Military Recruiting Exceedingly Strong Despite Public’s Alleged Dissatisfaction With The War
You know all those media reports about military recruiting we’ve been reading about in recent years? The ones about how our military is struggling to meet it’s recruiting goals? That often have journalists pushing the idea that our desperate military is resorting to filling its ranks with criminals in order to make its goals? Wondering why you haven’t heard too much about that particular left-wing anti-war talking point for a while?
It could be because all branches of the military met its active duty recruiting goals for fiscal year 2006…
…and have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for every month since.
October of 2006:
They are meeting their goal because they have lowered standards. Which I am not sure is a totally bad thing.
So again, what was your point, your crux, as it were.
Note: I joined the National Guard two weeks ago (after a one year break in service) because I’m sick and tired of dealing with whiney-assed civilians every day.
So… quantitatively speaking… What were the recruiting standards before, and what were they lowered to now? What’s the time frame on this? Have the standards always been higher than today’s? Remember… be quantitative.
Rob,
Congratulations on your Installanche.
dove,
You have something to support your allegations with?
Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com
The ‘alledged dissatisfaction’ is a good term. We are meeting our goals. Period. Hawk, I’ll wait a little while for your proof as was presented rebutting John Edward’s claim that only ‘poor kids’ were in the military.
Could be! Maybe the recruiters start “sand bagging” for next year’s quota…
Oh, yea, alternet, now there is a bastion of journalistic integrity.
So what is that supposed to mean? I read Militarese, and you appear to have combined sections of paragraphs to create a whole. Give us the whole thing, don’t dice&slice it.
2H9, I’m in a desk job for a year. Don’t know what’s going to happen to me after that. I just do what needs to be done. (I’m full time Guard btw)
Little question on the stats: why are so many of them so close to 100% (and not over)? Navy tends to hit quota EXACTLY. Do they stop taking accessions when they reach quota?
woofie likes to throw all kinds of random crap at the wall, just to see what sticks.
I enlisted in January ‘79 at 17. Parental signature required. Had there been combat ops ongoing at the time I would have been barred from deployment to such ops. Then as now.
http://www.slate.com/id/2120146/sidebar/2120187/
A. MEMORANDUM, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-1, HQDA, 10 MARCH 2005, SUBJECT AS ABOVE.
B. AR 635-200 (ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS), PARAGRAPHS 1-1C,1-16A, 1-19C, D, AND E.
2. ALL MACOMS WILL SEND A MESSAGE VIA E-MAIL TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE: DAPE-MPEINBOX@HQDA.ARMY.MIL
3. WE ARE AN ARMY AT WAR AND INCREASING LEVELS OF ATTRITION OF FIRST-TERM ENLISTED SOLDIERS IN BOTH THE TRAINING BASE AND UNITS IS A MATTER OF GREAT CONCERN. WE NEED YOUR CONCERTED EFFORT TO REVERSE THE RECENT NEGATIVE TREND IN FIRST-TERM ATTRITION. BY REDUCING ATTRITION ONE PERCENT, THE ARMY CAN SAVE UP TO 3,000 INITIAL-TERM SOLDIERS THAT’S 3,000 MORE SOLDIERS IN OUR FORMATIONS. EACH SOLDIER RETAINED REDUCES THE STRAIN ON RECRUITING COMMAND AND OUR RETENTION PROGRAM, WHICH MUST REPLACE EVERY SOLDIER WHO DEPARTS THE ARMY EARLY.
4. AS AN ADDITIONAL MEANS OF REDUCING ATTRITION, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY SEPARATION AUTHORITY FOR FIRST-TERM ENLISTED SOLDIERS IS ELEVATED FROM THE BATTALION COMMANDER TO THE SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY (SPCMCA) FOR THE FOLLOWING SEPARATION CATEGORIES PRESCRIBED BY AR 635-200: FAILURE TO MEET PROCUREMENT MEDICAL FITNESS STANDARDS (PARAGRAPH 5-11); PREGNANCY (CHAPTER 8); ALCOHOL OR OTHER DRUG ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE (CHAPTER 9); ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT (CHAPTER 11); UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE (CHAPTER 13); SELECTED CHANGES IN SERVICE OBLIGATIONS (CHAPTER 16, PARAGRAPHS 16-4 THRU 16-10); AND FAILURE TO MEET BODY FAT STANDARDS (CHAPTER 18). WITHHOLDING OF SEPARATION AUTHORITY FROM BATTALION COMMANDERS, AND ELEVATING IT TO SPCMCA LEVEL, IS DIRECTED BY HQDA PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 1-19E, AR 635-200. SEPARATION AUTHORITY FOR CHAPTERS 5, 10, 14, AND 15 REMAIN AT THE SPCMA LEVEL.
