Seems like they're having trouble recruiting people to serve as America launches headlong into GWOT 2.0 with no plan. It makes sense that people aren't signing up: it's a very unpopular war that was started by assassinating leaders during peace talks and bombing an elementary school, and it's not one they're winning.
And it's also a war with no clear benefit to Americans, which Marco Rubio admitted they were dragged into by Israel.
> You can no more win a war, than you can win an earthquake
This is quite clear for younger people who grew in an interconnected world. But some old folks (73 y.o., 79 y.o.) seem to live in the old world where winning, or an illusion of it, is still a thing.
That word "Interconnected" is very important. As it's not an age thing, since many young folks may still think this way. It's an education thing. Uneducated/unconnected people are unable to appropriately interpret the world and the events that happen within it as they have not learned about or experienced similar situations and their outcomes/consequences.
But I think this might be a cope that is not well researched. How would one explain that all of this is quite literally not true and military recruitment is significantly higher under this administration? The actual reality is this policy just aligns with other branches and divisions of the military such as the Air Force. Not everything is explained by IDS. With all due respect, this seems like a reflexive anti-American position because it is so laughably wrong. Young men are much more likely to join under the current administration and I think it is pretty obvious. Also, the idea that there was no plan is just divorced from reality. People might not agree with the plan but this idea they didn't know what they were getting into is a sophomoric read, to be honest.
Was abandoning all regional bases and most advanced radar in the area as soon as the war started part of the plan? Sending the USS Gerald Ford in even though it was already on extended deployment? Not having any minesweepers anywhere near the area? How about loading F35s with barbell weights to balance the aircraft, because they don't have radar systems? Pulling THAAD systems from South Korea within a week of starting the war?
That, and many more examples, point to an ill-thought-out decapitation strike, on someone else's timeline, with no contingency plan in the case that didn't severely cripple the Iranian government and state.
I’m quite curious about recruiting. I have only a N=1 observation, the kid who takes the orders at my favorite burrito place. He had been hyped about the Marines for two years, pre-enlisted at 16, just waiting to graduate from HS this spring. I didn’t see him for a few months, but in November it had all changed. “They are hostile to people like me.” (He’s of Mexican descent.)
A lot has happened since June of last year. Let’s not forget National Guard deployments to cities and threats of active duty / insurrection act. Threats of sending the army to fight cartels. I think the current situation is just an extension of craziness that would give anyone except the hardest of core supporters pause???
While reductionist, I think yours is a legitimate "in a nutshell" take. It would be interesting to see the relevant statistics over time, ideally broken down by geographical regions, their median incomes and the respective employment / military recruitment success rates.
I admit that I am partial to your view of the world. A mate in university, about a quarter of a century ago, made a rather striking observation: "In the US, military is a national jobs program for a nation that is psychologically hostile to jobs programs."
I think smart people do NOT want to enlist while Trump is Commander in Chief and Hegseth is in charge of the Military. The way the crew of the USS Ford have been treated is despicable.
I get why you are saying that but historically those that enlisted ended up with better roles and less likely to serve in the infantry unless of course one wish to do that. This of course assumes the draft is actually utilized.
Well, I'm old enough to remember many "peace talks" go to eternity wit absolutely zero results. In many countries around the world. Just to create the argument.
Up from 35 years. Average age is currently 22, though.
Air Force and Space force went to 42 years back in 2023. The Navy went to 42 years in early 2026.
Maximum age for the Marines remains 28 years.
With high youth unemployment [1], it ought to be easier to recruit.
The land war is getting closer. The Army's 82nd Airborne has been sent towards Iran. Possibly to take Kharg Island, one of the very few objectives for which an airdrop might possibly make sense.[1] Possibly. 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force is already on the way.
When I joined the army as an infantryman back in the early 2000s there were kids who couldn’t start basic training because they weren’t capable of doing 6 pushups. 6.
I believe at the time they were allowing 38 year olds to join for the first time which seemed crazy to me. Now that I’m in my early 40s I can’t imagine going back in
The US military is in the process of changing fitness standards, mostly for ideological reasons [0]. Most enlisted I’ve spoken to consider the new tests harder, especially for women, but it isn’t clear cut and implementation across services has been weird.
Rumor is they’re also cracking down on (specifically medical, not religious) shaving waviers again, probably because some minorities have a skin condition that makes regular shaving painful.
So it’s a bit of a conundrum! They obviously want more enlisted so they can do more wars in more places, but they also are adding disincentives for female or nonwhite enlisted.
> It is estimated that 45–94 percent of all Black men will experience PFB at some point during their lifetime. Hispanic, Asian, and Middle Eastern men also are often affected, as are some women. A 2021 study found an association between shaving waivers and delayed promotions. Since most of the waiver group (65 percent) was Black, the new policy could have a discriminatory effect. In our conversations with Black sailors, including some in senior leadership positions, many shared that they feel the new policy is racially insensitive at best—or may be designed to target them.
Even if they are abused, their abuse doesn't have any downsides. These people are not growing beards.
Also, I don't even think they are necessarily abused. A lot of men are very sensitive to shaving, with degrees of sensitivity. I think there's probably plenty of guys who have perpetual razor burn and ingrown hairs and nobody cares.
> “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops,” he said. “Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
“It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are,” he continued.
> “I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape, or in a combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men” Hegseth said.
It's so funny because obviously yes there are benefits to fitness in even a 2026 military, but a huge advantage of guns is that you don't have to be in peak physical condition to kill people pretty effectively, tanks and subs take it even further, and by the time we get to modern drone warfare a gaming couch potato can be as effective as your favorite football player.
Sure, sometimes you need a human being to sneak behind enemy lines to get in range for the drone, but that's not gonna involve a ton of sprinting anyway!
What about what he said is incorrect? I don't know, maybe you are not familiar with the U.S. military. You can many videos produced by the military under Biden of even significantly overweight drill instructors in the Marine Corps, for instance. I don't know if this is part of the "healthy at any size" thing or what.
I guess I expected him to be calling all those generals and admirals with decades of combat, command and special forces experience together for something more substantive like policy changes vs an unhinged coked up rant boiling down to "no fatties!"
He's also rebranding to a macho aesthetic, encouraging bringing back hazing, tossing bunks, "shark attacks" and drill sergeants putting hands on recruits. I'm no expert but maybe if we're having trouble recruiting we shouldn't lead with ways to make military life suck even more?
> I don't know if this is part of the "healthy at any size" thing or what.
It’s not, that’s silly.
It turns out that it’s kind of hard to establish uniform physical fitness standards at scale! They have to be cheap to implement and easy to execute in a wide range of environments.
No one can agree on how much fitness a soldier needs to be minimally effective, but you know for sure every stakeholder has a strong and incorrect opinion on it. Oh, and if you raise the bar too high, you won’t meet your enlistment goals, and readiness suffers.
I've never been capable of 1 push up, or pull up, even after 6 weeks of the best efforts of MCRD back in 1983. They were looking for a few good men, turns out I wasn't one of them.
I aced the aptitude test, and totally failed the PFT.
