posted on February 21, 2005 08:47:06 AM new
Why is the American military in South America paying those poor desperate people $18,000 to enlist ?????????
posted on February 21, 2005 10:33:18 AM new
LOL helen....I owe you nothing....and I have no "obligation" to do anything while posting here. Be clear on that.
Your continued concern about a draft is laughable. Your party used that as a scare tactic before the Presidential election....guess what?? It didn't work. They were exposed and it was pointed out that the ONLY person calling for a draft was a DEMOCRAT...rangle. If you remember correctly, the House voted AGAINST rangle's bill 402-2.
But I understand like twelve and bear having pointed out to you many, many times....you have absolutely NO idea of what you are talking about when it comes to our Armed Forces and how things work internally.
I seriously doubt your concern about our recruitment levels has anything to do with concern for our troops/country...or your want to increase the size of our military ...like both kerry and edwards did. I see it more as pleasing you while your fingers are crossed that our Armed Forces WILL face a shortage of American's who are willing to serve their country....on a volunteer basis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
LOL back atcha dingbat. If you want to be believed you will need back up. I've caught you in too many lies to see any credibility in your unsupported information. This case is a good example.
Of course, it's your decision to make. But it's highly irregular to refuse to provide a link to your questionable data.
washingtonpost.com
Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Fewer Enlistees Are in Pipeline; Many Being Rushed Into Service
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A01
The active-duty Army is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with senior officers.
For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4 percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.
Meanwhile, the Army is rushing incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary incentives.
Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed to rotate into Iraq and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq conflict.
"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."
Other senior military officers have voiced similar concerns in recent days. "I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17. The Marine Corps fell short of its monthly recruiting quota in January for the first time in nearly a decade.
Because the Army is the main U.S. military ground force, its ability to draw recruits is critical to the nation's preparedness to fight current and future wars. The Army can sustain its ranks through retaining more experienced soldiers -- and indeed retention in 2004 was 107 percent -- but if too few young recruits sign up, the force will begin to age. Moreover, higher retention in the active-duty Army translates into a dwindling stream of recruits for the already troubled Army Guard and Reserve.
Army officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis. As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.
Still, the recruiting difficulties reflect unprecedented demands on today's soldiers that are unlikely to let up soon. Never before has the all-volunteer Army deployed to war zones in such large numbers for multiple, yearlong tours. It is doing so with a total force cut by 300,000 troops -- from 28 active-duty and reserve divisions to 18 -- since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The Army is now working to add 30,000 soldiers by 2009, expanding the active-duty force from 482,000 to 512,000, as it builds 10 to 15 new combat brigades to add to divisions for overseas tours. But cultivating so many fresh recruits without lowering standards is a serious challenge, senior Army leaders say. "If you cut down 300,000 trees, you can do that pretty quick, but now grow 30,000 of them back," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, told a House Armed Services committee hearing Feb. 9. "It takes time, as you know, to grow the quality soldier."
Time, however, is what the Army lacks.
Beyond replacing normal turnover each year, officials say the Army must accelerate recruitment to meet an aggressive timeline for filling out the new brigades of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers each, as well as to expand and reorganize the 33 existing brigades.
Newly trained troops are essentially being rationed out -- a process Army officers call "turning on the faucet" -- a few months before the brigades are to deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. The military plans to keep about 120,000 troops in Iraq through 2006.
"The priority fill goes to deploying units to make sure they are at full strength before they go overseas," says Col. Joseph Anderson, who until this month served as chief of staff of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky.
Such demands have led the Army to deplete its reservoir of enlistees in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). The DEP consists of people who have signed enlistment contracts but opt to delay their entry to training camps for up to a year. DEP numbers fell from 33,249 at the beginning of fiscal 2004 to 14,739 at the start of this fiscal year, according to U.S. Army Recruiting Command statistics.
As a result, while the Army began last year with 45.9 percent of its recruiting goal filled by the pool, this year it started with just 18.4 percent in the pool -- the lowest amount since 2001 and well below the 30 percent average for the past decade. That means the Army must redouble its efforts to meet this year's target.
"Would we like a deeper DEP, a greater number? Of course we would," Hagenbeck said. But despite his anticipation of an even tougher recruiting environment in 2006 -- resulting from an improving economy and public uncertainty over the Iraq war -- he said the overriding need to hasten recruits to units means there are no plans to replenish the DEP this year.
