# Retention and Recruitment Crisis



## RackMaster (Oct 7, 2022)

I know this is not a problem isolated to Canada but this response is the most severe I've seen.  I don't think anyone will recognize the Canadian Armed Forces in a few year's.  It's kind of infuriating, seeing what has happened.



> Eyre also opens the door to more flexible working arrangements for service members while emphasizing the continued need to change the military's culture to better attract and retain women, Indigenous people and other under-represented groups.
> 
> 
> "Culture change will remain the top departmental priority throughout the reconstitution process," the order reads. "This endeavour will require significant resources and a willingness to embrace recommendations from external review authorities."
> ...



Military's chief orders halt to non-essential activities, focus on personnel crisis


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 27, 2022)

Maybe if they focused on warfighting, instead of every woke trend of the week...

I read in another article that due to shutting down recruiting centers during the 2020/2021 fiscal year, they only recruited 2000 that year. 

In March they were short 7600 Regular Force members. With an attrition rate of 9.3%, they are losing 9000 a year, currently.  Something major needs to change, this is not sustainable.

As of the 2021 census, there was approximately 65,000 Regular Force and 32,000 Reserve and Ranger Force.  



> Eyre said his number one priority is getting Canada’s armed forces up to full strength, with an attrition rate of 9.3 per cent between both regular and reserve forces, up from 6.9 per cent last year. The Canadian Armed Forces Retention Strategy was released just last month.



Canadian military would be 'challenged' to launch a large scale operation: chief of the defence staff

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-staff-shortfall-1.6395131


----------



## pardus (Nov 27, 2022)

The wokeness in every army is going to last until the first battle in a conventional war is over and they see the pile of unprepared bodies in uniform. This is simply not sustainable, unless “they” are going to try for an autonomous/remote/robot AI based military that “doesn’t need” boots on the ground.


----------



## GOTWA (Nov 27, 2022)

I left the Army in July after 16 years. Half Active, half Guard. Had 35 total months overseas split between Afghanistan and Africa. I'm not the only one that left this year. There are few CI positions in the state as it is, much less with that much deployed time. They can have their Covid screening sites, fire details, DSCA, and all of the other stupid bullshit. Not my problem anymore.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 29, 2022)

GOTWA said:


> I left the Army in July after 16 years. Half Active, half Guard. Had 35 total months overseas split between Afghanistan and Africa. I'm not the only one that left this year. There are few CI positions in the state as it is, much less with that much deployed time. They can have their Covid screening sites, fire details, DSCA, and all of the other stupid bullshit. Not my problem anymore.


This is the overwhelming feel inside the military right now. The amount of people just straight up turning down the next rank in favor of leaving the military is something I have never seen. It's a little more blunted on our side of the fence (both AF and SOF) for a couple reasons, but we are still feeling that pain as well.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 29, 2022)

.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 29, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> This is the overwhelming feel inside the military right now. The amount of people just straight up turning down the next rank in favor of leaving the military is something I have never seen. It's a little more blunted on our side of the fence (both AF and SOF) for a couple reasons, but we are still feeling that pain as well.


The next rank turned me down, but even if it hadn't, I would have had to leave.  Afghanistan was the last straw for me, but it wasn't the only thing.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 29, 2022)

The Real Reasons for the Army’s Recruiting Woes​


> Few people seem to want to talk openly about what I opine is the true root cause of all of this: Democrat political policies. These policies include, but are not limited to, 1) woke policies running rampant throughout the military 2) the disastrous end to the war in Afghanistan 3) the constant attacks on conservatives, whites, and men (three separate categories, but “conservative white men” are the largest demographic in the Army) 4) the weakening of the U.S. position abroad and the inherent increasing possibility of conflict that brings 5) shitcanning thousands of troops over a COVID vaccine that we all know doesn’t work in the way we were told it would. What follows is a short explanation and analysis of these opinions and some suggestions on how to mitigate them.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 29, 2022)

I ended up retiring out of the USAR just a few months after getting my 20 year letter. The last few years were the hardest....I only stuck it out to get the medical (Tricare) once I hit 60...well, actually at 59 1/2, due to deployments. Civilian retirement medical is pretty expensive, and Tricare allows me the flexibility of retiring without a huge medical cost for me and my wife.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> The Real Reasons for the Army’s Recruiting Woes​
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 41022


Another good article. 
I fear another Task Force Smith, but it's what's needed at this point. 

The people pushing this shit are betting they will be gone when shit hits the fan.


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> The Real Reasons for the Army’s Recruiting Woes​
> Few people seem to want to talk openly about what I opine is the true root cause of all of this: Democrat political policies. These policies include, but are not limited to, 1) woke policies running rampant throughout the military 2) the disastrous end to the war in Afghanistan 3) the constant attacks on conservatives, whites, and men (three separate categories, but “conservative white men” are the largest demographic in the Army) 4) the weakening of the U.S. position abroad and the inherent increasing possibility of conflict that brings 5) shitcanning thousands of troops over a COVID vaccine that we all know doesn’t work in the way we were told it would. What follows is a short explanation and analysis of these opinions and some suggestions on how to mitigate them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 41022



I'm going to disagree with you here, but only in target, not substance.

I think those issues you bring up aren't having much of an impact on recruiting, but they absolutely are having an impact on retention.
2/4 are something I hear a lot, regardless of politics. Same with 5, to an extent. 1 tends to be applicable if you're in 3, so while I disagree with your viewpoint on that I do understand and acknowledge it.

I think one of the single biggest hit against the military is Afghanistan. Regardless of politics, a lot of kids in the target demographic have a negative view of service because of that war.
Throw in some recent big news shit (Vanessa Guillen/other SA cases, dogshit barracks, contaminated water in housing, etc) and a lot of these kids see the military as not giving a fuck about them. I honestly can't say I'd disagree with them. Individual command teams and leadership chains for sure do, but not the bureaucracy at large.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> The Real Reasons for the Army’s Recruiting Woes​
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 41022




The Army RIF's a lot of good officers who get on the wrong side of a commander here and there for whatever reason.  The Army also promotes a lot of dudes who just want that shit on their resume.  And then almost immediately after the boards come out, guys put in their refrad for after their promotion date.  I only saw one officer, ever who put in his refrad before his first board so that he would exit exactly at the four year mark.  This guy was also one of the best leaders I've ever met.  He was a four years and I'm out when we were in AOBC.  No way he would not have been a SAMS or Fullbright Scholar type if he actually desired a long career.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 30, 2022)

The number one thing pushing people out of uniform remains bad leadership and command climates. Yes this new generation is different and expects different things. That’s probably a fairly constant judgement from older generations to junior ones throughout military history though, especially when it involves combat veterans. 

