Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
The Iranians in power, certainly.
Recruiting and Retention Shortfall in US Military, Warning, Controversial topics within!
- Thread starter Bearcat22
- Start date
- Status
I am sorry you did not understand my point. Let me rephrase.
Do you seriously believe that an aggressive or malicious person
is more likely to be polite to you if:
1. You are a Pollyanna and are 'nice' to them;
2. You are obviously capable of defending yourself, with force if need be
An anecdote? Nothing to back it up, no link? Sounds like you want to make excuses for bad officer behavior.You're a chump.
But anyway, I do have an example of our youth's lack of discipline and all that. It's actually pretty funny....
Last year, a young recruit was on maneuvers with his company. They were somewhere in a forest in northern Calif, I think. So, doing maneuvers, which is basically a war game, where recruits do a realistic enactment of a military conflict and enemy forces have them pinned down in this forest, and they have to get supplies and back-up forces and get themselves out of this situation.
His company is finally taking a break, and this young recruit gets on his phone and orders pizza delivery.
If his behavior as an officer inspires contempt in a recruit, whose fault is that?
Isn't it the officers fault for not anticipating and ordering "no cell phones while on this exercise"?
Isn't it his responsibility to find out why rations are so shoddy that a soldier would prefer to pay for his own pizza?
Bad food is a frequently cited reason why people quit.
Were or are you now an officer?
Has anyone ever called you a bully, or toxic?
What is your plan to increase military retention and recruitment?
Last edited:
Nathan
SF VIP
- Location
- High Desert- Calif.
Seriously, large scale ground troop deployment is a thing of the past. Sounds like a ploy to justify bigger military budgets.
Modern warfare is conducted largely by aircraft and drones. Losing large numbers of U.S. military members in ground combat is no longer tolerable, and is a political liability.
The Dover Test.
So, what is the American military and CIA doing to supplement American troops?
Hiring mercenaries, who conveniently are immune to prosecution for atrocities and war crimes.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
The story was covered by an independent journalist. He interviewed the young recruit, after he was kicked out of the military. I didn't save the video, so obviously, I don't have the link.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Yep. That's true. The US assisted the Islamic take-over of Iran about 50 years ago.
Looks like the US is currently in the process of correcting that huge mistake.
Well, its my OP, my "room" so to speak.
You're welcome to not comment at all if you are too hasty or lazy to make an effort or so much of a snob that you think
the age of an account is a valid measure of the value of an OP.
You DID "choose to argue" you just did it in a snide, vile and cowardly manner.
Last edited:
Great, where, what publication, what is the name of that recruit?
Wow, you need to watch the video again.
The USA MOTIVATED the Islamic take over by overthrowing a democratically elected leader and installing a dictator.
The Islamic world hates america for perfectly valid reasons.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
I notice you DO understand the story is about the recruit and not his commanding officer, or any officer.
The story was published on a few platforms, including YouTube, where I saw it. You can use the YT search engine to find it. Try "Recruit on maneuvers orders pizza" or something like that. Hope you find it if you really want to.
There are a ton of independent journalists because major news media is very powerful and very protective of their political lean, whether left or right. So you've got hundreds of these 20 and 30-somethings out there doing real, unbiased journalism, but they have to publish their stories on various social platforms. The most serious ones use proceeds they earn to travel overseas and get in-person global news.
It's a great pool for factual news.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Read my comment again. Because that's what I said.
MarkD
Keeper of the Hounds & Garden
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
So you’re the arbiter of who is serious and who is ‘just’ being emotional.
I hope you find a suitable forum home
.. far away from here. Act like a lout and no one will want to deal with you.
Naturally
Well-known Member
- Location
- Corner of Walk 'n Don't Walk
You’ve packed a lot of assumptions into this thread, many of them based on internet anecdotes, selective history, or outright speculation rather than lived experience or verifiable data.
I spent a career in uniform, and I’ll address a few points directly.