Meanwhile, netting each new recruit is proving more difficult and time-consuming, Hagenbeck said, requiring the Army to put hundreds more active-duty recruiters on the job.
"The youngsters that are joining us are spending more time with the recruiters before they raise their right hand," he said. Today, most prospective enlistees contact the Army via the Internet, he said, asking numerous questions that require more recruiters to answer online and follow up with phone calls.
But few candidates will join up before meeting a recruiter in person and spending significant amounts of time with one, he said. "They ultimately want to see a soldier, a recruiter, and talk to them eyeball to eyeball," he said. As a result, "the recruiter who could go out and recruit two people this week might be consumed with recruiting that one."
The average cost of signing up a recruit is also beginning to rise, from $15,265 in fiscal 2001 to $15,967 in fiscal 2004 -- the result of more recruiters, advertising, and increased enlistment bonuses. In January, the Army announced a new six-month advertising contract with Leo Burnett USA worth an estimated $100 million. The Army is offering bonuses of as much as $20,000 to enlist on active duty for four years, with special monetary incentives for candidates who have college degrees, sign up for high-priority jobs or agree to move quickly into training.
The Army is also paying more to retain active-duty soldiers, 50 percent of whom now receive reenlistment bonuses, compared with 39 percent in 2003, Army officials said.
"We may not get exactly the number of people we want, but we're not sacrificing quality," Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told a House committee Feb. 9.
The Army is offering higher ranks to enlistees who have spent time in college or junior ROTC, and as a result is bringing in more recruits at ranks above private, or E-1.
Such policies could partly explain a shift in the Army's junior enlisted ranks that has perplexed military analysts. The number of privates (E-1 through E-3) in the active-duty Army has sharply declined from 126,100 in October 2001 to 107,500 in December 2004. Meanwhile, the number of corporals and specialists (E-4) has risen from 95,400 to 115,500.
Another explanation is that the active-duty Army is maintaining its force strength more through retention than recruitment, resulting in a subtle aging of the force -- a trend already evident in the Army Reserve, officials said.
posted on February 21, 2005 10:52:07 AM new
And trying to support your position with information from twelve and bear is laughable. I don't need military training to read a front page Washington Post news report.
posted on February 21, 2005 11:07:56 AM new
helen...did you forget your meds this morning?
You have NEVER caught me in a lie, because I don't lie. I said what I had read...and now I've posted it to show what it said.
As far as accountability goes...I'd be more than happy to post links to anything I say to back up my statements. And I have done so many, many times.
There's just one problem....I choose NOT to do so when there's selective requests to do so. OR where you continue to expect me to do what you don't require from others who agree with your far leftist posts.
Your tag-a-long and many other lefties here copy and paste and don't even mention where their article is from. But I make a statement about what I'd recently read....and you get on your little soapbox and start making demands of me. ONLY ME.... That's just a bit to onesided for my liking.
So...when you hold all others to the same standards you'd LIKE to DEMAND of me....I'll comply.
And I notice you won't disclose just why you're still so concerned about a draft....that was voted down to stop all the rumors and lies coming from the left before the election on this subject. Are you saying that since you are so concerned about the recruitment levels...that you're wanting to see a draft helen?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 11:17:54 AM new
Linda, in all seriousness though, dont you think with so many impending threats going on, they will need to reinstitute a draft? Eventually?
I watched this guy on the news the other night, (some military analyst flig-wig that was supposedly forced to retire when he said we dont have enough troops in public.) - anyway, he seemed to have a great deal of experience and know what he was talking about.
We are short-stretched with troops, if we start looking at Iran, etc. arent we?
posted on February 21, 2005 11:22:06 AM new
Here's the plan... we just take over Canada...draft all their able bodied men and women, send them over to Iran or where ever, pay them in Canadian dollars (cheap labor) and our problem is solved!
posted on February 21, 2005 11:32:51 AM new
dblfugger -
Honestly I'd say no to a draft being 'necessary' in the near future...even as it stands. Because I really believe that if or when we are attacked again....we will see the volunteer rate rise just like we did following 9-11.
You'll also notice, please, that helen's WP article said....Army officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis.
Their words....no quote from this 'army official'.
And then it goes on to say:
As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.
And they still have until the end of September to meet their 'recruitment goals' for 2005.
