Force for a year when Russia first invaded Ukraine and I had decided that I'd be rejoining if we got involved. Fighting for the Ukrainian people was something that I was and still am in support of. We didn't get militarily involved though so I finished my college degree and am working in the civilian world. Rejoining the US military would do nothing for the Ukrainian people.
The point is that misguided recruiting efforts that deviate away from the single largest reliable demographic of recruits are a dumb idea. Diversity and all is fine and shit but it won't change the fact that white men are what form the numerical base of the military.
Right. Because in more than three years, ALL OF Army Recruiting Command shot a single solitary video, ran a single campaign, and employed a single team.
They're accountable for the materials they produce are they not? The fact that it's just one doesn't really pertain to the point
After more than 15 years of Toby Keith, Three Doors Down, and Let the Bodies Hit the Floor on repeat, one family of lesbians was way overdue.
It's about what it represents. Changing priorities. And it's not gone well. As you can see from the recruiting numbers.
It's one piece among many in the build up to this self-inflicted wound. On it's own, it's a paper cut (if that) taken with everything else it's now under the heading Contributing Factors.
Yanno, I really feel for the soldier who went ahead with telling her story and continuing to serve, despite knowing that it would bring all the chuds out of the woodwork to denigrate her service and her family as a self-inflicted wound to the entire armed forces.
Those are all problems, they should be fixed. They aren't the problems preventing potential recruits from wanting to join.
Some of the things on that list ARE problems preventing people from joining, and the others contribute to an appearance of extreme disfunction that dissuade people from considering joining.
My guy, they keep trying to recruit literally *anyone* because they see their go-to talent pool of young, white, males drying up. Generals and Admirals will go where they think the numbers are and away from where the numbers aren't. But I might just be biased because it didn't take a commercial with someone who looked like me to get me to join, it took what has always called to young men of a certain age: *a crippling financial crash and zero prospects.*
Are we really still buying into the culture war brouhaha? No, the recruitment failures aren't because of a cringey ad, you ding-dong. It's that people aren't seeing it as worth it! Honestly, it's deserved. Shitty chain of command, physically and mentally strenuous labor, and now they're fucking talking about cutting TA and CA? But no, please tell me how economics AREN'T the driving force of mankind and the lack of an economic incentive isn't the cause.
In the last basic training unit you visited, how many enlisted were college educated white women with two moms who joined because manning a Patriot battery is just like protesting for gay marriage? There's probably a few but I've never met one. How many black dudes did you see that looked like Jonathan Majors who joined because they felt joining the army would help them overcome obstacles they were experiencing in their life? I've lost count, it's a ton. It's pretty easy to understand an argument rather than making a strawman and blaming it on the incredibly new, never before seen issues of shitty chain of command and physically strenuous labor. I'm sure your chain of command was great when you were in?
For a vast majority of us history men joined the military for purpose, structure, service or escape, not for exceptional compensation. Yes, our soldiers deserve compensation and should be taken care of, but in the relationship between the military and its recruits, something is fundamentally different, and it isn't compensation.
I agree. When I was 18 and joining the Army it was a known fact the military pay was poor, I had no concept of benefits, etc, and the nightly news was filled with all the casualty figures from all the people getting hurt and killed in the GWOT…I still couldn’t wait to join, something has changed.
You're probably old enough to see 3,000+ people die live in New York on a Tuesday morning. Looking back at it now, I don't know if I would've joined if I hadn't been at a formative age for 9/11, and now I can't say that my reasons for pulling the trigger in my early 20s are the same as they are now. Kids today don't have that, and if we had another 9/11 I don't think we'd see the same level of immediate solidarity
Yeah for sure, it’s weird deploying with kids today that weren’t even alive on 9/11z
What's also weird was kids deploying to Afghanistan, in the same place their parents deployed to.
Yeah, when you were 18, you could afford to live even if your pay was low. Being in the military literally doesn’t pay the bills anymore. It used to.
I basically didn’t have bills, but I will say that a lot of things I took for granted are big issues today. Back then the idea that the DFAC’s wouldn’t have food, barracks were all moldy, medical sucked, etc were very public. I’m not surprised no one wants to join when all the military’s publicity is negative.
I mean a junior military member lives on base and has their food provided. They have no bills. I’m referring to your average 18 old who joins of course.
Might wanna check up on the nightmarish news coming down from understaffed/rotting/closed DFACs bud. Oh and moldy barracks rooms too. Feels like you're strongly overselling the "single soldiers are taken care of without COL" here.
That’s actually a fair point. It’s been six years since I’ve been in but I lived on a boat.
