Hide Comments
I've been following the numbers all year and am surprised that the Army recruited as many people as it did. But then I read what struck me as the most important part of the story:
"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."
As for the Air Force and Navy, they're not on the ground in Iraq. The Marine Corps is much smaller than the Army, has a smaller recruiting target and a unique appeal to recruits. I think the Army is the right place to look to gauge the effect of the Iraq War on recruiting. One thing that interests me is the numbers for infantry recruiting. I understand that they have been especially weak.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 05:41 PM
I clicked on the "Big Lizards Blog" and came up with the same article as the "Army Faces Worst Recruiting Slump" link....????
Posted by suek at September 30, 2005 05:52 PM
Why would this surprise you???? The article is by the Associated Press.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 06:02 PM
Oops...my fault...let me fix the link!
Posted by Holly Aho at September 30, 2005 06:06 PM
Ok - should be correct now. Note to self...write post - then drink beer.
Posted by Holly Aho at September 30, 2005 06:08 PM
Robert Burns, who wrote that AP story, is one of the most biased "reporters" they have. He's the same guy who basically Dowdified Rumsfeld's response to the soldier asking about Humvee armor last year. I remember doing some research then on other articles of his. He is CONSTANTLY misrepresenting things military. Shockingly enough, this misrepresentations always seem to portray the military in a worse light than reality.
Posted by Tony B at September 30, 2005 06:12 PM
Speaking of body armor, there still seems to be a problem. Don't you think the troops should be given adequate body armor? And if they have to buy it themselves (unbelievable that they'd need to!) don't you think they should be reimbursed, especially seeing as how Congress passed a law requiring it?
Man, you'd think that people on this website would be all over that one.
http://w3t.org/?u=56e
Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 06:35 PM
Who says they aren't, Wilson?
Maybe the difference is that a lot of us have been in the military, of one sort or another, and can put procurement in perspective.
Posted by Julie at September 30, 2005 07:58 PM
Oh, and as for the "banking" of recruits over to the next cycle. From the recruit's perspective waiting around for months really and truely *sucks*.
Posted by Julie at September 30, 2005 08:00 PM
O.K. Julie I'll take that at face value. Could you give me the links on Mudville Gazette where there has been agitation about the armor issue? I mean, from what I've read American soldiers have been killed and wounded out there for lack of armor. Are you telling me that this is a matter of "perspective?"
Look, I'm not for the war and I think we're on our way to losing. I don't like it that this is happening; rather, I think it's tragic and will cost this country dearly. All that aside, though, wouldn't you think they ought to give these people the armor they need?
And what's up with not reimbursing people for armor more than six months after the Pentagon was ordered to do so? What, they get to obey the laws they choose to obey and ignore the rest?
Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 08:03 PM
There are two ways to reach a goal like this: 1) recruit enough to meet the original target or 2) reduce the target amount.
The military, across the board, did the latter earlier this year. Of course they met their published target numbers - they dropped them enough to be sure they would.
Check out the Air Force as an example. In the middle of the 2004 fiscal year, the goal was 35,600. The ultimate target you report that they 'achieved' at 101% was less than half that.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcejoin/a/recruitgoaldec.htm
In addition, they've turned every possible other dial; increasing the age limit for junior officer recruits to 42, increasing incentive compensation, etc.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232092/posts
And STILL, with the reduced objectives, we are short by an amount that is "the largest - in absolute number as well as in percentage terms - since 1979, according to Army records" (your cite).
Posted by ELTV at September 30, 2005 08:17 PM
Enlistment or reenlistments, its sort of a three card Monty. The real focus is on year end strength. Congress limits the number of personnel in the active component. For years its ceiling has been set at 482,000. Years after 9/11, Congress finally authorized an increase of 20,000 to 502,000 personnel for FY 2005 [1 October 2004 - 30 September 2005]. That means not only does the retention process have to make up the usual loses in personnel inventory as it has had to do for years, it now has to find 20,000. Now some of that, but not the bulk can be handled through retention - reenlistment. That is very important in the need for seasoned NCOs.
You just do not add 20,000 to the inventory. The entire force structure has to be in place to receive and 'slot' them. That means adequate trainers and facilities to handle the increased input. That means you have to have cadre of officers and NCOs to provide the command and control. That means you have the facilities and equipment to billet and train [advanced and sustainment]those additional personnel.
So the real question is what is the year end strength going to be. If the Army attains 492,000 which is 10k more than last year, but 10k less than authorization, is it really a problem or is it just another meaningless bitching point for the enemy...er left?