I went into the armed forces recruiting office a year or two ago for Air Force Cyber and the adjacent Army and Navy recruiters were complaining that no one wanted to join while everyone was asking for Air Force when the Air Force recruiter was out for most of the year because he had met his quotas. Somehow I ended up in the Navy office and suffice to say I left the office with a big no to the Navy man no matter how much he tried to persuade me with promises of seeing the world. I have the internet for that thank you.
All my vet friends said to reconsider and I wisely followed their advice.
The Navy guy tried too hard to sell the upsides without telling me any of the downsides and I knew there were a lot of downsides. Said my asvab score could get me in nuke and great pay, that I could see the world. The Air Froce guy told me like it was. Guess who I trusted more?
How many young men do you know who have never tried marijuana, don't have a tattoo and don't have facial hair? A few years ago it seemed the Army didn't actually want to recruit young men. They loosened the tattoo requirements in 2022. The facial hair requirement remains, but that's less of an imposition since you can grow it back.
They'll have to start taking harassment seriously if they want to recruit more young women.
There are limits on gang tattoos, face/neck/hand tattoos and tattoos that promote various hate-based or extremist ideologies (e.g. Nazi or KKK tattoos.) Other than that, tattoos are allowed.
A Christian fighting in a Crusade [1] and most recently 21st century Christian nationalists and alt-right groups [2]. Also recently being used quite a bit in the UK in relation to some anti-immigration movements.
I don't know about the facial hair. It would take me months to grow back my moustache, and until then I'd look 10 years younger. Given my age that would be pretty ridiculous.
Facial hair prevents the proper functioning of gas masks and other sorts of PPE that sits on your face. Hypothetically speaking, [0] I'd rather deal with looking like a minor than with getting a snoot and face full of something dreadfully toxic.
[0] Hypothetical because I'm way too old to ever be confused with a minor again.
Underreporting has been looked at in both military and the general population. Data is difficult to source and there are obvious methodological challenges on both sides.
Conviction for sexual assault in the military is an automatic dishonorable discharge and loss of all benefits as a minimum sentence. However, while the military generally has a slightly higher conviction rate than civilian courts, you don't have to be convicted to have career altering or even ending consequences.
The bar to convict is also lower. It doesn't require a unanimous vote, there's no statute of limitations, and you're generally going to face immediate consequences once accused.
> Underreporting has been looked at in both military and the general population. Data is difficult to source and there are obvious methodological challenges on both sides.
The reporting says sexual assault rates are high in the military. If that's underreported, than the rates are even higher.
> (etc)
Whatever these mechanisms, they aren't implemented if nobody seriously pursues the accusation. Also, the mechanisms don't seem to have sufficient effect in practice.
So I know you're making a joke/statement about how the post-9/11 volunteers got royally screwed over and are (understandably) disillusioned with war but I just wanted to add something here.
This change increases maximum enlistment age. Maximum reenlistment age is something else entirely. To reenlist, you need to be able to complete 20 years of service by age 62. So if you joined at 18 and did 8 years then you can technically rennlist up to age 50. Not that you would or should but you can.
Are you registered for Selective Service? If a draft occurs, which is likely rare but certainly possible under current circumstances, your options will be flee the country or elect conscientious objector status and experience whatever treatment you will experience from doing so.
Presumably a 42 year old who can meet the fitness tests will be a better candidate than a 25 year old who cannot. Less 42 year olds will be able to meet the requirements, but the ones that do are what they’re after.
Surprised comments are so negative. I think it's a great thing to expand - the military can be an excellent career path, and this allows more people to take it should they choose.
I know many 40 somethings in way better shape than most 20 somethings. And all things considered, if I were someday somehow sent off to war, I'd much rather be surrounded by the former assuming equivalent fitness.
Why not just join ICE? The acts you might have to commit there are probably less bad than what the military gets up to, and you don't get sent overseas?
Becoming an E-1 at age 40 isn't a "career path", it's a last resort for somebody who for whatever reason can't make more than $30K/year with the skills they've gained over the last 25 years, and for whom having functioning knees is less important than needing the money.
So they should just age out in poverty and die? Such people exist. To be clear, I'm 1000% against anything resembling a draft, but if an older person wants to, why stop them? A guy in my brother's medical doctor graduation class was 46 years old. Good thing nobody explained to him it was too late and he failed already.
In all seriousness, I do agree about the functioning knees part. But as long as it's voluntary, I don't see the downside.
You referred to joining the US military as an E-1 at the age of 42 as a career path. As an Army brat, I can tell you that it absolutely is not. At that age, it absolutely is a job of last resort.
I like how the options are "age out/die" or "be part of our disgusting military machine", no other options; people have no value unless they've already got money or can risk their blood.
Surely we can think of SOME option better than either of those?
They had 40 years of functioning knees, but it didn't get them to a place where army wages or army housing looks good. If the army breaks their knees, maybe they can get service related disability.
Many people look for purpose and impact in their careers.
If one has impact in the military, what purpose is it serving under current administration and leadership? It's a hard sell from an ethical perspective.
Jobs that feel purposeless is a common complaint but actively serving evil?
Are you admonishing people for not being selfish and making decisions which benefit themselves even if it puts them in a position where they can't say no to wronging someone else?
What does this even mean? "If you just ignore the fact that your job is murdering people for no reason, the benefits are great!" Why, exactly, should people "disassociate" that?
You are asking whether someone should not have picked the military career if it was the best fit for them, just because you are personally morally against what they do?
That's why i dont confound the military with the political aparatus's directing of said power. Because the military isn't murdering people for no reason - they are following (in the case of the west) a elected official's policy (which you are very welcome to dislike and oppose, as i do as well).
The negativity isn’t anti-military service. It’s because this specific expansion at this particular time for this current administration is all very ridiculous.
I think most people still are in support of the idea if military service even if that job may entail death.
However you choose to look at it, military service is still widely respected as a duty to the nation and a place were patriotic sentiments exist.
I’m not debating the right or wrong of it, but it just is so. I’m pretty sure the entire history of militaries have been full of people enlisting to die and kill on behalf of some random politician they don’t necessarily agree with. There’s nothing particularly notable happening differently.
But Trump being the clown he is, this is laughable.
Yeah just think of how great it would've been to serve in the past decades. Oh wait you'd still end up killing people in the Mideast - half way around the world, and in turn getting killed by them, all in endeavors that ultimately make the world a worse and less safe place. And that certainly includes America.
You're wrong. The girl's school was hit by multiple Tomahawks as video evidence shows. The US Navy is the only service capable of firing Tomahawks. The root cause is DoD intelligence folks failed to get recent surveillance on the girl's school near a former IRGC building before adding it to the target list. It was probably a target passed along from Mossad but no one in the US kill chain did any due-diligence that they're supposed to do. Furthermore, offensive weapons release by a drone or ship requires an officer to give the final order.
I'm not sure if you're saying this as somebody who never runs, or somebody who runs so often that you've forgotten baseline levels. That's a very significant hurdle for most people. I'm in very good shape strength wise, but I'd almost certainly need to do some significant training to meet that since I just never run.
I run for weight loss and general health and at one point had a BMI in the mid-thirties. Back then I was able to make that pace for sessions of 30-40 minutes on most days. I'm not suggesting it's easy, but I would expect someone in ICE to easily outrun an obese person.