I was in uniform before and after the US ended the prohibitions to homosexuals in service and women in combat arms. Both these initiatives were much more contentious than what is happening now and didn’t really upend the military like “everyone” thought they would. 

I think the biggest factor in senior personnel getting out is that we are over it after spending our youth and most our career at war. At some point you earned all the gold stars you can collect and it’s time for something different, especially after twenty years of service.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 30, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I'm going to disagree with you here, but only in target, not substance.
> 
> I think those issues you bring up aren't having much of an impact on recruiting, but they absolutely are having an impact on retention.
> 2/4 are something I hear a lot, regardless of politics. Same with 5, to an extent. 1 tends to be applicable if you're in 3, so while I disagree with your viewpoint on that I do understand and acknowledge it.
> ...


A primary, unspoken reason recruiting is floundering is because the people who typically encourage people to join the military aren't doing it.  They aren’t doing it because of extreme leftist policies, like the Afghanistan pullout debacle you mentioned.  Many of us who have served proudly up to this point can't, in good conscience, encourage others to do so.  

What is there to disagree with on point 3?  Do you think it's not happening?  Because... it is.


----------



## BrassOverBolt (Nov 30, 2022)

Several big ones for me...

1. A 3M system that inhibits even the simplest of tasks through heaps of red tape.   Ex. Distilled water a HAZMAT to be filed and signed for? Really?

2. Risk Aversion to the point of Operations being stymied. 

3. Bureaucratic policies tailored to the lowest common denominator.

4. Laughable excessive safety breifs that infantilize the supposedly "1%".

Right after Operation Allies Refuge and the withdrawal of Kabul one of my favorites was a counter right wing extremist "training" that cited that American founding symbolisms were questionable. Among them, the Gadsden flag was cited. I, Along with many others in the room proceeded to look at the left shoulder patch (Navy Jack) of our NWU type 3's.

A little bit of a rant, but yes, I think retention may be a bigger issue than recruiting.


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 30, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> A primary, unspoken reason recruiting is floundering is because the people who typically encourage people to join the military aren't doing it.  They aren’t doing it because of extreme leftist policies, like the Afghanistan pullout debacle you mentioned.  Many of us who have served proudly up to this point can't, in good conscience, encourage others to do so.
> 
> What is there to disagree with on point 3?  Do you think it's not happening?  Because... it is.


I disagree because the "extreme leftist policies" destroying the military is the exact same rhetoric I heard when DADT ended. It's the same rhetoric that started floating around when females were allowed into combat arms. 
Neither of those destroyed the military. 

I don't feel attacked as a white man, but I'm also not a conservative. That's why I say I get the viewpoint you may have, but it'll be a disagreement along political lines about the severity of that.


The military is reaching a headway of finding out that demographics are changing, and we're not going to be able to maintain a military of mainly white conservative dudes going forward. 

The options are "Go woke" and try to get a wider diversity of recruits to maintain numbers, or keep it the same and slim it down to manning levels that can work with who it can attract in a more traditional sense. 

I think the solution is probably somewhere in between those two points, but that's way above my paygrade.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 30, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I disagree because the "extreme leftist policies" destroying the military is the exact same rhetoric I heard when DADT ended. It's the same rhetoric that started floating around when females were allowed into combat arms.
> Neither of those destroyed the military.
> 
> I don't feel attacked as a white man, but I'm also not a conservative. That's why I say I get the viewpoint you may have, but it'll be a disagreement along political lines about the severity of that.
> ...


This whole comment is a lot. To your bolded- current demographics show an outsized percentage (compared to America writ large) for minorities. Women underperform by a ton, but that's really the only demographic that isn't' a direct representation of the actual makeup of America.

Is your point here that we need to _increase _the amount of minorities, or _decrease_ the amount of "white men"? If so, why? If not, feel free to ignore that one.

I guess I would ask- can you explain what you mean by "wider diversity of recruits"? Do more minorities = greater warfighting capabilities? And before you hit me with, "Diversity of ideas and experiences helps us be better warfighters", please understand that's not what you said. You said we could maintain recruiting numbers by going woke and getting a wider diversity of recruits- I don't know what that means.


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 30, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> This whole comment is a lot. To your bolded- current demographics show an outsized percentage (compared to America writ large) for minorities. Women underperform by a ton, but that's really the only demographic that isn't' a direct representation of the actual makeup of America.
> Is your point here that we need to _increase _the amount of minorities, or _decrease_ the amount of "white men"? If so, why? If not, feel free to ignore that one.
> I guess I would ask- can you explain what you mean by "wider diversity of recruits"? Do more minorities = greater warfighting capabilities? And before you hit me with, "Diversity of ideas and experiences helps us be better warfighters", please understand that's not what you said. You said we could maintain recruiting numbers by going woke and getting a wider diversity of recruits- I don't know what that means.



I see where this got confusing. My point about demographics was in reply to @Marauder06  original comment that the majority demographic in the Army (though also probably military overall) is conservative white men. 
I haven't seen super recent numbers, but I don't think he's wrong in that assertion.

My comment you bolded was that I don't think we (the military) can continue to expect to fulfill manning numbers and still maintain a "non-woke" military attractive to large swathes of that group.

I think the military either has to adapt to the population ("go woke") to encourage more of the general population to find it attractive, or we're going to have to maintain current military culture and might have reduced numbers to reflect that. 

I want people in the military willing to do the job and embrace the suck. Whatever demographics they fall under are cool with me.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 30, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I think the military either has to adapt to the population ("go woke") to encourage more of the general population to find it attractive, or we're going to have to maintain current military culture and might have reduced numbers to reflect that.


