Get Task & Purpose in your inbox
Some schools are barring recruiters from talking to students, Army secretary says
Army Secretary Mark Esper said on Friday that some schools "are not letting our recruiters in" to talk to students, and some school counselors "are not even presenting [the Army] as an opportunity, the chance to serve their country."
"It's considered the only path to success is college, and that there are no other paths," Esper said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event. "I just think we need to do a better job across America and our school districts, our states, our cities, to present the American military as a great path for the future."
This resistance presents a bit of a roadblock for an Army with a renewed focus on recruiting this year after failing to meet its goals in 2018. The service announced its intent to recruit more aggressively outside of its typical comfort zone of the South, Southeast, and Midwest, and to push into 22 major cities like Boston, San Francisco, and New York.
Esper told reporters at a Pentagon roundtable on January 24th that the campaign to recruit in those cities had been "positive so far." But he told reporters after the CSIS event that there's a "spectrum" of support found at schools around the country — some don't let recruiters in at all, some may let them in on "very restrictive purposes," and others are less restrictive.
Esper clarified that he wasn't necessarily referring to schools in those 22 cities that were resisting recruiters, and that he hasn't assessed where in the country this problem is most prominent.
But, he said, all schools "should allow recruiters in just like they let in colleges to come recruit. ... We should have equal access to America's youth."
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley had previously echoed the importance of expanding recruiting efforts on January 16th, telling reporters at an Association of the United States Army breakfast that around 50% of Army recruits "come from about 10 to 15% of American's high schools."
"We need to expand - and we're doing that this year – rapidly expand the footprint by which we are canvassing to get recruits to come into Army," he said.
Task and Purpose Pentagon correspondent Jeff Schogol contributed to this story.
WATCH NEXT: Gen. Petraeus On Answering The Call
- The Army Is Looking For Recruits In Cities That May Not Like The ... ›
- The Scariest Part Of The Army's Recruiting Crisis, According To Tim ... ›
- How To Fix The Army's Recruiting Crisis - Task & Purpose ›
Editor's Note: The following is an op-ed. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Task & Purpose.
After Europe spent itself fighting two world wars, America stepped in to fill the vacuum. The Soviet Union filled the bit that America couldn't. Having nuclear weapons and a large, if poor quality, conventional force gave it superpower status. After 50 years, though, the Soviet Union couldn't pay for all the trappings that superpower status demanded.
Now known as Russia, it's living in a trailer while drunk driving a 15 year old Cadillac Escalade around the neighborhood while yelling "I used to BE somebody!" out the window and rocking out to Motley Crue.
We are rapidly approaching a similar point. The United States is going further into debt each year. Even with a rapidly growing economy, the deficit has ballooned to over $1 trillion. When the business cycle eventually tanks, it will get even worse.
The U.S. has to make hard choices about whether spending that money is worth it. Unfortunately, our approach has been that of the Yankees great Yogi Berra. "When faced with a fork in the road, take both."
The military has been in the process of pivoting to the Pacific for a decade now. The problem is that it can't shake active campaigns in at least seven countries. It is fighting a Cold War against China and Russia as it fights a hot war against ISIS, Al Qaeda, and several other terrorist groups and insurgencies.
An oft-cited statistic is that the U.S. spends more on its military than the next seven states combined. That we spend that much and are still worried about being able to confront China and Russia should tell us something.
Even before the "pivot," the U.S. spent incredible sums losing wars against Iraqi and Afghan insurgents. The average amount spent on defense since 2001 was greater in inflation-adjusted dollars than the average in any decade during the Cold War. At the time, the Communist threat far exceeded that of today's Russia, China, and smattering of terrorists and guerillas in the Middle East and North Africa.
The military has blamed sequestration for its problems for years but sequestration was like an obese person going from 5,000 calories a day to 4,000 and then complaining about starvation. For the next few years there's a budget deal that supersizes the fries. But even that spendthrift plan doesn't fully fund the military's request. The military wanted $12 billion more next year than the budget provides.
But can't we cut other federal spending? All that waste, fraud, and abuse?
