Time Capsule: Congress Intervenes To Halt Massive Loss of Soldiers

Congress intervened in the Army’s procedures and implementation of a physical fitness test at the prospect of losing 1/4th of the population we are currently looking at losing due to the jab. Mind you the Army continuously touted the need and reasoning for the ACFT and how it would increase readiness and lethality. The Army claimed multiple times that the ACFT represented 80% of the physical demands and movements that a Soldier was likely to expect in combat. We are now looking at losing a 203.98% increase from the original ACFT projected “losses” …all in the name of safety, health, and readiness.

FY 19 Army numbers: 478,000

Females comprise 37% of that number: 176,860

Number of Male Soldiers in FY 19: 301,140

Number of Female Soldiers who would be facing administrative discipline and/or discharge based upon the Army’s released failure rate (65%): 114,959

Number of Male Soldiers who would be facing administrative discipline and/or discharge based upon the Army’s released failure rate (10%): 30,114

Total amount of Soldiers the Army would be looking at administering administrative punishment and/or separation based upon the released failure rates if we assume the rates stay consistent with the activation date of the ACFT: 145,073 or 30.35% of the force.

The latest (REDACTED) pull from the entire Army (to include National Guard and Reserves) is 441,000 Soldiers that are either delaying, denying, or applying for exemption.

But it’s not actually about readiness is it? The Department of the Army EXORD FRAGO 5 on 14SEP2021 specifically states that Soldiers who do not have the jab are not automatically considered non-deployable. So, you can get flagged and get a GOMOR for refusing to get a jab of an unknown substance with no research into mid and long term issues, but you can at least still deploy. Of course that makes sense. Why? Because the Army needs bodies to throw at problems. It doesn’t necessarily care or think about you individually when it comes to that problem. It only cares about the X to Z ratio that it has determined it needs in order to accomplish whatever mission set it projects.

So again, we are willing to punish and possibly lose (if the numbers today were taken as the final refusal numbers) 441,000 Soldiers over a jab that doesn’t actually impact readiness in the Army’s eyes but losing 145,073 of the force was somehow unacceptable 11 months ago and required direct intervention by Congress. Where is the intervention now? Where is the concern for mission accomplishment now? Why has no actual intervention or stand by senior leaders or Congress occurred in the face of possible staggering losses?

-Culper

Sources

Soldier numbers by gender:

https://pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/12/women-in-the-military.pdf

https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-forces-fy-2020-army

ACFT Failure rate by gender:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.militarytimes.com/assets/pdfs/1603297227.pdf

Congressional intervention for the ACFT:

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4049/BILLS-116s4049rs.pdf

ACFT combat movements & tasks:

https://www.performancehealth.com/articles/exercises-to-get-ready-for-the-armys-apft-or-acft

Related Articles

Responses

  1. Really beyond words at this point. It is obvious it was never about health, but compliance. Look, I understand the need to have a force that follows orders, but the jab does not pass the smell test and we don’t even know the mid-term to long-term results.
    At this point you have to ask yourself, is this by design? Keeping members of the force that cannot meet a basic physical requirement, while booting out those with personal ethical standards they stick to…

  2. Theres abouy to be a fuckton of well trained and bitter military aged men and women hitting the streets.

    This is funny cause it means if the goverment tries to go to australian levels of stupid, theres about to be a flood of people on the market more than able to resist.

  3. Let’s say that there is someone who have 21 years of AFS, and DEC 15 rolls in, can that said person drop his retirement DEC 15 next year and be exempts from the vaccine? Asking for a “friend”.

    1. From where at a jag guy told me they can’t force a vaccine if you have less than 6 months. But he couldn’t reference it. He said he read it in one of the 50 PowerPoints in his inbox. But it wasn’t referenced so…