For a perspective, a full division has anywhere from 12K to 16K personnel. The last division the Army stood up was the 10th at Fort Drum. It took over two years to assemble and train enough personnel to just to send one reinforced battalion on overseas deployment. Can we already see the whining and finger pointing by those who have absolutely no knowledge of military personnel, force structure, and training?
Posted by Don at September 30, 2005 08:21 PM
Facts on the ground ought to be facts on the ground. To attack the Associated Press for reporting the facts is really kind of sad. Folks, the truth waits for no one.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 08:22 PM
Thanks for the correction - interesting site - as well as an enlightening perspective on the AP article.
Posted by suek at September 30, 2005 08:24 PM
The AP's story is biased, but I don't think you can use enlistment rates in the Marines, Air Force, and Navy for a comparison. It depends on what the actual goal for each service was, doesn't it? I also seem to recall an article earlier this year that said the Air Force and Navy were actually downsizing their numbers of personnel. I think there is a special cross-service recruitment effort based on this. And the Marines are always going to hit their numbers because they are, well, Marines. ;-)
And of course, the military is still kicking out perfectly good, and at times excellent, soldiers and enlistee candidates because they are gay or lesbian. Apparently the latest twist in this is that if a soldier due to be deployed to Iraq comes out as gay, the DOD has issued orders to make them serve their tour of duty over there and then kick them out when they get back. I think thats fair enough. But it makes a lie out of the reasons given for the policy in the first place, that we were such a threat to order and morale that our presence couldn't be tolerated either in combat or out of it.
Posted by Patrick (Gryph) at September 30, 2005 08:55 PM
On the body armor issue - as numerous soldiers and marines have said, and Rumsfeld also stated, body armor is kind of usless when a LARGE IED goes off under your AMTRAC, Stryker, LAV, or Humvee. Even tank armor is effective up to a point. So the argument about indiviual body armor is not really an issue, unless it's the media doing the arguing.
Losing the war? By whose standards? Again. if all you do is listen to the MSM body count and one sided coverage, sure you could be convinced that the war is being lost. Again, read what the soldiers and marines in-country say, read what those doing the job are saying. The guys doing the job will tell you they are winning the war on the ground, but the media war here at home is not going so well. All it takes is an open mind and a willingness to beleive that our troops are actually doing better than the MSM makes them out to be. Get away from MSM coverage if you want a TRUE picture of progress in Iraq. Really disgusting how the media paints our troops in the war zone. Small victories and positive progress are ignored completely.
Posted by Rey Dominguez, Jr at September 30, 2005 08:59 PM
O.K., Rey, so you're saying they don't need body armor? Look, on that issue I really will defer to the experts. But please be clear, because my take-away from your comment is that body armor isn't an issue because it's unnecessary. If that's wrong, then please say so.
When I say the war's being lost it's not an indictment of the troops. I think it's being lost mainly at the strategic level but maybe also at the tactical level. There's no coherent rationale for being there and no coherent goal that I can discern.
By ordinary measures it looks very bad. Basic services don't work. The streets aren't safe. Americans have to cower in the green zone. Insurgents set off car bombs at will. There is no political unity among the Iraqis with the possible exception of the Shia -- who are aligned with Iran, which brings up that strategy issue.
That's what just kills me about all this, pardon the pun. The Bush administration's rationale is pretty much down to saying, "We've lost 2,000 people so we've got to stay." It's what I'd call the in-for-a-dime, in-for-a-dollar rationale.
It's pretty hard to argue that this is an anti-terror war when in fact Saddam's regime was a target of al-Qaeda and since the overthrow al-Qaeda has become stronger. It's hard to argue that it's a war against Islamic fundamentalists when two-thirds of Iraq (the south and Kurdistan) is run by Islamic fundamentalists.
It's hard to argue that it's a means of putting pressure on Iran when it's obvious that many of the Islamic fundamentalists (especially down South) are aligned with the Persians. It's hard to argue that it's about "freedom" when two thirds of the country is a theocracy and the "parliament" is a Potemkin fiction.
And of course, it's hard to argue that it was ever about WMD when they were never found and now the best anyone can do is say they're buried in Syria. And if we invade Syria and don't find them, then what? Tell everyone they were trucked to the dark side of the moon? And besides, we've tolerated North Korean nukes and Pakistani nukes; could it be that the genie's out of the bottle?
So no, I think it's become apparent to most Americans that this thing isn't working and that it's not going to work. I say the game's over, and if Bush and his people have any brains left they'll be figuring a way out before we're kicked out just like the Brits were in the 1920s.