What standards were lowered? I hear that all the time, but I don’t know exactly how low is low. They let me in once upon a time–so it can’t be THAT much lower!<
So the marketing types screwed the pooch. That would be unexpected why?
And Brendon, perhaps it is tied to the fact that during times of war there is a harder draw on good NCOs, those who generally ride herd on young troops. And a relaxing of discipline in non deployed units. The Off-Duty, Off-Post, Off-the-clock attitude. And then again, troops in Korea are under a doubled load. As soon as Kim Il kills himself American troops will have to cross the DMZ into the second largest humanitarian crisis currently unfolding.
Something is going on with the Army.
I am a veteran and live in Korea, which has a large contingent of troops in garrison (about 25,000 active duty plus dependents and camp followers). It appears from this perspective that since 2003 there has been a relatively sharp “bump” in Army criminal shenanigans out in town. And loutish stupidity is way, way up. Now, the level of criminality is still quite low, but it’s more than it used to be. My friends still on active duty are grousing that it’s because recruiting standards have been “lowered” to make up recruiting shortfalls with “low-quality” troops who would otherwise be bothering folks in America.
Excellent post! I’ve been wondering about this issue for years now. The MSM is really dedicated to the notion that we’re having trouble recruiting, yet the services keep reporting that they’ve met their goals. The information/belief gap widens constantly. Stop a man or woman on the street and ask “are the armed services getting enough new recruits?”, and he/she will always say no. This myth is unlike most in the MSM, because the stories are so ignorant of facts.
I followed cowalker’s link to th referenced Slate page…interesting stuff…..particularly what cowalker didn’t include
“7. THIS MESSAGE WILL EXPIRE 1 JUNE 2006.”
That active service recruitment comparison shows almost 3,000 over target. Mostly in the high-deployment services.
It’s interesting to speculate about what the situation would be if the Ds hadn’t folded like a house of cards under the MSM assault, beginning with the creation of the illusion that eliminating WMDs was not only the primary but the sole reason for taking out SH.
As for risk, I recently saw a comparison of American KIA/day figures for conflicts from WWI to OIF. It rose from hundreds to thousands WWI to WWII, declined to 20 in Vietnam, and stands at 2 in OIF.
Not you, Peg, you are quite clear.
Woof, April of what year? My husband was in Iraq 3 years ago and 17 year olds weren’t allowed to go over there than. I remember that for a fact because a 17 year old in his company at the time had to wait back here to turn 18 before he could be sent over.
It’s bizarre that we feel compelled to defend enlistment rates that come anywhere near the targets.
We do, however, for the same reason that achieving them is difficult–and it isn’t the war itself, it’s the continual barrage of anti-war propaganda that the major media organizations disguise as news.
Just this morning I heard an excellent example of this phenomenon on NPR’s Morning Edition. You’ll find the audio here
The piece is astonishing for its ghoulish willingness to make a political point by using the grief of a man who lost his son one week ago. I’ve put the transcript below for you.
You’ll see that the reporter, Fred Thys, makes the most desultory effort at hiding his tracks by quoting the dead soldier’s sister, Jennifer Bacevich:
The result is painfully ironic, however, because Thys’s piece is, in fact, nothing but a story…about a professor that was against the war. It’s 3 minutes long. We learn nothing else of consequence about the younger Andrew Bacevich. It’s all a set up for the elder Andrew’s regret, his sense of guilt, and it’s all constructed to close on this zinger:
And that’s it. So: any question where NPR stands? Or how much they care about any of the Baceviches? Couldn’t leave him alone for a while, eh?
