Posted on Jul 20, 2023
How would you solve the military recruiting challenges currently facing DOD?
63.1K
1.73K
952
64
64
0
The recruiting struggles continue across all branches. What is causing it and how should it be addressed?
https://www.wsj.com/story/the-us-army-expects-to-end-up-15000-recruits-short-this-year-b5e9de86
https://www.wsj.com/story/the-us-army-expects-to-end-up-15000-recruits-short-this-year-b5e9de86
Posted in these groups: 
Recruiting
Readiness
79V: Retention and Transition NCO (USAR)
79R: Recruiter
8411: Basic Recruiter
Recruiting Readiness 79V: Retention and Transition NCO (USAR) 79R: Recruiter 8411: Basic Recruiter
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 432
194
194
0
1. 75% of males/kids are overweight and too fat/out of shape to join. 2. Thanks to Millennials- kids who were too active for their parents were put on drugs or sent to shrinks which require recruiting waivers. 3. A kid ( USAF Brat) posted that his culture as provided by his schools/peers has damaged/destroyed his Patriotism, that they have been taught "When you think of Pride, its the Rainbow Coalition, not America!" Modern parents and teachers have taught that if your feelings are hurt, go and hide in a safe place. Hell, Mass U is offering mental help because the Supreme Court vetoed Biden's Student Loan Payoff. All this makes it damn hard to find folks to recruit! Answer get our Country to start growing balls again and raise Adults, not "Snowflakes"!
(194)
(0)
MSgt Mason Manner
As a AF CE retired member (8yrs regAF and 25years reserve I saw the changes in the AF culture and society. Until about 1986 the AF was about the mission and job very limited recognition you could very easily sidelined with a bad APR But we had comradery, keg at Commander's Call. That all changed it became all about a balanced life and career progression. Very little comradery junior grade airman right out of basic talking to E-5s and above like equals, terminology became less military specific, work ethic almost nonexistent. The Marine Corp is successful because they don't need the numbers other branches need they still maintain their cultural standards and stay true to their traditional mission.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Mason Manner
The joke is if you want a well paying secure career become a plumber, electrician, stone/concrete Mason, carpenters. For separating members look into HELMETS TO HARDHATS VA WILL PAY BAH FOR THE YEARS APPRENTICESHIP
(1)
(0)
134
134
0
There are a lot of partisan / political talking points that can be made. But almost all of those are doomed to failure for that very reason. So, attempting to avoid those areas, here are a few things I think may make a difference.
1) I would go back to the ad campaigns of the 80s and early 90s. Or something similar. Quit trying to be so generic we don't offend anybody, or so specific we are only talking to a few.
Marines fighting lava monsters with a sword and Soldiers rapelling out of helicopters were just cool. There is an argument that they are "elitist" and may give kids the impression that they aren't good enough to sign up. But I think the more accurate argument is that kids KNOW they aren't that good - but those commercials encouraged them to sign up so they could BECOME that good.
2) I would also tighten up uniform rules and go back to class B being the "standard" duty uniform. Military members just look BETTER in service uniform, as compared to fatigues. And even just walking down the aisle of the grocery store or pumping gas at the gas station, those service uniforms are an advertisement all on their own.
3) Get recruiters back in to schools. All of them. HS and college. If the school gets even a dime from the federal government in ANY way, even subsidized lunches, wedge in there and get the recruiters talking to kids.
And I mean true engagement. Have the recruiter stop by in Freshman PE. Not even to recruit, but to help out. Maybe an official timer for a 1 mile run. Maybe a grader for some other PE event, or a referee for basketball. Maybe a different recruiter shows up in Civics/government class to talk about the Constitution. Get the recruiters in there being a part of their world. They don't even have to pitch their service, just help out the school and then have time to be available after class/during lunch/after school for anyone who wants to talk.
4) Re-look / re-assess admission standards. Especially regarding health history and mental health history. If an otherwise acceptable candidate is being disqualified for a mental health history, but that concern has been "cured" either through treatment or simply growing up (Yes, you can "age out" of ADHD), let the waivers flow. Same for medications that are no longer being taken, or even medications that are "routine" and can be easily stocked /supplied. (Not things like refrigerated insulin, or highly black marketable Adderall, but things like Welbutrin or guanfacine that are stocked in pretty much every pharmacy, are relatively resilient regarding temperatures, and pose little threat for re-sale if we have to send a Soldier out with a 180 day supply. This would obviously need a lot of medical scrutiny, but I think in today's logistical world, SOME of these meds should be waiverable.) Sure we may still need a waiver, and make the recruit (and recruiter) show that the previous concern is no longer an issue. But loosen the standard on the waivers and let them flow freely.