When it comes to the federal budget, only a few things really matter. National security, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt. Everything else put together is about 10%. You could literally zero out every other dollar of discretionary spending and only feed the growth in Defense for a few more years. Hell, even Social Security isn't doing that well, so even buying missiles with grandma's insulin money wouldn't for long, either.
The U.S. is headed for a reckoning between its military ambitions and its budget. More precisely, it is headed for a reckoning between its military ambitions and its citizens' desire to have some extra change in their pockets. Using percent of GDP to judge defense expenditures is generally the wrong way around — requirements should dictate expenditures vice the reverse.
Still, it does show the level of effort needed. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, defense was 8.5% of GDP. Today it's 3.5%.
If we truly want to be ready to face China on its turf, or at least counter it, we need to be prepared to more than double our defense expenditures. Since our budget deficit is already at unsustainable levels, that means that doubling the defense budget would require massive tax increases that few Americans seem willing to accept.
If the U.S. wants to throw its weight around everywhere in the world, then it has to be prepared to pay for it. If not, it has to make some tough choices.
Are we preparing for a new Cold War against China and Russia or are we just going to keep dropping JDAMs in an endless game of whack-a-mole in the developing world? A valid case can be made for either, but we can't delude ourselves into thinking we can do both forever. The forces needed for those two missions are dramatically different, and we can barely afford one military, let alone two.
More importantly, freedom isn't free. That phrase has become as empty as "Thank you for your service," but it's absolutely true. It's really easy to put a flag decal on your truck and say America should have the best military in the world, but do you mean it?
If keeping China from dominating East Asia means paying 50% more taxes, are you willing to do that? If it means your elderly father has no health care, is it still worth it? The sacrifices won't all come from anonymous strangers. The easy trade offs have already been made. If we truly want to have the military dominance we used to enjoy, we're going to have to pay for it.
America is not uniquely ordained to maintain its status in the world. Maintaining globe-spanning power is, in the end, a function of troops, weapons, and the money needed to sustain them.
If we're not willing to do those things, it means America needs to accept that it is becoming just one of many great powers, that it needs alliances, that it has to negotiate deals vice dictate them, and that it can no longer expect unquestioned obedience from other states.
That's a tough pill to swallow, but perhaps one of the unanticipated side effects of the "Make America Great Again" movement is that Americans finally realize they're not willing to make the sacrifices greatness requires.
Carl Forsling is a senior columnist for Task & Purpose. He is a Marine MV-22B pilot and former CH-46E pilot who retired from the military after 20 years of service. He is the father of two children and a graduate of Boston University and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @CarlForsling
A major whistleblower complaint at the top US spy agency involves a Trump phone call with a 'promise' to a foreign leader
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on Business Insider.
President Donald Trump is the subject of a whistleblower complaint of "urgent concern" that was filed with the intelligence community inspector general in August, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
Specifically, someone within the intelligence community was concerned by a phone call Trump had with a foreign leader, which was said to include a "promise" that was so deeply troubling to that official that the person decided to lodge a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general.
WASHINGTON/KABUL (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Thursday the United States would withdraw about $100 million earmarked for an energy infrastructure project in Afghanistan and withhold a further $60 million in planned assistance, blaming corruption and a lack of transparency in the country.
Pompeo said in a statement the United States would complete the infrastructure project, but would do so using an "'off-budget' mechanism", faulting Afghanistan for an "inability to transparently manage U.S. government resources".
"Due to identified Afghan government corruption and financial mismanagement, the U.S. Government is returning approximately $100 million to the U.S. Treasury that was intended for a large energy infrastructure project," he added.
A former Veterans Affairs hospice nurse was arrested Wednesday for allegedly stealing morphine from her dying patients at the Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, in Bedford, Massachusetts.
Most U.S. troops in South Korea will not be under curfew for the next three months, but unit commanders retain the right to impose curfews on their individual units on a case-by-case basis, defense officials said.
U.S. Forces Korea announced this week that the curfew would be suspended through Dec. 17. That means most U.S. troops do not need to be home between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., said USFK spokesman Col. Lee Peters.