Last week, I discussed the recruiting shortfalls the military is suffering, and I noted this sensational story about some serious allegations against Marine recruiters:
The next weekend, when Marcia went to Seattle for the Folklife Festival and Axel was home alone, two recruiters showed up at the door.
Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, “Not interested,” the sarge turned surly, snapping, “You’re making a big (bleeping) mistake!”
Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the door.
Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, “Not interested,” the sarge turned surly, snapping, “You’re making a big (bleeping) mistake!”
Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the LaConner Brewing Co., the restaurant where Axel works. And before Axel, an older cousin and other co-workers knew or understood what was happening, Axel was whisked away in a car.
Read the whole original story.
This didn’t sound like my experiences with recruiters, so I was skeptical even though times have changed. I noted:
I can’t verify that story other than the link provided, but, if it is true, that is a problem itself- and not the solution to a recruiting shortfall.
I even went one step farther. On the 9th, I emailed the author of the story, Susan Paynter:
Susan,
I would like to keep up with your ongoing investigation into this Marine recruiting scandal, if there is an ongoing investigation.
Your piece has created quite a stir in the blogsphere…
Please keep me up to date if yuo have anything new or any new stories.
Regards,
I received no response. Greg Prince provides a possible explanation:
National Review’s Stephen Spruiell did some fact checking and things aren’t what they seem.
It turns out Paynter based her story almost entirely upon the perspective of Cobb’s viciously anti-military mother without comparing her story with Marine records. It shouldn’t be surprising to find there are significant variations between Paynter’s and the Marine’s versions of things. For example, Paynter reports of a “relentless barrage of calls.” Marine records show he was an average of once every two months starting his senior year – not unreasonable given a recruiter’s desire to stay in touch with kids showing possible interest in a military career. Indeed, Axel himself visited recruitment offices.
Paynter has since backed off her accusations of Cobb’s virtual kidnapping, and claims to have attempted speaking with the Marines.
The USMC recruitment office never heard from her. Paynter isn’t being forthcoming with who she tried to contact and how, but Spruiell was able to get accurate information within three business days.
In other words, it appears that Paynter and her story stink. I was right to be skeptical. Paynter whipped together a crappy piece full of innuendo and light on investigation, and it was rapidly disseminated as gospel truth.
You want to heap some scorn on the media figures who play fast and loose with the truth- here is a ripe target. And, quite honestly, as someone who has spent a great amount of energy and a great amount of time defending the media from unfair attacks, this infuriates me. I’ll just add her to the list of people I never trust again.
KC
You’re on a role John. Again, all I can say is, amen.
Antonio Manetti
I’m still skeptical.
Yeah, allegations of kidnapping seem way overblown. But, while I’d like to think otherwise, given the pressure to produce and the high-level stink about recruitment tactics, I don’t rule out CYA on the part of the recruiters.
Speaking of overblown accusations, I saw nothing in the story to support Greg Prince’s characterization of Cobb’s mother as “viciously anti-military”. I have an 18 year old grandson whose mother would fight like hell to keep him from enlisting and putting himself in harm’s way. What parent wouldn’t for God’s sake?
Antonio
Frank
I read the original account and thought the mother sounded overaught but at the same time why would you trust the recruiter’s side of the story.
When I went into the military in 90 other millitary people generally had a low opinion of recruiters and their honesty. Was it really that different when you were in?
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Only a sucker would’ve bought this story for a second.
Robbie
Antonio…I see you’re going with the Newsweek’s ‘fake but plausible’ defense of this BS story.
Robbie
Antonio…I see you’re going with Newsweek’s fake but plausible defense of this BS story.
Losing Faith
Robbie said:
“Antonio…I see you’re going with Newsweek’s fake but plausible defense of this BS story.”
Uhhhh, where to start. Ok, firstly it was CBS that started with the fake, but plausible thing and it wasn’t just plausible, it was that those memos were forged, but the info was correct. It just wasn’t the original memo. Slightly different than what you’re saying, BUT more valid for YOUR point. Especially considering Newsweek was vindicated to some extent. It would have been nicer to at least see people scream for an apology FOR Newsweek as a lot of people did at Newsweek when the government (who shouldn’t even be commenting on what journalists should be printing) was making an issue of it. The report that Newsweek referenced WAS released, from the Pentagon, within a couple weeks of everyone freaking out over Newsweek saying there was a report. So, Newsweek didn’t start the fake, but plausible and it doesn’t apply to them. “True, but embarassing for the government” is more apt for Newsweek.