Frankly, I think that's what all this constitution-writing is about. The White House is desperately searching for a fig leaf that will make an American withdrawal appear orderly. You know what? Even though I have precious little respect for Bush I hope the stunt works because the alternative -- an open defeat -- is really and truly going to cost us a whole lot.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 09:16 PM
Wilson,
Sodliers have adequate body armor. They are no longer deploying without it. Personal Body Armor=Non-Factor. Simple.
Armor Vehicles: The units now leave their vehicles here (states) most of the time and transfer the ones already in country to their unit upon RIP (relief in place). There is no more "hillbilly armor" in country. When I was there I had a soft shell HMMVEE with no doors. It was a problem. Not anymore. The only units that might have a problem are National Guard types with very old Duece and a half (trucks) ect... Why do they have crappy vehicles, b/c for the past 15 years, military has continually taken cuts to budget. Some IED's will destroy whatever they hit. Always improve on armor with Sandbags and ballistic glass ect... but once again, the problem has been addressed and the soldiers are in well armored trucks, Brads and tanks.
Some of your other points are pretty good, but the armor issue is not.
Rick
Posted by rick at September 30, 2005 10:52 PM
Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 09:16 PM
WillySnout is that you?
I haven't seen you since Greyhawk banned you back in June.
Posted by Tink at September 30, 2005 11:25 PM
"And of course, the military is still kicking out perfectly good, and at times excellent, soldiers and enlistee candidates because they are gay or lesbian."
Maybe because it is the LAW. Let me walk you through this. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress will make the laws governing the Army and the Navy [something about the English experience with Oliver Cromwell deemed that maybe the powers concerning the military should be divided]. That power is enacted by Title 10 U.S. Code. Subsection of which is commonly known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Chapter 47. Of the puntive articles Article 125, Sodomy, deems such acts to be a violation of military law. Further Article 78, Accessory after the fact, stipulates that under military law, if you know you must report a violation of the law. That is the LAW as enacted by Congress. Take up any proposed changes with them. And while you're at it, also address the issue about hetrosexuals who are also discharged and court martialed by the services for fraterization and adultry.
Posted by Don at September 30, 2005 11:59 PM
Don, everyone knows it's the law. Patrick is objecting to it being the law, and I agree with him about that. As with so many issues, I don't think the stated rationale for excluding homosexuals has much to do with the actual reason.
The stated rationale is that the presence of known homosexuals will undermine morale and fighting efficiency. If that were true, then you'd think in times of war the military would work harder than usual to ferret out homosexuals. The reality is precisely the opposite.
It's not a matter of homosexuals being less effective in wartime. It's a matter of the military's image in peacetime. They don't want to be seen as a playground for gays, so the personnel policy is hostile. I think there are other ways to discourage what the services fear than to reject all homosexuals outright.
Times have changed, and the rules should too.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 12:28 AM
"Facts on the ground ought to be facts on the ground. To attack the Associated Press for reporting the facts is really kind of sad. Folks, the truth waits for no one."
...and if what the AP reports is twisting the truth?
Posted by Patrick Chester at October 1, 2005 02:01 AM
"Losing the war? By whose standards?"
Kolb's, of course. When the war still remains unlost, I'm sure he'll find other standards to prove our imminent defeat.
Posted by Patrick Chester at October 1, 2005 02:03 AM
Besides the points I made earlier that went unaddressed by Patrick Chester's response, there was an interesting hearing the other day in which top military leaders didn't exactly paint a sunny picture.
http://w3t.org/?u=58x
And then there is the British situation in Basra, which seems to be just as bad as what's happening in Baghdad.
http://w3t.org/?u=58y
Remember our "allies" in Uzbekistan? Not so steadfast after all.
http://w3t.org/?u=58z
The former Iraqi army, which the U.S. threw out in a move that even the Bush administration now recognizes as a critical strategic blunder, isn't too happy either.
http://w3t.org/?u=592
Maybe the Republicans in Congress should dust off some of their old speeches.
http://w3t.org/?u=593
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 02:26 AM
Hm. The "you didn't address every point I make so I'm right" claim... after spewing even more things out.... with LINKS! Ooooo...
Yep. SOP for the "WE'RE DOOMED" team.
Posted by Patrick Chester at October 1, 2005 04:11 AM
Patrick Chester, you didn't address ANY points I made. I'll take that to mean you concede them.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 04:17 AM
Patrick Chester, you didn't address ANY points I made. I'll take that to mean you concede them.
Now the "you won't dance with my rehash of old claims of DOOOM and GLOOM about Iraq so I win! I win!" tactic. Gosh, you guys are sooooo repetitive. Haven't you figured out another dance routine?
