[Goose]

Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Yes, this is an example of trying to spin having fewer troops as a "good thing". They claim it allows them to bring in "new capabilities". Why does fewer troops do that? It saves on paying them. Did it never occur to them that having both is the right answer, not either-or. Yes, you can make the best of a bad situation but claiming "all is well" is a) false, and b) almost ensures nobody will see a need to fix the problem (because there is no problem). It is an abdication of leadership. The military is responsible to civilian control, but the military leaders are expected to also be professional. They should never defend a policy they think is misguided, no matter what their civilian bosses say. Make them fire you if they don't like your opinion. You have a professional obligation both to the nation and to the troops. Honor it.

[Goose]

Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Yes, this is an example of trying to spin having fewer troops as a "good thing". They claim it allows them to bring in "new capabilities". Why does fewer troops do that? It saves on paying them. Did it never occur to them that having both is the right answer, not either-or. Yes, you can make the best of a bad situation but claiming "all is well" is a) false, and b) almost ensures nobody will see a need to fix the problem (because there is no problem). It is an abdication of leadership. The military is responsible to civilian control, but the military leaders are expected to also be professional. They should never defend a policy they think is misguided, no matter what their civilian bosses say. Make them fire you if they don't like your opinion. You have a professional obligation both to the nation and to the troops. Honor it.