James Emerson
Unfortunately, this is the kind of narrative that takes hold in the minds of parents whose children are at the age of risk for recruiter abuse. Unfortunate because the military once meant a decent opportunity for kids who hadn’t developed a sense of direction towards their lives. That opportunity is now seen as a death/dismemberment/PTSS warrant by those who might apply. Unfortunate again because the lies that led us down the path towards the occupation of Iraq and the spectacle of Abu Ghraib have become associated with military service. The honour found in serving one’s country…which peaked right after 9/11…has been squandered away by an administration more interested in its own political agenda and war profits for its supporters than in its respect for truth, honour, and the ideals that were once America’s beacon of light…
Can’t really blame the parents for protecting their children, the beacon of light is darkened once again. They’ve seen this movie before, and know the ending by heart…
Nash
Attack the one that brung ya
National Review’s Stephen Spruiell did some fact checking and things aren’t what they seem.
According to the Book of the Right, I’m instructed to note that National Review’s Stephen Spruiell is hardly a disinterested party to this story.
Axe, grind?
ppgaz
This entire situation is a failure of the information stream.
The symptom is the lining up of agenda-driven channels to move particular versions of a story.
This creates several bad results. One, it creates spun churn around the story which takes the air out of the larger story … which is, obviously, recruitment shortfalls and the possibility of recruiting “anomalies” that result from those shortfalls.
Soon, the very name of the story starts to depend on who is speaking. If you are a rigid defender of anything coming out of the administration, the pentagon, the armed services, or the GOP, your job is to paint the whole issue as being ginned up by America haters and terrorist spologists.
If you are a rigid defender of the opposition, then your job is to paint the whole issue as being covered up by the GOP noise machine and the Limbaughites.
The real story, and whatever truth it contains, is lost in the noise.
The real story, it seems to me, is the recruiting shortfalls. That story has real consequences, and real power interests are going to spin around that story in order to drive their own agendas.
Don’t you ever get tired of the constant manipulation and bullshit? “You” are whoever you are, righty or lefty. Don’t you ever get tired of it?
This particular story is not “the” story. “The” story is that the Iraq war is sucking the air out of the manpower management of the armed forces. That’s a big problem, no matter which party line you like to subscribe to.
John Cole
PPGaz- While the real message may be the recruiting shortfalls, Mrs. Paynter did not have to resort to smearing Marine recruiters to tell it.
Again, I don;t know what happened here for sure, but it sure sounds like Paynter sure exxagerated what happened.
ppgaz
Agreed.
James Emerson
The “real story” implies a number of facts connected by a reasonable explanation.
The narrative is an appealing expanation (to some) where facts are selected or invented to match ones agenda.
The recruiting story may or may not be true, but it is a certainty that the administration was untruthful when constructing its narrative leading us off to war.
Now the consequences of constantly repeating a demonstratably false narrative…like Ward Churchill’s chickens…are coming home to roost. No sane parent wants to send their kid off into a lost fight.
ppgaz
I don’t agree with you, James, if I understand what you are saying, which I may not.
Parents not wanting to send their kid into a lost fight is not a situation that resulted from amped-up recruiting horror stories. It resulted from a rational response on the part of parents to the larger situation which you describe. The recruiting shortfalls came as a result.
I fully expect recruiting “anomalies” to occur as a result. Recruiters are under a hell of a lot of pressure and they are going to push the envelope, and by so doing, probably break a rule or two here and there and piss some people off. Stories of those events needn’t be hyped, but neither need they be spun away or dismissed. Most importantly, they need not and should not take the place of the real story, which is, the war is losing popularity, recruiting is in trouble, and manpower issues are not going to go away. The “war” or “occupation” or whatever we call it now is not going away, because we cannot and should not walk away from it. I say that as a steadfast opponent of the original concept of this war and its purported intentions. We must finish the job we started, whether we like it or not.
mac Buckets
Florid prose, James, but ultimately stinking of root-rot.
Unfortunate because the military once meant a decent opportunity for kids who hadn’t developed a sense of direction towards their lives.
No, underneath the TV ads, the military has always “meant” training to fight enemies of the country. I must’ve missed when the army became purely a technical community college.
Unfortunate again because the lies that led us down the path towards the occupation of Iraq and the spectacle of Abu Ghraib have become associated with military service.