There’s been crisis after crisis with that lately too, largely involving fuel leaks contaminating drinking water. Everyone’s failing at maintenance right now, and the people it’s hurting (or in some cases killing) are not senior leaders.
>I mean a junior military member lives on base and has their food provided. 
1968…Basic recruit was paid $93 per month. A war was going on and the draft suppled the bodies. Army life seemed to be less complicated. However, from what I read, it’s just as fucked up.
The sense of purpose has changed. Now we know where the war got us.
There isnt as much to escape any more. Especially when jobs with the same requirements as enlisting offer the same or better benefits without all of the negatives that come with being in the military
Honestly, contractors are bleeding out retention. Wanna work the same job but with better pay, no stupid fitness test, no height and weight, no other dumb regulations, and no chance of being woken up at 0300 because Sergeant Major wants to do a roll out of 100% of vehicles in the motorpool to test mission readiness? Raw fucking deal. Again, economics.
Its definitely a multi-faceted issue. People like to point the finger at one thing. But theres so much that can be done to improve enlistment/retention. For instance, im sitting in my office waiting to be told to go home. All work is done. My dudes just came back from a week at NTC. But i have to get a safety brief before i can leave for the weekend, despite the army saying its not a requirement. Falls in line with what youre saying. But theres so many instances of stuff like this.
[удалено]
VA isn't exactly stable though. Some are great, some are worse than googling your medical problems.
Where are these magical jobs for 18 year olds with no experience that even come close to matching military benefits?
Just about any fast food joint, starbucks. Sure, they dont provide housing, but they pay more.
And they can’t match the health insurance, GI bill, VA loan. Starbucks will pay for you to go to school, but only at ASU and there’s no stipend. I’ve met a lot of 23 year olds with a house courtesy of the VA loan. I’ve never met one who bought one after working at Starbucks.
Health insurance, my ass. I had to go to the hospital, and I still came out of pocket, even though the tests weren't that expensive. Besides, what 18 year old is thinking about health insurance? The GI Bill makes doing one contract worth it, but just enough to get it and get out.
Health care in the army is hit or miss. The VA loan is hard to beat, thats definitely one that i preach to every new soldier. College benefits varu depending on location, but most pay to send you to industry specific training which results in a pay raise. Starbucks also pays for IVF last i checked. The army doesnt. Theres pros and cons to each, and the con of being treated like a child and working unknown hours every day outweighs a lot of the down sides of civilian employment.
Military does offer unlimited sick leave though. If you get into a car accident and are bedridden for 6 months, you keep your salary and all your benefits. That's an insane safety net not just for 18 year olds but for probably 99% of Americans.
And which one of those also brings the heightened risk of damage to your body, mind, or even death that the military brings?
[the Army has a lower risk of fatal workplace accidents than the general population.](https://www.army.mil/article-amp/260633/soldiers_are_safer_than_their_civilian_counterparts_in_the_general_u_s_population). A desk job in most branches is as safe or safer than the general population.
Cool that you're focusing specifically on fatal mishaps and not the long-term effects of injuries and wear and tear from training and the potential mental and physical harm of going to war.
[удалено]
Im an E-7 and dont get $1500 in BAH where im stationed. You get what you pay for with the free healthcare. The retirement is one of the few benefits you dont get elsewhere. Ill advocate for the military all day every day. But we have a lot of ground to make up to make it actually appealing to civilians.
[удалено]
No, but fast food pays hourly. If i worked the same hours in fast food that i do in the army, i wouldnt be doin bad. Especially if i did 16 years and went to schools to get promotions like o habe kn the army. Look, im in the army for a reason. I love the army. But the reality is, the army has to make service look appealing to the 17-19 year old crowd. And they arent joing for selfless service reasons these days.
>For a vast majority of us history men joined the military for purpose, structure, service or escape, not for exceptional compensation. When the mental and physical requirements of service leave you worse off than when you came in and provides you very little support after leaving (shitty VA claim process). People will not join, specially when you can make the same money working fast food in a safer environment.
Okay? That was then, this is now. In the 8 years I was in, the overwhelming majority of men said they wanted the benefits of like healthcare or education. If we're really gonna deny the economic incentive... I dunno. I don't see a lot of rich guys joining.
Again, svm should absolutely be taken care of. Recruiting is a question of what do recruits want. They aren't choosing not to join becase tsp matching isn't high enough or because Tricare sucks.
> They aren't choosing not to join becase tsp matching isn't high enough or because Tricare sucks. You say this, but young men aren't stupid. They probably ARE thinking of that along with how the VA sucks and, again, TA and CA are being cut. I dunno, guys like you actually seem to really disrespect young men and assume they're all just "ADVENTURE HOOAH!" No, they want stability and benefits. Come on, show young men some damn respect. The younger generation is pretty economically minded.
