The U.S. naval services are entering a new age of challenges that potentially could undermine the nation’s position as a dominant power. Although these challenges present a unique flavor, they are not much different from the problems of yesterday: near-peer competition, aggression by nations that threaten democracy around the globe, and adaptation to societal turbulence. Conversations that center around issues such as these do not question if changes are necessary to maintain maritime dominance; rather, they ask how we can adapt to the current environment in order to maintain our position. We need to recruit the most diverse and qualified ROTC midshipmen so we can dominate in emerging warfare arenas, and we need to do it as soon as possible. This can be accomplished only through an overhaul to our recruiting process to better capitalize on the full talents of the U.S. population, which will catalyze meaningful cultural shifts throughout the Sea Services and spark change throughout the rest of the country.
The U.S. military has won wars based on the contributions of highly diverse groups of Americans. Navajo code talkers, for example, provided a monumentally powerful edge in World War II by helping the Marines Corps code and decode correspondence to make it undecipherable to Japan. More recently, women in female engagement teams (FETs) provided new capabilities for direct action in Islamic nations, improving foreign relations and soldier safety. The benefits afforded by these groups cannot be understated. Historical military solutions to existential threats include the purposeful incorporation of a wider and more diverse spectrum of warfighters into its ranks. New capabilities afforded to the military by groups such as Navajo code talkers and FETs were and continue to be foundational to the victory of wars and conflicts. In other words, victory would not be attainable without the military’s intentional diversification efforts.
America is in a fight for dominance with near-peer competitors China and Russia, once again entering into great power competition. The Sea Services have been responding to this shift, and changing how it operates and trains. As focus shifts from the Middle East to the western Pacific, so have U.S. priorities as a fighting force. For some time, the U.S. military has acknowledged that people are its greatest asset and it needs the greatest of them to rise to new challenges.
Although it is a challenge to predict exactly where future conflicts will take place and where continued diversity will be used, technology will surely be at the forefront. The nuclear Navy is and will continue to be the lynchpin of deterrence and maritime dominance, and the best people are needed to man new platforms. Officers in the military are charged with these and many other tasks for our nation, many of which commission through ROTC. Higher technical proficiency requires the Sea Services to focus on recruiting from different political, socioeconomic, and academic interests.
Back in high school, I remember the roughly once-a-semester visit from a Marine/Army/Navy/Air Force ROTC recruiter in the cafeteria. They would show up with a table and decorate it with colorful freebies and motivational posters. The active-duty uniforms invariably drew attention from nearly all students, some of whom had never seen an active-duty military member. As much of a spectacle that these visits created, only a small group of students would visit the booth. Granted, they were racially diverse, but the kids that gravitated towards recruiters during lunch were already expected to be interested in military recruitment. They were the ones who knew they wanted to enlist or commission since they were young and were often from military families.
The recruiters at lunch completely missed the kids who led the quiz bowl team to victory or the kids who were taking advanced BC calculus freshman year. They missed students who were more interested in academic clubs than their athletic team sport. Simply put, they missed the kids who did not “fit” the military mold. Even as uninterested as recruiters were in such kids, those kids were even less interested in the military. Yet, these were the kids that could benefit most from what the Navy has to offer in way of career support and training opportunities.
These students are a challenge to recruit. Limited exposure to the military coupled with potentially incorrect preconceptions adds complexity. But if the Sea Services do not continue to push for better range and depth of recruits, incredible talent, perspectives, and academic prowess, deep wells of potential will be left untapped. The Sea Services simply cannot meet the demand and challenges of emerging warfare domains without finding ways to attract this group of talent.
Although the U.S. military is racially diverse, the services must acknowledge that recruits hold largely uniform opinions and perspectives and come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, more than 60 percent of military recruits come from neighborhoods with average incomes of less than $67,000 annually, and the majority come from only a few states. These alone are not negatives, but represent that the military is not nearly as diverse of a force as it hopes to be. Racial diversity in the military is something to be proud of, but it is not the whole picture.
Not unrelated to the issue of who is targeted, recruiters already have a tough time filling numbers. Estimates suggest four million kids turn 18 every year. Journalist Todd South notes that of those, about one-third qualify for military service, which could provide the armed forces with more than one million new willing and able men and women available each year. Groups the services traditionally target are only a fraction of this number. This suggests that recruiters need to reach more groups of people, and expand the norm of where and on whom recruitment efforts are focused.
So how do we fix this?
For starters, the military needs to reach new demographics of people where they are. The Sea Services need to work harder to expose new groups to what it has to offer and what its mission is, all while breaking preconceived notions. I am often struck by college students who, after telling them that I am in Navy ROTC, ask in horror if I want to die. I usually respond by acknowledging that although service members indeed sign up willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, the vast majority of Sea Service members face no such perils. If the conversation continues, I talk about relatively innocuous but critical fields such as the nuclear Navy and some of the major new platforms coming online, all of which require the best and brightest sailors. The reality of naval service today is very different from that of years past, and recruiters need to push this new narrative.
From a socioeconomic standpoint, the Sea Services need to draw more from the poorer and wealthier spectrums of America. The ROTC scholarship has clear benefits for poorer individuals, but outreach and information are issues. JROTC programs in poorer school districts are a phenomenal way to expose such groups to the military. On the wealthier side, young people need to see the value that ROTC can provide not only in college but during naval service as well. An ROTC scholarship is a differentiator for college applicants and may boost acceptance chances at colleges and universities. In addition, naval service has the benefit of top-tier networking and can rival any private sector opportunity.
In addition to better marketing and targeting of the fringes of the socioeconomic spectrum, the Sea Services need to court and keep STEM-oriented applicants. Efforts have been made to boost numbers, such as mandated STEM curriculum throughout the ROTC program. In my experience, however, this is a band-aid on a gunshot wound. The Navy needs sailors who pursue STEM fields in such numbers that compulsory calculus and physics are no longer required. Naval service is a big commitment, but the Sea Services can encourage such applicants by guaranteeing stationing locations and strengthening pipelines to the private sector post-naval service. One example of how to fix this is to shorten active-duty time service requirements. Going from a five-year commitment to a two- or three-year contract could go a long way in reducing the initial fear of commitment for candidates on the fence. This, of course, would come at a proportionate reduction in scholarship payout, which would be an individual choice up to the candidate. The services also could offer program-specific scholarships and better prioritize academics within the ROTC program.
Naval ROTC could incentivize specific course work through financial bonuses for both classes and certain grades. A few hundred dollar bonus for high performance in program-required courses could serve as a meaningful motivator for many college students. ROTC also would do well to redesign lengthy commitments such as leadership lab and multiday compulsory physical training workouts. Standards must be maintained, but the ways in which they are mandated can be creatively flexible.
Evolving challenges facing the United States demand innovative solutions. Currently, Naval ROTC delivers excellence in officer training but needs to do more to increase diverse political, academic, and socioeconomic representation. To rise to this challenge, the Sea Services must make swift and deliberate changes to its recruiting and outreach practices. Such changes will provide benefits that span beyond the scope of ROTC and will affect the entire military and the nation at-large. Continuous application of adaptive measures with respect to technology and other capabilities, multifaceted diversity, and targeted recruitment will ensure the NROTC program can continue to be a pipeline for the readiness of the Sea Services.
