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

[adios]

Ok but what about the Marines, Navy and Air Force? Since the Army is apparently doing just fine meeting it's recruiting goals does one have to volunteer to join the other armed services (don't know if they're meeting their goals) to be able to justify their support for the efforts to liberate Iraqi citizens [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]? Since the Army is currently exceeding its recruiting goals apparently doesn't this make lehighguys point afterall? DVaut1, QuadOverQuads, Scoot, anybody have comments? I think it would be funny if QuadOverQuads or Scoot made the argument that recruiting numbers flucuate and we can't rely on a single set of recruiting period stats to discern any trend or draw any conclusions.

THE REAL IRAQ NEWS

From the article:

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let's wait for confirmation on that.)

[PorscheNGuns]

You are a liar and a hyprocite.

-Matt

[Matty]

They have recently repeatedly lowered their goals.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok but what about the Marines, Navy and Air Force? Since the Army is apparently doing just fine meeting it's recruiting goals does one have to volunteer to join the other armed services (don't know if they're meeting their goals) to be able to justify their support for the efforts to liberate Iraqi citizens ? Since the Army is currently exceeding its recruiting goals apparently doesn't this make lehighguys point afterall? DVaut1, QuadOverQuads, Scoot, anybody have comments? I think it would be funny if QuadOverQuads or Scoot made the argument that recruiting numbers flucuate and we can't rely on a single set of recruiting period stats to discern any trend or draw any conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea how accurate that article is, because I've read differently. This article does give some depth into the tangible consequences of missing the recruiting goals, as well.

But I don't have a whole lot of insider information available to me, so I'm certainly not capable of saying if the Army truly has enough man-power without further information. More links appreciated, if available.

[Matty]

I'm not signing up at the NYPost to read that article (which looks by the url to be an op-ed piece), but FoxNews, owned by the same company, recently put out this article:

General: Army to Miss Recruiting Goals in '05

[PLOlover]

Given the overall veracity of the administration on, well, everything, I think there's a good chance this, too, is a lie.

[Cyrus]

I go by the following assumptions, which you are invited to dispute or disprove:

A - The war in Iraq is not a popular one in America. It has not been one for quite some time. It is not popular either among those eligible to serve in the military.

B - We read about and hear a lot of grumbling from the military brass circles that the manpower is lacking in Iraq "to do the job properly". We are also aware of the many (and early) complaints made in public by those that helped plan the war, eg the brass at Army War College, concerning the same issue. *

C - It is largely accepted that Donald Rumsfeld can be a very stubborn mule, also in matters where he is not supposed to be an expert, eg military planning. It is also a consensus across the political spectrum that wars are conducted witl political as ell as purely military objectives in mind.

D - While we can come to some agreement about how the political situation in Iraq is going forward, everybody seems to agree that the American troops are confronting an ongoing (and tough) insurrection there. Some say it's in its last throes, others say no way -- but most seem to agree that more boots on the ground would help confront the menace more efficiently, and not necessarily by just doing battle.

Bonus Fact - We do not have all the necessary statistics from the sites you linked to. I'd want to see, for each year and going back 5 years, "Targets" & "Numbers Achieved", at least.

Therefore, on the basis of all the above, I see no reason to alter my current position:

The American military in Iraq was not (and still is not) adequately manned to handle the post-victory problems.
Moreover, the problems (which were amplified by that poor planning) have put off a significant number of Americans, to the point of negatively affecting military recruitment.



--Cyrus

PS : There is the issue of the state of the economy, also (a strong economy for the lower tiers means better alternatives for young people than joining the military). I have not seen any data there.

* Yes, it is well known (especially on the Hill) that "the army is never satisfied"! For decades, the Pentagon has always insisted for more men, more weapons, and more money. However, the Cold War is over and also this is not about weapons procurement. It's "merely" the planning of a specific, local war. And, while the military is supposed to always be over-cautious, the discrepancy between what the military planners wanted for post-victory Iraq and what the military eventually got is too great to ignore.

[Chris Alger]

It's fairly consistent with my outlook that one can find more accurate news about the U.S. in India or China than one can in the Murdoch daily you cited. I can't read the actual article you linked, but note the sources cited below in an article from NewKerala.com (India):

It [the U.S. Army] achieved its second-straight monthly goal -- sending 8,085 new soldiers into boot camp in July, topping its goal by 9 percent -- after falling short in the previous four months, according to figures released by the Pentagon today.

The situation was bleaker in the part-time Guard and Reserve, used heavily in Iraq as the Pentagon seeks to maintain troop levels.

''I know our recruiters are going to do what they can to close the gap, but right now it looks like we will miss both active and reserve (goals) at the end of the year,'' said Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith.

The Reserve missed its July recruiting target by 18 percent, getting 2,131 recruits with a goal of 2,585, and stood 20 percent behind its year-to-date target. It had a shortfall of about 4,700 recruits toward its 2005 goal of 28,485.

The Army National Guard has missed every monthly goal in fiscal 2005 after falling short in 2004 and 2003, the Pentagon said. It missed its July goal by 20 percent -- getting 4,712 recruits with a quota of 2,585 -- and was 23 percent behind its year-to-date target.

With two months left, it had a shortfall of more than 11,600 toward an annual goal of 63,002.

_______________________

In separate news, the Army asked Congress to raise the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42. Reminds me of Britain during WWI, when they had to lower the height requirement three or four times during the first year of the war because the entire army kept on getting wiped out.

[FishHooks]

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.

[sam h]

Reenlistment is not the same as recruiting. The army still will not meet its recruiting goal, despite repeatedly lowering this goal. I do not know if the reenlistment goals have been lowered in the same deceptive fashion. There is still obviously a problem with a shortage of manpower in the army.