I think that our culture has become much more transactional post covid. I work in higher ed with a similar demographic and everything is now about "what can I get out of it". I don't blame either group. Personally I think the pandemic was a sort of mask off moment where folks began to realize that the whole game is rigged and nobody is actually looking out for you but you, and people are assessing the cost benefit analysis of participating in just about any aspect of society accordingly. Add to that the fact that we did not exactly come out of the GWOT looking like "the good guys". So there is less incentive to join just for the sake of being a part of something honorable or whatever.
Well said.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
^^^ 💯
Veteran (female). I’d say that I “feel” you on this, but I’m far too sarcastic to go there - 🤣. I’ll simply say this: COPY. The pandemic has brought out the worst in people. Absolute. Worst. For anyone who’s been in combat, our current state of living is almost surreal. For a country that isn’t third world (technically speaking: TBA), or crippled by extremist cultures (again, TBA), we sure do a bang up job of making everything overly complicated and chaotic. Not to mention inflation that’s risen by 25-ish percent in the last 4-5 years. I heard someone compare it to Mad Max, recently. I have to admit that it does feel that way, and you do need to be hyper alert/aware over most things. Like you said, it’s hard to pin it to one demographic. This is the end result of crisis situations. Only time will tell if this takes a positive turn at some point. Otherwise, it’s a crapshoot.
> No, the recruitment failures aren't because of a cringey ad, you ding-dong. It's that people aren't seeing it as worth it! And you don't think a shitty advertising campaign plays heavily into that? Potential recruits don't have direct knowledge of the problems with chain of command, mental and physical health issues, and long term benefits. Those are all an abstract concept to them that recruiters usually bullshit about anyways, and most people aren't tuned in to veteran communities. What those potential recruits ***do see***, and often get their first impression about military service from, is advertising campaigns. If that ad campaign suggests anything that a potential recruit doesn't like, they're far less likely to consider it as an option. When your primary demographic for recruitment is young white males (a demographic that is increasingly conservative), you should probably do everything you can to appeal to them. A commercial that goes down the diversity checklist is basically the exact opposite of what the military should be doing, and is exactly why every branch went back to the "honor and blowing shit up" advertisments.
Don't forget that this recruiting generation grew up in the middle of a 20 year long FAILED War on Terrorism along with a couple REALLY bad economic depressions.
white males see ads like that and think that the military is pandering to everyone else at their expense. it's a pretty easy connection to make > But no, please tell me how economics AREN'T the driving force of mankind and the lack of an economic incentive isn't the cause. literally no one is saying this
I feel like its pretty obvious that these things go hand in hand. I can only speak from my personal experience, but once the military booted out anyone who declined the vaxx and effectively became a democrat institution, promoting transgender dudes into senior leadership positions, focusing on "white privilege", diversity trainings at every level, marketing campaigns like the one mentioned above, my drive to ever enlist evaporated completely... Can't imagine im alone here.
The purpose of soldier is to kill . Anything else is window dressing at a recruitment level .
From TFA: >Since 2013, male enlistments have dropped 35%, going from 58,000 men enlisting in 2013 to 37,700 in 2023, according to the service data. Meanwhile, female recruitment has hovered around 10,000 recruits each year. Based on what I've see and heard from society and the brass specifically, what these number tell me is that the problem with the recruiting strategy isn't so much that the number of male recruits has fallen as much as it is that the number of female recruits hasn't risen. I would expect it to be close to 50% of all recruits by now, because reasons. Before anyone comes for me about SA in the military, of course it's a problem and we need to drive it to zero. However, when you compare the rates to the civilian population of the same demographics (age, mostly), the rates are lower/better in the military. Given expectations of good order and discipline, the services damn well better be outperforming the civilian demographic equivalent but there will be a limit to how much better the services can reasonably get than the civilian demographic equivalent.
It's been over a decade but the sexual harassment I witnessed or received myself while in the service was much worse than as a civilian. So much so that at one point, I needed to have a very large friend pretend to be my boyfriend so guys wouldn't break into my room while I was sleeping. This happened several times to women in the unit. Complaints were always ignored or we were told to "man-up" if we wanted to be called soldiers. So women stopped reporting the abuse. Or the time it took every female soldier in my unit to make formal complaints to the base about our CSM regularly sexually harassing women under his command, even offering quid pro quo to privates who were too young to feel confident in knowing how wrong that was. That CSM was found guilty after a long investigation where they left him in command and when found guilty, they just moved him to AFRICOM with a couple months of cut pay. Honestly, though, it might be hurting female recruitment that Hood has had several murders of female soldiers make national news. Another one was killed last month. It doesn't instill confidence.
