US Army Morale Seriously Low in Age of Obama

0

Well gee, with such an outstanding leader like Obama, why on earth would US Army troops be feeling low in spirit?

Surely the reckless foreign policy deals he makes, the poor decision making in leaving the Middle East couldn’t have a thing to do with the negative outlook of our service members.

It’s too bad, because these men and women certainly deserve to have all of the best things in the future and the hear and now, They are the country’s best asset, and should be treated as such:

sadmilitary1

More than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient, findings obtained by USA TODAY show.

Twelve months of data through early 2015 show that 403,564 soldiers, or 52%, scored badly in the area of optimism, agreeing with statements such as “I rarely count on good things happening to me.” Forty-eight percent have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs.

The results stem from resiliency assessments that soldiers are required to take every year. In 2014, for the first time, the Army pulled data from those assessments to help commanders gauge the psychological and physical health of their troops.

The effort produced startlingly negative results. In addition to low optimism and job satisfaction, more than half reported poor nutrition and sleep, and only 14% said they are eating right and getting enough rest.

The Army began a program of positive psychology in 2009 in the midst of two wars and as suicide and mental illness were on the rise. To measure resiliency the Army created a confidential, online questionnaire that all soldiers, including the National Guard and Reserve, must fill out once a year.

Last year, Army scientists applied formulas to gauge service-wide morale based on the assessments. The results demonstrate that positive psychology “has not had much impact in terms of overall health,” says David Rudd, president of the University of Memphis who served on a scientific panel critical of the resiliency program.

The Army offered contradictory responses to the findings obtained by USA TODAY. Sharyn Saunders, chief of the Army Resiliency Directorate that produced the data, initially disavowed the results. “I’ve sat and looked at your numbers for quite some time and our team can’t figure out how your numbers came about,” she said in an interview in March.

However, when USA TODAY provided her the supporting Army documents this week, her office acknowledged the data but said the formulas used to produce them were obsolete. “We stand by our previous responses,” it said in a statement.

Of course the military will refuse to publicly absolve this issue, but you can bet your bottom dollar they are running like hamsters in a wheel to try to figure out a way to work with this information, because a soldier is government property. If it is damaged, the soldier can actually be held liable. The government has to make sure you aren’t broken. Best to get ahead of this one before it becomes a runaway train.

H/T: USA Today

Written by Katie McGuire. Follow Katie on Twitter @GOPKatie, on Facebook, or email the author at KatieFMcGuire@gmail.com

About Author

Katie McGuire

Political Junkie. Mom, Writer, Blogger. Owner of kids and corgis.

Send this to friend