Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Not sure what to think of this, but it is a interesting idea.
1 posted on 11/14/2017 4:01:19 AM PST by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: RoosterRedux

Really?
Have you been to the Fils lately?
The Makati Kids won’t do a damn thing to save themselves.

How about mandatory service for ALL at 18?
How about paying enough to make it a real career choice?
How about teaching civics, patriotism and real American History?

Our America is worth fighting for.
“Politics is downstream from culture”, so start the fight to reclaim a culture that supports and honors our military.


2 posted on 11/14/2017 4:12:39 AM PST by Macoozie (Handcuffs and Orange Jumpsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

A lot has changed.. whomever thought this up fails to acknowledge the regional changing demographics. Sounds like a great idea, if you want piles of body bags from workplace violence.
I am torn on this, I know the armed forces need to get lean and focused. Numbers matter for a lot of important reasons. It is beyond insanity to have druggies and folks with psych problems to weigh down the good soldiers we have. They are and will be dead weight, but with the improvement in the economy and job market, this was likely to happen.


3 posted on 11/14/2017 4:20:19 AM PST by momincombatboots (White Stetsons up.. let's save our country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

I don’t know specifically about the US Army but if any institution tends to get filled up with, as the author contends, ‘low quality of recruits’ and ‘mentally challenged’ then it becomes a much less appealing career choice for those who do not fit into those categories.

I have a hard time getting excited about any plan which requires foreign nationals when we have 330 million citizens and various others here.


4 posted on 11/14/2017 4:29:35 AM PST by posterchild ("Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - R. Feynman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

Were I Army Chief of Staff, I’d sooner take a recruiting shortfall, knowing I had good people to make good soldiers, than make my numbers knowing even more money and resources will be lost cleaning up the inevitable messes they’ll make and harm they’ll do.


5 posted on 11/14/2017 4:30:50 AM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

Why should the mentally deranged be allowed to become congressmen and senators and governors and mayors and lawyers and college professors
but not be allowed to become privates in the army?

It’s not as if they would abuse their access to military grade weapons any more than people like sergeant Nidal Hasan or major Hasan K. Akbar - is it?

/s


8 posted on 11/14/2017 4:43:09 AM PST by Vlad The Inhaler (United We Stand - Divided We Fall. Remember: Diversity is the opposite of unity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
This is a typical bureaucratic, "kick the can down the road" solution. Taking in people who already have problems is just a way for one faction to get their atta' boy now while downstream the VA will deal with a much higher percentage of vets with problems.

The VA has a history of sweeping vets under the rug and stomping on any lumps in the rug who squirm along with wasting taxpayer money on all sorts of things rather than spending it on caring for vets. People who from day one are known to have problems just leads to more of the same, in spades.

9 posted on 11/14/2017 4:43:37 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
This is why the military is turning increasingly to robots. Unfortunately, the moral rot that necessitates this move will be programming / directing them, with predictable consequences.

Klaatu, Barada, Nikto

10 posted on 11/14/2017 4:45:23 AM PST by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

Good men are available but won’t serve under the globalists and social warriors that infest.. Trump is only 8 years. It will take generations to delouse the military. The selection system no longer mertit based has filled the Pentagon with usless people.


13 posted on 11/14/2017 5:07:31 AM PST by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deo et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

A better idea would be to raise the enlistment age restriction, and revise the guidelines for assigning veterans who re-join. Right now, former military who go back in get shunted into either their old MOS (if there’s an opening) or into a last-chance MOS like Infantry or Cook.

Now, most guys in their early 40s might not be able to run-and-gun like the young bucks, but they can take a slot in a less-demanding MOS so a younger guy/gal can be put somewhere where their youthful energy can be more effectively employed. This also brings experienced and willing soldiers into MOS’s that currently attract a lot of layabouts and leeches looking for cake jobs. These older soldiers would likely be able to bring in useful skills like management, technical abilities, and perspective. They’d know and understand the “why” behind the way the military does things, so they’d be less likely to become intransigent. Imagine bringing someone who has operations and logistics experience into the Supply company, or experienced businesspeople into the Personnel units, or skilled IT workers into the cyberwarfare units. Things are going to start running a little more smoothly. These “re-treads” might be able to serve for ten years or more before they get too old to perform effectively. While they’re in, they can also support the leadership-track NCOs by mentoring younger soldiers and helping those who decide to transition out rather than re-enlist.

