The military has a recruiting problem the likes of which it hasn’t experienced in 50 years. For reasons domestic — a public that perceives its fighting forces to be focused on social engineering and progressive signaling while entry-level jobs abound — and foreign — our wars are done and dusted, and there isn’t much reason to sit around on a base in the Georgia heat if a young man doesn’t have a shot at seeing some action. The Army and Navy expect to be about 25 percent short on their goals, and the Air Force forecasts a 10 percent deficit. Only the Marines are confident in their ability to meet recruiting goals. Their optimism makes sense as the Corps is the branch most jealous of its rambunctious traditions and emphasis on forcing recruits to conform to the branch’s prestigious, exacting expectations. Unsurprisingly to those familiar with the military’s knee-jerk centralized chain of command, the shortages have resulted in poor policy.

Recruiting Duty Wastes Vital Personnel

A recent example is the Navy’s short-lived instruction for recruiters to work six-day weeks to make up the manning shortages (I pick on the Navy because I know it best). The idea of a lengthened work week was met with fury and condemnation from recruiters already putting in 50+ hour weeks. For those unfamiliar with the Navy’s assignment rotation, a sailor is first assigned to sea for about five years (job dependent). As a reward for the hazardous and taxing duty that is sea life, he’s then granted a shore rotation — typically a few years working in a pump shop, motor rewind, on inspection teams, or going home to do recruiting duty with the promise of advancement and time with family. But if shore duty becomes more demanding than sea duty (the return to which is the punishment for failing to meet a quota), then a sailor might say, “Just send me back.” Being off the ship is a carrot. Take away what makes standing in lunchrooms preferable, and there’s only the stick … and one can suffer that for only so long. Compounding the problem is the precedent — for sailors with orders to begin recruiting duty, they may look at the work schedule and opt to separate instead of signing on for three years of misery. Mid-level enlisted are experienced enough to run and repair machinery, manage the junior enlisted, and stand active watches. To lose them to policies that are unlikely to provide a benefit, let alone a net benefit, is madness. But there may be an answer, albeit an unconventional one. (READ MORE: Military Recruitment Is Plummeting: Blame the Pentagon)

With recruiting shortages, i.e. input deficits, it may be time to examine the process of recruitment as well as the manpower obligations of the practice. The core of recruitment is composed of mid-level enlisted (E-5 AND E-6) supervised by a few chiefs. The Military Entrance Processing Centers are staffed by yet more middle enlisted — almost none of whom are acting in their specializations. Firefighters, fuel-runners, and HVAC mechanics are all in the offices forgetting how to do their jobs while trying to stay ahead of quota.

A Case for Military Retirees to Fill Recruiting Roles

Recruiting duty is not only a misuse of personnel in removing sailors from the fleet, but it also manages to atrophy whatever knowledge they gained while onboard a ship. This is why I suggest we broadly privatize recruiting — sort of. What I envision is actually putting retired military personnel in recruiting stations as government contractors. This would be especially attractive for those who term out at 20 years — having secured a pension but unable to advance — to meet the max pension mark of 30 years. With retirees, we’d remove an impediment for many considering reenlisting (sailors don’t like recruiting or drill instructor duty), free up thousands of the most vital sailors necessary for a ship to function, and have more specialized recruiters who are invested in a region they call home compared to an active-duty sailor who’s always one foot in the door learning how to recruit and then immediately one out the door preparing for his next duty station (three years fly by). (RELATED: The Military Academies Have Turned Into Woke Wastelands)

It may not need saying, but the purpose of recruitment is less to find sailors who enlist for four years and leave, and more to find sailors that will be in for 20 to 30 years … the shorter-tenured are incidental hires that fill a role for a short time and go on their merry way. (RELATED: Contrary to Post–Jan 6. Claims, the Military Does Not Overflow With Extremist Nuts)

As for what recruitment would look like with retirees at the desk, it’d be lovely. For one, any person who’s been around retired military — especially former top enlisted and chief warrant officers — knows that the stories don’t stop and they’re all worth listening to. Further, having been in a minimum of 20 years, retirees are institutionalists who care about the branch’s success and have seen enough to be able to steer young recruits with more authority and to greater success. Current recruiters often lie or embellish in order to get a recruit to sign the line. Elder former enlisted were supervisors and would have worked with most specializations. Lies lead to disenchantment and regret, but a salty sea story about flushing fish corpses out of the A/C condensers at 0100 after exiting Honolulu is delightfully gross and representative. Young people get hyped up about sea-faring contretemps.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, retirees love driving and sitting. Recruiting is all driving and sitting. Whether taking recruits to a MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station), dropping out of ceiling tiles on unsuspecting high school juniors, or yakking it up at trade shows, everything a recruiter needs to do is what retirees voluntarily engage in anyway. Why not give the active-duty guys a break, allowing them to sharpen skills by remaining on-task, and bring in superior recruiters who’ll work for years and years to the service’s benefit?

In a time with declining interest in enlistment and further specialization in ship and weapons systems, we should look to simplify and improve the parts of the military that most negatively affect our deployed forces’ ability to protect the nation.