U.S. Army Exceeding Re-enlistment and First-Time Enlistment Goals

Bingo, and this is the important part of the point.

Enlistment is different than Re-enlistment.

Now one could argue that a decrease in recruiting but a increase in reenlistment is precisely telling of the state of afairs in Iraq. Draw your own conclusions, but if infact the re-enlistment goals have not been artificially deflated (beyond a drop which would be due to an actual decrease in nessessity for the military) there is only one real conclusion I would see to draw.

Also, regarding the USA and USMC not making goals. The USN, USCG, and USAF ENLISTMENTS have almost always made goals, as well as all five branches COMMISSIONS. It's only the ENLISTMENT of two of five branches that falls short.

So we're talking about ground force, junior enlisted soldiers that we're not getting to join the military, however those who are already in are staying.

So I would propose, that perhaps, the at-home general perception (at least those of military age) would be unrealistically worse than the front-line perception. Seeing that the point of reenlistment and the point of enlistment are fairly similar in regards to service in Iraq. If you look at the lists, it's not all PFC, CPR, PVT who're getting killed in Iraq, it's Sergeants, Lieutenants, Majors, Senior and Junior enlisted as well as commissioned officers alike.

The Gunslinger

[PokerMatt]

[ QUOTE ]
We always lower our goals, in war or not, thats why our army is so small and still the most powerfull force in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our Army is the most powerful force in the world because we've always lowered our goals? Please elaborate on this.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Reenlistment is not the same as recruiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just more wordplay and misdirection. And they apparantly think that nobody will catch on.


q/q