Skip to comments.Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Military recruiting women as qualified ‘military-age men’ dwindle
Posted on 03/26/2013 6:36:53 PM PDT by markomalley
In a report by NPRs Tom Bowman aired during Mondays broadcast of All Things Considered, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey explained why the military is having difficulty recruiting qualified young men.
I think its fairly common knowledge that our population of military-age young men who qualify for the military is declining, Dempsey told NPR. And so, as a very practical matter, we decided if in 2020 were going to need these young ladies and were going to need to attract as much diversity and as much talent as we can possibly attract, if thats going to be the case, what are we waiting for?
Dempsey suggested that the military has focused too much on tough physical standards in recruiting.
There are existing standards many of which havent been dusted off in a very long time, many of which have been kind of narrowly focused just on physical standards, but without the companion piece of psychologically and intellectual standards, Dempsey said.
Bowman pointed out that legal problems, lack of education, drug addiction and health problems are among the reasons many young males are unable to join the military.
How about fixing your screwed up Rules of Engagement and Social Services Mission Creep?!?!?
Then youd discover you have plenty of talent to do the job!
I think they would make good(better) snipers.
I think it’s more likely that young men that would qualify to serve, now see there’s not much point, when their work is undermined by ridiculous ROE, and that they are very likely to be prosecuted and jailed for doing their job. Not to mention having leaders and a CIC like Barry.
With the faggotization of the military, there is no way on earth I’d entertain the thought of joining up these days. Even if the country suffers another 9/11 attack. Wouldn’t sway me one iota.
Snipers have to get in position, with all of their gear first!
The real job isn’t on the firing range.
100% correct. Every person I know who was in the military got out. Enlisted and officer, and all four branches.
NONE OF THIS is necessary and NONE OF IT will enhance the ability of the armed forces to fight. This issue is being impelled by radical feminist activist politics and cultural marxism. Now we are being told that women are MORE suitable for recruitment for the armed forces than men. This ids the sort of propoganda that those in the cultural marxist homosexual activist movement employ when they imply that homosexual couples are more suitable to raise children than heterosexuals. Anything to achieve their objective of “fundamentally changing” important societal institutions.
This notion of placing women into combat roles is just so easy to refute. Many of you may have heard of a little dustup called World War II. At the peak of United States involvement in that war there were 12 ½ million personnel in uniform, many of them women. Over 400,000 personnel were killed in the line of duty, against the toughest battlefield enemies this country has ever had to face, ones that were capable of and often did inflict shattering BATTLEFIELD defeats upon our sea, land and air forces. Despite this no one saw any need to place women into combat roles that had the responsibility to directly close with, engage, and destroy the enemy..
Today with a much smaller and almost hand picked elite Armed Forces, and a population base that is more than twice as large as that during World War II, there is even less need for it now than then.
This entire idiocy is being propelled by the demand for selfish feminists to qualify for chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nothing more and nothing less than that.
This lunacy WILL weaken the ability of the Armed Forces to fight, just consider the logistical strain that it will place on the Armed Forces for separate housing and the like. The evidence of the disparity in physical suitabilities for combat MOSs as reinforced by study after study is simply overwhelming. The effort that will be necessary to obtain a relative few qualified women will not result in anything remotely resembling any accepted model of effeciency, but since that is NOT the object any way, why worry about that? This is merely another sop to the perverted Cultural Marxist notion of fairness and equality and another step on the road of fundamental transformation of the vital institutions of this nation.
It's called a "waiver" and the military has been using them for a long time.
I should know. I had a whole stack of 'em when I enlisted (youthful indiscretions of the misdemeanor variety).
Who wants to go into combat with flaming queers and women?
Who wants to fight with their hands tied behind their backs with Rules of Engagement,
Who wants to fight when they may be prosecuted for killing the enemy and making sure with a double tap.
Who wants to fight in a war and actually train the savages who turn on them like rabid dogs.
Who wants to fight the same war, get leave, and go back and have to fight it over and over again and again.
Who wants to fight a war with no women civilians in the war zone they can touch, no booze, and get placed on charges if they fart in the wrong direction or burn an enemy book.
BRING THE DRAFT....FOR MEN.
then let the military pick and choose.
Anyone who believe this load of BS should join the military; You're just the person they're looking for.
With all the minor problems I have, I would need a stack of them too. Even when I was 18 and went in, I just barely passed the physical but I wanted out of small town USA and there wasn’t much else of a choice in my case.
I wonder if the one on the left could talk an armed Al Qaeda terrorist into putting his RPG down?
There is no reason for a draft. All that does is fill the ranks with people who don’t want to be there. It’s the ROEs and the military culture that needs changing.
No combat chicks
Generals need to quit being politicians, and be military leaders
Well, at least if the military winds up being majority female and sodomites, at least they will get their fair share of “equality” at the sharp end in combat. It’s been mostly white males there, taking the casualties, until now. I wonder how they will try to deal with that “unintended consequence” when it occurs.
Militaries all over the world have been in decline since WWII.
During this time, in an almost cross-linear 1:1 fashion, women have been enlisting in the military. Coincidence?
Waiver me on PT tests since running always killed me even though I am used to 18 hours days on my feet doing whatever and who knows?
“Elite Armed Forces”...are you kidding. In WWII the average NCAA athlete ended up in uniform as did the average graduate of Tulane or BU or Stanford. It would be a novelty now to see any more than a handful of able bodied me from these institutions (or any others like them) to serve in any capacity in the military. Last time I heard statistics even the Citadel, Norwich and VMI had paltry rates of guys going into the military...well under 30%...what a disgrace.