We have troops that clinton sent all over the world...he called them 'peacekeeping' troop deployments. They're still there and could be called upon in the event of another attack. Just as they are beginning to do all over the world. Plus in the event of an out-and-out war there are hundreds of thousands of soldier that are on active duty that would be called up to fight.
clinton cut our military by 40%....[I believe around 300,000 forces - but I'd have to verify those numbers] and you can't rebuild a force in short order....again unless necessity demands it. This President has been working on adding more troops to our 'regular' military force.....but it's going to take time.
Are we stretched thin? Yes we are BECAUSE past administrations decided that we'd go with a much smaller 'ready' force and depend more on our 'reservists'.
Imo, this is one reason this administration has stayed firm on the six nation talks with NK....and Europe talking with Iran. Because they believe the behavior of NK and Iran affect MORE than just the US....so they TOO should be involved in solving this 'hot' issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 11:33:14 AM new So...when you hold all others to the same standards you'd LIKE to DEMAND of me....I'll comply.
Linda, You know that I am always ready to document anything that I say but I am not in charge of you or any others here. I haven't demanded anything of you, linda. I am simply telling you that in order to be credible you will have to document your data when asked. If not, I will not verify your information for you. I simply will either believe it or not...more than likely not.
The Army's Personel Chief...Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck
"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."
linda, It's only obvious that to keep up with your war mongering president's agenda which may last another 10 years, more troops will be needed. It's certainly not "my want" as you said.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...Gen. Richard B. Myers
Other senior military officers have voiced similar concerns in recent days. "I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17. The Marine Corps fell short of its monthly recruiting quota in January for the first time in nearly a decade.
posted on February 21, 2005 11:48:06 AM new
Linda, I'll just clarify one thing, not considering which administration is at fault: This guy said this before the invasion of Iraq.
Other thing to note is McCain was asked about the "Exit Strategy" in a very point blank way.
A reporter (Tim Russert?) said, "so how long do you think we will be in Iraq?" He, (McCain) inhaled a big breath, and stuttered, "I think,..I think,..it's gonna be a long time." Then of course, he went on to recount all the varibles that could change that and how it's up to the Iraquies.
Well, it's good to know the military is on par or close to on par for their recruitment goals. I am kind of worried though if a crises or two happens here, where the guard is usually sent in for assistance......
edited to add: thanks for answering my concerns, I appreciate it.
..
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Feb 21, 2005 11:50 AM ]
posted on February 21, 2005 11:55:57 AM new
dblfugger - My figure of 300,000 was incorrect....clinton removed 500,000 forces plus stopped spending on other military necessities.
posted on February 21, 2005 12:04:37 PM new
helen - Here I thought you were so great at pulling up old posts....at google searches.
I SAID I had read it...and I posted it. If you choose not to believe it was in print....your choice - I could care less.
And you will notice...NO Congressperson is talking about a 'draft' anymore....it's just the lefties here that are still stuck in the mud of the past election arguments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 12:12:24 PM new Linda, I chose NOT to believe it and I was RIGHT. You misinterpreted the information. I suppose that I have to post it over and over again.
You said..."I just read the US. Airforce and Navy have turned away somewhere around 9,000 people who wanted to sign up."
But your article stated, "The Air Force says it is so overstocked that it has a backlog of about 9,000 enlistees who have not yet been called to duty:"
Nowhere does the article indicate that they were "turned away" as you spun the story.
posted on February 21, 2005 12:20:00 PM new
dblfugger - As far as how long we'll have troops remaining in Iraq...it's anybody's 'guess'. I wouldn't expect to see our high level of troops leave anytime soon. And I sure don't remember this President saying anything about pulling our troops out quickly either. He said the major work had just begun....around the 'mission accomplished' period of time. But the troop levels that do remain there will be governed by the situation and what the new Iraqi government decides. We could have just 'peacekeeping' troops there...just like we have in Japan and Europe, from WWII, and currently in many other countries for generations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 02:49:37 PM new
No helen....it's you not understanding how the miliary works and me not being the greatest at articulating my posts.
If they already have 9,000 enlistees that they have no job openings for and so they can't be used right now....then that also speaks to why they may end up turning recruits away....as my article stated. They have too many applying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 02:51:44 PM new
But in any case....you are beating a dead horse to continue to speak to the NEED for a draft. Which is why I responded to your 'scare tactic' in the first place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 04:36:30 PM new
Sorry, but I hope the words taste good because, Linda, you will find yourself eating them!
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
That's just a bit to onesided for my liking.