5a) re-look / re-assess what is a military job and what is not. Back in the early 2000s, we went through and eliminated a lot of "excess military manpower" tasks (mowing lawns, cleaning windows, etc.) to free up Soldiers to train, train, and train some more.
We still have things like post police and road guard, and I don't think these are going away. But do 90% of the military intelligence jobs at Fort Belvoir and Fort Meade need to be done by uniformed service members? What about logistics? Cooks on those "non-depoyable" bases?
I think we are unlikely to radically recover from the current shortages. Short of conscription, we should accept a lower end strength. If that is the case, what are the most critical needs, and let's build our units, MTOE, and TDA that way. Very little, if any, change to ECB. But at EAC I can see room for a lot of conversion.
5b) Those folks who want to join the military, but are unable to due to physical ability or prescriptions or family requirements may be able to move into those previously military roles. We can give them the same basic pay and benefits package, or close to it, but maybe without VA eligibility, as they are not actually military and do not face the same hazards, particularly combat hazards. (Yes, I know a small percentage of the military deploys to a combat zone - and an even smaller percentage actually engages in honest to goodness combat. And that percentage is dropping as we have closed out Iraq and Afghanistan, and the GWOT is down to a simmer. But all military members sign up for a POSSIBILITY of going to combat - and train for it.)
5 options and a corollary. All of them will take work and changes to policy. Most will require legislative action. But they are out there.
Ok.... there's my thoughts.... go ahead and rip 'em to shreds, peanut gallery.
1) I would go back to the ad campaigns of the 80s and early 90s. Or something similar. Quit trying to be so generic we don't offend anybody, or so specific we are only talking to a few.
Marines fighting lava monsters with a sword and Soldiers rapelling out of helicopters were just cool. There is an argument that they are "elitist" and may give kids the impression that they aren't good enough to sign up. But I think the more accurate argument is that kids KNOW they aren't that good - but those commercials encouraged them to sign up so they could BECOME that good.
2) I would also tighten up uniform rules and go back to class B being the "standard" duty uniform. Military members just look BETTER in service uniform, as compared to fatigues. And even just walking down the aisle of the grocery store or pumping gas at the gas station, those service uniforms are an advertisement all on their own.
3) Get recruiters back in to schools. All of them. HS and college. If the school gets even a dime from the federal government in ANY way, even subsidized lunches, wedge in there and get the recruiters talking to kids.
And I mean true engagement. Have the recruiter stop by in Freshman PE. Not even to recruit, but to help out. Maybe an official timer for a 1 mile run. Maybe a grader for some other PE event, or a referee for basketball. Maybe a different recruiter shows up in Civics/government class to talk about the Constitution. Get the recruiters in there being a part of their world. They don't even have to pitch their service, just help out the school and then have time to be available after class/during lunch/after school for anyone who wants to talk.
4) Re-look / re-assess admission standards. Especially regarding health history and mental health history. If an otherwise acceptable candidate is being disqualified for a mental health history, but that concern has been "cured" either through treatment or simply growing up (Yes, you can "age out" of ADHD), let the waivers flow. Same for medications that are no longer being taken, or even medications that are "routine" and can be easily stocked /supplied. (Not things like refrigerated insulin, or highly black marketable Adderall, but things like Welbutrin or guanfacine that are stocked in pretty much every pharmacy, are relatively resilient regarding temperatures, and pose little threat for re-sale if we have to send a Soldier out with a 180 day supply. This would obviously need a lot of medical scrutiny, but I think in today's logistical world, SOME of these meds should be waiverable.) Sure we may still need a waiver, and make the recruit (and recruiter) show that the previous concern is no longer an issue. But loosen the standard on the waivers and let them flow freely.
5a) re-look / re-assess what is a military job and what is not. Back in the early 2000s, we went through and eliminated a lot of "excess military manpower" tasks (mowing lawns, cleaning windows, etc.) to free up Soldiers to train, train, and train some more.