Genetics play into this far more than we used to realize. It depends on things like how good your body is at in taking and utilizing oxygen, the specific composition of fast twitch vs slow twitch muscle fibers you have, your body's ability to control and regulate lactic acid, etc.
I used to work around some very "high level" athletes. There is definitely a body type that is pretty BMI heavy that can run for days seemingly. They often struggle with sprints or H.I.I.T. type workouts, as a downside.
Jogging for 14 mins at a 10min/mile pace is so far out from any high level athletics or excuse for genetics impacting it. Being unable to do this is being completely out of shape.
At run clubs, I see practically every novice join and do 3 miles / 30 mins at 10min/mile pace on their very first day or within 2-3 attempts.
> Being unable to do this is being completely out of shape.
Really not advocating for the time.
It's quite slow compared to most US military standards.
I'm simply talking about my love of visual "fatbodies" that sometimes have 5x the running cardio of a, say, 5'8" 150lb male that looks like they could run circles around the heavier individual.
That's about a 8:30 mile scaling for the fact that its harder when you have to cover more distance... seems pretty reasonable to me as a fitness baseline for the army. I would struggle to make that now but if I had one month to prep I could clear that
Depends on what you mean by untrained. I think most men who exercise regularly and don't carry a ton of extra bodyweight, even with zero running, could bang out 1.5 miles at 9:40 pace. Couch potatoes, no.
"most men who exercise regularly and don't carry a ton of extra bodyweight, even with zero running" - what's that supposed to mean? How do they exercise then when they are not running?
I don't think many people who don't exercise running can do 1.5 miles in 9:40.
It's 1.5 miles in 14:25, I think most people can handle that. There are plenty of ways to exercise that aren't plain running. Biking, skating, swimming, Tai chi...
That is why we vote. Canvas your neighborhood. Start local. Go to your city counsel meetings. Tell your representatives what you think or even run for local office. Support the people that won't take us to war. Democracy works when people participate.
What will US public do if US in Iran ends up like Russia in Ukraine, recruiting 30K soldiers every month to die in middle east?
Maybe at this time they are having trouble recruiting but just like Russia US has large prison population that may like the offer thar Russian prisoners got: 6 months on the frontlines, if you survive you are free and well paid.
Just today Iran backed militants released a video of drones takings out US helicopters and radars, very similar to what we are used to seeing in Ukraine.
Is US public really ready to support such a thing and endure hardship like the Russians for ideological causes?
It’s fascinating, maybe Trump is right- maybe his supporters are literally tired of winning and want attrition?
In Vietnam, there were 58k US dead for the whole war. US military dead in WWII was 400k. 30K dead/month gets you to WWII losses in a little over a year. US dead in Afghanistan and Iraq was much less.
I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I don't think the US public would accept losses on the order of 30k/month: there would be massive demonstrations and congress would likely act to cause disengagement.
I used to think the same but according to the polls I keep seeing the support for war seems to be very strong, up to %100 among MAGA in fact.
They used to say they are against war, against "jewish influence", against this against that but nothing seems to be changing their minds. I thought that this high ranking MAGA dude who resign over "Israel influence concerns" and immediately did rounds on the MAGA-sphere popular outlets doesn't seem to have any influence on the support for the war.
They don't appear to be ideologues but demagogues. Maybe its some more primal urge to kill and get killed and Trump has control over it?
It looks like about 30-40% of Americans look upon Trump's war favourably. That's _very_ low; I'm pretty sure that that's the worst _any_ American war has polls this early on. Approval of the Iraq war didn't fall under 50% until _2005_, and didn't hit 40% til 2008.
> up to %100 among MAGA in fact.
Sure, but I mean if Trump shat himself live on TV, he'd probably get about 90% MAGA approval for that, too. That's not really the point.
Thats the general public that apparently doesn't have any grip. You can do whatever you want if tens of millions of people + the billionaires support you till the end when hundreds of millions are mildly annoyed by you.
No one cares about war crimes since years, US itself is allied in this war with credibly alleged war criminals. Besides, there's much to do against drones reaching a base other than locking down the gear in reinforced building and that's not practical when the gear is used which means whatever is on the open gets blown up. The Russians were putting tires on the wings, it did not help much.
I know no one cares, rather I was explaining why this Iranian hit is not a demonstration of any great success, they were hitting an unprotected target, in a non-US base.
Well then get your form signing pen out for April 20 soldier there’s an illegal war that needs bodies on the ground to take some hits right in the patriotism.
There's a big difference between having older soldiers fighting a defensive war on home soil vs sending them overseas.
In the first scenario, you desperately need a lot of warm bodies, most of what these people would be otherwise doing has been shut down, if someone does perform a critical role in society at large, going back and forth is quick, and the alternative still potentially leads to you losing that person.
In the second scenario, recruiting middle aged people robs your economic/industrial/cultural base of its experience and mid-level leaders who are critical to stuff getting done. Substantial resources are spent training, moving, and sustaining these troops who are not as well suited as younger individuals, on top of the opportunity cost. Besides the people already in the military who have spent years gaining applicable military experience, those additional bodies are liabilities, not assets. An argument can be made for raising mandatory retirement age to keep those skills around, but not for new recruits.
We are slowly grinding towards another world war the reason similar to world war 2. Ie an ethno state expanding it's territory while considering it's population as some kind of master race so commiting a genocide against the rest. Ironic the victims have become the perpetuators.
The military has spent decades working on a general aptitude test, called the ASVAB [1]. It's a score up to 99, which is usually what people focus on, but there are also line scores for things like electrical and mechanical. When you join, there'll be a score range you'll need to be in and possibly certain subtest scores.
Generally speaking, you've needed a minimum ASVAB of 31 to join the military. Recruiting stations will have quotas of only accepting so many below 50 so if you're below 50 you may have a more restrictive choice of job, even though you qualify, because you're an undesirable candidate. You take up a valuable sub-50 slot. Oh and below 50 and the Air Force won't even sneeze on you. They don't have to take you. They have more than enough applicants.
This can go the other way too. You can score too high for certain jobs such that they won't want to sign you up because you'll get bored. This is way less common obviously.
Every area of the country is covered by a recruiting station ("RS") for each branch and is staffed by recruiters who usually aren't volunteers (eg most marines on a re-enlistment after an initial 4 years will have to do a Special Duty Assignment--SDA--and will end up as a recruiter or a drill instructor). Each recruiter will generally have a quota to fill of 2 contracts per month.
In some areas (eg Texas) this is no problem at all. Recruiters can be picky. In others, it's way more of a challenge. Anyway, a few years ago the enlistment numbers for the Navy must've gotten so bad that for awhile they were accepting an ASVAB of 10 [1]. 10 is bordering on illiterate.
I say this because raising the maximum enlistment age to 42 is almost as desperate as lowering the ASVAB minimum to 10. I cannot imagine a 42 year old E-! in basic getting yelled at by a 23 year old DI. You won't be doing 20 for the pension. I guess you'll get the GI Bill after 3-4 years. That's something I guess? Most other 42 year olds you'll meet will be near or beyond their 20 years.
In 2004, as a senior in high school, I tried enlisting in the Marines (infantry, what was I thinking based on the year). I scored 99 on the ASVAB (finished way earlier than everyone else) with a high SAT score as well.
