How will the Force of Future changes affect the military?

Please explain how this makes us more robust? If a NCO or officer cannot do their job for at least a year and even more when you take into consideration their restrictions while pregnant, how does that make our military better? We have someone on our books that cannot perform their job for possibly one half of an enlistment.

COL Jon Thompson Having more people that can fill ANY billet makes us more robust. That's more qualified applicants for each and every slot.

Yes, we will have troops with medical issues who are taken out of the fight for a year at a time. We have that now. I had a Motor T friend who was in a HMMWV that rolled. Jacked up his hand pretty bad. That's a medical issue that will take you out of the fight. How many grunts, torque their back, knee, or ankle, and are out for weeks at a time? Focusing on a specific type of medical condition, in a small subset of our overall population is just cherry-picking data figures.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I understand what you are saying and it is good to have people that are trained to step up. Still, I see a difference between an injury that happened in the line of duty and pregnancy. While both take someone out of the fight, I am unaware of an injury that gives a person 12 months off. If it is that severe, they are medically boarded and most likely will be retired. Pregnancy is not line of duty and yet they will get over a year of non-deployability and also 4 months of leave. The military is being cut so it's not really that there are more people who can fill billets, it will be someone having to step and do someone else's job usually along with their own. I don't see that as making us more robust. I do appreciate your viewpoints because I do tend to look at things from one angle. Thank you for your responses.

COL Jon Thompson An I see your point as well, sir. But we long ago established that pregnancy and childbirth were natural parts of a persons life. We adjusted policy to where we no longer discharge females for getting pregnant (decades ago).

As for injuries that could take someone out of the fight, I have personally known two below knee amputees who stayed on active duty (one a Marine Intel Analyst , and the other an Army MP K9 Handler). Their recover was in line with the timelines you mention.

But.. pregnancy doesn't take you out of the fight for a year. It puts you on Light Duty for a solid portion, then Limited Duty, then Convalescence leave. This is really no different than any other Medical condition, like a broken leg, or a torn ACL, etc.

As for downsizing, budgetary cuts, etc, those are distractions from the primary argument. We must not try to use those as excuses for why we cannot do something, when we would be able to do something if the Force was remaining at a static size. If the Force's numbers were stable, having the ability to make everyone interchangable, does make us more robust. It is the "Every Marine is a Rifleman" philosophy taken to another step.

Why shouldn't a female Intel Analyst be able to serve in ANY Intel Analyst position, regardless of unit? Why shouldn't a female MP? If they are qualified to hold that position, it should be an T/O position in the Force. Therefore placing artificial limits on where they can be assigned is intentionally limiting our capabilities making us a less robust Force. The reverse of that should also hold true. That's just from MOS that aren't restricted by gender. I'm not even trying to delve into the MOS issue, but the analogies hold true "if" the person is MOS qualified.