We still have things like post police and road guard, and I don't think these are going away. But do 90% of the military intelligence jobs at Fort Belvoir and Fort Meade need to be done by uniformed service members? What about logistics? Cooks on those "non-depoyable" bases?
I think we are unlikely to radically recover from the current shortages. Short of conscription, we should accept a lower end strength. If that is the case, what are the most critical needs, and let's build our units, MTOE, and TDA that way. Very little, if any, change to ECB. But at EAC I can see room for a lot of conversion.
5b) Those folks who want to join the military, but are unable to due to physical ability or prescriptions or family requirements may be able to move into those previously military roles. We can give them the same basic pay and benefits package, or close to it, but maybe without VA eligibility, as they are not actually military and do not face the same hazards, particularly combat hazards. (Yes, I know a small percentage of the military deploys to a combat zone - and an even smaller percentage actually engages in honest to goodness combat. And that percentage is dropping as we have closed out Iraq and Afghanistan, and the GWOT is down to a simmer. But all military members sign up for a POSSIBILITY of going to combat - and train for it.)
5 options and a corollary. All of them will take work and changes to policy. Most will require legislative action. But they are out there.
Ok.... there's my thoughts.... go ahead and rip 'em to shreds, peanut gallery.
(134)
(0)
TSgt Carl Johnson
SFC Casey O'Mally - Understood. However, in my active-duty assignments we certainly had need for deployable support personnel. My Reserve unit did not have them, so we had to rely on the Marine Corps unit that we were co-located with. In my opinion, the USMC field chow was better than the USAF field chow that I had on AD, anyway, lol.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Paul Mulwitz
I agree with a lot of this large post. When I was in the USAF (1970s) I always wore class B uniforms to work in my office. Fatigues were rarely worn when doing dirty work and never off base. It was illegal to wear most combat uniforms in public.
I won't give details on this point, but you may not be aware that at some of the bases you mentioned there are military people not in uniform. I had a special duty assignment for two years when I never wore a uniform. That was during the cold war when were working very hard to keep some secrets from the enemy.
I won't give details on this point, but you may not be aware that at some of the bases you mentioned there are military people not in uniform. I had a special duty assignment for two years when I never wore a uniform. That was during the cold war when were working very hard to keep some secrets from the enemy.
(2)
(0)
LTC John Wilson
Man, I do love my NCOs! Especially the ones not afraid to offer a challenging opinion. Unfortunately, I think your points fall a bit short of the mark. You can't fix problems caused by cultural and political demoralization without risking political controversy.
According Carl von Clausewitz: “War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means,...”
The very first point you make, SFC Casey O'Mally is deeply rooted in the political divide and a demoralized culture. If you believe we should bring back Marines fighting lava monsters instead of showcasing female social justice warriors raised by two mommies, then you've picked the side of "Toxic Masculinity" by default (not that your wrong, mind you), and are barreling straight for a political collision.
As to the second point, I don't believe that will have as much of an impact as you might think. Even if we assume you are correct on this point, we'd have to stop changing the uniforms every 6 - 9 months before it'd do much beyond confusing people. Even then, Service Members walking grocery aisles and pumping gas off base/post assumes that (a) regulations no longer exist that limit wearing the uniform in off-duty locations (i.e. the first McD's "Drive Thru" was set up at Fort Huachuca because Soldiers weren't allowed to go inside while in uniform); and (b) assumes that we have a military installation in every remote corner of the USA (granted, this is not necessarily a problem for the Reserve Component). And even if we do have Service Members donning their duds 24/7, there are a solid bloc of civilians who see that the same way a Jedi padawan sees a phalanx of Imperial Stormtroopers or a 1960s hippie at the airport lining up to spit on "Baby Killers" returning from Vietnam.
As to the third point, the lack of Recruiters in schools stems also from political demoralization that sees the United States as the sole source of all evil in the world from its very inception. School administrators, teachers, and parents steeped in Leftist ideologies don't want to see recruiters in the schools... and have banned them in some areas of the nation (mostly in "blue" regions); much less allow them to say anything nice or meaningful about our nation's Founding Charter and Bylaws. I don't disagree that Recruiters -- and Service Members, in general -- shouldn't engage positively in their local communities; however... (See pervious paragraph). At any rate, you've swerved into the realm of political controversy regardless of your stated intent.