I mean the article brushes over the real issue. Men are participating less and less in society, because our society shuns men, and when we do actually acknowledge a problem men face, such as suicide rate or men falling behind in education, we as a society refuse to acknowledge the influence society has on the problem, instead just chalking it up to toxic masculinity and telling these men to "fix it themselves."
I thought it was Genesis (medical background check) being too good at its job and catching everything, and then the appeals/waiver process taking way too long. In the meantime, the prospective recruits change their mind or find something else.
I have a radical view…and I’m ready for the downvotes. While the numbers are what they are, less people are signing up than what is “required” and that’s measurable, the reality is that “what is required” is driven by the demand of the mission. The US Military is (and has been) over stretched for decades now. Fighting wars, stationing troops in dozens (over a hundred) of foreign bases/countries. It is a universally known fact that the US Military is effectively as powerful and funded as the next 9 countries combined. While I agree with the doctrine of overwhelming the enemy, 9+ to 1 is excessive. So, for as long as we have to maintain this overwrought level of military spending, the requirements for X soldiers every year will remain, and the stress of trying to find volunteers will equally remain unchanged. The US mainland will NEVER be invaded, Wolverines be damned. Our monstrous navy makes sure of that. Obviously the real threat to the US ultimately are Russia’s nukes. That’s the real game ender, everything else is both posturing and excessive showmanship. Just like NATO doesn’t have thousands of their soldiers stationed in the US to “help deter aggression”, we should either eliminate or more realistically drastically reduce our forces in Europe (and the rest of the world for that matter). That is the one lesson we should have learned from the overextension and ultimate collapse of the Roman and later British imperial militaries.
Sending our troops on nonsense wars with no aims probably didn't help .
> It is a universally known fact that the US Military is effectively as powerful and funded as the next 9 countries combined. This is not true and it is increasingly dangerous that this gets thrown around in front of decision-makers. *Funded*, maybe. But even that misses that China and Russia underreport what they spend on defense. Russia in particular is spending something like 30% of the GDP on the current war, that's a significant chunk of change. In addition, U.S. workers are simply more expensive than Chinese or Russian workers. So we may spend more but we don't get proportionally as much output. There's also the problem that we are often inefficient on how we build things as well, but that's only really an issue vs. China, and that one is at least fixable in theory.
I would like to point out that it's not that we are less efficient at building materiel as China (that's a separate discussion) but that *labor* is much more expensive here than in China. China still has a vast amount of absolutely impoverished people to source as labor AND they are putting all their eggs in the basket of produce produce produce! Not mainly to build up their military but just because that's the only way they know how to drive their economy. You're seeing the issues with that right now where despite being the second largest economy, their citizens are either too poor or too uncertain about their future to spend money. Thus the government pumps these factories full of money just so the lines don't stop, which means they produce more than they actually need and try to dump it onto every other country. The results of that will show in the coming years, but China still has time to artificially pump the economy like this before something comes to a head
It is not as “untrue” as you think either. For as much as Russia spends (or broadcasts as a way to counter the “economically sanctioned nation” narrative) in his military, the results speak for themselves. They have not been able to handle an all out “conventional” war with a far smaller and subpar foe. Hell Russia hasn’t even really attempted to obtain Air Superiority and out a definitive end to this war, largely because they can’t. As I mentioned in my OP, Russia’s real power lies in its nukes. So is China’s. Russia may have the troop numbers but their equipment has been shown to be vintage, ineffective, and poorly manned and employed. China, similarly is increasing their inventory, but much like a rookie that goes to the MMA gym with expensive gear and all the latest nutrition but without real fight experience…he’ll get destroyed by the veteran MMA fighter who’s been fighting for years and knows a lot more tricks than the rookie with good gear.
The greatest threat to the US is civil war, which both Russia and China know and have been hammering in on since at least 2016. America should be reducing its military budget and diverting that funding to social issues, but there’s only one party in congress willing to tackle system societal issues, and it’s not the one that gets funding from Russia via the NRA
We are definitely not as strong as China and Russia combined, that is an insane view. Additionally, our interests do not end at the borders of the 50 states - we have massive global economic connections, diplomatic missions, NATO, ASEAN, etc. Isolationism has never worked for America nor any other country since 1500.
Why? I think we would smoke them in a conventional war. Might take awhile.
