The other issue: the officer corps refuses to revamp the UCMJ (or push congress to do so), and so the under-22 personnel bracket that makes up a good 70% of the force structure lives like scrubs on base and get harshly reprimanded for the slightest shit, meanwhile—as you stated, nobody in the officer corps gets held accountable for losing 20+ year wars. If there’s anyone who can change this stuff it’s the senior officer corps, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard an senior officer talking about the need to make military more relaxed for junior service members on a basis comparable to the college experience. I mean seriously, can you imagine a college knocking a student’s GPA from 3.6 to 2.6 because that student got caught under-aged drinking? How many future students would be applying to a university that strict? All this talk from the officer corps about “servant leadership” is *nonsense* when they continue a decades-long effort to make the contract force serve under draft-era UCMJ. And guess what? If contract force remains this shitty for off-duty lifestyles they will *need* to bring back the draft when we eventually enter a new state-on-state conflict because they won’t have the numbers to self-sustain a conflict with higher casualty rates than GWOT via recycling contract volunteers that aren’t there.
I'm not often one to post comments, but since pay got brought up I'll throw my two cents in (pun intended).
I was having a discussion with a salty Tech in his 19th year about the pay disparity between O's and E's. His explanation was that year after year there is a blanket raise (I think last year's was around 5%) across the entire force, but a 5% increase for an E-3 is VASTLY different than a 5% increase for even just an O-3, even though they've likely had similar time in service. Over time that gap just continues to balloon.
I'm not trying to suggest the occifers don't deserve the pay they get, just that maybe the annual raise shouldn't be a one sized fits all solution. Having more competitive pay in the E-4 to E-6 range might go a long way in retaining some people especially in the Intel and Cyber communities where the younglings are jumping at any opportunity to get out and make 6 figures (allegedly) in the private sector.
That salty Tech also said there was no way in hell he'd recommend the military to any of his kids, highlighting things like toxic leadership, people that "play the game" getting promoted over people that take care of their subordinates, and people (especially those in high places like politicians) not taking responsibility or being held accountable for their actions.
I must weigh in on this topic of family having spent 15 years of your 20 helping you in some small and large ways with most of those moves-- who did that?-- yes sir this mom before handing off the baton to Charity. The toll it takes on families is crushing. I never missed a leave taking or returning in all of those deployments and one year I sent 647 packages (yes you read that right) to you and your troops and the Postal Annex gave me an award. It ended up being cheaper than therapy....Yes it was all for the good cause-- also during those 15 years I built an award winning program on our campus for our student Veterans-- yes sir turning anxiety into action. I say these things to point out that you can see I was "ALL IN" ...As well as having skin in the game I tried to be one of those civilians worth fighting for....Proud I did it but now count me in the group of families who can't recommend military service anymore. The NEO did it for me. Right there when I saw that I was furious and scared and ashamed. But mainly I was just done until there was some accountability for all that was lost, messed up, and no one fired over it...Still waiting... And so is the country... but parents can be fierce and they are not going to ever forget when you hurt their son or daughter..Now I am not done with Veterans just that bureaucracy. I would like to say this is the end of my rant on this topic but not even close. ...
Terrible news. I was determined to join the Navy in 1992 but my high school transcript was not impressive. From taking the ASVAB, they offered me the nuclear program, but it was a six-year commitment. I passed, and that was a decision that makes me look back and say, ”What if?”. We need our presence out in the world, working for good and fighting if necessary.
My point is that I was attracted to two things. One, my desire to see the world could be fulfilled. Well, maybe, and they couldn't guarantee that (sorry, didn't want to spend six years in Nebraska). Two, I viewed military service as all positive. Helping to provide food, aid, relief, and security around the planet. That mission has to remain because if that's what attracted me, it must be so for others. It can't just be a bunch of dudes looking to start and end fights. I also had a healthy understanding of our rights, and wanted to hold our Constitution up as an example. Not rules, but an actual example, helping to further democracy.
If our (what should be) common interests and shared values are behind these drops in numbers, red lights are indeed flashing.
Do you really think it's the US military that got humiliated on the battlefield in Afghanistan? How often did we (well, you...I wasn't there, to be clear) lose a firefight? I suspect not very often, if ever. We were fighting and dying there for 20 years...TWENTY...and still had not managed to form a stable government that could stand on its own. Clearly, our strategy was flawed, and for many years. However, I also never heard anyone propose anything substantially different we should have been doing. So what were we going to do? Go on fighting and dying for another 20 years in the hopes that things would change? Hope is not a strategy! No, I think leaving was the right choice for us in the long run. Now, I agree with you wholeheartedly that abandoning Afghan interpreters and others who we promised to bring to the US is utterly unconscionable (did you see there are supposed be 12,000 new SIVs in the budget deal being worked? Great news!), but it was time to cut our losses. If anyone got humiliated, it was our policy makers across multiple administrations, but it definitely wasn't our military, sir.