Regarding your fourth point, issuing waivers for kids raised on psychotropic medications in the long term is borrowing trouble. But psychotropics and school shootings aside, the rise in psychiatric treatment -- especially among adolescent males -- stems from cultural demoralization. Take, for example, the movement that young, energetic boys should have their "toxic masculinity" medicated out of them in order to have them behave more like their more tame, female counterparts in the classroom. This is indicative of a demoralized culture that sees masculinity -- and men -- as a vestigial organ with no place or purpose in a "progressive" post-patriarchal society where "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Again, bang... you've collided with politics, even though you didn't want to.
Regarding 5a, we have already tried to fight a war with "civilianized" contract logistics (and lost). We've raised an entire generation of Soldiers and Senior Leaders who are used to three contracted hots, a CHU, and more bottled water than they can stand. They are now too spoiled and must adapt to a modern, conventional battlefield. I witnessed a Division-level Sustainment Symposium where the current generation of Logisticians lamented their inability to solve tactical logistics challenges my generation had long ago solved and managed as easily as breathing when the Soviet Union was still considered a threat. If you want deployable combat support and service support, then you have to have uniformed personnel in installation billets. For example. we have uniformed medical practitioners in stateside Medical Facilities to maintain their medical competencies needed in war. Most of these will deploy to staff CSHs, C Meds, and BASs when the balloon goes up. Perhaps we could contract gate guards, etc, to ma the fort while the force deploys, but that requires stable funding to maintain the contracts from a Congress that plays political games every 6 - 12 months with budget lines required of them under Article I, Section 8 to preserve pet projects that violate Amendment X... BANG! Politics!
With regard to changes in policy and legislative action... There you go again... smashing into politics...
As to accepting a smaller force structure, that may not not work when we are faced with innovative adversaries who can and will withstand crippling attrition, especially when we are "led" by a management class of professional bureaucrats who haven't won a war in the last 50 years. These same "bureaucrats" -- "experts" -- would rather risk violating Articles 88 and 94 of the UCMJ than imagine they should listen to (much less follow the orders of) a Constitutionally-elected leader (chosen by the People and the States) who won't accept their advice.
You're proposing remedies to treat symptoms of a fatal disease: cultural and political demoralization. Arguably, these may soothe the pain in the sort term, but it amounts to little more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as the bow slips beneath the icy waters in the long term. And, you won't manage to implement a single one without a political struggle to one degree or another.
Consider yourself "ripped" :-)
Now... Here's your home work assignment...
https://youtu.be/yErKTVdETpw?si=LvG69dRSY1u54_sk
According Carl von Clausewitz: “War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means,...”
The very first point you make, SFC Casey O'Mally is deeply rooted in the political divide and a demoralized culture. If you believe we should bring back Marines fighting lava monsters instead of showcasing female social justice warriors raised by two mommies, then you've picked the side of "Toxic Masculinity" by default (not that your wrong, mind you), and are barreling straight for a political collision.
As to the second point, I don't believe that will have as much of an impact as you might think. Even if we assume you are correct on this point, we'd have to stop changing the uniforms every 6 - 9 months before it'd do much beyond confusing people. Even then, Service Members walking grocery aisles and pumping gas off base/post assumes that (a) regulations no longer exist that limit wearing the uniform in off-duty locations (i.e. the first McD's "Drive Thru" was set up at Fort Huachuca because Soldiers weren't allowed to go inside while in uniform); and (b) assumes that we have a military installation in every remote corner of the USA (granted, this is not necessarily a problem for the Reserve Component). And even if we do have Service Members donning their duds 24/7, there are a solid bloc of civilians who see that the same way a Jedi padawan sees a phalanx of Imperial Stormtroopers or a 1960s hippie at the airport lining up to spit on "Baby Killers" returning from Vietnam.
As to the third point, the lack of Recruiters in schools stems also from political demoralization that sees the United States as the sole source of all evil in the world from its very inception. School administrators, teachers, and parents steeped in Leftist ideologies don't want to see recruiters in the schools... and have banned them in some areas of the nation (mostly in "blue" regions); much less allow them to say anything nice or meaningful about our nation's Founding Charter and Bylaws. I don't disagree that Recruiters -- and Service Members, in general -- shouldn't engage positively in their local communities; however... (See pervious paragraph). At any rate, you've swerved into the realm of political controversy regardless of your stated intent.
