← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 20463 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-09-30
2005-09-30 16:04 | User Profile
Army in Worst Recruiting Slump in Decades
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.
Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger ââ¬â perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million ââ¬â in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service.
Officials insist the slump is not a crisis.
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the recruiting shortfall this year does not matter greatly ââ¬â for now.
"The bad news is that any shortfall shows how hard it would be to increase the Army's size by 50,000 or more as many of us think appropriate," O'Hanlon said. "We appear to have waited too long to try."
The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest ââ¬â in absolute number as well as in percentage terms ââ¬â since 1979, according to Army records.
The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.
The active-duty Army had not missed its target since 1999, when it was 6,290 recruits short; in 1998 it fell short by 801, and in 1995 it was off by 33. Prior to that the last shortfall was in 1979 when the Army missed by 17,054 during a period when the Army was much bigger and its recruiting goals were double today's.
Army officials knew at the outset that 2005 would be a tough year to snag new recruits. By May it was obvious that after four consecutive months of coming up short there was little chance of meeting the full-year goal.
A summertime surge of signups offered some hope the slump may be ending. An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, said that despite the difficulties, recruiters were going full speed as the end of fiscal year 2005, Sept. 30, arrived.
"We have met the active Army's monthly recruiting goals since June, and we expect to meet it for September, which sends us into fiscal year 2006 on a winning streak," Hilferty said. He also noted that the Army has managed to meet its re-enlistment goals, even among units that have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But there are compelling reasons to think that Army recruiters are heading into a second consecutive year of recruiting shortfalls.
The outlook is dimmed by several key factors, including:
ââ¬Â¢ The daily reports of American deaths in Iraq and the uncertain nature of the struggle against the insurgency have put a damper on young people's enthusiasm for joining the military, according to opinion surveys.
ââ¬Â¢ The Army has a smaller-then-usual reservoir of enlistees as it begins the new recruiting year on Saturday. This pool comes from what the Army calls its delayed-entry program in which recruits commit to join the Army on condition that they ship to boot camp some months later.
Normally that pool is large enough at the start of the recruiting year to fill one-quarter of the Army's full-year need. But it has dwindled so low that the Army is starting its new recruiting year with perhaps only 5 percent "in the bank." The official figure on delayed entry recruits has not been released publicly, although Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, has said it is the smallest in history.
The factors working against the Army, Hilferty said, are a strong national economy that offers young people other choices, and "continued negative news from the Middle East." To offset that the Army has vastly increased the number of recruiters on the street, offered bigger signup bonuses and boosted advertising.
Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., said in an interview that the Army would attract more recruits if it could offer shorter enlistments than the current three-year norm.
As it stands, the Army faces a tough challenge for the foreseeable future.
"The future looks even grimmer. Recruiting is going to get harder and harder," Moskos said.
On the Net:
Army Recruiting Command at [url]http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq.html[/url]
2005-09-30 18:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]WASHINGTON - The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth...
The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest ââ¬â in absolute number as well as in percentage terms ââ¬â since 1979, according to Army records...
The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.
The active-duty Army had not missed its target since 1999, when it was 6,290 recruits short; in 1998 it fell short by 801, and in 1995 it was off by 33. Prior to that the last shortfall was in 1979 when the Army missed by 17,054 during a period when the Army was much bigger and its recruiting goals were double today's...
[B][COLOR=Red]Charles Moskos[/COLOR], a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., said in an interview that the Army would attract more recruits if it could offer shorter enlistments than the current three-year norm.[/B]
As it stands, the Army faces a tough challenge for the foreseeable future.
"The future looks even grimmer. Recruiting is going to get harder and harder," Moskos said.[/QUOTE]Ever the patriot, I have asked recruiters why they have not gone to Jewish institutions to gather young men. They simply stare and state they have proven areas.
I also asked Moskos, a Jew, if he did not think it newsworthy that Jews have ran from military service in the American army. I received no reply.
2005-09-30 19:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"The future looks even grimmer. Recruiting is going to get harder and harder," Moskos said[/QUOTE]
'Oh, the gloom 'n doom of it all, oy vey! If ve can only get our poodle Bush to push forth the military draft, ve von't have dis problem and ve can invade Iran! And our poodle Bush will sell it for us and then can take all the heat for it too!'