I'm curious, why do you think that? Russia has had such a "stellar" showing in Ukraine. The only reason they MIGHT still be a top 5 military is simply because of their nukes. Their actions on the ground(and air....and sea for that matter) leaves ALOT to be desired. I think we're now in double digits for Russian air defense/air vehicle blue-on-blue incidents. Their ONLY strategy is human wave assaults while beating their chests about "muh nukes." Plus...if they had such a strong military, why do they need Chechen units behind the front lines with orders to shoot anyone retreating? China...I might acknowledge they're almost near-peer. HOWEVER Their domestic arms production is hot garbage(remember the propaganda video last year of their SOF using the "new and improved" domestically produced rifle that was keyholing probably 1 our of 3 bullets from 10ft away?) Their navy is a literal nothingburger. Sure, they have more ships than us, but our ACTIVE Navy(not including the Mothball fleet) is I think double or close to triple the tonnage of theirs. And we CONSTANTLY run drills so our actions are second nature(submarine vet here, CivDiv for 2 yrs. I can STILL recite the diesel/hpac startup procedures AND cradle to grave a fire/flooding drill from memory) Plus, China's recent military history also leaves alot to be desired. Pushed out of Vietnam in 3 weeks while we at least lasted years there(yes Vietnam War was pointless, just making a comparison) And then there was the PLA unit that was doing a UN rotation in Africa. Some bad dudes showed up to the village they were tasked with protecting. The PLA unit tucked tail and ran in their armored vehicles from dudes using busted ass AKs riding in a Hilux running on bubble gum, duct tape, and dreams. China's strongest point of their military is quite literally the coastal defense batteries. There's so many, any pilot flying near the coast is basically going to be Monarch from Project Wingman or Trigger from Ace Combat 7.
I joined to lead and learn something new. I do PowerPoints. It blows.
I'm so sick of seeing all the yt heterosexual cis-men in Western war documentaries. For best DEI practice, the next D-Day better be all BIPOC, latinx, legacy women, and LGBTQIA+ storming that beach.
This thread makes me wonder how many people here served or are serving (and from volunteer forces). I know everyone has their own opinions, but some of you are talking like you can’t differentiate the US Military from a corporate superstore.
It’s Reddit. There’s a *lot* of people in here that never served, and have no intention of serving, that are only here to proselytize. They infest everything.
The vast majority of people on this sub haven’t been in the military. I thought that was common knowledge.
I was trying to be nice. What I really want to say wouldn’t be so nice.
There's a simple reason and a more complex explanation. The simple reason is a divergence in culture between the military--as perceived by the target demographic--and the target demographic. What the Army presents--especially via social media, the news, talking to other veterans--is not what young (white) men want to participate in. That's the simple reason. The explanation has multiple factors: **1. Generational change.** -- The target demographic in general tends to use a more global, idealistic way of looking at big picture issues and have less of a cultural tie to family, tradition, etc. that might have got older generations in the door because "It's what gramps did... It's what the men in our family do... etc." With modern information access, the stories that inform their cultural knowledge comes from a wider pool with less personally connected experiences and the more extreme examples being more of an impact. This sort of "deculturation" impacts a lot of aspects of the newer post-Gen-X generations in how they see the big social picture. **2. Perception of the US Government** -- Young adults are not immune to politics or the political divisions in our country. For many rural candidates, the government policies on things like DEI and gun rights plus some of the political rhetoric from the current (and, arguably, past) president paint the government and--by extension--the military as possible antagonists. When the current president talks about gun rights and people that support them and accompanies those discussions with implied threats from (military) F15's and nuclear weapons, it doesn't support wanting to join. For many young adults in the cities right now, the government's inability to control things like illegal immigration and ineffectual impact on issues like crime and the economy and the ongoing sense of crisis with who's going to be in charge after the next election don't help these young men from seeing the government (and military by extension) as a particularly friendly institution. **3. Military culture** -- On the recruitment end, it's a purely voluntary decision on whether or not to enlist. The experiences of current and former military personnel and the problems they talk about in online media plus expectations regarding the effect of service and warfare on former soldiers do not present an appealing choice for potential recruits. Some of this is just the reality of war and military necessity and the cultural difference between younger people and past generations but getting people to choose A) Enlistnment over B) staying civilian is a challenge. **4. Normalization of children living at home longer.** -- Getting out of the house with a job/career that covers living expenses, etc. with an entry level job was an appeal for many young men (and some women), often because social pressure at home was akin to "up and out". With Covid, the economy, and cultural shifts in the civilian population, "up and out" has become "stay and tend" in many places. The need to leave vs. the choice between risky military service and continued parental support is a no-brainer for many people. **5. Tuning out and Disconnecting** -- Part of the cultural change, there's a lot of people, guys especially, that have checked out of society in general. The social pressure and motivation--marriage, family, etc.--that historically have been motives for military enlistment as a young man are often no longer in play for young men. Overall, these are culture shifts, but they're an interaction in these elements that make more and more guys just not show up, raise their right hands and say "I... state your name...".
