U.S. enters 2024 with its smallest military in over 80 years as active-duty troop numbers sink to le

U.S. enters 2024 with its smallest military in over 80 years as active-duty troop numbers sink to less than 1.3 million and all branches except Space Force MISS recruiting goals and Pentagon issue 'national call of service' to Gen Z

The United States is set to enter 2024 with its smallest military in more than eight decades and faces one of its 'greatest challenges' as it tries to boost recruiting from Gen Z, Pentagon officials said.

Under the $886 billion annual defense bill passed by Congress this week total active-duty troop numbers will fall to 1,284,500 next year.

That is the lowest total since before the U.S. entered the Second World War in 1941 and officials said there should be a 'national call to service'.

The article mentions the usual reasons why we're unable to staff our current military, and on Twitter (or X if you prefer) I saw a tweet that alerted me to this article that listed, from yet another article (click here):

https://twitter.com/ArmchairW/status/1736266842916913512

• A strong economy, which has resulted in many more options for young people.
• A smaller eligible population.
• Generation Z, the generation born from 1997 to 2012, generally has a low trust in institutions.
• Generation Z has decreasingly followed traditional life and career paths.
• Young people have fewer family members who served, which decreases the propensity to serve.

But the Tweet did mention one positive reason to serve, the Post 9/11 GI Bill. That's a far superior education package than the one I got, the Montgomery GI Bill, or it's predecessor, VEAP.

So there's that.

 

And in a related story...

Most Americans Would Discourage Young People from Joining Military as Enlisted Service Members, Report Says

 

The Biden Administration & Democrats want to spend money. They have to get that money from somewhere.
Due to a high level of inflation, interest rates on the national debt have shot up, making it expensive to maintain the debt.

And for all the talk the Left and Democrats have about massively raising taxes, they do not have the courage to do so. The Democrat leaders know it would kind of be political suicide.

At this point they're under pressure to slow down on borrowing and printing more money, because they know that's going to further fan the flames of inflation and risk initiating a debt crisis.

 

I have actually had a recent discussion with my 16 year old. I told him it’s a scary world. However there are schooling options in the military and it brings a deep sense of patriotism. It’s on him and I don’t encourage or discourage it but I want him to know it’s an option.

But as a parent with all the turmoil in the Middle East I do worry.

 

I tried to join the army in 2008 and they said they didn't want me.

Don't cry about it now.

 

" What if there is a war, but nobody shows up .. ? "

~ John Lennon
​

~ Well at least some Americans are paying attention ...

 

So I read the tweet, linked to the first post in this thread. Among other reasons cited in it for the fall in enlistment was the following:

' A smaller eligible population. (strange that this only became a problem under Biden) '

WTF! How the hell is a declining potential enlistment pool his fault? He's not fathering enough children? He's put contraceptive chemicals in the water supply? Forced eligible Americans to emigrate? Arbitrarily raised the enlistment age to 40?

The thing is that (like other large industries) technology and budgetary constraints have lead to a reduction in the use of labor wherever possible. Manpower is expensive. Here's a table list the average cost structure for various elements of the US Military issued by Congressional Budget Office. (And this is for units not on active deployment)



As you can see a single US army brigade costs about 3 billion dollars to run! A single carrier and its air wing costs less. The difference is labor costs. So wherever possible the DoD replaces labor with technology. Anyone here want to place bets on how far autonomous fighting vehicles will have replaced manpower in front line service 20 years from now and how big the cuts in the size of the military will be as a result?

 

And it is more than that, as we are also in the longest military decline since WWII.

For the last 5 decades, military funding has largely been going up and down based on the political party in the White House. If it is a Republican, funding increases as do new systems to replace old systems. And during Democrats that normally reverses, with them cutting numbers and funding.

However, the current wave of personnel cuts and insufficient funding has been going on since 2009.

 

Actually, no it does not. Because not only are you underestimating the costs greatly, there is a lot more involved.

To start with, a carrier does not have just one air wing. It typically has from 6 to 8 air wings. So your estimate is way off, because you apparently are not aware that a carrier does not operate with just a single air wing. They have multiple wings, each with a very different mission.

Oh, and the other ships. For a typical Carrier Strike Group, add in a Ticonderoga class Cruiser, and from 3 to 4 Burke class Destroyers. And normally at least one Attack Submarine. And there are other ships in support like the UNREP ships, but we will just be going with that.

The solution that you claim "costs less" is now more expensive than the Armored Brigade.

 

I got the costings from a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued in 2017, they are 2016 cost figures. (I couldn't find anything more recent.) Adding inflation into the mix won't have changed the staffing ratios much however. Please See table below. As you can see;

1) Individual ship (and air squadron) labor costs are included; and
2) Indirect labor costs are the killer for US army brigades due the sheer amount of rear area manpower needed to keep the 'tip of the spear' functional.

