Military recruiting crisis?

[Brotherman]

The US military, at least going by this paper below is not worried about the current "recruiting crisis." They view it as a minor hurdle that can be navigated fairly easily and at the moment will simply rely on more PMC contractors than usual.

The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters Volume 52, Number 3 8-25-2022

Meeting the US Military’s Manpower Challenges (15 pg PDF)

Some excerpts:

To pay for expensive technologies, many strategists favor a reduction in force size. In light of the strategic focus on China, the different service branches are adopting their own approaches. Since the Navy and Air Force are likely to play the most important roles in a conflict with China, the Army is likely to shrink. The Army, however, would play a critical role in a conflict with Russia. At the same time, it is trying to develop capabilities that will also be useful in the Pacific theater, such as long-range anti-ship missiles. Even when large numbers of ground combat troops are not needed, the Army has historically provided large numbers of troops to support other services.

The Air Force will likely cut its force to finance modernization efforts. The Marine Corps is currently restructuring its forces (Force Design 2030) for the Pacific theater. It plans to shrink to pre-Iraq and pre-Afghanistan levels to pay for long-range precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles.  The Navy, for some time, has been perceived as an outlier because it plans to grow its force structure and increase its fleet considerably, though its earlier goal of reaching a 355-ship fleet collapsed due to staggering costs. Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may delay the long overdue pivot to Asia, the future focus on China will require modernization and investment in high-end technologies rather than large numbers of troops.

Analysts agree the biggest challenge for the armed forces in an age of near-peer competition is the quality rather than the quantity of service members.
Recruiting and retaining personnel with high-end technical and cyber skills, (since the cyber domain is projected to increase rapidly) must be a priority. The 2018 National Defense Strategy highlights the necessity to modernize professional military education (PME), implement improved talent management, and better utilize civilian workforce expertise.
....
While acknowledging that manpower supply is a serious concern, this article has argued that the notion of a “manpower crisis” needs to be nuanced. Although the relatively small recruitment pool of qualified youth remains a serious challenge for the armed forces, the underlying issues of obesity, previous criminal records, and lack of education may, to various degrees, be worked around. Nor do all of these issues trend in the wrong direction, particularly when it comes to the educational attainment of young Americans.

The Department of Defense has historically found ways to overcome manpower shortfalls. First, the Armed forces have used more contractors at home and abroad. Contractors are less expensive and easier to recruit and terminate. The US military has adopted a practice employed by private companies for a long time—outsourcing certain activities that do not need a highly skilled workforce. Outsourcing is problematic since the practice makes the military dependent on a private sector driven by different incentives than the public sector. Second, reservists have been used more efficiently—and could be used even more efficiently if appropriately managed.

Third, the number of Department of Defense civilians has increased.Over time, the military has shifted active-duty personnel functions to other
workforces to overcome recruitment and retention problems because active-duty service members are expensive. Although much of the discussion focuses on recruitment, some analysts think retention is a more significant concern since it is easier for the military to mask the numbers. Some believe the most talented people tend to leave and continue their careers elsewhere.

I think part of recognizing the post-vietnam NatSec state that we've been living under for the past 50 years is understanding that the draft will literally never be reactivated, ever. Pivoting to foreign militias, drones of every shape & kind under the sun, and now entire proxy countries has been a long march towards ensuring there is always a wall separating the public outcry against military intervention vs the actual morale and efficiency of that intervention.

During the Vietnam era there was no wall. With everyone since, there has been. Even while Rumsfeld was deflecting on national TV when he was asked if the US would use nukes post-9/11, the one thing the Bush Admin was firm on was that the draft would never be activated.

Perhaps the goal is to put the US public as far away from the actual warfighting as possible. Utilizing drones even US soldiers barely interact with the targets, they just use an X-box controller in an air-conditioned RV in the Nevada desert to obliterate whomever.

Fuck it, bring on the lizard squad