First, there’s no case that “lies” led to the war (and to claim that any lies have been “linked to military service” seems silly unless you back it up with SOMETHING). You can argue priorities, you can argue strategy, you can argue intel, but citing “lies” just rips your cred. Why these arguments must always begin with unproven slander is beyond me — don’t you see how it undermines the rest of your argument by marking you as someone who plays fast-and-loose with the facts?
Second, “occupation?” Really? Have you been in a coma for 18 months? Is the left still seriously pretending that we truly “occupied” Iraq? Well, this must’ve been the least effective “occupation” of all time, since we began giving authority back, in accordance with pre-war planning, to the “conquered” country within months of the invasion. So let’s not toss around such words without knowing what they mean.
For example, if you want to see what “occupation” looks like, look at the British in India for a minimal stardard for the term, or the Soviets in Hungary for a stronger example, or the Nazis in Poland for an even stronger one. Not too similar to allowing the Iraqi majority to rule in Iraq, is it?
Third, I seriously doubt that Abu Ghraib has much to do with recruitment. I don’t think any mother is shielding her son from service because she doesn’t want him to make naked terrorist pyramids (for which he will be tried).
The honour found in serving one’s country…which peaked right after 9/11…has been squandered away
The honor of serving the country has not faded, but the safety and comfort of serving it certainly has, in the eyes of many. Given the barrage of negative coverage from the sensationalist, anti-military media (and the corresponding complete absense of positive coverage), it’s no wonder that recruitment is down. No doubt, if they only watched the news on TV, high school seniors would think that every soldier in Iraq comes home in a box or with no legs, and that every day, soldiers are dodging RPG fire from every Iraqi who lays eyes on them.
Of course, the facts of Iraq casualty rates are much different, but if you hold your breath waiting for the MSM to tell you that, you’ll die waiting.
by an administration more interested in its own political agenda and war profits for its supporters than in its respect for truth, honour, and the ideals that were once America’s beacon of light…
If by “its own political agenda,” you mean “ousting Saddam and freeing Iraq from a tyrant, which had been the policy since the CLINTON Administration,” you would be correct. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what you meant.
And are we seriously back to that old “War for Halliburton” meme? The anti-war (well, anti-war-led-by-a-Republican) types whine that Bush had serial justifications for the war, but at least Bush laid ALL those justifications out en masse in every speech before the war. The Bush-haters seem to be serially rotating their “War for…Oil, Revenge, Halliburton, Evil Empire (on which I thought they had finally settled), Swarthy Mustaches, etc.” imaginings.
Also, I’d love to hear what you think “the ideals that were once America’s beacon of light…” if you don’t think liberating citizens from minority-rule despots is included in those ideals. We’ve always been pretty big fans of freedom in America, although there have always been the “screw the foreigners if they can’t overthrow their own dictator, we’ve got to take care of us” crowd — I believe the liberals used to call them “heartless conservatives.”
Sorry for the length. Love and kisses…
Rick
And are we seriously back to that old “War for Halliburton” meme?
m Buckets,
Back? When did it ever go away?
Cordially…
ppgaz
Just to be clear …. as opposed as I am to the original Iraq war concept (that includes the Gulf War, too, so I am nothing if not consistent) ….
I am fully supportive of the troops and mindful of the danger and hardship we have put them in.
Therefore, it seems to me, that the first priority here should be to do what is right for the people in the armed forces. That’s why I assert that the recruiting shortfall is the important story. Manpower problems are going to impact the fighting men and women first, and the pencil pushers later.
So it all ties together. We owe it to the people of Iraq, to our own service personnel, and to the world to finish the messy job in Iraq to the best of our national ability. That’s going to include the need for adequate manpower in the armed forces. Further, our responsibility to the troops requires that we manage the manpower situation. I can’t think of anything that will have a greater impact on them than adequate manpopwer and relief.
So, churn away over the shadings of individual anecdotes and who said what to whom, at the expense of the really important issue here.
And don’t listen to the barking dogs who want to spin this story so that it appears that the hyped anecdote here and there is the reason for the recruiting shortfall. That’s just not the case.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Back? When did it ever go away?