Passed all the physicals at Fort Dix. I was rejected.
Soon after an Army recruiter called me and said they are willing to take me.
Someone told me I was rejected because of high test scores. I didn't really believe them, but it kind of makes sense.
> Someone told me I was rejected because of high test scores. I didn't really believe them, but it kind of makes sense.
Armed forces does a lot of tracking and they need a mix of people. It makes sense to try to get people into jobs that work for both the person and the seevice, and where the person is likely to stay (if the service wants you to). Marine infantry is an important and prestigious job, but it might not be something that would have kept your interest.
The raising of the recruitment age has nothing to with "desperation" (recruitment has been at a high) and everything to do with people living longer/healthier lives and the military has been handing out age waivers for years.
The max enlistment age has been de facto 42ish for a while, they're just getting rid of pointless paper work and obstacles that don't make sense.
Who wouldn't want to join an organization led by people with Christian Nationalist tattoos, into yet another war in the Middle East, for Operation: Epstein Distraction, AND Israel decides when we go to war? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3pL_ZCWPz0)
Join up! You can defend our "freedoms". Like the freedom to have ICE ignore the Constitution! We can do war crimes (bombing boats of Venezuela) now! The FCC threatens talk show hosts, and Pete Hegseth has opinions on the Scouts having girls in it (https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/441701...) but remember: they hate us for our FREEDOM. ( some conditions apply. )
[rumor] It's not like sailors are so desperate to get out of this situation that they'd set fire to the laundry room on an aircraft carrier... right?(https://news.usni.org/2026/03/23/carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-a...) I mean, 8 months at sea, dumb ass war nobody wants. Hmm. [this one's just a rumor, of course].
Besides: They said recruiting was WAY up, and we already won in Iran. Weird they'd need to loosen the rules, right? Weird...
Page 2:
“Increases the maximum enlistment age up to and including age 42 for non-prior service applicants” (previously maximum age was 35)
“Eliminates requirement of a waiver for a single conviction of possession of marijuana or a single conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia”
Seems like they're having trouble recruiting people to serve as America launches headlong into GWOT 2.0 with no plan. It makes sense that people aren't signing up: it's a very unpopular war that was started by assassinating leaders during peace talks and bombing an elementary school, and it's not one they're winning.
And it's also a war with no clear benefit to Americans, which Marco Rubio admitted they were dragged into by Israel.
Yes, and still note, about using the word "winning". Jeannette Rankin: "You can no more win a war, than you can win an earthquake"
> You can no more win a war, than you can win an earthquake
This is quite clear for younger people who grew in an interconnected world. But some old folks (73 y.o., 79 y.o.) seem to live in the old world where winning, or an illusion of it, is still a thing.
That word "Interconnected" is very important. As it's not an age thing, since many young folks may still think this way. It's an education thing. Uneducated/unconnected people are unable to appropriately interpret the world and the events that happen within it as they have not learned about or experienced similar situations and their outcomes/consequences.
this quote is from 1919 not 2019 by the way AFAIK, so there is nothing new under the sun
They've had the best recruiting performance in 10+ years.
And the worst job market maybe ever for that age group?
If the war keeps Trump in office, it has fulfilled its purpose and will be counted a win.
This is why I suspect that Israel might at least have encouragement from the U.S., direct or indirect.
Why would the war keep Trump in office? It is widely unpopular.
+ a war for another country
But I think this might be a cope that is not well researched. How would one explain that all of this is quite literally not true and military recruitment is significantly higher under this administration? The actual reality is this policy just aligns with other branches and divisions of the military such as the Air Force. Not everything is explained by IDS. With all due respect, this seems like a reflexive anti-American position because it is so laughably wrong. Young men are much more likely to join under the current administration and I think it is pretty obvious. Also, the idea that there was no plan is just divorced from reality. People might not agree with the plan but this idea they didn't know what they were getting into is a sophomoric read, to be honest.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2025-06-03/army-recrui...
Those numbers are before starting GWOT 2.0.
Was abandoning all regional bases and most advanced radar in the area as soon as the war started part of the plan? Sending the USS Gerald Ford in even though it was already on extended deployment? Not having any minesweepers anywhere near the area? How about loading F35s with barbell weights to balance the aircraft, because they don't have radar systems? Pulling THAAD systems from South Korea within a week of starting the war?
That, and many more examples, point to an ill-thought-out decapitation strike, on someone else's timeline, with no contingency plan in the case that didn't severely cripple the Iranian government and state.
I’m quite curious about recruiting. I have only a N=1 observation, the kid who takes the orders at my favorite burrito place. He had been hyped about the Marines for two years, pre-enlisted at 16, just waiting to graduate from HS this spring. I didn’t see him for a few months, but in November it had all changed. “They are hostile to people like me.” (He’s of Mexican descent.)
A lot has happened since June of last year. Let’s not forget National Guard deployments to cities and threats of active duty / insurrection act. Threats of sending the army to fight cartels. I think the current situation is just an extension of craziness that would give anyone except the hardest of core supporters pause???
> How would one explain that all of this is quite literally not true and military recruitment is significantly higher under this administration?
Bad economy -> high army recruitment. (Also bad economy -> lower immigration, legal and not)
While reductionist, I think yours is a legitimate "in a nutshell" take. It would be interesting to see the relevant statistics over time, ideally broken down by geographical regions, their median incomes and the respective employment / military recruitment success rates.
I admit that I am partial to your view of the world. A mate in university, about a quarter of a century ago, made a rather striking observation: "In the US, military is a national jobs program for a nation that is psychologically hostile to jobs programs."
But that decade includes the first Trump administration also.
I don’t think that supports your argument.
What is probably happening is the job crisis for young people.
The army is once again an attractive job.
I think smart people do NOT want to enlist while Trump is Commander in Chief and Hegseth is in charge of the Military. The way the crew of the USS Ford have been treated is despicable.
I get why you are saying that but historically those that enlisted ended up with better roles and less likely to serve in the infantry unless of course one wish to do that. This of course assumes the draft is actually utilized.
The draft is not going to happen, especially under Trump.
> during peace talks
Well, I'm old enough to remember many "peace talks" go to eternity wit absolutely zero results. In many countries around the world. Just to create the argument.
Are you suggesting that it's a valid tactic to using peace talks to get your opponent to let their guard is down so you can attack them?
What's your therefore??
Up from 35 years. Average age is currently 22, though. Air Force and Space force went to 42 years back in 2023. The Navy went to 42 years in early 2026.
Maximum age for the Marines remains 28 years.
With high youth unemployment [1], it ought to be easier to recruit.
The land war is getting closer. The Army's 82nd Airborne has been sent towards Iran. Possibly to take Kharg Island, one of the very few objectives for which an airdrop might possibly make sense.[1] Possibly. 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force is already on the way.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLUEM1524ZSUSA
[2] https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-03-24-2026
When I joined the army as an infantryman back in the early 2000s there were kids who couldn’t start basic training because they weren’t capable of doing 6 pushups. 6.
I believe at the time they were allowing 38 year olds to join for the first time which seemed crazy to me. Now that I’m in my early 40s I can’t imagine going back in
For a second I thought your username was sharpshooter but then it got even better as I re-read it. Thankyou for the laugh.