If Moskos' cousins in Israel & DC would stop sending Americans to die for [U]nothing[/U] in Iraq, recruiters wouldn't be having any problems at all getting fresh enlistees.
2005-10-01 06:40 | User Profile
Guess its tough to convince those recruits that lying in a coffin is the way to "be all you can be".
You remember BTW Max Boot's solution to the recruiting shortage. Recruit foreign nationals, with the offer of citizenship when they've finished their tour of duty and are honorably discharged.
2005-10-01 07:59 | User Profile
Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger ââ¬â perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million ââ¬â in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, what we need to do is put the "defense" back in the "Defense Department" and stop trying to use the military for aggressive or meddlesome purposes around the world!
Until that happens, I'll be glad to hear of military recruiting troubles. The fewer the people who get tricked into endangering their lives for Israeli or corporate interests, the better.
2005-10-02 16:01 | User Profile
Bingo, Faust, the comment that leaps out (what I quoted from your article) is the long term malaise that anyone in uniform has seen coming.
The slow but sure gutting of the Army's force structure began in 1993, when Aspin's and Powell's Base Force (12 divisions) after the Bottom's Up Review was over ridden by Clinton and Panetta. No one has reversed that trend. This is chickens coming home to roost due to a decades long policy of relying on Reserves for core Active functions.
You get what you pay for in terms of an all volunteer army. Looks like the price ain't right for a lot of youngsters.
The policy mistake Rumsfeld and company made by presuming that "less is more" is a policy based on fantasy, which was underscored by Shinseki's public reservations about forces versus mission. This long term impact on recruiting makes the "you fight with the Army you have" rhetoric even more damning, given the advice from those who understand the details having been ignored and wished away.
Where now the Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and others whose advice and arguments were factors in trying to pull off a complex task with "just enough forces to make it work." Rangel is a fool. I don't see a revived draft succeeding politically, due to the clear lack of vision at the top.
Unless a significant security commitment is vacated (South Korea, anyone?) the inability to flex and grow the Army in the short term is doomed to failure, or an acceptance of reduced standards. That's the most likely course of action.
American policy makers in the near term will have to accept that they have fewer options. The Iraq mess has shown that the leadership cannot match policy and capability coherently.
I don't see this issue "getting well" anytime soon. The breach of faith has been public, and complete.
AE
[QUOTE=Faust]"The bad news is that any shortfall shows how hard it would be to increase the Army's size by 50,000 or more as many of us think appropriate," O'Hanlon said. [u]"We appear to have waited too long to try."[/u]
Army Recruiting Command at [url="http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq.html"]http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq.html[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-10-02 16:18 | User Profile
Bush had an opportunity right after 9/11 to have gotten Congress to raise the force level for the Army and Marines and would have got it. With enough hype and abuse of patriotism I would bet he could have raised the troops without a draft. In a way, I'm glad they didn't do this because it would give these dilettantes more troops to squander on more invasions. I don't doubt that if they had them we would be in Syria. I suspect they didn't do this because it would have raised a lot of eyebrows over what the additional forces would be used for. It really puts one in a moral dilemma for a person who thinks in terms of America First and to have folks in power who believe in America Last.
2005-10-04 22:30 | User Profile
Those Tests Are All Biased Anyway
Good news, Freepers:
Facing recruiting shortages brought on by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has decided to accept a greater number of recruits who score near the bottom of military aptitude tests, the secretary of the Army said Monday.
Coming off a recruiting year in which the Army fell short of its goal of 80,000 active-duty soldiers, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits ââ¬â those who scored between the 16th and 30th percentile in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential military personnel. ...
Until the last fiscal year, the Army had few problems staying below the 2% threshold for Category IV recruits. According to data provided by the Army, Category IV recruits comprised less than 1% of the 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes.
Posted by: Matthew Barganier on Oct 04, 05 | 11:16 am | Comments? | link [url]http://www.antiwar.com/blog/[/url] =============== For those who aren't quite sure what this means, think of "Beetle Bailey's" buddy "Zero". Those clowns are dumber than stumps.
2005-10-04 22:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]...No one has reversed that trend. This is chickens coming home to roost due to a decades long policy of relying on Reserves for core Active functions.