First of all, thanks for clarifying, I get what you meant now, my issue not yours. 

To your above- If I can offer, I think you have a fatal flaw in your reasoning. The *overwhelming* majority of all people (minorities included) are decidedly "not woke", and the people thinking about getting into the military are less so than that. If this board is even close to an accurate representation of the military, it's quite apparent. 

I interact with thousands of 15-20 year olds a month. Tens of thousands per year- the loudest voices screaming for things like getting rid of the shot mandate and stopping with all the "woke" nonsense are the Gen Z kids that are supposed to be the most vocal- they're just not doing it on Tik Tok and IG because they are afraid _the military will see it and punish them or restrict their ability to join because of their non-woke views_. 

Those outsize "woke" voices getting a ton of attention don't represent an outsized population, they just get the most amplification, so it leads one to believe that we are missing some huge swath of population that wanna kill people for a living but also have xe/xer pronouns in their signature block. That's just not the case, in my experience. 

All that being said- diversity does not make us more lethal in any way, shape, or form. I won't even go as far as to say that "diversity of ideas and experience" makes us more lethal. That's nonsense. Not saying you said it, I am saying it's bullshit. In general. And specifically. Inherently.


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 30, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> To your above- If I can offer, I think you have a fatal flaw in your reasoning. The *overwhelming* majority of all people (minorities included) are decidedly "not woke", and the people thinking about getting into the military are less so than that. If this board is even close to an accurate representation of the military, it's quite apparent.
> 
> I interact with thousands of 15-20 year olds a month. Tens of thousands per year-* the loudest voices screaming for things like getting rid of the shot mandate and stopping with all the "woke" nonsense are the Gen Z kids *that are supposed to be the most vocal- they're just not doing it on Tik Tok and IG because they are afraid _the military will see it and punish them or restrict their ability to join because of their non-woke views_



Hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. You easily beat my experience in this conversation with gen Z by a few thousand.

If the vast majority of kids attending recruiting events are against the "woke" stuff, then the DOD needs to reevaluate what they want these organizations to be. Either "woke" or fully manned it seems.


----------



## GOTWA (Nov 30, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> A primary, unspoken reason recruiting is floundering is because the people who typically encourage people to join the military aren't doing it.  They aren’t doing it because of extreme leftist policies, like the Afghanistan pullout debacle you mentioned.  Many of us who have served proudly up to this point can't, in good conscience, encourage others to do so.
> 
> What is there to disagree with on point 3?  Do you think it's not happening?  Because... it is.



I was already on the fence with getting out before the Afghan fallout. Then one night watching everything unfold I received a call from my Cat2 asking for help getting his mother, father, brother, nieces and nephews out. After exhausting all of my Instagram contacts, talking to congressional staffers, and working to call in favors with dudes on the ground, I couldn't pull it off. And that...that absolutely broke me.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 30, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. You easily beat my experience in this conversation with gen Z by a few thousand.
> 
> If the vast majority of kids attending recruiting events are against the "woke" stuff, then the DOD needs to reevaluate what they want these organizations to be. Either "woke" or fully manned it seems.


It's a DM we have gotten hundreds of times at this point (over 3+ years)- "I am not at all ok with CRT, identity politics, the mandates, pronouns, woke ideology, equity vs equality etc etc- but I want to get in and serve my country. Please tell me it's not as bad as it looks from the outside."

In all seriousness, I cannot think of a single message that we have gotten that has said, "I don't like what I perceive to be the conservative lean of the military- what are you all doing to fix that and be a little more inclusive?" And it would stand to reason that we would get a ton of these, right? 

I think there is a very large "silent majority" that doesn't like the "woke" move, but the higher ups are VERY interested in it, so the lower ranks do what we do- know the difference between policy on TV and the actual impact on the ground. Just my opinion.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 30, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I see where this got confusing. My point about demographics was in reply to @Marauder06  original comment that the majority demographic in the Army (though also probably military overall) is conservative white men.
> I haven't seen super recent numbers, but I don't think he's wrong in that assertion.



Not a majority, the largest group.  There is an important difference.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 30, 2022)

Truthfully, it's been a death by a thousand cuts.  That anyone would be shocked is itself shocking.

Rubbing elbows with colleagues at Ft. Bragg, I know a handful getting out "mid-career", all of whom going to PA school and having a civilian career.  I asked how much influence the current climate had on their decisions, and to a man, "100%".  

I've been out a minute and although we had our issues, I don't think they were nearly as profound on the climate force-wide as the current issues.

Edited to add, the other elephants in the room are the groups who can't join because they don't meet physical standards or academic standards.


----------



## compforce (Nov 30, 2022)

Timely article from the WSJ...

Opinion | Americans Are Losing Trust in the Military


----------



## pardus (Nov 30, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I see where this got confusing. My point about demographics was in reply to @Marauder06  original comment that the majority demographic in the Army (though also probably military overall) is conservative white men.
> I haven't seen super recent numbers, but I don't think he's wrong in that assertion.
> 
> My comment you bolded was that I don't think we (the military) can continue to expect to fulfill manning numbers and still maintain a "non-woke" military attractive to large swathes of that group.
> ...


The below was linked from here... Department of Defense Releases Annual Demographics Report — Modest Increase of Women in th


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 30, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> This whole comment is a lot. To your bolded- current demographics show an outsized percentage (compared to America writ large) for minorities. Women underperform by a ton, but that's really the only demographic that isn't' a direct representation of the actual makeup of America.
> 
> Is your point here that we need to _increase _the amount of minorities, or _decrease_ the amount of "white men"? If so, why? If not, feel free to ignore that one.
> 
> I guess I would ask- can you explain what you mean by "wider diversity of recruits"? Do more minorities = greater warfighting capabilities? And before you hit me with, "Diversity of ideas and experiences helps us be better warfighters", please understand that's not what you said. You said we could maintain recruiting numbers by going woke and getting a wider diversity of recruits- I don't know what that means.