In 2012 Lieutenant General Mark Hertling had a TED talk [1] about this very issue and I think it still very much applies today.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWN13pKVp9s [video][16m][TED-Talk]
If they want to draft any significant number of people, they will have to greatly lower the fitness standards.
77% of young Americans too fat, mentally ill, on drugs and more to join military, Pentagon study finds (2023) https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/03/77-of-young-america...
They should just deploy ICE.
yeah, just not the National Guard!
https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/overweight-texas-nati...
And raise the pay.
The US military is in the process of changing fitness standards, mostly for ideological reasons [0]. Most enlisted I’ve spoken to consider the new tests harder, especially for women, but it isn’t clear cut and implementation across services has been weird.
Rumor is they’re also cracking down on (specifically medical, not religious) shaving waviers again, probably because some minorities have a skin condition that makes regular shaving painful.
So it’s a bit of a conundrum! They obviously want more enlisted so they can do more wars in more places, but they also are adding disincentives for female or nonwhite enlisted.
[0] https://www.fitnesswarriornation.com/hegseth-military-fitnes...
have a skin condition that makes regular shaving painful.
Pseudofolliculitis barbae [1] or PFB was a regular issue for some I served with in the 90's.
[1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6585396/
It’s a real bummer when your ideological imperatives start conflicting with each other.
Poe's law: I can't tell if you are sarcastically commenting on op's ideology.
I suspect that they're commenting on the administration's ideology.
You are seriously suggestions they are doing this for race reasons?
There’s no other credible reason. A 1/4” beard (which is all the medical wavier allows) doesn’t affect gas mask fit.
I’m hardly the only person who has inferred this:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/september/ne...
> It is estimated that 45–94 percent of all Black men will experience PFB at some point during their lifetime. Hispanic, Asian, and Middle Eastern men also are often affected, as are some women. A 2021 study found an association between shaving waivers and delayed promotions. Since most of the waiver group (65 percent) was Black, the new policy could have a discriminatory effect. In our conversations with Black sailors, including some in senior leadership positions, many shared that they feel the new policy is racially insensitive at best—or may be designed to target them.
You're just frankly uninformed.
Shaving waivers have been so abused it's a running joke in the army.
It's still trivially easy to have a doctor get you a waiver.
Even if they are abused, their abuse doesn't have any downsides. These people are not growing beards.
Also, I don't even think they are necessarily abused. A lot of men are very sensitive to shaving, with degrees of sensitivity. I think there's probably plenty of guys who have perpetual razor burn and ingrown hairs and nobody cares.
No idea what you're basing these thoughts on, but I don't think you understand the military or what makes it effective.
The reasons grooming standards are enforced are the same reasons anything is enforced.
Lucky for us Pete Hegseth declared war on "fat generals and admirals" and is going to end fat troops and increase fitness standards! /s
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5528556-hegseth-warrior-e...
> “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops,” he said. “Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
“It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are,” he continued.
> “I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape, or in a combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men” Hegseth said.
I was told he also promised a throwing axe for every grunt and to rid the world of the scourge of marching bands.
It's so funny because obviously yes there are benefits to fitness in even a 2026 military, but a huge advantage of guns is that you don't have to be in peak physical condition to kill people pretty effectively, tanks and subs take it even further, and by the time we get to modern drone warfare a gaming couch potato can be as effective as your favorite football player.
Sure, sometimes you need a human being to sneak behind enemy lines to get in range for the drone, but that's not gonna involve a ton of sprinting anyway!
What about what he said is incorrect? I don't know, maybe you are not familiar with the U.S. military. You can many videos produced by the military under Biden of even significantly overweight drill instructors in the Marine Corps, for instance. I don't know if this is part of the "healthy at any size" thing or what.
I guess I expected him to be calling all those generals and admirals with decades of combat, command and special forces experience together for something more substantive like policy changes vs an unhinged coked up rant boiling down to "no fatties!"
He's also rebranding to a macho aesthetic, encouraging bringing back hazing, tossing bunks, "shark attacks" and drill sergeants putting hands on recruits. I'm no expert but maybe if we're having trouble recruiting we shouldn't lead with ways to make military life suck even more?
Who'd of thunk that rebranding to the Department of War might also cause folks to reconsider signing up...
> I don't know if this is part of the "healthy at any size" thing or what.
It’s not, that’s silly.
It turns out that it’s kind of hard to establish uniform physical fitness standards at scale! They have to be cheap to implement and easy to execute in a wide range of environments.
No one can agree on how much fitness a soldier needs to be minimally effective, but you know for sure every stakeholder has a strong and incorrect opinion on it. Oh, and if you raise the bar too high, you won’t meet your enlistment goals, and readiness suffers.
I've never been capable of 1 push up, or pull up, even after 6 weeks of the best efforts of MCRD back in 1983. They were looking for a few good men, turns out I wasn't one of them.
I aced the aptitude test, and totally failed the PFT.
Right, but that was before older people found out about Tai Chi! Youtube keeps telling me it’s a great way get ripped at 50! /s
I went into the armed forces recruiting office a year or two ago for Air Force Cyber and the adjacent Army and Navy recruiters were complaining that no one wanted to join while everyone was asking for Air Force when the Air Force recruiter was out for most of the year because he had met his quotas. Somehow I ended up in the Navy office and suffice to say I left the office with a big no to the Navy man no matter how much he tried to persuade me with promises of seeing the world. I have the internet for that thank you.
All my vet friends said to reconsider and I wisely followed their advice.
Good to have friends that can take the romance out of something. Not much world to see on the inside of an aircraft carrier is what I hear.
"I travelled around the world!"
"What did you get to see and experience?"
"Mostly a lot of grey metal, water as far as the eye could see, and sea and home sickness."
How did the Navy recruiting office turn you away from joining up?
The Navy guy tried too hard to sell the upsides without telling me any of the downsides and I knew there were a lot of downsides. Said my asvab score could get me in nuke and great pay, that I could see the world. The Air Froce guy told me like it was. Guess who I trusted more?
Born too early to go to war in the Middle East
Born too late to go to war in the Middle East
Born just in time to go to war in the Middle East
Effective April 20? Sometimes these days it’s hard to distinguish reality from The Onion.
And the age was set to 42.0
someone in that office knew exactly what they were doing with that date
Elon must be running the military now
How many young men do you know who have never tried marijuana, don't have a tattoo and don't have facial hair? A few years ago it seemed the Army didn't actually want to recruit young men. They loosened the tattoo requirements in 2022. The facial hair requirement remains, but that's less of an imposition since you can grow it back.
They'll have to start taking harassment seriously if they want to recruit more young women.
There are limits on gang tattoos, face/neck/hand tattoos and tattoos that promote various hate-based or extremist ideologies (e.g. Nazi or KKK tattoos.) Other than that, tattoos are allowed.
What does Deus Vult qualify as?
A Christian fighting in a Crusade [1] and most recently 21st century Christian nationalists and alt-right groups [2]. Also recently being used quite a bit in the UK in relation to some anti-immigration movements.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult#Adoption_by_21st_cen...
Given Sec. Hegseth's record, I don't think he really wants women in the military.
