Retention and Recruitment Crisis

Apparently, some federal judge wants to let people with HIV into the military. This is the definition of insanity. They're saying that with medicine HIV positive people can keep their disease in check, but I don't trust that. To many factors in relying on the persons doing their due diligence. I really hope that there is a higher court this goes to, because this is unacceptable.

Recruitment and moral are already being destroyed by the useful idiots in DC. Now they want to shove off their diseased onto the military as well, wtf.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...military-cannot-reject-hiv-positive-enlistees

Federal Judge Rules That U.S. Military Cannot Reject HIV-Positive Enlistees​

By HealthDay
Aug. 23, 2024, at 7:52 a.m.
Federal Judge Rules That U.S. Military Cannot Reject HIV-Positive Enlistees
By Robin Foster HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, Aug. 23, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- People with HIV can no longer be turned away if they try to enlist in the U.S. military, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision, issued this week by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkma, said the Pentagon’s ban on HIV-positive people seeking to join the armed forces contributes “to the ongoing stigma surrounding HIV-positive individuals while actively hampering the military’s own recruitment goals.”
“Modern science has transformed the treatment of HIV,” Brinkema wrote in her ruling. “Asymptomatic HIV-positive service members with undetectable viral loads who maintain treatment are capable of performing all of their military duties, including worldwide deployment.”
Importantly, HIV can’t be spread through saliva, sweat, tears, group exercise or sharing a bathroom. Instead, most people get HIV through anal or vaginal sex or when sharing needles, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Antiretroviral therapy can also keep HIV viral loads to low or undetectable levels, and patients who are virally suppressed won’t transmit the virus through sex or syringe-sharing, according to the CDC. In recent years, the Pentagon’s policies toward HIV-positive Americans have come under legal fire.
In 2022, Brinkema struck down the military’s ban on people who are HIV-positive from joining the armed forces as officers or deploying abroad, CNN reported. Following that ruling, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memo that said people who are HIV-positive will no longer be automatically barred from serving in military leadership or overseas.

The challenge to the enlistment policy was brought by three HIV-positive individuals looking to join or rejoin the military in the last few years. All three were unable to do so, CNN reported.

One of the plaintiffs, Isaiah Wilkins, was serving in the Georgia National Guard when he sought to enlist in the Army Reserve. During that process, he learned that he was HIV-positive.

“This is a victory not only for me but for other people living with HIV who want to serve,” Wilkins said in a statement issued Tuesday. “As I’ve said before, giving up on my dream to serve my country was never an option. I am eager to apply to enlist in the Army without the threat of a crippling discriminatory policy.”

The Pentagon has argued that its policy acknowledges that caring for HIV-positive service members could create financial burdens for the Department of Defense and that deployment might make it hard for HIV-positive soldiers to stick with medication regimens that keep the virus in check, CNN reported.

More information
The World Health Organization has more on HIV.
SOURCES: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruling, Aug. 20, 2024; CNN
Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Oh and the judge that passed this, Leonie Brinkema, is a fucking Clinton appointee.
Brinkema, Leonie M. | Federal Judicial Center

Brinkema, Leonie M.
Born 1944 in Teaneck, NJ

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Nominated by William J. Clinton on August 6, 1993, to a seat vacated by Albert V. Bryan. Confirmed by the Senate on October 18, 1993, and received commission on October 20, 1993.

Other Federal Judicial Service:
U.S. Magistrate/U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 1985-1993

Education:
Rutgers University, B.A., 1966
Rutgers University, M.L.S., 1970
Cornell Law School, J.D., 1976

Professional Career:
Trial attorney, Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1976-1977
Assistant U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, 1977-1983
Trial attorney, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1983-1984
Part-time legal instructor, Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy, 1984-1985
Private practice, Alexandria, Virginia, 1984-1985
 
Last edited:
Meh, that's not a mountain I am going to die on. The policy is for people with an undetectable or sub-detectable viral load, and with so many meds on market now and with about the fewest people since 1985 with HIV I am not sure it's the thing it was 20 years ago.
 
Dr Evil.JPG

Was Kent Dorfman accepted into the Delta Tau Chi fraternity because he was a legacy - like his brother Fred - who was a '59 ??"

NO !!!

Fred was a closet-case. Flounder was only allowed to pledge because they "need the dues"
Physical standards, mental standards, educational standards, and yes - medical standards are ALL compromised when we "need the dues" in this magical organization known as the US Military

For fuck sake - Ray Chandler - that choad of an SMA - even suggested that troops with tattoos may not have the same level of character and loyalty as those who didn’t...
...but when mother fuckers started leaving the Army when we still had a bunch of Taliban that needed murdering - they backtracked preeeeeeety fucking hard on the SMAs war on tattoos...
...because we needed the dues.