There is very limited diversity in the military, unless you of course want skin color to be your only metric.  To a man, my second recon platoon grew up dirt poor.  Including myself. 

I guess the first platoon I had at Knox was a fucking shit show.  A bunch of dudes getting out and on daily BH trips...there were so many at Knox in 3-1 IBCT we had several busses to take the entire cohort to to Lincoln Trail, should have had everyone is a spun off detachment.  No kidding like 300 Soldiers with crazy profiles.  A lot of them were also fuck ups to. I had a guy go home to get his car and his first night back on post a DUI.   He was Korean.  I had another Soldier beat the tar out of her husband.  She was a 5-2 Black Woman and he was a 6-4 Linebacker looking dude from one of the infantry battalions.  I also had a member of MENSA in that platoon who wanted 3 days off per week to get his masters.  

So when people ask about diversity I ask about two things: diversity of thought and diversity of experience.  

There are way too many WOKES leading the DOD, this includes uniformed personnel at the HQ levels. The Service by nature is a conservative institution, the FBI used to be, the Agency used to be...State more moderate.  That should be an ok thing!  I don't know why @Cookie_ doesn't think this is a problem.  

The GI Bill, much like NCAA Football is the largest transformer of the American class system. But hey, being a conservative white male from Alabama is apparently a wretched thing and we shouldn't allow anymore in the Army.  I'm just a poor guerito from Los Angeles who is third generation Army in my family.


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 30, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> There are way too many WOKES leading the DOD, this includes uniformed personnel at the HQ levels. The Service by nature is a conservative institution, the FBI used to be, the Agency used to be...State more moderate. That should be an ok thing! I don't know why @Cookie_ doesn't think this is a problem.



People aren't usually happy when organizations are "by nature" slanted in a way counter to their politics. See all of our threads griping about "leftist" tech companies or academia.

That's not to imply that I think my political opinions should run the military. I'm fully aware that my career path(both mil and fed-civ) is predominantly more conservative than I am. 

I want to see policies that make these organizations more effective, politics be damned.

Where I'm not "seeing the problem" is because I don't see a number of the "woke boogeyman" things as being that detrimental. 
I've been in for long enough to have been through 3 or 4 "softenings" of the military.  
It feels like every 2 or 3 years there's a new policy that's going to totally ruin the military and it hasn't yet.

For example; when we're saying "woke policies", which of these are we talking about? Uniform standard changes, the ACFT changes, trans service members, renaming bases, covid policies, and/or recruiting messages of a soldier with two moms? 

Because all of those things have been accused of being "woke". 

It's become the conservative version of liberals calling everything "nazi"; it's basically become shorthand for "anything I don't like".

So this doesn't get lost; I do think there are some issues, either in implementation or policy, with some of the items I listed. There are legit concerns to be addressed, even if I'm probably going to have a different view of it then 95% of this board.


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2022)

Not posting for anyone in particular, just the semi-coherent pre-coffee musings of a lunatic.

- "Woke" changes get under our (royal we) skin in part due to the overhead required for these changes. Sometimes it isn't the change, it is the cost in man hours (People hours? Person hours? Billable hours? Fuck...) spent NOT doing our jobs so we can train to/ learn a new standard. The financial cost of lost hours worked and designing a new CBT or PPT to spread the message. Not to be cool old guy meme lord edgy, but Pepperidge Farm remembers when you wrote a policy, sent that to leadership, and the boss passed it out in formation or during a meeting... and that was it. Onboarding with my new job, I spent 3 DAYS taking CBT's to check someone's blocks...and that's 3 days of skipping through the videos so I can test out and download my shiny new PDF. AND I GET TO DO IT AGAIN IN A YEAR. How many of us are in this boat?

- Policy changes aren't just about THAT policy, they have ripples. Take someone who sits through 3, 4, 5 iterations of these "military ending" cycles. People will generally respond with anger and disgust at a constantly changing landscape or they are emboldened to make even more changes. Now consider this when the "script is flipped" and a new political power comes to office or some other large scale change at the top of the food chain. The pendulum swings in the other direction...and we're all caught in the middle. Take a piece of metal and bend it. No problem. Bend it again on the same axis. So what? Keep bending it back and forth and that metal will become brittle and snap. That's what we're doing to our people.

- All of this shit adds up and pretty soon we spend less time thinking about our jobs and more time thinking about the bullshit overhead involved in those jobs. So, are people really upset with the actual changes or do they just want to be treated like adults and do their jobs? I'm sure someone is already writing/ coding that CBT. Yay for another .5 hours in annual training!


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2022)

As an aside, I typed the above, made coffee, and logged in at work to find I have to take active shooting training, with drill!, in the next month.

I literally just did this 2 weeks ago, but I have to again because...bureaucracy.

Sometimes it isn't the destination, but the journey, we hate.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 1, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Where I'm not "seeing the problem" is because I don't see a number of the "woke boogeyman" things as being that detrimental.
> I've been in for long enough to have been through 3 or 4 "softenings" of the military.
> It feels like every 2 or 3 years there's a new policy that's going to totally ruin the military and it hasn't yet.
> 
> ...


Which of the ones you named do you think have been a net good for the military, and why?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 1, 2022)

As mentioned previously, CRT in the service. The obese CJCS saying he wanted to read _White Rage_, nevermind that the author is a racist. Want to know about why poor whites identified with Trump? Well I mentioned it on another thread. Hillbilly Elegy, to start an understanding of the white rural working class that has been left behind would be far better.  Anti White books, which is everything CRT texts are, is problematic for leaders to push that down the chain and in hearings.  And then everyone on has to go through nonsensical trainings to tell white dudes they're racist...and also telling others that whites are racist. 

Things were so much better in the late 90s and early 2000s.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 1, 2022)

I was also part of the generation of the transition to the proliferation of mandatory trainings; bullshit added to the already bureaucratically cumbersome mandatory trainings already on our annual schedule.  But the new ones were all culture or behavior related and had nothing to do with being a good sailor or a good Marine.

You could see the handwriting on the wall when we were called out of a 3-day field event to do a mandatory training on human trafficking.  One of the senior NCOs said it was only going to get worse and things like this would never go away.  