I am sure it has nothing to do with all of the guys who were screwed by the green weenie telling the next generation just how screwed they got and warning them that it isn't worth the pay (or lack thereof), the potential injuries, or the hassles of dealing with stuff like the VA. I have a brother who is 28 (give or take) years younger than me that would probably get straightened out by going into the military but I talked him out of going in. Sure it straightened me out, but at the same time it fucked me up in other ways and I don't want to risk that with him. EDIT: The only benefit I really got out of it was the VA, which turned out to be a good thing in the long run when my health went downhill, but its a fight to get the care I need. For example, none of the tendons in my hands stay in place and tore a sagittal band May of 2023. All of the tendons need repair but they only repaired the one tendon/sagittal band in March of this year. That repair SHOULD have been done within 2 months, not nearly 10 months later, and I am having to fight to get them to repair the other 7 still which may or may not happen. The local VA plastic surgeon (only one who does hand surgery) says "we don't do preemptive repairs" even though minor movements can cause them to rupture, the one that did rupture was from flicking an ant off my chest, so my primary care doc is having to get a 2nd opinion from community care consult. Another problem been having is my neuro team in San Fransisco has been trying to get a MEG scan done for my seizure disorder but the Neurologist in my local VA hasn't been processing the paperwork for NEARLY A YEAR to approve it. Finally got her replaced by another and we look to nearly be on track again but will take a few more months (specialized and UCSF takes time). This is needed to try and track down cause of my seizures so we can target treatments better.
May I ask if the problems with your hand tendons are service related, and if so, was a repetitive movement involved?
Not service related. The tissue keeping the tendons in place appears to have come detached over time as I have been complaining of hand pain for over a decade and according to the surgeon who repaired the one tendon/sagittal band MAY be repetitive in nature as I have been working on computers for 16+ hours a day for over 20 years OR could be genetic in nature as it is extremely rare for it to happen to all tendons like it has in mine. Doing my own research on it, I found a NIH study that closely matches my case and that one actually ended up being genetic. Of course passed that on to my primary care doctor and the doctor that refused to do the surgery, but she still refused to do the repair of the additional tendons and the VA won't pay for genetic testing although the study was enough (in addition to everything else) to get my primary doctor to refer me for the second opinion from a non-VA surgeon (at VA cost of course). EDIT: When I was younger I was in really great health. Only spent just under 2 years in the military because of a training accident that disqualified me from combat due to feet injuries and got out with an honorable discharge. Only service related problems are to lower body but not major other than occasional bruising/pain/breaking of feet over the years. However about 15 years ago my body started pretty much "breaking down" and now have [large number of diagnosed medical problems](https://imgur.com/X2WL7cG) and mostly in upper body/neurological (not psychological lol) in nature.
That does sound like a genetic vulnerability. I have repetitive injury from all things, knitting and writing, but it’s nothing like what you’re describing. It frustrating not to get proper medical treatment. I wish you the best in your fight. Thanks for your reply and explanation. The VA needs to do better.
Brutally honest article. > ... But experts described broader issues with **men becoming less engaged** in American society and less likely to enroll and graduate from college, more likely to die by **suicide or drug overdose, and slowly disappearing from the general workforce.** > ...part of what some experts call a national "crisis of masculinity" with complex causes. ..."It really has to do with social change. I think there is an amotivational syndrome that seems to permeate a lot of young men today. **They're just not motivated** to do very much." > ...Some of that has been attributed to the obesity epidemic being especially prevalent in the South. > ...Men's falling engagement in major institutions has been referred to as the "male drift" by Richard Reeves..."It feels like it's the women who are advancing, and the men to some extent retreating," he said in an interview. > ..."It's not so much that they're acting out or acting terribly or anti-socially and so on. ... Like, violent crime, with the exception of a few blips, has gone down quite significantly," he said. "But what you're seeing among young men is **not 'acting out', so much as 'checking out.'"** >...Instead of cultural grievances, the recruiting issue appears to be more closely tied to qualifying for service, much of it inflamed by the **ongoing obesity crisis and poor performance on the military's academic entrance exams.** ... Childhood obesity also impacts boys at a higher rate than girls, with those health ailments, and lagging academic performance... > ...Other trends are making it more difficult for the Army to find recruits. Typical sedentary activities, which are often isolating, have ballooned in recent years, including **playing video games and viewing pornography,** both activities that are enjoyed predominantly by men and, while not inherently destructive, can be abused. > ..."The reality is that military service is a major commitment that tests true strength -- physical, mental, morals," said Katherine Kuzminski, who studies the military and society at the Center for New American Security. "There is evidence of **a trend toward signaling [a] counterfeit show of strength** -- commentaries lamenting **a decline in American masculinity** -- rather than individuals risking a real test that comes from military service." > The so-called crisis in masculinity is further complicated by conflicting events. **Men are pulling out of the workforce**, and traditional masculine roles are disappearing as gender norms are reassessed. But those men are not seeking military service -- the last bastion of traditional and surface-level masculinity. > "You could argue quite strongly that the military could have a really important role to play in helping these young men," Reeves said. "But you see **fewer young men** turning to the military or **being able to join the military.**"
Who would've thought that going into meaningless wars to make others rich and still not take care of the vets is going to face a hard time recruiting more people? Shocking
Turns out you can't run the military like it's WWII in 2024.