Regarding your fourth point, issuing waivers for kids raised on psychotropic medications in the long term is borrowing trouble. But psychotropics and school shootings aside, the rise in psychiatric treatment -- especially among adolescent males -- stems from cultural demoralization. Take, for example, the movement that young, energetic boys should have their "toxic masculinity" medicated out of them in order to have them behave more like their more tame, female counterparts in the classroom. This is indicative of a demoralized culture that sees masculinity -- and men -- as a vestigial organ with no place or purpose in a "progressive" post-patriarchal society where "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Again, bang... you've collided with politics, even though you didn't want to.
Regarding 5a, we have already tried to fight a war with "civilianized" contract logistics (and lost). We've raised an entire generation of Soldiers and Senior Leaders who are used to three contracted hots, a CHU, and more bottled water than they can stand. They are now too spoiled and must adapt to a modern, conventional battlefield. I witnessed a Division-level Sustainment Symposium where the current generation of Logisticians lamented their inability to solve tactical logistics challenges my generation had long ago solved and managed as easily as breathing when the Soviet Union was still considered a threat. If you want deployable combat support and service support, then you have to have uniformed personnel in installation billets. For example. we have uniformed medical practitioners in stateside Medical Facilities to maintain their medical competencies needed in war. Most of these will deploy to staff CSHs, C Meds, and BASs when the balloon goes up. Perhaps we could contract gate guards, etc, to ma the fort while the force deploys, but that requires stable funding to maintain the contracts from a Congress that plays political games every 6 - 12 months with budget lines required of them under Article I, Section 8 to preserve pet projects that violate Amendment X... BANG! Politics!
With regard to changes in policy and legislative action... There you go again... smashing into politics...
As to accepting a smaller force structure, that may not not work when we are faced with innovative adversaries who can and will withstand crippling attrition, especially when we are "led" by a management class of professional bureaucrats who haven't won a war in the last 50 years. These same "bureaucrats" -- "experts" -- would rather risk violating Articles 88 and 94 of the UCMJ than imagine they should listen to (much less follow the orders of) a Constitutionally-elected leader (chosen by the People and the States) who won't accept their advice.
You're proposing remedies to treat symptoms of a fatal disease: cultural and political demoralization. Arguably, these may soothe the pain in the sort term, but it amounts to little more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as the bow slips beneath the icy waters in the long term. And, you won't manage to implement a single one without a political struggle to one degree or another.
Consider yourself "ripped" :-)
Now... Here's your home work assignment...
https://youtu.be/yErKTVdETpw?si=LvG69dRSY1u54_sk
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
(3)
(0)
115
115
0
Get the woke stuff out, along with the politics. Get back to basics of warfighting
(115)
(0)
SSgt Robert Simonds
I agree with many of your suggestion's. The biggest change in history started with the TV. then Video games. When this stuff started Children and adults' started watching Tv. The playing out side with friends stopped, and the hunting and fishing along with out side sports. The side effects are loss of common sense, loss of communications skills with other people. I also saw a rise in crime rates, people trying to live up to their video game skills. Children losing their ability to determine right and wrong. Before there was TV. every one played out side with the neighbors kids and we learned communications skills, we learned how to entertain our selves invented new games and such. With our parents we learned to hunt and fish and what to eat if out in the woods. We did craft's and games. and yes we read at night by the light gf the coal oil lamp or candle. I don't ever remember being bored or lonely because I had wild animals to keep track of. Believe it or not, some aminol's are very smart and do amazing things just to live. We never had time to get fat.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
I enlisted just before the end of the draft. It was a mixed bag of folks from all over the country. The Drill Sergeants had all fought together in Vietnam with the 11th ACR and knew what we needed to learn to survive in battle. Most of us were not in great shape, but the drills soon fixed that. Unfortunately, as SSgt Simonds noted, many of the current cadre are not suitable due to social changes that have made us fat and unable to weather living in the outdoors. We need a program to give drill sergeants the capabilities to deal with the enlisting folks who have gang tattoos, drug use and too much body fat.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree with you, CSM. We do need to focus our efforts on warfighting rather than policy changes that we don't agree with, or we do, but it is distracting our soldiers. Our soldiers are human just like us and watch/listen to different media platforms. We need our military leaders to make that clear with our political leaders that it is a distraction. I only say that because of world issues around the world that is currently overhauling our force structure.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google