We keep hearing from the left how our Ar-15s are no use against an Army that has tanks, aircraft, and artillery. I won’t even bother finding a link to any of those claims. We have all heard them before. But what if all of those toys don’t have any people to run them?

The Army is supposed to be able to engage in Corps level engagements by 2035. The problem with that is our Army is having trouble meeting recruiting goals, and will likely have fewer than 450,000 personnel by October 2023 (pdf alert). That means our Army has only 31 active duty brigades, and those will be understrength. To even reach THAT number of brigades, the Army has had to strip personnel from other locations to the point where readiness has been affected. To put this in perspective, the troops who put ashore on D-Day as a part of Operation Overlord numbered about 160,000 troops. That would be roughly half of our entire Army today. Army planners think that the only way they can maintain 31 brigades is to cut them from 3 battalions per brigade down to 2. Paper tiger, indeed.

So what, you say. We can just bring in the reserves to get our staffing up to snuff, right? Nope. The Army has had so many issues finding officers to command reserve units that they have had to engage in some creative personnel management.

Over a five-year period, 110 command positions could not be filled because the Army Reserve lacked willing commanders. The shortage of willing commanders has become so acute in the Army Reserve that O5 command is no longer an opt-in board to be considered for command, but opt-out board, meaning that lieutenant colonels and majors who are up for promotion who do not wish to command must proactively go into the system and state that they do not wish to be considered for command.

This is creating havoc with morale and retention, which is making the problem even worse.

Army Reserve soldiers have seen commanders who are clearly in their position not because they were highly qualified or competitive, but solely because they put their names on the list, and that is not a good place to be as an organization.

That makes for an Army that won’t be able to put down an uprising of kindergarteners, much less repel an invasion. Reading this would you say that allowing women, fags, and trannies to serve has made our military better, or worse?

The only good thing here is knowing that it will be difficult to slaughter armed citizens when there are no warfighters left. We appear to be back in the days of Jimmy Carter’s hollow military. Sure, some units will be staffed with capable and willing soldiers, but those are far less likely to be gunning down civilians than the woke units that make up the majority of the force.

Categories: Military


Anonymous · August 10, 2022 at 7:38 am

All I know is that when the US invaded Iraq back in 2000 whatever, the combined armed forces presence could barely control, if that’s what one would like to call it, a country not much larger than Southern California.

BobF · August 10, 2022 at 9:39 am

Not to mention that increasingly technical equipment it takes increasingly intelligent and skilled personnel. We need both high-tech folks and skilled trades folks and I have to wonder what the curve is with those traits.

Skyler the Weird · August 10, 2022 at 11:36 am

They’ll hire Jannisaries from Latin America, Africa, and MENA. The mercs won’t have any inhibition on firing into crowds of American Civilians.

Steve S · August 10, 2022 at 1:06 pm

Makes you wonder where they plan to find the 87,000 new IRS employees.

Comments are closed.