Transcript:
Critic of Iraq War Remembers Son Lost in that War
22 May 2007
RENEE MONTAGNE, host:
The father is a retired Army officer who served in Vietnam and has become a noted conservative critic of the war in Iraq. The son was a first lieutenant who is killed in that war on Mother’s Day. Young Andrew Bacevich died in s suicide bombing north of Baghdad. The elder Andrew Bacevich teaches at Boston University.
Fred Thys of member station WBUR went to Walpole, Massachusetts, to talk to him and his family.
FRED THYS: Andrew Bacevich’s sisters, Amy, Katie and Jennifer, meet in a coffee shop near their parent’s home to talk about their brother. Jennifer Bacevich says they don’t want his memory lost in the fact that he was the son of a prominent critic of the war.
Ms. JENNIFER BACEVICH (Sister of Andrew Bacevich, Jr.): I think a lot of people think that this is a story just about a professor that was against the war, that had a son that died in the war. And it’s not, you know. More than anything, I think, we think our brother was just a — he was a fantastic human being, and a really…
Unidentified Woman: …and we will miss him. Yeah.
Ms. J. BACEVICH: We will miss him very much.
THYS: Bacevich graduated from Boston University in 2003. After working briefly for Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, he enlisted in the Army as a private, rising to first lieutenant. The older Andrew Bacevich agreed to talk about his son on the family’s screened-in porch. Bacevich served in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971. At a time, he says, it was clear that that war was not going to be won.
Professor ANDREW BACEVICH (International Relations, Boston University): And my son goes to Iraq in 2006 when, at least it’s apparent to me, that this war is not going to be won and is probably headed for some dismal conclusion. So our kinship is that we — he and I had a knack for picking the wrong war in which to serve.
THYS: Bacevich never shared these thoughts with his son because he didn’t want to burden him with them. In his grief, he’s asking himself what his obligations are as a citizen and as a father.
Prof. BACEVICH: I mean, one of the things that I’ve been really struggling with over the last several days is to try to understand my own responsibility for my son’s death.
THYS: Bacevich says he thought his responsibility as a citizen was to give voice to his concerns about the war. His loss, he says, has made him question the lasting value of his criticism.
Prof. BACEVICH: What kind of democracy is this when the people do speak and the people’s voice is unambiguous, but nothing happens.
THYS: Our voices, he says, are simply lost.
For NPR News, I’m Fred Thys.
I’m a tad unsure why adjusting things from a cold-war peacetime arrangement to a long hot-war arrangement is presented as some sort of proof of something or other bad (by some). That would be like accusing a store of failure because they shift their stock to respond to different market forces. Some people are desperate to see failure in all things American.
In re: recruiting standards, there is in fact a kind of double standard. One is set in the US code, and by law establishes the minimum characteristics acceptable for service. The other standard is set by regulation of the individual services. For instance, the law (IIRC) prohibits accession by mental category V persons. The services, based on the numbers they need and the trends in recruiting then determine their goals for how many soldiers in each category they will take. For instance, they may decide to accept all Cat IV applicants with a HS diploma but restrict the numbers of CatIV applicants with a GED to say, 2% of Cat IV accessions. As the needs of the service go up or down, they adjust these provisions-often several times a quarter.
I forgot to point this out–they actually categorize this travesty as a “remembrance”. For real. Maybe they should try remembering their humanity. And then maybe they’ll come across their journalistic ethics, as well. But it’ll require forgetting their ego, and that’s like a monkey on their back, and hungry for failure.
I doubt very much they’ve lowered their standards. Moonbats can’t stand the idea that competent people of good character would VOLUNTEER to serve their country these days, much less strongly desire to.
Further, compare the regular military folks on TV, the net, blogs, podcasts, with your average, run-of-the-mill journalist, celebrity, academentian, politician. The competence, articulate speech, character and can-do spirit and attitude of our volunteer forces are head and shoulders above what you’ll see in the others. People who join the military are vastly more admired by the American people than journalists, celebrities, the ivory tower crowd and especially politicians. There’s a reason for that and lowered standards ain’t one of them.