On the reserve side it got so crazy that we were told to do a lot of these trainings on our own dime and our own time so deserve weekend could be used for actual reserve work.


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 1, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Which of the ones you named do you think have been a net good for the military, and why?


The AR 670-1 changes were a grab bag of "this makes sense" (female hair, breastfeeding regs, religious) to IDGAF (nail polish/make-up).

I think The Calling was a decent recruiting ad campaign highlighting a bunch of different reasons people join/potential career paths. There were a few more than 2 mommy Emma, but that one got all the media attention.

Renaming bases is another "eh" for me. It's something I've thought was weird since I was a high school freshman outside Ft. Lee, but it's not something I really think leadership should have priorities. 

Getting into "mixed feelings territory", I'm not anti-trans service members. I do feel like the policies need revised, specifically the barracks quarter policy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is under current policy the roommate of a trans soldier can't easily request to room with another soldier of the same gender. I understand the higher level thought process is "EO", but I'm not comfortable with the unit impact of forcing a soldier to live with someone they cannot feel comfortable with. 

The ACFT is a good test that has been watered down substantially. It's almost impossible to not hit the minimums; I've had a grand total of 1 (male) soldier actually fail it. 
I think the original idea of tying requirement to MOS was valid, though I'd have like to seen that be attached to unit of assignment, I.E. a 42A assigned to SOF would need 70 minimums to stay in that unit.

Net negative has been COVID policy. 
I'm not gonna sit here and not say I wasn't of the "the military says get vaxxed so I will because it's an order" side because I was. I'm also fine being a medical test dummy, but that shouldn't apply to others. 

COVID waivers should have been a lot more forthcoming than they were. Additionally, as so much more data has come out about the health consequences like @amlove21 recently shared, the army should pause/rescind all soldiers currently being outprocessed. 
It doesn't make sense to me to still kick someone out when come to find out they're concerns are being validated.



I'll add mandatory training to this list since it's been mentioned a view times. EO, SHARP, etc are all decent trainings to give, but holy fuck it shouldn't need to be every three months. Hell, it shouldn't even need to be yearly (hi, cyber awareness challenge!) unless a drastic change to policy occurs. 

Tie it to rank/leadership courses. Teach it in basic/in-processing unit, and then just have a refresher or more in depth dive at BLC-SMC (or officer equivalent). 
Somebody should only need to be taught EO/SHARP once.

I'm sure I've missed some, but those are the ones off the top of my head.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 1, 2022)

None of those things made the Army more lethal, or more effective.  In fact, they did the opposite.  In the interest of brevity, I'm only going to address a couple of them here:

The problem with the 670-1 changes is that they were not applied equally, they were applied _favorably_.  I.e., one group of people (women, in the examples you gave) was favored over others.  I'm fine with every one of the changes you mentioned, if there were applied to everyone.  If a man wants a ponytail, he should be able to have one if women can.  Same with nail polish, ear rings, skirts, anything else.  I don't think anyone should have makeup, polish, or bling in the work uniform, but if the Army decides it's OK, it should be OK for everyone.

The drumbeat for the past decade was "hey we just want to be treated equally."  But that's not what anyone means.  People are hard wired to gain as much comfort and power as they can.  No one wants to give up their special privileges.  They want what's best for themselves.  If women really wanted equality, wouldn't they refuse to take privileges not afforded to men?  Of course they wouldn't.  Just like men wouldn't refuse to go to Ranger School, or into the Infantry Branch, when those options were denied to women.  It's never about equality, it's always about "what's best for me."  This is a human trait, not something that I'm ascribing to any one group.

Allowing anyone special privileges and denying them to others makes the "others" resentful.  This directly relates to the ACFT debacle.  One of the biggest selling points about the ACFT, which most people in the Army did not want for many reasons that we discussed at length here on the site, because it was going to be an "equal" test.  No special privileges for gender, no special grading for age.  No more "pretty fit for a female" or "OK fitness for an old dude."

The Army views women as functionally interchangeable with men, which is why they're allowed into any training, any MOS, and any specialty.  But they were allowed to retain their special privileges, ones, to their credit, that the service women themselves weren't demanding.  For example, the ACFT is now gender and age normed.  Simply put, if you're female,  you have a built-in advantage.  Because test scores have a number associated with them, they are disproportionately valued for things like promotion, school selection, and job competition.  You can see this especially pronounced at things like the service academies.  At West Point's *Indoor Obstacle Course Test*, for example, a time of 3:13 is an A for a woman and a D for a man.  An A+ for a female cadet is a C- for her male counterpart.


This score contributes to a cadet's physical (athletic) grade, and can make the difference in things like class rank, which affects branch, post, and job within the Corps of Cadets.  Same achievement, same score, but different outcome.  How is this "equal?"

The worst part of it is, the women don't need it.  I once watched a female cadet knock out 100 straight, perfect-form pushups.  I've ever in my life been able to do that many straight.  She was atypical (male or female) for that kind of upper-body strength, but there is no reason why we can't find a common floor and ceiling for everyone.  One standard.  No quotas, not special carve-outs.  For anything.  That would go way farther towards "equality" than anything else we've talked about.

But "equality" wasn't the real end goal, was it?  It never really is...


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2022)

Woman with a 3:32: I made an A!
Male with a 3:32: Guess I'm going Signal.
---

Seriously, for those unaware, in competitive branch assignments like Aviation a female cadet will have a distinct advantage over a male. The military puts a RIDICULOUS amount of emphasis on PT scores, so the score chart above is a lot more important than some realize.


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 1, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> *But "equality" wasn't the real end goal, was it?  It never really is...*


And THIS is where the rubber meets the road. The changes we are talking about- those issues that lead to our problems in recruiting and retention- is because the "woke ideology" that has infiltrated and corrupted the military is in *no way* about "equality". It's about "equity". 

We are dealing with serious issues in SOF because the command's view isn't "equality of opportunity", meaning- everyone gets a shot. Their view is, "Equity of outcome." 

Despite what you may have heard, the military has drifted from "You get what you earn" to "You get what we think you're owed due to outlandish social pressures and based entirely on DEI initiatives in order to achieve equitable distribution of all things."