You get what you pay for in terms of an all volunteer army. Looks like the price ain't right for a lot of youngsters. AE[/QUOTE]Creighton Abrams remembered the army being stranded in Vietnam, almost totally deserted by politicians. He made sure that if the army were given another difficult task, the reserves and guard would have to be called up. This was the only way to put pressure on his political masters.
Has he succeeded?
2005-10-04 23:10 | User Profile
Edward,
He didn't succeed, so to speak in 1990. Part of his idea was to use the combat units of the National Guard and the Army Reserve. While some of these units were called up, they were never deployed. In fact, the three National Guard brigades that were mobilized had numerous problems in terms of leadership, training and equipment. Of course, they didn't have problems with reserve units that had specialties that weren't combat arms. Interestingly enough, the [B]Marines[/B] did mobilize some of their combat reserves that did deploy and fought well.
He succeeded today, though I have a feeling he would have regarded this modern day Syracuse Expedition a waste of military force.
2005-10-05 02:54 | User Profile
edward gibbon,
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Creighton Abrams remembered the army being stranded in Vietnam, almost totally deserted by politicians. He made sure that if the army were given another difficult task, the reserves and guard would have to be called up. This was the only way to put pressure on his political masters.
Has he succeeded?[/QUOTE]
I fear NO. Bushie and his draft dodging goons do not seem to care how many guardsmen are killed.
2005-10-05 03:33 | User Profile
Faust,
After reading your answer I see I misunderstood Edward's question. You're right.
2005-10-07 05:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Creighton Abrams remembered the army being stranded in Vietnam, almost totally deserted by politicians. He made sure that if the army were given another difficult task, the reserves and guard would have to be called up. This was the only way to put pressure on his political masters.
Has he succeeded?[/QUOTE]EDIT: I really goofed up the first try.
He succeeded, in terms of vision, but forgot that politicians rarely play by a military man's idea of rules and a good idea.
As I see it, Abrams' Cold War era assumption was that he could by adapting structure to Constitutional boundaries avoid a repeat of LBJ's not being politicaly forced to mobilize after Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- when he had Congress bending over and spreading in support of his bellicosity.
Forcing the Reserve into the Active with a wedge would mean that a President would have to get a declaration and a mobilization from Congress, or we wouldn't go to war, or a war like Viet Nam, a war that, over two decades, and then over about half a decade, grew and took on a life of its own without going through a rigorous Constitutional process per WW II etc.
To a certain extent, what we are seeing is Abram's Pyrrhic victory plan, his Schlieffen Plan, for "the Army." Due to his misestimation of the tunnel vision of politicians, the plan risked breaking the Reserves if more "police actions" were embarked on, police actions being the very choices he was trying to preclude. The plan is a failure as it gutted the core Active functions (i.e figuratively "weakening the Right Wing by sending troops to Russian Front." ) And yes, Abram's plan was bound to fail when, as in Gulf of Tonkin, Congress takes a mental holiday.
Again, as I see it, he assumed Congress as a body would never again be as easy to play for fools as the Congress who bought the Tonkin Gulf Incident and resolution so easily in 1964.
It looks as though, for differing reasons, such as a House and Senate NOT of the opposing party to the Executive, Congress failed to exercise their Constitutional charter in the fall of 2002 and Spring of 2003. Gulf of Tonkin cluelessness all over again, though of a different sort.
When the assumption breaks, the plan breaks. In trying to use structure to avoid another Viet Nam, he set up Clinton's abuse of the Guard, and he set up conditions where a big risk foreign policy -- a policy that ignored that there is no such thing as "a quick little war" when you are trying to force change governments -- would stress the Military beyond the original vision of what the All Volunteer Force would do with Reserves as a back up in case mobilization was needed for a big war.
AE
2005-10-16 04:16 | User Profile
well, our unamerican masters intend to recruit all the mexican and centro-american hessians they can find. they probly expect them to specialize in crowd control of unruly non-blacks in places like toledo... after the current imbroglio in messofpotamia of cawse...
i have worked with the military for a long time, and for the most part, it and civilian mgmt of such have gone WAY downhill.
i have been at an exalted level for awhile. but unless i get a sex change op, i will not move up again.
most of the fairer sex that are picked to move into the cush offices (and that is who gets picked!) are of course good looking, at least for their age, but have no real discernible technical or managerial skills. but they rat out opinionated men real well. the hallmark of a truly soviet society!
need i remind anyone - the lead soviets - were NOT russians!