I’m not sure what your point for the first part is, since the most desirable (except for the last couple months where 50.1s were getting drafted and numero uno was going p-8s) communities are hurting the worst to fill DH seats.
As to the second, it’s not a cudgel to expect leaders to advocate on behalf of their people, especially if they need them. If there are things in their power to make service more attractive, and they have a retention problem, why wouldn’t they try that?
I'm old enough to know Hornet guys that were bent they didn't get Tomcats; S-3 guys pissed they didn't get Hornets; Prowler dudes pissed they didn't get anything else; P-3 guys pissed they didn't get TACAMO; 53 guys pissed they didn't get 60s; Hawkeye dudes pissed they didn't get CODs - and so on and so forth. So I could/should have more accurately phrased my question instead of one of Primary selection, but of a series of early career inflection points that set the arc for one's career - however long that ended up being. Guys who end up putting significant effort into a career track they weren't excited about tend, IMO, to be the ones who are the first to hone in on everything else that is wrong. Dont misunderstand me, there is plenty that is "wrong," but I'm supposing guys who weren’t thrilled to be where they are in the first place are some of the first get sour. In short, it’s not what they signed up for.
To the VFA/VAQ question, similar thing. The material condition and lack of predictable budgeting has translated to less flying. Maybe those guys are where they dreamed theyd be, but they're not doing what they thought they’d be doing, or as much of it. Some blame to go around there: misguided/mismanaged expectations, and misguided senior leadership decisions.
This is pretty non-controversial guys - but make of it what you will.
How is he or anyone else here using their service as a weapon?
We've all earned the right to have an opinion of what's happening in our military. An internet connection and a computer give us the ability to share them with each other.
Griping about those that haven’t served doesn’t seem to have a place in discussions on feeling left behind in service.
Plenty of reasons to be upset with decisions senior leaders have made (and undoubtedly will continue to make), but I think it's important that we separate those complaints from the idea of service to a civilian population. I believe we should be grateful that such a large proportion of our population hasn't
had to serve. Now, I freely admit that I pulled that one quote from @schoolbubba's longer post, and taking it out of context suggests or implies something that might not have been there or intended.