Can't make the standards as a female? We will change the standards. Can't wear the uniform correctly because you can't "speak your truth" while wearing it? Tight, we will just change the uniform wear. Can't get through a day of work without compelling others to call you what you want to be called in your head (under threat of punishment)? No prob! We will make a reg about pronouns in your bio.

And, again- there is only one non-protected class. Because now, in the military, we have realized that that class experienced privilige for too long, and now we must punish that class in the name of "equity."


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 1, 2022)

AWP said:


> Woman with a 3:32: I made an A!
> Male with a 3:32: Guess I'm going Signal.
> ---
> 
> Seriously, for those unaware, in competitive branch assignments like Aviation a female cadet will have a distinct advantage over a male. The military puts a RIDICULOUS amount of emphasis on PT scores, so the score chart above is a lot more important than some realize.


This is especially humorous to me because I know you were a Signal officer.  ;)


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 1, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> None of those things made the Army more lethal, or more effective.  In fact, they did the opposite.  In the interest of brevity, I'm only going to address a couple of them here:
> 
> The problem with the 670-1 changes is that they were not applied equally, they were applied _favorably_.  I.e., one group of people (women, in the examples you gave) was favored over others.  I'm fine with every one of the changes you mentioned, if there were applied to everyone.  If a man wants a ponytail, he should be able to have one if women can.  Same with nail polish, ear rings, skirts, anything else.  I don't think anyone should have makeup, polish, or bling in the work uniform, but if the Army decides it's OK, it should be OK for everyone.
> 
> ...



Many moons ago when Men lost the right to single-sex public school education in a military environment (VMI) women entered.  It was great for VMI, why we fought so hard against it I don't know.  But I do have to say there should be a place where Men or Women are allowed to keep their space.  I saw some random ass comment in a newsletter that said the MLB needed to be open to women.  Why must men give up their bastions?  That's a bit of a tangent.  But let's get to where I was going. 

Women were admitted in the fall of 1997 to the exact same standard as men.  Female rats had their heads buzzed to a rat cut just like the men did.  Now they were allowed to grow it out to what can be described as a pixie cut but had to keep getting haircuts until following class recognition. When I was at VMI, the pixie hair cut remained.  Shortly after I left it changed and today, female rats don't even sit in the barbers chair.  The other standard changed while I was at VMI.  VMI was known for giving award to liberals for whatever reason, one was to Hillary Clinton.  They get a medal and 20k to come speak. (her speech actually was decent.  Well we had a fitness test called the VFT.  1.5 Miles 12:00 Minimum, 60 Situps, 5 Pull Ups.  Well my rat year Sandra Day O'Connor gets the award, and she has a speech.  She tells the corps of cadets that they have to change and that women should be treated differently.  Well...three weeks later during graduation/dead week the Physical Fitness Department and the Commandants staff announce changes to the VFT.  Passing the VFT is now mandatory but it was gender normed.  And all of a sudden a bunch of women who couldn't meet the standard that was low, were now somehow passing.

VMI still sucks as a Cadet btw.


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 1, 2022)

And to all those that may be thinking, "Well, this doesn't sound so bad! After all, we needed a little leveling of the playing field..."

No. Stop it. This business is warfighting, full stop. It's about killing the enemy. If your initiative doesn't address our overall lethality, it shouldn't be. I don't know how we have lost sight of that, but we have.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 1, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> And to all those that may be thinking, "Well, this doesn't sound so bad! After all, we needed a little leveling of the playing field..."
> 
> No. Stop it. This business is warfighting, full stop. It's about killing the enemy. If your initiative doesn't address our overall lethality, it shouldn't be. I don't know how we have lost sight of that, but we have.



Are you Major Payne?


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> This is especially humorous to me because I know you were a Signal officer.  ;)



In the Guard we can generally speaking choose our branch. There are some outliers of course, but all but one or two in my class of 41* received the branch they wanted. One unit had 3-4 vying for 2 slots, hence the outcome above. 

Anywho, 41* candidates, I was in the bottom quarter in PT thanks to a hernia repair (don't get me started) and something like top 5 academically and top 10 in leadership. I graduated...21st. Our top 2 or 3 (2 of whom earned the slots mentioned above even if they were Cav...) were studs across the board and what you expect for that ranking. We had 2, maybe 3, in the top 10 with 300 APFT scores, but bottom half of the class in academics *and *leadership.

I want everyone to think about those numbers. Top 10 in APFT + bottom half in the other two metrics = Top 10 in the class. This was 2000. Does ANYONE think that's changed much in 22 years? Max the APFT (or whatever you kids call that train wreck these days. I laugh in woodland pattern BDU's) and the rest will sort itself out.

Now, some other hinky shit went on and I'll only discuss that offline with people I know. Let's say it plays into the overall theme of leveling the playing field. This was in 2000, remember the land before time and 9/11? Yeah, #MeToo.

* 41 made the grade to commission. 1 declined because he'd have to give up his AGR job and another deferred to finish college, commissioning at a later date.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 1, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> And to all those that may be thinking, "Well, this doesn't sound so bad! After all, we needed a little leveling of the playing field..."
> 
> No. Stop it. This business is warfighting, full stop. It's about killing the enemy. If your initiative doesn't address our overall lethality, it shouldn't be. I don't know how we have lost sight of that, but we have.



The military has been co-opted as a social club.  Those in charge have forgotten what it's about.  But this didn't happen overnight, the military has been the frog, and the the temp in the pot is just getting hot enough to feel it.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 1, 2022)

AWP said:


> In the Guard we can generally speaking choose our branch. There are some outliers of course, but all but one or two in my class of 41* received the branch they wanted. One unit had 3-4 vying for 2 slots, hence the outcome above.
> 
> Anywho, 41* candidates, I was in the bottom quarter in PT thanks to a hernia repair (don't get me started) and something like top 5 academically and top 10 in leadership. I graduated...21st. Our top 2 or 3 (2 of whom earned the slots mentioned above even if they were Cav...) were studs across the board and what you expect for that ranking. We had 2, maybe 3, in the top 10 with 300 APFT scores, but bottom half of the class in academics *and *leadership.
> 
> ...



