The Army Suddenly Told Hundreds Soldiers They Have to Be Recruiters Immediately | Hacker News Reader

The Army Suddenly Told Hundreds Soldiers They Have to Be Recruiters Immediately

military.com

34 pointsLinuxBender26 comments

Such a dumb choice. Go disgruntle the people you're going to send to be your primary points of contact for getting people into uniform in the first place when you're already behind the eight-ball meeting your quotas in the first place.

This is what can happen when an organization is led by people who have spent 40 years working in one organization, and who got to the top by being stack ranked over and over and over again. "I love it here, there's no problem! How can there be a problem when the system worked for me?"

I will say, having briefed up to the four-star level while in uniform, all the general officers and flag officers I personally interacted with were impressive as hell and wicked smart. But the "company men and women" on track for stars can also have some huge blind spots as mentioned above.

Then something like this comes down the pipe and you just go "I'm glad I retired at 20 to focus on the private sector." People only have a finite amount of goodwill to burn . . . it's foolish to burn it on petty crap, especially in an organization like the military where "embracing the suck" is necessary in places like combat.

It's not "disgruntling." Imagine if your boss told you last week, that this week you had be at Fort Knox KY. To spend three years in a career dead-end, that also carries a major, statistically important, increase to your suicide and depression vulnerability.

If you say no, there are perverse legal punishments you'll go through that the Supreme Court has already said don't get constitutional protections.

The UCMJ doesn't authorize "perverse legal punishments" and servicemembers still fall under the Constitution. Come on. You can make a point about how this is bad policy without resorting to adolescent hyperbole.

Perversity is in the eye of the beholder.

Military boot camp training has recruits subjected to language and control that people would rebel against and sue if it were done in a web developer boot camp. Yet that’s normal for the military.

I had my chance to join the army, but did not due to several of my relatives telling me what a bad gig it was.

. . . so you're opining on something you haven't the slightest credible clue about other than biased sources. You and everyone else who "almost joined."

Actually, they joined. I didn’t because of first hand reports from people who spent ten years or more in the military.

How is it a career dead-end? In the Marine Corps, becoming a recruiter or drill instructor are good ways to gain rank more quickly because they boost your cutting score. I had friends who did recruiting and they loved it- it's comparatively easy work with a high level of autonomy

Recruiting in the current environment is likely to lead to less success due to potential recruit fitness readiness, the reduced competitiveness of military opportunities vs the private sector (rising wages, structural demographics), and the zeitgeist around going to the sandbox to die for someone else's pet political project.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/presidents-inbox-recap-us-military-...

https://www.rand.org/topics/military-recruitment.html

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/10/13/big-bonuses-r...

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/09/30/mi...

https://warontherocks.com/2023/03/addressing-the-u-s-militar...

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-military-rec...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-recruiting-and-confide...

At the end of the Cold War, I enlisted in the Navy because it was a good opportunity; there was no ambiguity regarding the bad guys; the military leadership was good; the elected leadership was generally tolerable.

I'm no longer able to encourage the youth to follow in my footsteps, as the opposite of the above is generally the case.

Sure hope the situation improves.

In hindsight do you think either your experience in the Navy directly or the GI bill benefits from service gave you a major leg up in life?

I share the same feeling with smitty1e. But I have to admit, my military experience, GI Bill, and security clearance opened many doors for me. As you put it, it gave me a major leg up in life. I would make the same choice again unless I had better opportunities.

I certainly benefitted from both.

But history does not support experiments, so one cannot say whether something else would have been as profitable.

Staying married, going to college, living modestly, and working hard used to be the ticket.

These days, going to HVAC school or being an electrician or plumber might be preferred.

College seems to have become a dodgy choice, and one can always pick up coding on the side.

> At the end of the Cold War, I enlisted in the Navy because it was a good opportunity; there was no ambiguity regarding the bad guys; the military leadership was good; the elected leadership was generally tolerable.

Sounds like you received a healthy dose of cold war propaganda.

> I'm no longer able to encourage the youth to follow in my footsteps, as the opposite of the above is generally the case.

You sure about that? Because the same leadership, military and political, are in power as they were at the end of the cold war. Nothing changed in the US after the cold war because we won.

I think you have to come to terms on who the bad guys real were. The soviets weren't the evil empire. The evil empire is the one that beat the soviets. Or maybe the eviler empire beat the evil empire.

> Because the same leadership, military and political, are in power as they were at the end of the cold war.

OK, I don't think so.

> The soviets weren't the evil empire. When the Berlin Wall fell, which direction did the foot vote move?

> OK, I don't think so.

Doesn't matter what you think. It's a fact. No revolution swept the old guard from power. The system didn't change. I explained this to you.

> When the Berlin Wall fell, which direction did the foot vote move?

The wealthier side. You seem to mistake wealth with goodness.

Using your logic, because poor north koreans migrate to china or poor egyptians migrate to saudi arabia, it must mean china and saudi arabia are the good guys. That's the dumbest logic I've seen.

Between the soviet union and the US, the evil side exterminated a continent full of natives and dropped nuclear weapons. I'll let you figure out which side was the evil one. Anyway, thanks for your service killer.

American military for decades have largely been mercs for hire especially for corps. Recruitments need to consider hiring using mercs incentives (similar to Wagner). Many veterans I talked to come to the conclusions they NEVER fight for the country and often joke they did it for the money and stability....so in a way they are no different than Wagner or any other mercs. They just have better boots and benefits and maybe safer (as long as not deployed to battlefield like Ukraine or Kandahar)...moral or nationalism...not much really.

This is your reminder that Selective Service is still a thing and that Congress and the President could authorize a draft if they really needed to boost fighting force numbers (unlikely, given our current in-fighting & partisan Congress). But if push comes to shove, the option is still on the table.

Do they know about something that is coming?

They say in the article. They are nursing recruiting quotas (badly) and also lost a lot of recruiting personnel

If you can’t fix culture, set those remaining up to fail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/us/marines-army-recruits....

> As the other large military branches fall short of their goals despite offering signing bonuses and other incentives, the Marine Corps easily fills its ranks on swagger alone.

Looks like they're just trying to reach their recruiting goals.

Did you miss the World War that's currently on...?

> Did you miss the World War that's currently on...?

Yes. What World War? I don’t think the number of shooting conflicts going on right now significantly exceeds the number of shooting conflicts that have been going on since 1950. Here is some information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_confli... and please stop spreading misinformation.

Don't drink the kool aid.

The KoolAid?!

China and Russia are both positioned against the US, and vice-versa.

Wherever you are politically, if you haven't acknowledged the quickly shifting geopolitics, then...no more to discuss.

"Shifting geopolitics" isn't a "world war" my dude, lmao

Reply on news.ycombinator.com