FYI, I think your confusing 'squadrons' with carrier air wings (CARs). CARS consist of the all staff, planes and equipment etc required to operate and maintain the entire organic aircraft component of a carrier at sea. At the time the CBO wrote this report the US had 10 CARs, currently there are apparently only 9 operational CARS. Regardless of the total number however all CARS rotate through individual carriers as required .

 

~ Perhaps with no military growth, the USA will finally concentrate on only its' own domestic issues, borders and economy .. ?

 

Who said anything about inflation? I certainly did not.

And there are still a hell of a lot more ships involved than just a carrier.

 

LOOK. At. The. Chart.

The cost of staffing an Arleigh Burke is included in the list (not that is matters). The table clearly shows you what each of the Brigades, ships or squadrons etc listed costs to operate in terms of salaries. One single infantry brigade by itself costs more to run (2,410 mil USD) than a single carrier by itself does (2,090 mil USD in total). And that's with its air wing on-boarded. Without the air wing the difference is even starker 2410 vs 1180 for the carrier. More than twice as much.

The costs listed are per unit. It doesn't matter how many individual ships are attached to a carrier task force because the cost of running the carrier by itself is still more than the cost of running an infantry brigade combat team - and infantry combat teams don't usually deploy in isolation either BTW!

 

The issue remains that that big part of the decline in total size of the defense forces remain the cost of labor with Western armies all over the world struggling to meet the rising capital cost of new/more effective systems and the labor costs inherent in maintaining and operating them. Hence a drive towards automation where possible and practicable. Another big killer in recruitment for the US is obesity and physical fitness.So lets be neither issue is the 'fault' of any one political party they are simply reflective of the same technological, economic and social trends that are impacting America as a whole not just the armed forces and (to a greater or lesser degree) other western nations as well.

And by a fortuitous coincidence yesterday Perun released an interesting video touching on just this topic. Link below.

 

I can't blame anyone for not wanting to sign up to be legally obligated to follow orders from the types of folks we have running our govt... frankly I don't understand why ANYONE would at this point.

 

The types of folks? Do you mean the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the senior commanding officers reporting to them who issue orders to and have authority over all serving military personnel, do you mean all members of Congress and the Senate who have oversight of the defense forces or just the current President and his Cabinet who even if he does win another term will be gone in 5 years regardless?

Is it your suggestion that people should select careers purely on the basis of whether or not they 'like' the current boss and if they don't well then they should give that career up or better yet never even start it in the first place? So if your a plumber and your current boss turns out to be ******** you (Paly) would never never work as a plumber again?

Hmmm, that makes perfect sense .

 

space force, lol, all the benefits of being in the military without any of the risks

 

Most 'bosses' can't order you to go kill people for corporate profits under threat of imprisonment. And I'm mostly talking about our congresscritters and their prioritization of election finances and personal international backscratching than they are with what actually benefits The People.

 

Twas ever thus though. In every country and at every stage of history. The Kings and nobles start the wars and the 'commoners' are the ones who get to die in them.

 

What exactly is that an argument for?

 

It's not an argument for anything, simply a statement of fact.

You can complain all you want that the 'people in charge' walk the people who headlong into war for no reason other than their own rank personal gain but it's always been that way. Most (not all) wars in history? The people fighting them gained little even if the people who ordered them to gained a lot. Might as well complain abut death and taxes.

 

I have watched the Army go woke. They teach CRT at West Point. They have a course at West Point that takes Cadets to significant sites in the black struggle for freedom (plantations, Selma, MLK's death site...) What in God's name that will do to help them "close with and destroy the enemy with fire and maneuver" is totally beyond me.

The youth of our country have been brainwashed (to various degrees) to view America as repressive based on sex, race and even pronouns.

Who would be motivated to risk their lives for such a country?

The propagandists have scored a huge victory and weakened our military... A LOT.

I remember when joining the military was about patriotism, not money. I joined in such an era.

Those days are long gone.

 

A more simple truth is that with today's technology, you don't need as many boots on the ground - you need trained pilots, drone operators and specialists.
Why should the country pay for extra service people who aren't needed in modern combat. Look how many Russian soldiers have just been drone fodder.

Spend our money in robotic soldiers and drones. Far more effective. Keep an elite force of Rangers and Seals for difficult extracts and pilots for drone
and air support.

 

Your knowledge of things military is severely lacking. No war was ever won from the air without use of nuclear weapons. The simple fact is that "Unoccupied enemy territory is STILL... ENEMY TERRITORY".

There is a quote from an Iraqi tank battalion Commander that can be seen on office walls all over the Army: "I came to Kuwait with 52 tanks. After 100 days of Coalition bombing I had 50. After twenty minutes against American M1 tanks... I had NONE."

It takes an American Soldier standing on the enemy's home soil with a fixed bayonet to win a war.

 

You don't think M1 tanks can't be remotely operated? Guess again.
It's like saying a war can't be won without horse calvary - times change.
Obama's war against Lybia was essentially over before boots hit the ground ...