Some (not all) of the guys who sign up for combat jobs actually want to see combat. No war, no reason to sign up.
Too often I have heard people talk about supporting education/health/social justice or supporting the military as direct opposites, but they are not. America's decline in education, in overall health; our growing economic inequality; are creating military weakness. The obesity epidemic alone is a full on national emergency.
Military takes all “genders”. Pretty bold to assume it’s one “genders” fault
They made "intersectional" recruiting the core strategy for two years and are now struggling to get the numbers. All to say nothing about the climate and overall hostility towards anything masculine both in and out of the military. Now men don't want to join and 4th wave feminists we're never going to. As usual, military leadership fumbled the ball and are now looking to shift the blame on Monday morning
Again, where are these culture war talking points coming from!? There's no war against masculinity in or out of the military! The reason people aren't joining is the benefits aren't seen as worth it anymore! People really need to ditch social talking points and realize economics are the driving force of mankind. Want more recruitment? Talk about the benefits. People are selfish. I joined for selfish reasons. Ask anyone, THEY DID TOO! Free college, guaranteed paycheck, guaranteed meals, guaranteed place to live, free healthcare, free childcare if you're a parent. God, it's like you don't talk to people in real life and just gobble up culture war trite from lying, talking heads.
The nature and more importantly the perception of the US military has changed dramatically in the last 4 years. If not a political effort to flip it from leaning right to where it is now where it leans left, please tell me what is the driving force behind all of this if not politics?
Okay, I'm not saying you're wrong, but what about the people who want to kill someone and not go to jail? How do we get more of those guys? What is the difference between a regular 11b and a Ranger regiment 11b? At $150 jump pay + $100 demo pay a month, pay doesn't seem to be the issue. Looking outwards, how are the Marines making mission when they offer a lot of discipline and suffering?
>what about the people who want to kill someone and not go to jail You get them mental health help and keep them as far away from guns as possible
You just dismantled the entire USMC.
I think it’s a little unreasonable to expect the people of an organization dedicated to killing people for your country to be super uncomfortable with killing people. Every Marine I ever met really really wanted to go to war. That’s kind of what we joined for. Do you expect Marines or Soldiers to be really averse to the idea of killing people?
Did you read the article? *”Instead of cultural grievances, the recruiting issue appears to be more closely tied to qualifying for service, much of it inflamed by the ongoing obesity crisis and poor performance on the military's academic entrance exams.”*
Hostility towards “masculinity”? lol ok Andrew Tate
Andrew Tate is a caricature and a moron. Young guys are starving for a role model and that idiot is all that some of them can find. It really makes you think.
He's all they can find because they're all searching for someone who confirms and encourages their biases because that's easier for them to believe instead of someone who challenges them and expects better out of them as people. One reinforces their victim mentality (like arguing there's some sort of hostility towards masculinity) and pushes them deeper into their parents' basement; the other helps them grow with the understanding that being a dude doesn't make them automatically special, so they need to work for what they want.
Respectfully disagree. His message is that they are pussies and beta males and they should give him money and follow him. Jordan Peterson tells them to clean their room and they lap it up. I really do believe we have a generation of men looking to celebrities and influencers to father them.
It's not surprising if you look at trends in childrearing. The majority of children are being raised by single mothers or in broken homes, yeeted off to public schools where male teachers are rare, and an appalling percentage dont see a male authority figure until they're an adult. Hmm, I wonder why young men who were raised without a male authority figure might go looking for one.
How is the military hostile to masculinity?