Yeahhhh... I know Marines and Sailors that were walking oxygen thieves that were promoted ahead of peers, smarter and better guys, because they scored 300 on the PFT and dressed nicer.  

The Navy guys once they make Chief?  Fuhgetaboutit.....


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 1, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Allowing anyone special privileges and denying them to others makes the "others" resentful.  This directly relates to the ACFT debacle.  One of the biggest selling points about the ACFT, which most people in the Army did not want for many reasons that we discussed at length here on the site, because it was going to be an "equal" test.  No special privileges for gender, no special grading for age.  No more "pretty fit for a female" or "OK fitness for an old dude."
> 
> The Army views women as functionally interchangeable with men, which is why they're allowed into any training, any MOS, and any specialty.  But they were allowed to retain their special privileges, ones, to their credit, that the service women themselves weren't demanding.  For example, the ACFT is now gender and age normed.  Simply put, if you're female,  you have a built-in advantage.


It has gone full circle and is the same as it was back in the 90's....I got beat by a female in her 40's for high PT at BASIC.  I never once blamed the system I blamed myself.  My sit-up game was weak and I should have done gooder!

Around 2000 they did some Scientology and readjusted the matrix, making it more equal in the Army for PT tests.  Men scores got easier where female scores got harder,

Fast forward 20 years, they took a working system and made it worse because people complained!  Then....after more complaints, they made it even more broke because people complained even more...question mark?!?!?  What happened if you couldn't pass PT you worked on it til you passed?  I am honestly asking!!!

I'll hold off on my ideas of why recruiting/reenlistment is down.  Bottom line as said in other posts, the microscopic voice is getting all the attention from the brass and driving us in the wrong direction.




EDIT - Took off the numbers cause it made it sound too dramatic!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 1, 2022)

AWP said:


> In the Guard we can generally speaking choose our branch. There are some outliers of course, but all but one or two in my class of 41* received the branch they wanted. One unit had 3-4 vying for 2 slots, hence the outcome above.
> 
> Anywho, 41* candidates, I was in the bottom quarter in PT thanks to a hernia repair (don't get me started) and something like top 5 academically and top 10 in leadership. I graduated...21st. Our top 2 or 3 (2 of whom earned the slots mentioned above even if they were Cav...) were studs across the board and what you expect for that ranking. We had 2, maybe 3, in the top 10 with 300 APFT scores, but bottom half of the class in academics *and *leadership.
> 
> ...



Well, after I graduated Cadet Command made it so you didn't even have to pass the APFT at LDAC...when I went through LDAC you had to pass the APFT (were give a second chance when we arrived back in Garrison).  If you failed to pass that one, Army either enlisted you or you had to pay back 100% of your scholarship. (Not sure if anyone had to do that). But my PT failure of a roommate at VMI, how I don't know, he was in better shape than I, never commissioned.  I was at "the I" an extra semester and he came in on his commissioning weekend because he had two courses he had to take in the Summer (Also he was African American and he liked being catered to), and he failed his APFT.  Never commissioned.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 1, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well, after I graduated Cadet Command made it so you didn't even have to pass the APFT at LDAC...when I went through LDAC you had to pass the APFT (were give a second chance when we arrived back in Garrison).  If you failed to pass that one, Army either enlisted you or you had to pay back 100% of your scholarship. (Not sure if anyone had to do that). But my PT failure of a roommate at VMI, how I don't know, he was in better shape than I, never commissioned.  I was at "the I" an extra semester and he came in on his commissioning weekend because he had two courses he had to take in the Summer (Also he was African American and he liked being catered to), and he failed his APFT.  Never commissioned.



I have an acquaintance who went to the Citadel, didn't commission.  He stayed in Charleston as a cop, now is local.  I never asked him the 'why?'.


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> I have an acquaintance who went to the Citadel, didn't commission.  He stayed in Charleston as a cop, now is local.  I never asked him the 'why?'.



They don't have to commission for whatever reason. I know a few who couldn't commission and a few who went to the Citadel because they had a scholarship but no intention of pinning on a bar.

Almost every single Citadel grad I've met was an absolute tool, some of the worst people I ever met are Citadel grads.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 1, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> I have an acquaintance who went to the Citadel, didn't commission.  He stayed in Charleston as a cop, now is local.  I never asked him the 'why?'.


Depends on  what year block. If after 88 Mandatory Commissioning was dropped.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 2, 2022)

AWP said:


> They don't have to commission for whatever reason. I know a few who couldn't commission and a few who went to the Citadel because they had a scholarship but no intention of pinning on a bar.
> 
> Almost every single Citadel grad I've met was an absolute tool, some of the worst people I ever met are Citadel grads.





ThunderHorse said:


> Depends on  what year block. If after 88 Mandatory Commissioning was dropped.



This guy is pretty cool, like give you the shirt off his back cool.  

He's a year older than I, so 55.  So I think 90 or so.

I'll dig in the next time I see him.


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 2, 2022)

AWP said:


> Almost every single Citadel grad I've met was an absolute tool, some of the worst people I ever met are Citadel grads.


I feel this exact way about 99.96% of USAFA Grads. (the .04% is my lady, who doesn't read this site, but you can never be too careful, you know?)


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 2, 2022)

A couple articles from today:

Tough Military Recruiting Environment is About More than Low Unemployment, Experts Say - USNI News

Fewer Veterans are Recommending Military Service


----------



## LimaPanther (Dec 3, 2022)

I have a grandson that is an Army recruiter, and he has told me that one of the main problems they run into, is that the military now goes all the way back to when an applicant was born and what prescriptions they have taken. Many are disqualified because of what they were given when younger. Another grandson, now a police officer, was disqualified for the Army because, when he was in the 9th grade, he had taken a special education class. He had passed all medical and physical test, but that one item disqualified him. 