Given Sec. Hegseth’s tattoos, I don’t think he wants himself in there either
I don't know about the facial hair. It would take me months to grow back my moustache, and until then I'd look 10 years younger. Given my age that would be pretty ridiculous.
> I don't know about the facial hair.
Facial hair prevents the proper functioning of gas masks and other sorts of PPE that sits on your face. Hypothetically speaking, [0] I'd rather deal with looking like a minor than with getting a snoot and face full of something dreadfully toxic.
[0] Hypothetical because I'm way too old to ever be confused with a minor again.
Facial hair doesn't matter, you're just required to shave.
Tattoos don't matter unless they're in a particular set of extremes.
Marijuana also really doesn't matter, it's easily waiverable if you didn't have a chronic problem recently.
Harassment is so heavily punished in the military I don't think you're informed on this topic beyond a few wild headlines.
It's extremely common knowledge that harassing women will ruin your military career very quickly.
> It's extremely common knowledge that harassing women will ruin your military career very quickly.
Sexual assault rates remain high, afaik. How do those things all make sense? Are they just not investigating/punishing these problems?
Underreporting has been looked at in both military and the general population. Data is difficult to source and there are obvious methodological challenges on both sides.
Conviction for sexual assault in the military is an automatic dishonorable discharge and loss of all benefits as a minimum sentence. However, while the military generally has a slightly higher conviction rate than civilian courts, you don't have to be convicted to have career altering or even ending consequences.
The bar to convict is also lower. It doesn't require a unanimous vote, there's no statute of limitations, and you're generally going to face immediate consequences once accused.
> Underreporting has been looked at in both military and the general population. Data is difficult to source and there are obvious methodological challenges on both sides.
The reporting says sexual assault rates are high in the military. If that's underreported, than the rates are even higher.
> (etc)
Whatever these mechanisms, they aren't implemented if nobody seriously pursues the accusation. Also, the mechanisms don't seem to have sufficient effect in practice.
The document seems to be about convictions for marijuana possession, not usage.
Hegseth doesn’t want women in the military.
> They'll have to start taking harassment seriously if they want to recruit more young women.
Yeah, um.. about that...
I wonder how many of Gulf War II's 17-19-year-olds they'll get to re-enlist.
So I know you're making a joke/statement about how the post-9/11 volunteers got royally screwed over and are (understandably) disillusioned with war but I just wanted to add something here.
This change increases maximum enlistment age. Maximum reenlistment age is something else entirely. To reenlist, you need to be able to complete 20 years of service by age 62. So if you joined at 18 and did 8 years then you can technically rennlist up to age 50. Not that you would or should but you can.
They are having problems meeting the fitness standard right now. It seems these tests just get harder as you age.
The standards are really not that hard for someone who works out regularly. Which, if you’re joining the army you should probably be going to the gym.
If you’re being drafted, chances are you had no desire to be joining the army.
Nobody's being drafted because there's no draft in US since vietnam war
Are you registered for Selective Service? If a draft occurs, which is likely rare but certainly possible under current circumstances, your options will be flee the country or elect conscientious objector status and experience whatever treatment you will experience from doing so.
https://www.sss.gov/
Presumably a 42 year old who can meet the fitness tests will be a better candidate than a 25 year old who cannot. Less 42 year olds will be able to meet the requirements, but the ones that do are what they’re after.
Note that fitness standards are bracketed by age, so the standards themselves get more lenient as age increases. The standards in question: https://www.goarmy.com/content/dam/goarmy/files/HQDA_EXORD_2...
Surprised comments are so negative. I think it's a great thing to expand - the military can be an excellent career path, and this allows more people to take it should they choose.
I know many 40 somethings in way better shape than most 20 somethings. And all things considered, if I were someday somehow sent off to war, I'd much rather be surrounded by the former assuming equivalent fitness.
I think the timing makes it harder to view this optimistically? although for voluntary enlistment I'm not personally concerned yeah.
Yeah it sounds great if you make up positive scenarios in your head for sure
> Surprised comments are so negative.
It's midnight in the US on a workday, what would be more American than non-Americans complaining about America on American social media?
most career paths don't kill you for oil
Why not just join ICE? The acts you might have to commit there are probably less bad than what the military gets up to, and you don't get sent overseas?
Farms need fit 40 year olds too.
How many 40 year olds are looking for a career path as an infantryman?
unemployment and rising inflation make for a convincing force. Gotta provide somehow.
Becoming an E-1 at age 40 isn't a "career path", it's a last resort for somebody who for whatever reason can't make more than $30K/year with the skills they've gained over the last 25 years, and for whom having functioning knees is less important than needing the money.
So they should just age out in poverty and die? Such people exist. To be clear, I'm 1000% against anything resembling a draft, but if an older person wants to, why stop them? A guy in my brother's medical doctor graduation class was 46 years old. Good thing nobody explained to him it was too late and he failed already.
In all seriousness, I do agree about the functioning knees part. But as long as it's voluntary, I don't see the downside.
A career as a doctor has a lot more upside than an entry level grunt.
It seems unhealthy for the sake of our military.
I'm not privy to the decisions about how staffing 42-year-old As infantry men is militarily wise, however.
> So they should just age out in poverty and die?
You referred to joining the US military as an E-1 at the age of 42 as a career path. As an Army brat, I can tell you that it absolutely is not. At that age, it absolutely is a job of last resort.
> So they should just age out in poverty and die?
I like how the options are "age out/die" or "be part of our disgusting military machine", no other options; people have no value unless they've already got money or can risk their blood.
Surely we can think of SOME option better than either of those?
They had 40 years of functioning knees, but it didn't get them to a place where army wages or army housing looks good. If the army breaks their knees, maybe they can get service related disability.
Many people look for purpose and impact in their careers.
If one has impact in the military, what purpose is it serving under current administration and leadership? It's a hard sell from an ethical perspective.
Jobs that feel purposeless is a common complaint but actively serving evil?
I feel like there was a 14 word phrase that described the purpose, but I can't remember it right now...
> Surprised comments are so negative
it's because people cannot disassociate their own anti-war views with the benefits of a military career.
Are you admonishing people for not being selfish and making decisions which benefit themselves even if it puts them in a position where they can't say no to wronging someone else?
What does this even mean? "If you just ignore the fact that your job is murdering people for no reason, the benefits are great!" Why, exactly, should people "disassociate" that?
You are asking whether someone should not have picked the military career if it was the best fit for them, just because you are personally morally against what they do?
That's why i dont confound the military with the political aparatus's directing of said power. Because the military isn't murdering people for no reason - they are following (in the case of the west) a elected official's policy (which you are very welcome to dislike and oppose, as i do as well).
The negativity isn’t anti-military service. It’s because this specific expansion at this particular time for this current administration is all very ridiculous.
I think most people still are in support of the idea if military service even if that job may entail death.
People should look up what the US military has been up to for the past half a century if they think this particular time is an abberation.
However you choose to look at it, military service is still widely respected as a duty to the nation and a place were patriotic sentiments exist.
I’m not debating the right or wrong of it, but it just is so. I’m pretty sure the entire history of militaries have been full of people enlisting to die and kill on behalf of some random politician they don’t necessarily agree with. There’s nothing particularly notable happening differently.