If officers (admittedly, mostly flag-grade) can stay in until their 50s, why not find ways to let seasoned vets come back, even if for a little while?


14 posted on 11/14/2017 5:10:56 AM PST by Little Pig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

This is 2015 - the latest data I could find.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612742/dod-announces-recruiting-retention-numbers-through-june-2015/

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2015 — The active-duty Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force met or exceeded their fiscal year-to-date 2015 accession goals through June 2015, Defense Department officials announced today.

The active-duty Army missed its goal by 4,696, officials said.

Here are the active-component recruiting numbers for fiscal year 2015 through June 2015:

— Army: 38,918 accessions, 89.2 percent of its goal of 43,614;

— Navy: 25,380 accessions, 100.0 percent of its goal of 25,380;

— Marine Corps: 21,025 accessions, 100.1 percent of its goal of 21,005; and

— Air Force: 17,495 accessions, 100.1 percent of its goal of 17,480.

The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps exhibited strong retention numbers for the ninth month of fiscal year 2015.

Five of the six reserve components met or exceeded their fiscal year-to-date accession goals through June 2015. The Army National Guard missed its goal by 3,527. All six of the reserve components met or exceeded the DoD quality benchmarks.

Here are the reserve-component accession numbers for fiscal year 2015 through June 2015:

— Army National Guard: 32,654 accessions, 90.3 percent of its goal of 36,181;

— Army Reserve: 20,897 accessions, 100.6 percent of its goal of 20,773;

— Navy Reserve: 4,042 accessions, 100.0 percent of its goal of 4,042;

— Marine Corps Reserve: 5,995 accessions, 100.9 percent of its goal of 5,941;

— Air National Guard: 6,810 accessions, 100.0 percent of its goal of 6,810; and

— Air Force Reserve: 5,213 accessions, 104.4 percent of its goal of 4,994.


16 posted on 11/14/2017 5:52:03 AM PST by BwanaNdege ("The church ... is not the master or the servant of the state, but the conscience" - Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

We can call it the American Foreign Legion.


24 posted on 11/14/2017 9:05:27 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
"During the intra-war period, they were considered America’s most elite infantrymen."

BS. Although Philippine soldiers were courageous during WWII, they didn't compare with American Airborne, Frogmen, and British elite. Where were they in Pusan or Da Nang or Desert Storm or? American Airborne, Rangers, Delta Force, and now especially SEAL's lead the way. The Philippines has a huge Muslim problem they can't seem to control.

This said from a sailor who had a couple close Philippine friends on his first ship back in 75 where they worked their ass off. Then the dumb ass government kick us out of Subic Bay. Now they want our help again and I hear they are negotiating to bring our protective Naval umbrella back.

Although, gotta admit I loved their "hostesses" on Olongapo. Adult Disneyland at its finest with beautiful go-go dancers, great bands, cheap beer. Yeah, I'm an ex-sleezy Sailor - so what? Got my bullets on the way home so all was good. LOL.

25 posted on 11/14/2017 9:28:29 AM PST by A Navy Vet (I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Plus LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
"Now the Army has a foolish new policy of enlisting even more mentally challenged soldiers."

Where are you getting this "mentally challenged"? Show some citations. Show me where the ASVAB scores have been lowered and then I might agree. However, I do agree the social engineering of the services certainly hasn't helped.

"We spend a staggering amount of money on TV commercials and other recruiting efforts."

DOD has always spent a lot of money on recruiting since the volunteer service. I was a Recruiter in 1986. The new one to me is seeing the Air Force commercials. What's that about? They used to be the first service potential recruits would talk to in a multi-service recruiting office. Because of not meeting very high AF standards, the potentials would then go to the Army cubicle and then the Marines.

Navy was last because so many afraid of the water, with no where to go if getting torpedoed. The youngsters thought they were invulnerable against bullets or duck or hide from them, not so when the ship is going down. Again that was 1986. Recruiting standards ARE probably lower.

26 posted on 11/14/2017 10:11:08 AM PST by A Navy Vet (I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Plus LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

If it was good enough for the Justice Department...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/08/22/memo-reveals-dept-of-justice-directed-to-hire-people-with-intellectual-disabilities


30 posted on 11/14/2017 12:47:46 PM PST by pluvmantelo (Open eyes, mind and heart. On the straight path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson