Follow us on social

Shutterstock_149141702-scaled

For Memorial Day, let's get real about the recruitment crisis

New report finds that even when kids enlist, the military is not reacting effectively to rash of suicides, sexual assault, and drug abuse.

Analysis | North America

As one retired general is quoted as saying, the "(All-Volunteer Force) is facing its most serious crisis since Nixon created it.”

Since Nixon ended the draft after the disastrous Vietnam war and the Army was in shambles trying to get young men to enlist, this is a damning insight. But it may not be far off the mark, as the Army experienced a shortfall of 25 percent in enlistments in the last fiscal year, and the other forces — Marines, Navy and Air Force — barely made their quotas. By all reports, it's supposed to be worse this year.

Why? Take your pick. Conservative Republicans like Ron DeSantis, an Iraq War veteran, are blaming the "woke" programs that they say detract from readiness and divide the force. Others say American kids are too obese, and fewer qualify. (The numbers bear all of this this out — only 23 percent of recruitment age men and women (17-24 years) — would qualify; much of that is because of weight, medications, marijuana/harder drug use, and tougher mechanisms today to ferret these out in the process).

Still others say the incentives are gone: there are more opportunities for young people to find jobs in the private sector without risking getting their arms and legs blown off in a war. That of course is a big reason: Generation Z saw 20 years of foreign forever wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, heard all the stories about death, destruction, and systematic lying by the government to perpetuate them, and conclude, "Not for me."

We know that Americans' faith in the military has plummeted in recent years. All the above and more can be part of the mix. But a valuable new Project on Government Oversight (POGO) report by Nick Schwellenbach offers yet another explanation: that the services are falling down on the job when it comes to keeping recruits out of danger — right here at home.

POGO got its hands on a previously private January 2023 internal audit that found that, despite all the money and reported attention on issues plaguing the armed forces, including suicide, drug abuse, domestic violence, and sexual harassment in the ranks, there really hasn't been an organized effort to fix any of it, at all.

Thus, some of the horror stories that have come out of our nation's military bases, many of which have reputations for being nothing better than backwater ghettos for the poor enlisted. Who could forget veteran Seth Harp's heartbreaking Rolling Stone reports last September about the rash of sudden deaths at Fort Bragg in North Carolina? He reported that 41 soldiers killed themselves in 2020 and 2021 — no other base had recorded a higher two-year toll. Since mid-2020, 11 soldiers have been charged with murder. Five soldiers were shot to death, one beheaded. Of the total deaths, 14 were drug overdoses, 11 of them from fentanyl.

The POGO report also cited a November 2020 independent review regarding Fort Cavazos (previously Fort Hood) in Texas. It found a “culture towards women in the Enlisted ranks [that] if not addressed proactively creates breeding grounds for sexual assault.” According to POGO, the review was the result of a wave of incidents, including sexual harassment, murder, and suicide on base. This included Spc. Vanessa Guillén, who was found bludgeoned to death in April 2021.

Her suspected murderer, who fled and killed himself shortly after he was charged, was a fellow soldier of the same rank and had been accused of having committed unrelated sexual harassment on base. Guillén had reported sexual harassment on base by others, and Army “leaders failed to take appropriate action,” according to an Army investigation.

Yet another Fort Cavazos-based Army specialist, Ana Basaldua, took her own life earlier this year, and her mother has said that she experienced sexual harassment in the weeks before her death.

So what is the military doing about any of this? The audit reported by POGO is disturbing:

The oversight problems behind the paucity of actionable recommendations and action taken in response are manifold. They range from a lack of leadership to lack of follow-up to a mismatch between the Army’s prevention approach and what’s being studied, and more.

A root cause is no one is in charge of overseeing the sprawling portfolio of research, much of which is filed away without reaching key Army decisionmakers, the audit report found. “Current research efforts are often fragmented and not pushed to organizations or leaders who can affect change,” the audit says.

“These conditions primarily occurred because the Army didn’t centralize governance over research of harmful behaviors,” the audit states. An Army group recommended strengthening research oversight in 2010 but the Army failed to act on that recommendation. “When we asked research personnel why this didn’t happen, no one could provide a definite explanation,” the audit states.

The Army doesn’t track all of the research it funds through five different Army organizations. “None of them was fully aware of the others’ planned and ongoing research,” states the audit. “Armywide visibility of research projects and studies on harmful behaviors didn’t exist.”

Translation: the services study all of the problems, some of which are reported in the press by dribs and drabs, others never see the light of day. But what do they do with with the knowledge? File it away, kick it down the road, watch it collect dust. Nothing gets better, not after a decade of "awareness" of persistent rapes, suicides, and domestic violence in the ranks.

Add all this to the news that enlisted families can't afford proper food for their households, or, worse, there is no room on base, and all they can afford is fleabag housing off-base because of inflation and bloated rents in the area, and one has to think, why would I want that? Better yet, parents are asking, why would I encourage my son or daughter to aspire to this?

This is not a call for dismantling the military root and branch but something nearly as radical needs to be done to rebuild a better national defense, beginning with (new) leadership, accountability, and a commitment (not just words and money!) to take care of those who commit to serve. Without that, the All-Volunteer Force is only as good as its recruits, and, given its current trajectory, that will get much worse over time.


(ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock)
Analysis | North America
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.