Military services grappling with filling their ranks in budget request

[rangerrebew]

Military services grappling with filling their ranks in budget request
By Meghann Myers
 Mar 13, 03:35 PM
 
The services are optimistic they can plug some of their manning shortfalls this year. (Sgt. Daniel Cole/Army)

The White House budget is calling for more troops with next year’s budget, but that hoped-for result, as administration budgets are, is tempered by the reality that low national unemployment and a shrinking pool of young people interested in serving means it’s harder and harder to recruit.

The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2024 budget is calling for 2,074,000 men and women in uniform, according to documents released Monday. That number is 13,334 fewer than it was authorized for last year, but 12,355 more than the Defense Department estimates are currently serving, reflecting a recent recruiting and retention environment that has shown some gaps.


On paper, the military services are looking to downsize by 13,000 personnel positions in 2024. But as some of the services fell short in fully manning their ranks over the past year, the White House’s ask would add about 12,000 troops, if passed, and if the services can find enough people to fill their ranks.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/13/military-services-grappling-with-filling-their-ranks-in-budget-request/

[rangerrebew]

I guess they've finally captured that pie in the sky!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Said it before, but this is what happens when you choose to alienate your core recruiting demographics - young men from traditionalist families.

[Fishrrman]

Title:
"Military services grappling with filling their ranks in budget request"

Not to worry. Put those budget woes away.

Each year, a smaller and smaller number of young'uns will be interested in joining up, anyway.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't really see how it can ever be fixed at this point because the precedents have been set.  Even if you sign up when there is a "good" President in office and reasonable policies, anyone interested in a career has to consider what the next President might do.  In the past, the biggest difference in C-in-C's was the chance of being deployed in combat.  But now, you have to consider what the President may do in peacetime in terms of wacky social engineering, political bias/indoctrination, etc.. 

What talented young person is going to what to roll the dice on whether or not their career gets sabotaged by the political trend of the moment?  Because unlike the civilian world, you can't just quit an obnoxious employer and sign on with another company in the same general industry.  Your skills aren't transferable, so you're stuck either submitting to social engineering with which you don't agree, or risking your family's financial security.  And if that decision happens after you've already invested 12 years in, what do you do?

[rangerrebew]

I don't really see how it can ever be fixed at this point because the precedents have been set.   

The precedents being set intentionally?  I think so.