- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 44,600
- Reaction score
- 23,295
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
America depends on a strong military to protect and defend its interests. According to a recent Heritage Foundation article, the military enlisted nearly 158,000 recruits in 2020 for the active component alone [1]. The article went on to highlight that every indicator of future U.S. military recruiting success is either trending negatively or remaining stagnant. “These indicators include demographics, the economy, youth health, and trends that influence propensity to serve, including civic education, the number of veterans in America, the value of the military education benefit, the public’s perception of the military, and the percentage of youth that attend college immediately after high school” [1].
Without constructive changes to try to counteract these negative recruiting trends, the future strength of the U.S. military will falter [2]. Although the U.S. doesn’t have a negative population growth rate like India, China or Russia [3], at 0.47%, it's nearly one-third the U.S. growth rate in 2000 and is driven largely by immigration [4]. The U.S. population is growing older and more ethnically diverse. For the last couple of decades, the armed services have been challenged to fulfill recruiting quotas and retain required end strength [2]. This will be an even greater challenge should America need to further increase end strength in a time of war.
Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts are critical to future U.S. armed forces facing peer or near-peer competition. Improving DEI within the national security community will (1) increase the number of young Americans willing to serve, (2) cast a wider net to garner the country’s best and brightest and (3) maximize the performance of our armed forces organizations. DEI efforts can support each of these goals. Without DEI, the national security community is at risk.
The key point here is that the military is having continuing trouble in recruiting for various reasons to include a downturn in general physical fitness, low unemployment, and young people not valuing the military as a career. In matter of fact, without bringing on board ethnically diverse recruits and other types of minorities, the military services would simply be unable to meet their recruiting goals. Now Trump installs a SecDef who loudly proclaims the end of DEI in the military. What sort of signal is that to those of an ethnically diverse background. And then, in a couple of years, when it becomes even more difficult for the recruiting service to meet their goals, who will get the blame?
Before the DEI haters decide to get rid of it in the military, perhaps they should visit a military base to observe all of the various “colors” of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen there. Getting rid of DEI is just her another right wing idea to cut off their toes to spite their foot.
Without constructive changes to try to counteract these negative recruiting trends, the future strength of the U.S. military will falter [2]. Although the U.S. doesn’t have a negative population growth rate like India, China or Russia [3], at 0.47%, it's nearly one-third the U.S. growth rate in 2000 and is driven largely by immigration [4]. The U.S. population is growing older and more ethnically diverse. For the last couple of decades, the armed services have been challenged to fulfill recruiting quotas and retain required end strength [2]. This will be an even greater challenge should America need to further increase end strength in a time of war.
Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts are critical to future U.S. armed forces facing peer or near-peer competition. Improving DEI within the national security community will (1) increase the number of young Americans willing to serve, (2) cast a wider net to garner the country’s best and brightest and (3) maximize the performance of our armed forces organizations. DEI efforts can support each of these goals. Without DEI, the national security community is at risk.
The key point here is that the military is having continuing trouble in recruiting for various reasons to include a downturn in general physical fitness, low unemployment, and young people not valuing the military as a career. In matter of fact, without bringing on board ethnically diverse recruits and other types of minorities, the military services would simply be unable to meet their recruiting goals. Now Trump installs a SecDef who loudly proclaims the end of DEI in the military. What sort of signal is that to those of an ethnically diverse background. And then, in a couple of years, when it becomes even more difficult for the recruiting service to meet their goals, who will get the blame?
Before the DEI haters decide to get rid of it in the military, perhaps they should visit a military base to observe all of the various “colors” of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen there. Getting rid of DEI is just her another right wing idea to cut off their toes to spite their foot.