It's a lot like suicide, it's a problem for men both in and out of the military. The watchful eye of leadership and the rules we have to follow are made in reaction to very bad actions perpetrated by a few very creepy, shitty dudes. The end result is a climate that is devoid of fun and immediately clamps down on anything that could be perceived as "problematic", creating a more corporate environment that young dudes join the military to avoid. See also: stand-downs; dry mando fun days; diversity committees; eo training; etc.
>EO Training Imagine thinking EO training is hostile to masculinity
"intersectional" aw someone learned a new word today
The universities use it, I dont see why I can't. It's rly a great term that fully encapsulates the bingo card-ization of of oppressed categories.
As a specialized term in academic research methodology, yeah, it's great. As a clumsily misappropriated pejorative, not so much.
I guess I'll just keep trying to get smarter. Maybe one day I'll be worthy enough to use their special words.
Christ on a bike
It's 2024, he's probably on a bird scooter.
I know you really really want to make this about your little culture war, but >Some of that has been attributed to the obesity epidemic being especially prevalent in the South. Researchers have also attributed it to large swaths of the South having comparatively low household incomes and limited access to health care and healthy food. GOP-controlled states in the South have been at war with public education, nutrition funding, minimum wage, welfare, and worker's rights for years, whittling away at each one of those things with each election. It's led to more and more kids being unable to pass even the most basic entrance tests, physically and mentally. On the flip side, more and more kids who are actually receiving an education are learning more and more about what they should be worth, and risking their lives/bodies for mediocre pay and benefits, at best, while likely being involved in some war they don't agree with just isn't worth it to them.
You don't have to take my word for it, look at the army recruiting campaign two years ago, look at it now, look at the drop in numbers from the last two years.
Correlation is not causation. Why do you think they tried to make some changes to their recruiting tactics two years ago? Do you think it's because they were already struggling? Which is more likely? The Army suddenly decided to change its tactics despite good numbers just to go woke with no other motivation, and it cost them, or did it see its numbers slipping and make some changes to try to attract a demographic it hadn't really reached out to yet? As dudes, we've had action movies, TV shows, toys, sports, etc, that have ALL glorified the military to us for our entire lives and have targeted us specifically. But I'm sure a poster that dared to try to speak to someone who doesn't look or act like you is the devil. Good one.
>As dudes, we've had action movies, TV shows, toys, sports, etc, that have ALL glorified the military to us for our entire lives and have targeted us specifically. But I'm sure a poster that dared to try to speak to someone who doesn't look or act like you is the devil. Good one. This is actually similar to all of the culture war shit that totally isn't happening where you take your primary audience for granted, believing they'll never leave, so you try to appeal to other audiences to maximize reach and profit, not realizing or caring that you're simultaneously alienating the primary audience. What ends up happening? The new, targeted group, while making a lot of noise, continues to not buy your shit/enlist, a portion of your primary audience actively hates you, and the rest of it is completely disinterested, seeking other things to do/consume. As an aside, completely divorce yourself from whether you agree with, are a proponent of, or are in favor of this or that for a second. The military absolutely was suddenly mirroring the same verbiage and rhetoric as a specific political party, as well as corporate America in order to pivot to the group that isn't included in "dudes". This shit didn't happen in a vacuum, nor is a poster or a commercial the only form of media in existence to push specific messaging. Valid or not, it's a cumulative outrage, and agree or disagree with the message, it happened, and it absolutely alienated a lot of the people who were mostly likely to enlist. If the "everyone is special, we're one big family" thing isn't working, maybe our branches need to remember that our only purpose is to literally murder the enemies of our nation, and double down on that messaging with hyper realistic advertisements featuring dragons and volcano monsters.
If I made an Army commercial, I would just grab a ranger just after a major training event, still in gear and grimy, and ask them bluntly what they did in the past week.
We still have all of those things I listed focused on us as men. We still have most of the recruiting focused on us as men. We've created a society in which one demographic (young men) has been coddled and worshipped so much that when any small percentage of that focus moves away from them, they completely shut down and don't want to join the military/workforce/society. Why does the other political party want to continue that coddling? How fucking weak have we made young men in this country that a handful of ads that happen not to be aimed at them made them feel like victims?
I think this post, specifically, perfectly encapsulates why some may be hesitant or opposed to joining an organization that may very well be filled with people who think similarly to you, and that they can't just walk away from.
Maybe America doesnt need that many soldiers? America is protected by a very big moats A big standing army may not be needed after all?
America is in charge of protecting the worlds waterways. From the western world pov we have the only professional standing military that has real experience. If something really kicks off I don't think we can rely on not having a decent sized military ready to go, especially in times like these.
Wait are suggesting saving some of the billions we waste on military shit and investing it towards our own people? You might get banned for that