Glenn nailed it. “There are two Americas. One of them is defending the other.” And thank God for that.
PB, I warned you! Civs are all screwed up in the head. Sorry guys, from a trooper perspective thats just how it is. All the vets know what I mean.
Are you going to push to get back in longrange trigger mode?
Did my comment sunday come through? “Wow, can you blogalanche!” I was blocked out for 7 hours.
National Guard and Air National Guard numbers have fallen in recent years because more recruits are choosing to go active duty upon enlistment. A shift that also happened after the first Gulf War. And give the “National Guard is only for natural disasters” crap a rest. 69TH Inf Regt. Col William Donovan. BOOYAA! ’nuff said.
I’ll put my liberal/democrat hat on (it’s gross, nasty and seldom used) and say it’s because of the horrible Bush economy that is driving our citizens to join the military. Starve or fight in Iraq is the only choice they have.***throws hat back in garbage***
The military not only lowered its standards and increased its financial incentives, but in 2006 and 2007, they lowered their target goals (after failing to meet them in 2005).
I’m not sure that’s worth a big “Hoo-yah”, you know what I mean?
Rob,
Kinda like a modern, digital rendition of Moses and the burning bush. Congratulations, indeed.
Coworker,
Ahem… I believe you’ve forgotten something:
Although it would be easy to look skeptically at this message (remember Dan Rather and the TANG documents?), it certainly would make sense for the Army, or any organization to want to retain as many experienced young members as possible. In many cases, if not most, the Army’s biggest investment is in the new recruit.
Attempting to retain more of those coming off their first enlistment, those who are young and experienced, rather than replacing them with more raw recruits, isn’t a matter of lowering standards at all. On the contrary, its an attempt to raise the overall level of experience and competence.
Let’s not forget that required military manpower levels are actually set by Congress via the budget process. The more experienced troops that are retained, the fewer new recruits required. This isn’t a lowering of standards at all. This is simply good personnel management.
Civs have damned odd priorities. And they spend an inordinate amount of time trampling each other’s prerogatives. Cry about working a weekend? Hell, tell them they got to spend a night, in the rain, with nothing but LBE, weapon, and poncho, counting vehicles passing on a road without being seen. Talk about wailing!
Great post; I’ve linked it. And I don’t understand Woof’s (largely un-expressed) point–corporations routinely pay recruiting bonuses without being accused of undermining the free will of employees.
Very nice. Exactly how much towards credit in that college course does serving in a military pharmacy under the direct supervision of certified Pharmacist count? Article kind of don’t mention that. Oh, and where does the DoD acquire its Pharmacists?
Check out this scoop!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/us-army-pulls-t.html
I do know that weight and age limits have changed since I was in about 14 years ago.
Paulie, goddamn!! I feel for you, brother. Are you at least getting regular range time?
NOFP, good point. I wonder what BlackRock is offering currently? Or for that matter Schlumberger or GeoMechanical Downhole Services is paying in recruiting bonuses and Per Deim. Hell, they probaly rate higher for Nigeria and Venezuela than Iraq/Kuwait right now.
Sure it is $1.2 Billion
See ARMY WRONG to hear the other side: http://www.armywrong.net
There’s a counter-recruiting goin’ on.
sgtcommie, your effort is a failure. Good job, moron.
HEY! What happened to the cartoon curse words?!?!!??
It’s not that the people that worked for me disliked the military – they were actually quite pro-military. However, it’s just that a lot of them… when you told them to stop talking and go back to work… they reacted like I’d just slaughtered their families in front of them.
Don’t even tell them that they’ll have to work their first Saturday in four years… You wanna see grown men (and women) cry?
Indeed. The sillyvilians have not a clue, in more cases by far than not. Some DO know that, were it not for us, they’d be under the boot. Would that more knew this. OR…is it that those who protest the American Fighting Man think they’d be treated as heroes by those who would destroy us?
Kelly
Am quoting this 2007 report
http://www.alternet.org/story/51889/
I’d be interested in either Hawk or anyone else indicating to me what standards were lowered for military acceptance. And what goals were lowered. Because I think those are both big, dumb deflections.
Oh wow. Pretty cool.
I think that may be the third one this month…