But Trump being the clown he is, this is laughable.
Yeah just think of how great it would've been to serve in the past decades. Oh wait you'd still end up killing people in the Mideast - half way around the world, and in turn getting killed by them, all in endeavors that ultimately make the world a worse and less safe place. And that certainly includes America.
More than 80% of the US Army are noncombat roles. Only the naive or uneducated associate someone in the US Army with killing people.
Ah yes, your job is simply to carry the ammo for the guys slaughtering schools full of children, so to speak. Squeaky clean conscience!
Technically those were precision guided munitions carried by Air Force bombers. So you can enlist in the army with a clear conscience.
You're wrong. The girl's school was hit by multiple Tomahawks as video evidence shows. The US Navy is the only service capable of firing Tomahawks. The root cause is DoD intelligence folks failed to get recent surveillance on the girl's school near a former IRGC building before adding it to the target list. It was probably a target passed along from Mossad but no one in the US kill chain did any due-diligence that they're supposed to do. Furthermore, offensive weapons release by a drone or ship requires an officer to give the final order.
Finding it hard to compete with the rigorous ICE recruitment standards?
What would this have to do with ICE? Isn’t that DHS?
I think it is a joke of there is no requirement's ..
Same recruitment pool (like same "hiring pool" / market segment). Therefore, competing.
I think they mean (sarcastically) that ICE is sucking up all the qualified candidates.
>Run: 1.5-mile run in 14 minutes 25 seconds or less
Hilarious.
I'm not sure if you're saying this as somebody who never runs, or somebody who runs so often that you've forgotten baseline levels. That's a very significant hurdle for most people. I'm in very good shape strength wise, but I'd almost certainly need to do some significant training to meet that since I just never run.
I run for weight loss and general health and at one point had a BMI in the mid-thirties. Back then I was able to make that pace for sessions of 30-40 minutes on most days. I'm not suggesting it's easy, but I would expect someone in ICE to easily outrun an obese person.
Genetics play into this far more than we used to realize. It depends on things like how good your body is at in taking and utilizing oxygen, the specific composition of fast twitch vs slow twitch muscle fibers you have, your body's ability to control and regulate lactic acid, etc.
I used to work around some very "high level" athletes. There is definitely a body type that is pretty BMI heavy that can run for days seemingly. They often struggle with sprints or H.I.I.T. type workouts, as a downside.
Jogging for 14 mins at a 10min/mile pace is so far out from any high level athletics or excuse for genetics impacting it. Being unable to do this is being completely out of shape.
At run clubs, I see practically every novice join and do 3 miles / 30 mins at 10min/mile pace on their very first day or within 2-3 attempts.
> Being unable to do this is being completely out of shape.
Really not advocating for the time.
It's quite slow compared to most US military standards.
I'm simply talking about my love of visual "fatbodies" that sometimes have 5x the running cardio of a, say, 5'8" 150lb male that looks like they could run circles around the heavier individual.
That's about a 8:30 mile scaling for the fact that its harder when you have to cover more distance... seems pretty reasonable to me as a fitness baseline for the army. I would struggle to make that now but if I had one month to prep I could clear that
Am I crazy? Isn't it 9:40 pace?
I don’t think someone completely untrained can do 10’ / mile.
Depends on what you mean by untrained. I think most men who exercise regularly and don't carry a ton of extra bodyweight, even with zero running, could bang out 1.5 miles at 9:40 pace. Couch potatoes, no.
"most men who exercise regularly and don't carry a ton of extra bodyweight, even with zero running" - what's that supposed to mean? How do they exercise then when they are not running?
I don't think many people who don't exercise running can do 1.5 miles in 9:40.
> what's that supposed to mean? How do they exercise then when they are not running?
Any other sport? Cycling, swimming, rowing, ball sports, team sports, weightlifting, ...
> I don't think many people who don't exercise running can do 1.5 miles in 9:40.
It's 1.5 miles at 9:40 mile pace; 14.5 minutes total. Much easier than 6:30 pace (what you're imagining).
It's 1.5 miles in 14:25, I think most people can handle that. There are plenty of ways to exercise that aren't plain running. Biking, skating, swimming, Tai chi...
A 29 minute 5K is not trivial
You're only running half of that.
I'd rather the old go to war before the young, even if they are worse at it.
We are all better off going to war with (against) the people trying to send us off to unjustified wars.
That is why we vote. Canvas your neighborhood. Start local. Go to your city counsel meetings. Tell your representatives what you think or even run for local office. Support the people that won't take us to war. Democracy works when people participate.
Sometimes unjustified wars can have pretty big up-sides though. Preventing jihadists from getting nukes for example is potentially a huge up-side.
There is then also an upside to go to war with the white/christian nationalists fundamentalists in the white house, to get them away from nukes.
If you don't see the difference between christians and jihadists you're hopeless.
They provide the same threat to me. So their differences makes little difference.
What will US public do if US in Iran ends up like Russia in Ukraine, recruiting 30K soldiers every month to die in middle east?
Maybe at this time they are having trouble recruiting but just like Russia US has large prison population that may like the offer thar Russian prisoners got: 6 months on the frontlines, if you survive you are free and well paid.
Just today Iran backed militants released a video of drones takings out US helicopters and radars, very similar to what we are used to seeing in Ukraine.
Is US public really ready to support such a thing and endure hardship like the Russians for ideological causes?
It’s fascinating, maybe Trump is right- maybe his supporters are literally tired of winning and want attrition?
In Vietnam, there were 58k US dead for the whole war. US military dead in WWII was 400k. 30K dead/month gets you to WWII losses in a little over a year. US dead in Afghanistan and Iraq was much less.
I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I don't think the US public would accept losses on the order of 30k/month: there would be massive demonstrations and congress would likely act to cause disengagement.
I don't think the US has the culture to support this. I do not think Trump has the political capital to support this.
Assuming elections still happen, that scenario would mean the end of the Republican party.
I used to think the same but according to the polls I keep seeing the support for war seems to be very strong, up to %100 among MAGA in fact.
They used to say they are against war, against "jewish influence", against this against that but nothing seems to be changing their minds. I thought that this high ranking MAGA dude who resign over "Israel influence concerns" and immediately did rounds on the MAGA-sphere popular outlets doesn't seem to have any influence on the support for the war.
They don't appear to be ideologues but demagogues. Maybe its some more primal urge to kill and get killed and Trump has control over it?
It looks like about 30-40% of Americans look upon Trump's war favourably. That's _very_ low; I'm pretty sure that that's the worst _any_ American war has polls this early on. Approval of the Iraq war didn't fall under 50% until _2005_, and didn't hit 40% til 2008.
> up to %100 among MAGA in fact.
Sure, but I mean if Trump shat himself live on TV, he'd probably get about 90% MAGA approval for that, too. That's not really the point.
"Exclusive: Trump's approval hits new 36% low as fuel prices surge amid Iran war, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-approval-hits-new-36...
Thats the general public that apparently doesn't have any grip. You can do whatever you want if tens of millions of people + the billionaires support you till the end when hundreds of millions are mildly annoyed by you.
> 100% among MAGA
So, 100% of the people that made Trump their personality think he's doing a good job? Not a great barometer.
