Recruiting numbers for May have been delayed

[Dlaet]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 6815.shtml

[quote]"Military recruiting is instrumental to our readiness and merits the earliest release of data. But at the same time, this information must be reasonably scrutinized and explained to the public, which deserves the fullest insight into military performance in this important area[.]"[/url]

If the numbers do not improve during the summer, the most active recruiting period, especially if they continue to miss goals, what will be the options? Hypothetically, if troop strength is required to be maintained in Iraq till (at least) 2009 (per VP Cheney), and Afghanistan requires the same level currently for as long, and recruiting numbers continue to decrease or even maintain at a much lower than needed level, a volunteer force will most likley be insufficient. This is still all hypothetical, as the numbers could rise during the summer, or rise long term, or the deployment levels required in Iraq and Afghanistan could be reduced. But still, this is starting to be a little worrisome. Please allay or reinforce my worries.

As an aside, my wife and I discussed children and military service recently. We do not have any kids, and even if we had some in the near future, they would not be joining the military anytime soon. As a veteran, my experiences were less than positive, but my life would not be the same had my father not entered military service. My wife believes that if a person wants to serve their country or the world, that person should join Teach for America, AmeriCorps, or the Peace Corps (her brother is a current P.C. volunteer), and the military is not an option. I still feel it is our imaginary child's choice, and I would support them in whatever he or she decided, but I also know I would not intervene if my wife attempted to dissuade our child from entering military service. I can totally see where parents now are torn between letting their child do what they feel is right, and not wanting their child to die for a war they may not feel as strongly about as our parents and grandparents did about WWII.

[Dlaet]

Well I am a retard...using quote then url...sweet posting abilities.

[Partha]

The 10th is a Friday, historically a good time for the government to dump news that is unfavorable. That's because most people are out socializing Fridays instead of watching the news and they don't buy papers Saturday. So make of that what you will.

[Ddrak]

Hypothetically, if troop strength is required to be maintained in Iraq till (at least) 2009 (per VP Cheney), and Afghanistan requires the same level currently for as long, and recruiting numbers continue to decrease or even maintain at a much lower than needed level, a volunteer force will most likley be insufficient.

I don't believe that is correct. While missing recruitment targets will certainly increase pressure on the military and tighten their rotations I think they are a very long way from needing conscription to fix anything. In fact, I'd suggest that the US would actually pull back in some (or both) places before destroying the military with conscription.

In essence, if recruitment keeps dropping you can expect stop-loss measures to increase and expect reserve forces to be pulled into full time duty more and more.

Dd

[Partha]

You're assuming that they will ever think about pulling back, Dd. I don't see it happening with this administration.

[Ddrak]

Given the (admittedly ultra-hypothetical) alternative of pulling back or trying to enact conscription, they'll pull back. It's a moot point because the military wouldn't be in any state to require conscription to function before 2009.

Dd

[vaulos]

Keep in mind, that NATO will be taking over for US in Afghanistan starting early in 2006.

[crimsontide27]

Having witnessed this issue first hand, I dont belive conscription would ever be used, but a a more <persuasive marketing campaign> to get more people to join the service.

The military has just now issued its shortest active duty enlistment in history I believe, 15 months if I remember right. The catch is that it is still a 8 yr commitment, and with the National Guard and Reserves being used at an alarming rate, the odds you will do 15 months and be done with it are very slim.

Anyone that has ever gone through enlistment , or even some they may not have, know the recruiters will promise you the world and guarentee you so many options, bonuses, job choices, etc....only to find out the day you hit basic or your first duty station that it was all a lie.

IMO, the reason recruiting is so low is not because of deployments, but rather the underhandedness that goes along with it. For instance, your hardship tour is only 12 months....what they dont tell you is that if you dont have 13 monthes retainablity when its time to PCS back to the states, you are stuck on your hardship tour for up to 24 months. Word of mouth has reached many potential recruits, and the diasters going on overseas dont help.

Im not talking about the war in Iraq or Afghan, but more so the treatment of the everday soldier. They have seen they can be put in danger, get shot at, not be allowed to return fire. Theyve seen instances where if they defend themselves they face court martials and other than honorable, bad conduct, or dishonorable discharges. Theyve seen that the some units in the National Guard have been deployed now for over a year and some still have not receieved pay. They have seen that policys revolving around the military change on a whim, or are disregarded all together, stop loss being one of the biggest of them all.

Not too long ago, the government passed a law stating that stop loss will not last over 12-13 months, used to be that it could be indefinate. However, even though this was passed, they ignore it and continue to keep soldiers in critical MOS's for up to 2 years that I have personally seen. There was also a law passed to curb the abuse of long term and continuous deployments by the government by allowing a 100 dollar a day bonus if you were deployed x number of days in a y period. This has also been tossed out the window because its no longer convienient.

I may not speak for all soldiers, but a majority are fed up, and continue to let their friends know about they way they are being treated. I was so excited when I joined up that I had 5 other friends go with me. We were promised a bonus, choice of job, great enlistment bonus, airborne and airassault school, the ability to put in a warrent packet soon as arrive to basic etc etc...only to realize as soon as we arrived to Ft. Benning....nothing we were promised at all was true. Likewise, any time I was asked by a friend, friend of the family, etc if they should join...Id say no.