I thought it was decided 6 months ago that Bush was just a puppet of PNAC and Wolfowitz. I was informed by someone in know (probably from Kos) that Wolfowitz’s zionist fervor against Muslims, coupled with PNAC’s desire for US World Domination, led to the invasion. That had better be correct, or I wasted a lot of money on my “US World Domination, sponsored by PNAC” T-shirt.
ppgaz
Say what you want about the neocons, either way. I can’t find that any reasnable review of their history (who they are, what they think, and how they got there to think those things) could lead to any conclusion other than this: They’re crazy. They have a radical worldview which is based on sugar candy spun into a large pink ball, for the simple reason that they have no data or historical perspective to support their conclusions. That’s just for starters. Closely behind, is the fact that they brook no disagreement. To paraphrase, you are either with them, or against America. That’s an attitude for which I have zero tolerance, period. I don’t care who you are or what you think, that attitude is not acceptable.
So there you have the people whose ideas are shaping the national policy: Crazy ideologues who brook no criticism and put themselves above all others.
Tell me again, why should I trust these people?
And, of course, tell me again why you all should be churning this stuff in the face of a realtime military problem, namely, a recruiting shortfall of serious proportions?
Compuglobalhypermeganet
And, of course, tell me again why you all should be churning this stuff in the face of a realtime military problem, namely, a recruiting shortfall of serious proportions?
Take it easy. It was just an aside. There’s plenty of bandwidth.
James Emerson
The increased difficulty our recruiters are experiencing stems from the situation on the ground in Iraq. Parents are cognizant of both the failure that is Iraq, and of the extreme measures that recruiters employ to make their quota. Regardless of the veracity of the recruiter abuse stories, they are entirely believable in the eyes of worried parents.
We find ourselves in pretty much the same situation as we were in during the Vietnam war. The only difference is that we had a draft then, and it was the draft that largely fueled the antiwar movement. Sans draft legislation (political suicide I’m sure) recruiters have resorted to what would be considered legal harassment if done in the name of a private corporation. I am the father of a draft age young man, and have experienced this personally. I no longer allow my son to answer the phone, and do not allow the recruiters to talk with him when they call.
My son regularly gets recruitment mail from them. From what I gather, they make a lot of promises about fantastic opportunities, but never talk about the war. How realistic is that? It’s the same PR approach to recruiting that was used to get us into the war in the first place. No wonder parents are cynical.
Whether or not they are hyped or spun, the recruiting horror stories are emblematic of our failure in Iraq. The war is indeed in trouble, losing popularity especially amongst those who traditionally are asked to fight and possibly die for their country. The war is far more popular amongst the ruling elite than the middle class. It’s been very good for the bottom line of a number of well connected corporations, but it’s losing popularity as the bottom line of returning coffins keeps coming closer to home. After all these years some things remain the same, nobody wants to be the first on the block to have his kid come home in a box. Certainly not for a pack of lies.
You say “we cannot and should not walk away from it.” I remember similar words being spoken during Vietnam. We ended up staying there long enough for our loss to be obvious to all. That was a hard loss. Apparently, we didn’t learn that lesson, and because of that we are condemmed to the same fate in Iraq.
ppgaz
Putting the partisan politics aside for the moment, James, what would you say is a solution to the military manpower problem we face now?
(I’m not implying any particular viewpoint or conflict here when I suggest shelving the politics. My question is to anyone regardless of their political stripe).
DecidedFenceSitter
I don’t think there is one that is politically viable.
Perhaps raising salaries to make it more lucrative to be a soldier?
Anyone know what the recruit figures were for the years AFTER Vietnam? And whether they took a hit or not?
Compuglobalhypermeganet
…what would you say is a solution to the military manpower problem we face now?
Another 9/11, maybe. A decade without a war, perhaps. A peacenik to win the Presidency, possibly (although my body shudders at the ancillary horrors that would bring).
There’s no political/PR solution, because the media, sensationalist and negative by nature (and anti-military by politics), is now so pervasive that every ground war the US fights from here until doomsday will be seen in high-def by tens of millions as Hell, Part Deux, where every US soldier is killed or mutilated, and his/her family is ultimately destraught or destroyed.
It makes for good TV!
James Emerson
ppgaz – The process has suffered grievous wounds. There is no easy solution. The draft is off the table until we get hit with another 9/11. Until then, the military will continue its slowmo breakdown.
Beyond the recognition of the impending disaster of military breakdown, I have no realistic reccomendations for its repair, at least until the political process that got us there is repaired. Until then, it’s pointless to fix something that will only be directed into more futility.
mac buckets – You deserve a reasoned response, but at this point you’ll have to accept my acknowledgement of your post.