Well - its 2024 and the left is murdering the good order and discipline of the American military - and we need the dues.
Besides, its just HIV - wear a condom
 
Last edited:
Devildoc said:
Meh, that's not a mountain I am going to die on. The policy is for people with an undetectable or sub-detectable viral load, and with so many meds on market now and with about the fewest people since 1985 with HIV I am not sure it's the thing it was 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Do you really trust those people to take their meds and maintain said undetectable viral loads? If and when we get into a near peer engagement, the last thing we need to add to our logistical foot print is Gay Gordon's HIV pills.

At Combat Outposts and Joint Service Stations, in some sectors, the logistical supply footprint was strained just getting us enough to eat. So much so, that we did our own supply runs with materials provided from home. How the hell are we going to justify sending in Joe to clear a route on foot or suicide run it for HIV meds? That's insane. Moreso when we don't have complete control of the battle space or lines are in contested areas.
 
I can't find it but, but supposedly this year's promotion board results for O-3 in the Army was 100% for Zone and Above Zone. Which for an idea, not even during the surge did the Army do this. So I guess retention is off the chain.
 
Captain to Major used to be around 75% or so percent and I saw recently that in the AF that rough percentage remains true for most career fields.
 
R.Caerbannog said:
Do you really trust those people to take their meds and maintain said undetectable viral loads? If and when we get into a near peer engagement, the last thing we need to add to our logistical foot print is Gay Gordon's HIV pills.

At Combat Outposts and Joint Service Stations, in some sectors, the logistical supply footprint was strained just getting us enough to eat. So much so, that we did our own supply runs with materials provided from home. How the hell are we going to justify sending in Joe to clear a route on foot or suicide run it for HIV meds? That's insane. Moreso when we don't have complete control of the battle space or lines are in contested areas.
Click to expand...

Why would we treat this any differently than any of the other 100 medical conditions for which people are on chronic meds? Some of which allow them to be deployed, some of which do not.
 
Once you compromise on admission - you compromise on admission.
...have you ever had to deal with a bipolar SF guy?

Sure thing - let them all in - we'll find something for them to do.
Meanwhile - the constant string of compromise can be linked to why so many people that are FAR more desirable - DO NOT join the service.
...nobody wants to join an organization full of misfits.

It's why 30 years of service have left me telling people "enter at your own risk" as well as telling my son that he would be better off getting out and getting an education than continuing to pretend that the infantry is the last bastion of true soldiering. "Re-up and you're just going to get more of the same son"
 
Box said:
Once you compromise on admission - you compromise on admission.
...have you ever had to deal with a bipolar SF guy?

Sure thing - let them all in - we'll find something for them to do.
Meanwhile - the constant string of compromise can be linked to why so many people that are FAR more desirable - DO NOT join the service.
...nobody wants to join an organization full of misfits.

It's why 30 years of service have left me telling people "enter at your own risk" as well as telling my son that he would be better off getting out and getting an education than continuing to pretend that the infantry is the last bastion of true soldiering. "Re-up and you're just going to get more of the same son"
Click to expand...

But this is what they do. Some medical conditions are verboten, right? Diabetes for one. Asthma used to be; now it's waverable. At what point do you claim a medical condition with chronic meds is OK, what is not, and what is waverable? The military medical community has been up and down on this shit since Washington was at Valley Forge.
 
Like I said - its just HIV - tell the troops to use condoms and stop being homophobic.

When civilians complain about how this is damaging the military's readiness - we can just ask them why they aren't in uniform since they recognize how bad the problem has gotten. I already did my 30, so I no longer care.
Well, at least not any more than the degree of concern openly demonstrated by our current senior leaders.

The fact is - we have way too many white male fighter pilots - and HIV isn't really THAT big of a threat any more.
 
Devildoc said:
But this is what they do. Some medical conditions are verboten, right? Diabetes for one. Asthma used to be; now it's waverable. At what point do you claim a medical condition with chronic meds is OK, what is not, and what is waverable? The military medical community has been up and down on this shit since Washington was at Valley Forge.
Click to expand...
Can I get diabetes from having sex with a diabetic? or a blood transfusion from a diabetic?
 
DA SWO said:
Can I get diabetes from having sex with a diabetic? or a blood transfusion from a diabetic?
Click to expand...

That's not the argument. But no one has answered my question, either: at what point do you claim a medical condition with chronic meds is OK, what is not, and what is waiverable?

