The Pentagon's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street

lol A couple of nerdy career fields out of hundreds available. A drop in the hat. Not sure where you got that 85% number.

Pew Pole of Post 9/11 Vets

2009 Survey of 4,000 Army Officers

The military certainly does lean to the right but it is nowhere near 86 percent.

Being military doesn't MAKE a person conservative. The type of person that signs up is likely going to lean that way prior to joining, mainly because people that make up the military ranks come from a more conservative part of the country (the South). What makes you think that the people in these advanced tech fields are not going to lean more to the conservative side as well? This proposed plan doesn't mention what part of the country the Pentagon is going to focus their recruiting efforts. The Pentagon has focused recruiting efforts in the Sunbelt for a very long time and this is where their recruiting resources already exist.....there's a very good chance any candidates will be from that area.

They specifically mention that these are for advanced career fields that they don't have the ability to fill. Advanced fields like these don't really mingle with "combat units" much outside of training. They get stationed at places like SMDC/ARSTRAT Future Warfare Center, USCYBERCOM, Yuma Proving Ground, White Sands Missile Range, the Pentagon, etc. Sure some will inevitably get sent to combat zones to train/advise there but civilians have been doing that since WW1 without much issue. These guys will be trained exactly the same as all troops are prior to deployment and will be prepared to carry out their job/mission overseas. I also didn't read anywhere in the article that said they wouldn't be required to go through basic training.

Note: People have been able to sign straight up as Flight Warrant Officers in the Army for years. They go to basic as a private, they then go to their flight school and receive E-5 pay, once they pass they become full fledged WO1s. The military does not send people out to combat without first giving them a significant amount of training (not even civilians).

 

I can't find anything showing that troops/vets voted 82%, 85%, 80% or anything over 60% for Republican online.

How vets are voting:

Every article, study, poll I find are showing roughly the same numbers:


Troops do self-identify as far more conservative (around the 80% mark) than the general population but they don't vote that way. Maybe that's where the 80% stuff is coming from?

US Military recruiters are "allowed" in high-school job fairs all around the country. You won't find them there as much because they don't need to be there.

Doesn't have much of anything to do with a few "liberals" in a couple cities protesting in a dozen or so of the thousands of schools in the US. The military is just simply downsizing and becoming more selective with who they allow in.

You must have joined when that MOS was overmanned or just not needed and they desperately needed grunts and cannon-cockers. A 92 AFQT score will usually open you up to get you any job you want in the Army.....line scores are more important for specific MOS but none of the 74 series required that high of line scores and only 2 jobs require any given line score above 110, 33W (Intel systems w/ an ST score of 115) and 31S (Sat Comms w/ an EL score of 120). Your recruiter failed you if a DL was the only thing keeping you from getting into a advanced or STAR MOS (make E-5 in 18 months if high-speed. I was in STAR MOS but certainly wasn't "high-speed". )

Many of these jobs are not about shortages, it has more to do with the program/job simply not existing. Not sure how Obama has made anything harder on the military, he is head of the Executive Branch.....not on them to come up with a budget for military spending or laws concerning veteran benefits. Democrat and Republican legislators are both to blame for any cuts/reductions of military/veteran spending....and seeing how the Republicans have controlled both the House and the Senate for the last 2 years I'd say they are a bit more to blame than the Democrats (but not by much). But I really don't see how things have gotten harder for the military. Most of the spending cuts and force reduction that happened under Obama is coming from the draw-down of 2 wars. It makes sense to reduce spending and personnel.

 

Working both for and with the Military and civilian Defense Industry for more than a decade and personally seeing (and taking part in) them looking to the private sector for specialists in new/developing technologies and capabilities to train and advise troops, I would have to disagree. It is mostly about finding talented and capable individuals.

However, I think one reason they are specifically looking for "lifelong civilians" is to save money. Most people who have served in the military and then moved to the private sector would consider that a step backwards in their career. They are going after the ones that arent fully aware of how the defense industry works and where the money is being made. The military wants their tech and nerds at a cheaper price and throwing some commissions at the private sector seems to be their strategy to get that.

The Military has always looked to bring in people from the private sector when advanced tech and science were involved, and they have had no problem with getting that talent from outside US borders in the past. (Development of the first nuclear weapon, ARPANET, DARPA regularly calls on the public for new ideas, etc.) Nobody is trying to make the military more liberal by trying to bring in outside talent. They are just doing what they have always been doing: looking to stay ahead of the competition.

 

We sign enlistment contracts with set service lengths....not for life like some European countries do. The initial enlistment contract is for 8 years. It's usually anywhere between 2-5 years active duty (actual time depends on a lot of factors) and the remaining time is spent in Inactive Ready Reserves (IRR). It's possible for the military to extend our time on active duty and they can call us back up to active duty while we are in the IRR under special circumstances.....but they can't keep you much longer than 6 months to a year longer than that, and they have to pay those troops extra $$ for their trouble.

The Army did try to call me back up while I was still in the IRR and contracting in Afghanistan but my orders stated my position was "Mission Critical" and they couldn't pull me out of country to go empty waste baskets for the Army.

But the military is wanting officers, not enlisted, that already have the skill-sets for these advanced fields. Anyone already in the service with those skill-sets will have very likely already been identified and transferred to the appropriate units (and any eligible officers, and even enlisted, are going to be fighting over spots in those newly created fields because the promotion potential a completely empty field/MOS offers is huge).