First, recruiting and retention. Toxic leadership does exist, and the military has spent years trying to identify and remove it. But to claim it’s protected based on gender or minority status is simply not accurate. Leaders are evaluated constantly, and careers end quickly for those who fail their people or their mission. Retention issues today are far more complex: a strong civilian job market, medical disqualifications, family strain, and changing expectations of younger generations all play a role.
Second, the idea that the military is just a tool for “crony capitalism” ignores how budgeting actually works. Yes, there is waste in government spending, including defense. Those of us who served have complained about it for decades. But the same military you dismiss is also responsible for deterrence, disaster response, freedom of navigation, and alliances that have prevented large-scale wars between major powers for generations.
Third, on veterans and care: you’re right that the system isn’t perfect. Many of us have fought hard to improve the VA and benefits. But it’s not accurate to say veterans are ignored while all money goes to weapons. Both things can be true at once: a large defense budget and ongoing efforts, sometimes flawed, to care for those who served.
Fourth, the idea that military service is just for the “impoverished and uneducated” is outdated and frankly insulting. Today’s force is highly trained, technically skilled, and increasingly educated. Many join for opportunity, yes, but also for purpose, structure, and service to something larger than themselves.
Fifth, history. Claims about WWII being a “scam,” or foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor being ignored, fall into well-worn conspiracy territory that historians have repeatedly examined and rejected. You’re free to question policy decisions, but dismissing the entire conflict as profit-driven ignores the reality of fascism, global aggression, and the millions who suffered under it.
Finally, “war is a scam” and “9/11 was retaliation” are oversimplifications that erase both the complexity of geopolitics and the agency of those who carried out those attacks. Foreign policy can and should be debated, but reducing everything to a single cause or motive doesn’t hold up.
You’re asking questions, which is fair. But if you want serious answers, you need to ground your arguments in credible sources and be willing to listen to people who have actually served, rather than assuming bad faith across the board.
I spent a career in uniform, and I’ll address a few points directly.
First, recruiting and retention. Toxic leadership does exist, and the military has spent years trying to identify and remove it. But to claim it’s protected based on gender or minority status is simply not accurate. Leaders are evaluated constantly, and careers end quickly for those who fail their people or their mission. Retention issues today are far more complex: a strong civilian job market, medical disqualifications, family strain, and changing expectations of younger generations all play a role.
Second, the idea that the military is just a tool for “crony capitalism” ignores how budgeting actually works. Yes, there is waste in government spending, including defense. Those of us who served have complained about it for decades. But the same military you dismiss is also responsible for deterrence, disaster response, freedom of navigation, and alliances that have prevented large-scale wars between major powers for generations.
Third, on veterans and care: you’re right that the system isn’t perfect. Many of us have fought hard to improve the VA and benefits. But it’s not accurate to say veterans are ignored while all money goes to weapons. Both things can be true at once: a large defense budget and ongoing efforts, sometimes flawed, to care for those who served.
Fourth, the idea that military service is just for the “impoverished and uneducated” is outdated and frankly insulting. Today’s force is highly trained, technically skilled, and increasingly educated. Many join for opportunity, yes, but also for purpose, structure, and service to something larger than themselves.
Fifth, history. Claims about WWII being a “scam,” or foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor being ignored, fall into well-worn conspiracy territory that historians have repeatedly examined and rejected. You’re free to question policy decisions, but dismissing the entire conflict as profit-driven ignores the reality of fascism, global aggression, and the millions who suffered under it.
Finally, “war is a scam” and “9/11 was retaliation” are oversimplifications that erase both the complexity of geopolitics and the agency of those who carried out those attacks. Foreign policy can and should be debated, but reducing everything to a single cause or motive doesn’t hold up.
You’re asking questions, which is fair. But if you want serious answers, you need to ground your arguments in credible sources and be willing to listen to people who have actually served, rather than assuming bad faith across the board.
- Status