Anytime there is a post war period, the military tighten their requirements to enlist or stay in, then complain because they can't fill the slots needed. Back in my early days we had the professional privates. Then the military came out with the up or out program. Some troops were just happy to be a private with a place to stay and food to eat. Know a woman that was in 14 years as a truck driver, and she was happy being an E-4. But let go because she didn't want to be a Sgt.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 3, 2022)

LimaPanther said:


> I have a grandson that is an Army recruiter, and he has told me that one of the main problems they run into, is that the military now goes *all the way back to when an applicant was born and what prescriptions they have taken*. Many are disqualified because of what they were given when younger. Another grandson, now a police officer, was disqualified for the Army because, when he was in the 9th grade, he had taken a special education class. He had passed all medical and physical test, but that one item disqualified him.
> 
> Anytime there is a post war period, the military tighten their requirements to enlist or stay in, then complain because they can't fill the slots needed. Back in my early days we had the professional privates. Then the military came out with the up or out program. Some troops were just happy to be a private with a place to stay and food to eat. Know a woman that was in 14 years as a truck driver, and she was happy being an E-4. But let go because she didn't want to be a Sgt.


Related: I had to do a psych eval for a law enforcement training program I'm currently in. I self-reported taking prescribed-by-my-Army-doc antidepressants at my last duty station. Been off them for years. But then I had to get basically a note from Mom saying "little Mara is really OK," asking all kinds of very intrusive questions. I'm going to have the same issues with my concealed carry permit.

I understand why people feel that they either need to not seek the help they need, or lie about receiving it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 3, 2022)

LimaPanther said:


> I have a grandson that is an Army recruiter, and he has told me that one of the main problems they run into, is that the military now goes all the way back to when an applicant was born and what prescriptions they have taken. Many are disqualified because of what they were given when younger. Another grandson, now a police officer, was disqualified for the Army because, when he was in the 9th grade, he had taken a special education class. He had passed all medical and physical test, but that one item disqualified him.
> 
> Anytime there is a post war period, the military tighten their requirements to enlist or stay in, then complain because they can't fill the slots needed. Back in my early days we had the professional privates. Then the military came out with the up or out program. Some troops were just happy to be a private with a place to stay and food to eat. Know a woman that was in 14 years as a truck driver, and she was happy being an E-4. But let go because she didn't want to be a Sgt.



The Commonwealth forces have folks that stay corporals or lance corporals basically their entire career.  Do 20 and retire.

French system is a bit different, when you reach the rank of corporal there are two tracks.  Caporal Chef and Sergeant.  Those selected to be actual NCOs attend the NCO College. (Ecole nationale des sous-officiers is an 8 month school) Those who choose not to, but still want to serve go on the Caporal Chef track, and there is two grades of Caporal Chef.  You have guys with 15 years who are straight killers and are still NCOs.  But they're there to be your backbone and be career "buck sergeants" rather than move on through the NCO Ranks.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> I feel this exact way about 99.96% of USAFA Grads. (the .04% is my lady, who doesn't read this site, but you can never be too careful, you know?)


AFA grads haven't impressed me.  I toured the AFA after coming back from Kosovo (Head of one of the departments (O-6) invited me.  Cadets came up and just started shooting questions, zero military bearing.

I am also aware of two female cadets who (as officers) were in initial classes (one a pilot) who got extra breaks in order to make it. How is that equality?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 4, 2022)

The absolute worst, and absolute best, leaders I worked with in the Army were Academy grads.  I don’t know that being at West Point contributed to either of those extremes.  It probably did, on both ends.


----------



## GOTWA (Dec 5, 2022)

My old PL said he hated West Point so much that he would try to sleep 12 hrs a day so he only had to be there for two years.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 5, 2022)

GOTWA said:


> My old PL said he hated West Point so much that he would try to sleep 12 hrs a day so he only had to be there for two years.


If he went to West Point, he probably wasn’t getting anything near that much sleep consistently. :)


----------



## AWP (Dec 5, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> If he went to West Point, he probably wasn’t getting anything near that much sleep consistently. :)


Gordon and Huachuca are always hiring…


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 5, 2022)

GOTWA said:


> My old PL said he hated West Point so much that he would try to sleep 12 hrs a day so he only had to be there for two years.



We said the same thing about VMI...I have no idea how that worked.  Most guys at VMI who did that were also near the bottom of the class and looked like zombies as they'd stay up all night doing homework...instead of you know...like doing it during the day?

ETA: Never.Again.Volunteer.Yourself

Navy to Accept Recruits with Lowest Test Scores as Recruiting Goal Grows


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 5, 2022)

The Army’s going retro with the “Be all you can be” campaign.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/ar...ing-slogan-advertising-campaign -8267208.html
_
While that sounds familiar to anyone who watched television in the 1980s and 1990s, the slogan best relays the “possibilities” that await a new Army recruit, said Maj. Gen. Alex Fink, chief of Army enterprise marketing._

(Chief of Army enterprise marketing?)

Here’s a refresher for you young guys and gals…






Here’s hoping the Corps goes back to the well too, I’d love to see an updated version of this one. (Circa 1990)


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Navy to Accept Recruits with Lowest Test Scores as Recruiting Goal Grows



Somebody has to chip rust and paint ships...

That sounds harsh, but maintaining a ship is 24/7/365, and these are the perfect people to do it.  Then get mentored and tutored, strike for a rate, learn a job.  Kinda like what they did in the Ye Old Navy.


----------



## AWP (Dec 6, 2022)

Or rum, sodomy, and the lash. Either way, life experience, kids!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 6, 2022)

Liberal and Conservative Sources

Biden supports keeping vaccine mandate for troops, setting up fight with Congress

White House maintains support for keeping military vax mandate as Congress weighs rolling it back in NDAA

Biden also doesn't support using Title 42 against illegal immigrants.



Devildoc said:


> Somebody has to chip rust and paint ships...
> 
> That sounds harsh, but maintaining a ship is 24/7/365, and these are the perfect people to do it.  Then get mentored and tutored, strike for a rate, learn a job.  Kinda like what they did in the Ye Old Navy.



@Devildoc the Navy has plenty of those. 

Recruited for Navy SEALs, Many Sailors Wind Up Scraping Paint

Gotta love the failing NY Times in how they characterize things.


----------