The other issue: the officer corps refuses to revamp the UCMJ (or push congress to do so), and so the under-22 personnel bracket that makes up a good 70% of the force structure lives like scrubs on base and get harshly reprimanded for the slightest shit, meanwhile—as you stated, nobody in the officer corps gets held accountable for losing 20+ year wars. If there’s anyone who can change this stuff it’s the senior officer corps, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard an senior officer talking about the need to make military more relaxed for junior service members on a basis comparable to the college experience. I mean seriously, can you imagine a college knocking a student’s GPA from 3.6 to 2.6 because that student got caught under-aged drinking? How many future students would be applying to a university that strict? All this talk from the officer corps about “servant leadership” is *nonsense* when they continue a decades-long effort to make the contract force serve under draft-era UCMJ. And guess what? If contract force remains this shitty for off-duty lifestyles they will *need* to bring back the draft when we eventually enter a new state-on-state conflict because they won’t have the numbers to self-sustain a conflict with higher casualty rates than GWOT via recycling contract volunteers that aren’t there.
I'm not often one to post comments, but since pay got brought up I'll throw my two cents in (pun intended).
I was having a discussion with a salty Tech in his 19th year about the pay disparity between O's and E's. His explanation was that year after year there is a blanket raise (I think last year's was around 5%) across the entire force, but a 5% increase for an E-3 is VASTLY different than a 5% increase for even just an O-3, even though they've likely had similar time in service. Over time that gap just continues to balloon.
I'm not trying to suggest the occifers don't deserve the pay they get, just that maybe the annual raise shouldn't be a one sized fits all solution. Having more competitive pay in the E-4 to E-6 range might go a long way in retaining some people especially in the Intel and Cyber communities where the younglings are jumping at any opportunity to get out and make 6 figures (allegedly) in the private sector.
That salty Tech also said there was no way in hell he'd recommend the military to any of his kids, highlighting things like toxic leadership, people that "play the game" getting promoted over people that take care of their subordinates, and people (especially those in high places like politicians) not taking responsibility or being held accountable for their actions.
Excellent point.
I must weigh in on this topic of family having spent 15 years of your 20 helping you in some small and large ways with most of those moves-- who did that?-- yes sir this mom before handing off the baton to Charity. The toll it takes on families is crushing. I never missed a leave taking or returning in all of those deployments and one year I sent 647 packages (yes you read that right) to you and your troops and the Postal Annex gave me an award. It ended up being cheaper than therapy....Yes it was all for the good cause-- also during those 15 years I built an award winning program on our campus for our student Veterans-- yes sir turning anxiety into action. I say these things to point out that you can see I was "ALL IN" ...As well as having skin in the game I tried to be one of those civilians worth fighting for....Proud I did it but now count me in the group of families who can't recommend military service anymore. The NEO did it for me. Right there when I saw that I was furious and scared and ashamed. But mainly I was just done until there was some accountability for all that was lost, messed up, and no one fired over it...Still waiting... And so is the country... but parents can be fierce and they are not going to ever forget when you hurt their son or daughter..Now I am not done with Veterans just that bureaucracy. I would like to say this is the end of my rant on this topic but not even close. ...
Terrible news. I was determined to join the Navy in 1992 but my high school transcript was not impressive. From taking the ASVAB, they offered me the nuclear program, but it was a six-year commitment. I passed, and that was a decision that makes me look back and say, ”What if?”. We need our presence out in the world, working for good and fighting if necessary.
My point is that I was attracted to two things. One, my desire to see the world could be fulfilled. Well, maybe, and they couldn't guarantee that (sorry, didn't want to spend six years in Nebraska). Two, I viewed military service as all positive. Helping to provide food, aid, relief, and security around the planet. That mission has to remain because if that's what attracted me, it must be so for others. It can't just be a bunch of dudes looking to start and end fights. I also had a healthy understanding of our rights, and wanted to hold our Constitution up as an example. Not rules, but an actual example, helping to further democracy.
If our (what should be) common interests and shared values are behind these drops in numbers, red lights are indeed flashing.
Do you really think it's the US military that got humiliated on the battlefield in Afghanistan? How often did we (well, you...I wasn't there, to be clear) lose a firefight? I suspect not very often, if ever. We were fighting and dying there for 20 years...TWENTY...and still had not managed to form a stable government that could stand on its own. Clearly, our strategy was flawed, and for many years. However, I also never heard anyone propose anything substantially different we should have been doing. So what were we going to do? Go on fighting and dying for another 20 years in the hopes that things would change? Hope is not a strategy! No, I think leaving was the right choice for us in the long run. Now, I agree with you wholeheartedly that abandoning Afghan interpreters and others who we promised to bring to the US is utterly unconscionable (did you see there are supposed be 12,000 new SIVs in the budget deal being worked? Great news!), but it was time to cut our losses. If anyone got humiliated, it was our policy makers across multiple administrations, but it definitely wasn't our military, sir.