Um if you paid close attention I never said it was great for recruitment. I said Enlisted had multiple paths the become an officer. You read what you wanted to into my statements.Officers make up a grand total of 18% of all US Armed Forces.
Thats across all military branches. The vast majority of those Officers start their military careers as Officers, not enlisted.
Are we really going with the narrative that advertising the minuscule chance an enlisted man has at becoming an officer will improve recruitment rates?
Because uhhh... I don't think that will help.
I'm stubborn? Please show me the evidence that the enlisted to officer pipeline is so great and available, that it is helpful with recruitment.
Because what you're saying makes no sense.
That was not my argument. Look at the post above.So the argument now is that the majority of enlisted personell should become officers? You stated only 18% of all US armed forces are officers; that's approaching one in five service members is an officer, which doesn't sound like hardly any opportunity. Are you maintaining that the majority should be officers? That hardly seems viable. A viable path of entry and progression exists, not all servicemen can be officers, what is the argument? That it should be 25% or more? Or that it should be easier?