> of drones takings out US helicopters
They attacked a HH-60M Medevac helicopter which is a war crime, and also explains why it wasn't protected.
Also, the radar was Iraqi, although possibly jointly operated with the US.
No one cares about war crimes since years, US itself is allied in this war with credibly alleged war criminals. Besides, there's much to do against drones reaching a base other than locking down the gear in reinforced building and that's not practical when the gear is used which means whatever is on the open gets blown up. The Russians were putting tires on the wings, it did not help much.
I know no one cares, rather I was explaining why this Iranian hit is not a demonstration of any great success, they were hitting an unprotected target, in a non-US base.
I don't think that anything is protected against these drones unless locked down in a string building and not in use.
Bombing boats of Venezuela was a war crime: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/are-deadly-us-strikes...
As a 37 year old who has been growing more patriotic and willing to serve with age, I'm excited about having the option.
Well then get your form signing pen out for April 20 soldier there’s an illegal war that needs bodies on the ground to take some hits right in the patriotism.
Maybe one of the lessons the American government learned from the war in Ukraine is that middle aged men can fight wars too.
There's a big difference between having older soldiers fighting a defensive war on home soil vs sending them overseas.
In the first scenario, you desperately need a lot of warm bodies, most of what these people would be otherwise doing has been shut down, if someone does perform a critical role in society at large, going back and forth is quick, and the alternative still potentially leads to you losing that person.
In the second scenario, recruiting middle aged people robs your economic/industrial/cultural base of its experience and mid-level leaders who are critical to stuff getting done. Substantial resources are spent training, moving, and sustaining these troops who are not as well suited as younger individuals, on top of the opportunity cost. Besides the people already in the military who have spent years gaining applicable military experience, those additional bodies are liabilities, not assets. An argument can be made for raising mandatory retirement age to keep those skills around, but not for new recruits.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=April+20
April 20: National Get High day.
Age 42.0
St Elon is risen and is now running Army recruitment.
We are slowly grinding towards another world war the reason similar to world war 2. Ie an ethno state expanding it's territory while considering it's population as some kind of master race so commiting a genocide against the rest. Ironic the victims have become the perpetuators.
WW3 is already here, there are more conflicts today than WW2 ever had. No reason to think some worse event is going to happen we’re already knee deep.
The military has spent decades working on a general aptitude test, called the ASVAB [1]. It's a score up to 99, which is usually what people focus on, but there are also line scores for things like electrical and mechanical. When you join, there'll be a score range you'll need to be in and possibly certain subtest scores.
Generally speaking, you've needed a minimum ASVAB of 31 to join the military. Recruiting stations will have quotas of only accepting so many below 50 so if you're below 50 you may have a more restrictive choice of job, even though you qualify, because you're an undesirable candidate. You take up a valuable sub-50 slot. Oh and below 50 and the Air Force won't even sneeze on you. They don't have to take you. They have more than enough applicants.
This can go the other way too. You can score too high for certain jobs such that they won't want to sign you up because you'll get bored. This is way less common obviously.
Every area of the country is covered by a recruiting station ("RS") for each branch and is staffed by recruiters who usually aren't volunteers (eg most marines on a re-enlistment after an initial 4 years will have to do a Special Duty Assignment--SDA--and will end up as a recruiter or a drill instructor). Each recruiter will generally have a quota to fill of 2 contracts per month.
In some areas (eg Texas) this is no problem at all. Recruiters can be picky. In others, it's way more of a challenge. Anyway, a few years ago the enlistment numbers for the Navy must've gotten so bad that for awhile they were accepting an ASVAB of 10 [1]. 10 is bordering on illiterate.
I say this because raising the maximum enlistment age to 42 is almost as desperate as lowering the ASVAB minimum to 10. I cannot imagine a 42 year old E-! in basic getting yelled at by a 23 year old DI. You won't be doing 20 for the pension. I guess you'll get the GI Bill after 3-4 years. That's something I guess? Most other 42 year olds you'll meet will be near or beyond their 20 years.
[1]: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-recruiting-afqt-asvab-s...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti...
In 2004, as a senior in high school, I tried enlisting in the Marines (infantry, what was I thinking based on the year). I scored 99 on the ASVAB (finished way earlier than everyone else) with a high SAT score as well.
Passed all the physicals at Fort Dix. I was rejected.
Soon after an Army recruiter called me and said they are willing to take me.
Someone told me I was rejected because of high test scores. I didn't really believe them, but it kind of makes sense.
> Someone told me I was rejected because of high test scores. I didn't really believe them, but it kind of makes sense.
Armed forces does a lot of tracking and they need a mix of people. It makes sense to try to get people into jobs that work for both the person and the seevice, and where the person is likely to stay (if the service wants you to). Marine infantry is an important and prestigious job, but it might not be something that would have kept your interest.
This is based on nothing.
The raising of the recruitment age has nothing to with "desperation" (recruitment has been at a high) and everything to do with people living longer/healthier lives and the military has been handing out age waivers for years.
The max enlistment age has been de facto 42ish for a while, they're just getting rid of pointless paper work and obstacles that don't make sense.
Unfortunately the age limit means that Mr Trump and Mr Hegseth are ineligible...
They would be medically unfit (NATO health class D) even if the age was unlimited.
Their sons however!
And Americans were laughing when Russia was doing something similar. Pot calling the kettle black.
I'm sure plenty Americans are also laughing at this. No hypocrisy here.
America is a very big place. It is nearly 4 million square miles, and has a population of over 340 million people.
Next time you start to generalize about "Americans" exhibiting some kind of unified belief or behavior, just stop and think about how stupid that is.
Sadly Pete Hegseth is 45.
> Effective 20 April 2026
Oh, come on.
I thought you were joking about the date! They actually picked that one :)
Whats the significance
420
Who wouldn't want to join an organization led by people with Christian Nationalist tattoos, into yet another war in the Middle East, for Operation: Epstein Distraction, AND Israel decides when we go to war? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3pL_ZCWPz0)
I'm sure they'll have no trouble recruiting the kinds of people they want - no woke, no DEI, no women, nobody who'd be troubled by symbols of swastikas or nooses (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/20/...).
Hey, for the people who DO sign up, they'll get to use Trump Drones! Well, Trump's sons drones (https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-sons-ba...). Those big juicy contracts were definitely awarded on merit, right? Right; good luck!
Join up! You can defend our "freedoms". Like the freedom to have ICE ignore the Constitution! We can do war crimes (bombing boats of Venezuela) now! The FCC threatens talk show hosts, and Pete Hegseth has opinions on the Scouts having girls in it (https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/441701...) but remember: they hate us for our FREEDOM. ( some conditions apply. )
Maybe the Air Force? Well, if you like Erika Kirk and White Christian Nationalism: (https://theintercept.com/2026/03/19/air-force-academy-charli...).
[rumor] It's not like sailors are so desperate to get out of this situation that they'd set fire to the laundry room on an aircraft carrier... right?(https://news.usni.org/2026/03/23/carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-a...) I mean, 8 months at sea, dumb ass war nobody wants. Hmm. [this one's just a rumor, of course].
Besides: They said recruiting was WAY up, and we already won in Iran. Weird they'd need to loosen the rules, right? Weird...