Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "The Hill" channel.

  1. 4
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. The economy always tanks enlistments when it's good and coerces them when it's bad. If the American public want armed forces they should be delighted to pay what the market will bear and everyone who does NOT enlist is really voting for better compensation. This USAF career vet approves. People don't typically join in some patriotic frenzy, they join to improve their lives with an interesting career. Anyone qualified to become part of a modern armed force has multiple options (even if it doesn't feel like it at the time) so why not choose what pays? Focusing on patriotism is a mistake. This is the second (historically recent) Hollow Force era which are normal after failed constabulary mistakes. It will fade over time like the last one but very, very few Americans take interest in the domestic social history of recruiting. Conscription was a disaster (which no one who hasn't studied that really understands) for many reasons. Drafted armies bleed badly during their learning curve (US in WWII for example) while the KD ratios of professional forces tend much better. The US needs a professional CAREER force because it takes longer than one enlistment to mature a technician (fmr. maintainer here, this is not speculation). Want one? PAY FOR IT. Patriotism is fine but doe not make house payments and if you really support the troops then show it with funding not just direct compensation but quality of life. A troop living in a moldy barracks or decaying base housing knows actions speak louder than words.
    1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1