Learn the difference between conceding and not bothering to play your games, save for some sarcastic remarks.
Posted by Patrick Chester at October 1, 2005 09:58 AM
Two quick points: There are a lot of people talking out of their butts on this issue who have no clue. First, the Army put in as many recruits as it did in 2003 and 2004, it just didn't make the increase it hoped for. Ergo, no "slump" or drop in recruiting. Secondly, the 5% vs. 25% DEP pool is not really an issue because shorter waits in the DEP pool mean fewer losses. Historically recruits sat for months waiting to go at the leisure of the Army, and in the interim, some found other employment. Now they get to leave sooner if they desire and are available to go (high school seniors, for example, have to wait to graduate).
Posted by Jeckell at October 1, 2005 02:46 PM
Jeckell, when someone signs a DEP contract it's my impression that they have to go regardless of what job they might have found in the meantime. Are you saying that a DEP contract is not enforced? That seems to be the point you're making, so I want to be certain that I have a clear and accurate understanding here.
If delayed enlistments aren't enforceable contracts, then why would, say, stop-loss provisions be enforceable and people be ripped out of jobs obtained after they leave active duty and shipped off to Iraq? Seems to me that a contract is a contract; tell me where I'm wrong.
Patrick Chester, maybe you could find a way to argue with Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, who recently told a newspaper that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history."
http://w3t.org/?u=5bf
Excerpt:
Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.
The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.
-----------
And Patrick Chester, before you write off Odom as just another leftist former general, you might want to note that he's a scholar at the Hudson Institute, a right-wing think tank.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 05:42 PM
Another comment: I think that when you've got guys like Odom saying what they're saying, you're getting near the end.
There are lot of senior military who are VERY much against what Bush ordered them to do. Not so much against the Iraq invasion itself, but against the idiot neocons who they saw as amateurs and against Rumsfeld's having torn up the logistics plan in the beginning, causing the catastrophic undermanning of the occupation force.
For a variety of reasons those people have been unwilling to speak up. But now they see the war being lost, and from their point of view the civilian leadership is at fault. They're looking at the sharks circling around Bush on the political front and thinking it's now or never as far as voicing their objections.
I think they're hoping it's not too late to salvage a face-saving withdrawal, or at least to somehow escape the blame for a total loss if it happens. See, this time around no one's going to be able to pin it on "the liberals" like they did with Vietnam.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 08:02 PM
I'm sure the right wing will try to say that Cindy Sheehan defeated the troops, but that one's not going to wash.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 08:20 PM
Goodness, Wilson certainly seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Let me address the DEP issue first. To begin with there is no longer a DEP, they are now to be refered to as Future Soldiers just a minor point. As far as a future soldier not shipping the penalties are so miniscule as to be non existent. The main penalty is that they are not eligible to try to join the military agian for a period of time, which means that they join over 50% of the possible pool of recruits as ineligible for service.
As far as the General that you seem to be so fond of. If I am not mistaken he has every right to express his opinion, as does any other American. You and the kool-aid drinking crowd seem to be very selective as to which opinions that you give credence to.
Rather than looking at single opinions I would ask that you look at history. The greatest victory of the media was Vietnam. Not only did they sway public opinion so much that the military was not allowed to do it's job in a way that would ensure victory, they caused America to abandon that area of the world. This allowed idealogical dictators to gain control and institute a reign of terror and mass murders. Haiti is another fine example of what happens when America doesn't finish a job, that country is worse off now than when we went in. Now I would suggest that you take a good hard look at Kosovo. Now, when we are attempting to stand up a government and train enough Iraqis to defend that government you want to cut and run again before the job is finished.
In my estimation for all practical purposes we will be out of Iraq in about two years, your cause won't last much longer.
Posted by SSG_K at October 3, 2005 01:22 AM
I used the acronym DEP because Jekell, who said those talking about the issue "have no clue," used it. Therefore, your complaint is with him and not with me. In any case, whether they are DEP enlistees or Future Soldiers, am I to understand that signing such a contract carries no practical force and that such people can melt into the woodwork during wartime and not be pursued? Yes or no.
As for whose opinions to give credence to, perhaps we can agree that each side is looking for support for their viewpoints? It seems to me that you're no less selective than I am.
Finally: The ongoing defeat in Iraq is not Bill Clinton's fault.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 3, 2005 02:57 AM
p.s.: Nor is it Cindy Sheehan's fault, nor is it Jane Fonda's fault. Nor is it the fault of Pat Tillman, whose family and comrades say opposed the war in Iraq.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 3, 2005 02:59 AM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(34) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