Edited to add, we also know the game they play when they need people vs when they do not. During war they have taken people who had zero sight in one eye, zero hearing in one ear, and not all fingers. Hepatitis used to be a no-go; now a history of Hep A is waiverable.

Before I curse a pox on their house I'd like to see more info.
 
Last edited:
If it prevents a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman from deploying to help fight and win the nations wars - they should be kept kept out - with UNWAIVERING resolve.

If they still want to "serve their country" they can join the peace corps
...or become a civil servant
...or volunteer at the USO

The military isn't the place for compromise or equal opportunity. It is where human beings are sent to do unspeakable things to other human beings on behalf of an ungrateful nation that only cares about them when the wolves are at the door.
If that some health compromised Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman needs their puffer at the same time that the assault element needs covering fire - or first aid - or emergency resupply - well, just fuck me running backwards.

...hurry up Private Snuffy, catch your fucking breath - we're pinned down over here.


Something something, its ok that you didn't go to war because you have a chronic medical condition something something.
 
Box said:
If it prevents a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman from deploying to help fight and win the nations wars - they should be kept kept out - with UNWAIVERING resolve.

If they still want to "serve their country" they can join the peace corps
...or become a civil servant
...or volunteer at the USO

The military isn't the place for compromise or equal opportunity. It is where human beings are sent to do unspeakable things to other human beings on behalf of an ungrateful nation that only cares about them when the wolves are at the door.
If that some health compromised Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman needs their puffer at the same time that the assault element needs covering fire - or first aid - or emergency resupply - well, just fuck me running backwards.

...hurry up Private Snuffy, catch your fucking breath - we're pinned down over here.


Something something, its ok that you didn't go to war because you have a chronic medical condition something something.
Click to expand...

For a follow up project for extra credit, take a look at the waiverable conditions and choose which ones should be or should not be OK to allow to pass (not aimed at you, a general statement).

If the argument is that is such condition prevents someone from being deployed, period, I am 100% down with that. No issue.

My feeling is that people are using it as a social platform and not a medical one, and that, I am not down with. It wasn't THAT long ago that they used the argument that blacks and whites should not be deployed together because the blood would not transfuse the same.
 
Devildoc said:
If the argument is that is such condition prevents someone from being deployed, period, I am 100% down with that. No issue.

My feeling is that people are using it as a social platform and not a medical one, and that, I am not down with.
Click to expand...

That's my primary argument. If a condition prevents someone from taking the field after kickoff - then they need to find alternative employment as a way of serving their country. It is no longer a matter of service in spite of a minor medical condition - it has become a social platform used by activists to hammer home a narrative.
I think we agree on the root issue - just with differing opinions on the nuance - and that's OK too.


I know its just a movie - but Ephialtes wanted to fight as a Spartan to restore his families honor - but he couldn't lift his shield high enough: "each Spartan protects the man on his left, from thigh to neck, with his shield; a single weak spot and the phalanx will shatter."

All the man claimed that he wanted to do was to serve his country and bring honor to his family - but "not all of us were made to be soldiers" - even then - King Leonidas was ready to offer the man a chance to bring honor to his family name:
"If you want to help, to be part of a Spartan victory, clear the battlefield of the dead. Tend to the wounded, bring them water"
- but old boy didn't actually want to do what his country needed him to do. He wanted to pursue his own idea of honor - for his own gratification. Much like an increasing number of Americans that have discarded the possibility that "service" just might be the defining part of the term "Service Member"
Some people don't care that their shortcomings, their infirmities, or their mental state may weaken the Phalanx - they just want their moment of fame - Phalanx be damned.

We are all watching the current political shit show unfolding to see the parallels as life continues to imitate art.

When Ephialtes didn't get his way, he sold out the Spartans - and his nation - to the Persians because he sought self enrichment instead of honor. Those with conditions that keep them from going to war can pursue numerous paths that will allow the to "serve their country" without being a detriment - but they don't care about the detriment. People aren't interested in "service" as much as they are interested in being served. They have perverted the purity of the profession of arms into a political football - a stepping stone to something better - a social platform to help drive a narrative - all of which are toxic to the efficacy of the United States Military.

That's just my opinion though - I could be wrong.
 

Similar threads

Ravage
In Afghanistan, A U.S. Special Forces Major's Meteoric Rise And Humiliating Fall
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
23K
Poccington
Poccington
QC
Al-Qaida faces recruitment crisis
Replies
1
Views
1K
JBS
JBS
B
Counterinsurgency Redux
Replies
4
Views
4K
CQB
CQB
Back
Top