(no subject)

[java-drinker.livejournal.com]

Comments

[megiloth.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I think when people hear the term "Army recruiting is down", they automatically think "all military recruiting is down". The word Army just becomes a catch-all word for military. It's true, while the Army is falling short of their monthly recruiting goals, the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force are still on target...no pun intended :)

There are now thousands of new Army recruiters out there in every state and community, so I would expect those numbers to pick up again.

[java-drinker.livejournal.com]

So, your assertion is that the number of recruiters is directly connected to the number of recruits?!?

That would go against the DoD study in 2000 on just this topic. They found that recruiting slumps were, in fact, more closely tied to public disapproval (or, like in this case massive disapproval) of war policy.

One might also make the argument that Both Navy and AF have suffered far fewer casualties, and recruits may be less hesitant about getting stationed in Iraq (where Rumsflield now says we will probably be for a dozen or so years) within those branches as Army enlisted are actively dealing with the insurgency. Marines HAVE suffered a slump in recruiting, though much lower than that of the Army.


We live in a strange time where most of the policy makers have never served in active combat, where most of the (war's) supporters have never seen active combat and where the Executive branch continues to refuse to take heed from the Generals and other Sr Staff on the ground. None of that could make for a warm-and-fuzzy feeling for 18 year old Joe/Jane Average as they contemplate the ramifications of such a decision. And now that the National Guard recruits actually stand a HIGHER chance of being shipped off to Iraq than regular Army, that traditional route of 'service to the country at home' is a long gone pipe-dream that contributes to declining numbers.

.... though I'm sure you'll disagree

[rickenharp.livejournal.com]

Whoops! Poor Megiloth is wrong again (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/shields.military/):

What brings this up is the news that the U.S. Army has, for four months in a row, failed to reach its recruiting goals.

Recruitment for the Army Reserves and the National Guard, which between them constitute nearly half of U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq, are down, respectively, 21 percent and 24 percent.

Even the Marines, who had met their recruitment goals every month for 11 years, have failed to meet recent monthly enlistment quotas.

Virtually all of the more than 1,700 Americans killed in Iraq belonged to one of these four service groups.

As if that wasn't bad enough, even when they say they're meeting goals, it's only because they're lowering the bar. For example, here's what they said 6/29 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/national/29cnd-recruit.html?):

For the first time since January, the Army met its monthly recruiting goal in June, but still faces what some senior Army officials say is a nearly insurmountable shortfall to meet the service's annual quota.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, told a town-hall meeting at the Pentagon today that the Army had exceeded its June quota, but gave no details. Senior Army officials said in interviews earlier in the day that the Army had exceeded the goal of 5,650 recruits by about 500 people. The Army Reserve also made its first monthly quota since last December, the official said.

As opposed to what they said on 6/8:

On Friday, the Army is expected to announce that it met only 75 percent of its recruiting goal for May, the fourth consecutive monthly shortfall in the number of new recruits sent to basic training. Just over 5,000 new recruits entered boot camp in May.

But the news could have appeared worse. Early last month, the Army, with no public notice, lowered its long-stated May goal to 6,700 recruits from 8,050. Compared with the original target, the Army achieved only 62.6 percent of its goal for the month.

Army officials defended the shift on Tuesday, saying it was not uncommon to change monthly goals at midyear. They said that the latest change reflected the reality that the Army was not going to meet its May goal, and that it made more sense to shift some of that quota to the summer months, traditionally a better season for recruiters to attract new high school graduates.

Put another way (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/09/national/main700721.shtml):

They note that with only four months left in the budget year, the Army is at barely 50 percent of its goal. Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September.

Of course, now you'll have to up that number since they fell about 4,000 short of that last month.

[lossrockhart.livejournal.com]

Well, that settles it. There's no other choice: Megolith, we're returning you to active duty status and shipping you back to Iraq. Thanks for everything.

[java-drinker.livejournal.com]

If Bush & Co is so gung-ho on sending our young-folk to his quagmire...why don't we see his kids signing up? Or any of the Sr Staff's kids? Or any Senator's kids?

[lossrockhart.livejournal.com]

Or Elvis, for that matter.

[johnraptor.livejournal.com]

Especially since the Bush twins can't seem to find a job in this wonderful economy their dad's made.

[java-drinker.livejournal.com]

Those two nuts didn't fall far from the tree, did they?

Dear ol dad never did seem to find a 'real' job either. Instead he fettered away Saudi funds on dry holes and shitty baseball teams.

[ccnuggie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like those 3 would even make it through boot camp.