Whole point of this is that recruiting is down due to word of mouth. The military is quick to promise you the world to get you to join for between 2-8 years active, you make that 1 promise to affirm and uphold the Constitution etc etc, then they back out of all their promises to get you to join, but you are forced to uphold your one.

I dont think the military will scale back overseas commitments anytime soon. I know there was a plan in the works to scale back in Korea, but what they are doing is just consolidating alot of the posts onto one major post, and dropping troop strength by such a low percentage its no big deal.

As far as Nato or the UN taking over the deployments, it is my perception that we still provide the majority of the troops and equiptment, just under the command of others. I could be wrong, I have never involved in a joint UN or Nato deployment..

[Fetten]

The 15 Month enlistment you refer to is actually 1+ year old now. Those that sign up for it do 15 months of active duty followed by 2 years of reserve duty with the remaining 4 years of obligation to be served by oter options including the Peace Corps, rejoining active service, remaining reserve and other options. The program is called National Call to Service
Recruiters do sometimes go overboard in selling the job but there are reasons why you sign a contract before you take the oath and ship to boot camp. The "they promised me the world and gave me a great lie" is more myth then truth or a slam by people that joined the military and didn't bother to read the contract or know what they were doing.
Even though the Army and USMC are having trouble now I still don't think we're headed toward a draft.

[Partha]

You WERE aware that now the military is not allowing battalion commanders to remove soldiers for drug offenses, poor conduct, and fitness problems now, correct? Stated reason is because they can't afford the troop losses.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You WERE aware that now the military is not allowing battalion commanders to remove soldiers for drug offenses, poor conduct, and fitness problems now, correct? Stated reason is because they can't afford the troop losses.

That's interesting, if correct. Have a link?

[Fetten]

You WERE aware that now the military is not allowing battalion commanders to remove soldiers for drug offenses, poor conduct, and fitness problems now, correct? Stated reason is because they can't afford the troop losses.

I'd be interested in that link as well since I work in what is essentially a military manning office now that deals with personnel management and the processing of the above stated issues. I'd be able to tell the rest of my co-workers that our paperwork just got reduced.

[superwalrus]

you're a fucking retard if you think that the draft is going to be coming back ANYTIME soon.

Christ, chicken little, go away.

Walrus

[Ozbee's Revenge]

You WERE aware that now the military is not allowing battalion commanders to remove soldiers for drug offenses, poor conduct, and fitness problems now, correct? Stated reason is because they can't afford the troop losses.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?ar ... onal_news/

The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was "a matter of great concern" in an army at war. It told officers: "We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3 000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3 000 more soldiers in our formations."

Oz

[Fetten]

Interesting article, but it has some inconsistincies

forcing the expansion of a pilot programme offering 15-month active duty enlistments, rather than the usual four years.

Again that program is about 1 year old now and is designed to increase reserve numbers by offering 15 months active duty 2 years reserve and the remainder of the 8 year obligation being served in a number of ways. The members in this program do not have to stay a reserve in the component they were in after the 2 years. They can go to the Peace Corps or Americoprs for example if they choose. They can even do a combination of the options if they choose.

The military's target is 80 000 new recruits this year, but the army only managed 73% of its target in February, 68% in March and 57% in April

That's the Army's target alone not "the military's". I'm not sure what the Air Force and USMC numbers are but the USN goal is 35k currently and is on par. If their other months are good then they have attained about half of the goal with typically big months remaining. The Army will still likely be short though of the year goal.

One recruiting standard that was about to be lowered was a rule governing tattoos in the navy and marines. "If you have excessively prominent and vulgar tattoos they will not take you right now, but that is about to change,"

I don't know where this General is getting this from. Individuals with prominent racially or sexually offensive tattoos will still not be considered. The excessive tattoos would have to be to the point of being a distraction or in places that detract from professionalism like the face.

The recruiters that gave advice on how to beat drug tests, etc, etc have been removed from the duty and disciplined. They are still not allowed to go outside the bounds of eligibility for recruitment.

Again I still don't see a draft coming anytime soon. The various services are doing things to relieve the deployment stresses now in terms of communities better trained to handle tasks taking over for units not as well trained, etc

[Ddrak]

I believe the USMC is 2% below target. Seems to mainly be the Army with issues.

Dd

[Riggen]

I expect the draft would result in the removal of Republicans from power for a generation. They wouldn't risk that.

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

You WERE aware that now the military is not allowing battalion commanders to remove soldiers for drug offenses, poor conduct, and fitness problems now, correct? Stated reason is because they can't afford the troop losses.

That's interesting, if correct. Have a link?

That is not something that isn’t going to be published on anything with the DOD but that shit was happening 8 Years ago to a lesser degree. The Army it seems (FT. Stewart for sure) loves using loopholes.

Ft. Stewart (major shithole, 3ID) Depending on what the unit wanted to do, seen solders test positive for drugs and be gone in a month and seen them stay for another 2 years before getting kicked out. Same for poor conduct.

Never seen anyone kicked out (after AIT) for fitness problems just sent to do remedial PT several times a day.


The reason for this is most the time when someone pisses hot (pos for drugs) they want out of service, they never like to let anyone out easy.
The few people I seen kicked out fast either actually wanted to be a member of the service or was a danger to them selves and the unit. Any one else lingers on as a PVT E-1 until they are removed for retention reasons.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Looks like that article addresses recruits, not line soldiers.

[Partha]

I misspoke. Still doesn't disprove my point - they are loosening standards for soldiers because they need the bodies.