Old Patriot
As a retired Air Force NCO, I know the recruiting techniques of the Air Force have changed over time. I’d assume the Marines are the same. I also know that no one in any branch of the military would go to the extremes mentioned above to enlist ANYONE. It’s just not worth it. Such a person would probably not make it through Basic. You have to WANT to be there – the whole purpose of Basic is to ensure that ONLY those that want to, finish.
As for “lies that got us into Iraq”, that’s a story with no legs. It’s also just another example of how the news media slant the truth to match an agenda – one that’s ALWAYS anti-military. I got sick to death of it during Vietnam (yes, I went there), and it’s no different now. The MSM does the work of the enemy, and has since 1968. May all the liars that publish such crap burn forever in Hell!
ppgaz
Easy, old timer. You really want to fight a war with half of your own country? Because that’s what your post leads to, IMNSHO.
The fact is, the war was a bill of good sold to an emotional public still reeling from 9-11.
If MSM were any good at their jobs, they’d have exposed that fact three years ago before we started the war. Too late for that now.
frontinus
ppgaz, James, etc.
If what you say is true, specifically that recruiting shortfalls are the result of a “rational” decision by potential recruits then how do you explain retention rates? Are the soldiers re-enlisting irrational? They are the ones on the ground paying the highest price yet they are re-upping above the target rates. And those who have been in combat are re-upping at a higher rate than those who have not. If your thesis is correct that the “situation on the ground in Iraq” is the cause of the shortfalls then try to work retention in and get back to me. Until then all I see is you fixing(dear me) cherry-picked facts around your world view.
ppgaz
Um, I think the cherry picking is yours, frontius. I’d guess — since that’s what I’m stuck with, lacking data to show otherwise — that reenlistment is more driven by a desired to stay and support one’s comrades, a sense of duty that is at least for now enhanced by the situation. I wouldn’t expect that to last another 3-5 years, but I’d have no way to support that assertion other than with a hunch.
But the recruitment thing is a different animal, I’d say. Shortfalls of 20-30-40 percent are not something that can be overlooked for long.
To me, this puts the military in a bad box. How do they sell committment to a war that is steadlily losing public support with each passing month?
If what we see in here is any indication, there are two schools of thought: One, nobody really knows what to do about the manpower issue, or two, anybody who argues against the war should burn in hell.
Nice. Nice way to run a country.
“I’m a uniter, not a divider.”
Right. Got it. Nice work.
Nash
Without my wishing to offer an opinion on the larger matter, do you have some numbers here, frontinus? Are stop loss (unwilling) re-ups excluded or included in these numbers? I’m a scientist and usually reluctant to accept qualitative statements as authority without seeing some quantitative data to support it.
frontinus
Why is it incumbent upon me to provide links? Retention figures are every bit as public as those for recruitment. As a matter of fact they release retention news in the same fucking press releases used as a basis for, apparently, the news sources you frequent. There are none as blind….
And I find your opinion that support among active duty and reserve soldiers will eventually dry up to be obnoxious. Are you seriously making the claim that people here stateside have a beter, more accurate view of Iraq than those who are or have been there?
No, there is a third choice, ppgaz. One that might be equally odious to you–accurate reporting. Because given the recruitment and retention rates you(and everyone) are left with two irreconcilable anecdotes.
1) Facts on the ground are deterring potential recruits who are informed by the media.
and,
2) Facts on the ground are NOT deterring those already in service who are informed, well, by the facts on the ground.
Which is why I challenged you and others to square the two. You can’t which is why I’m assuming you went off into the absurd with your “burn in hell” hokum. You would have us believe that disillusionment, open-ended committment, illegitimacy of war, etc. LEAST affect those paying the highest price. It’s laughable.
frontinus
Stop lossing isn’t reenlistment. It’s delaying the release from active duty. But thanks for bringing up another reason why retention rates are important. We’ve heard nothing but months and months of how the Reserve units were overstressed in Iraq(yet, they re-up at a higher rate than their stateside compatriots). How stop loss was a covert draft. How poorly armored transports were. How utterly lacking in planning the whole “quagmire” was. Yet, they re-up. It really is an amazing testament in my opinion. But if harping on a media fantasy makes you sleep better at night knock yourself out. To me there’s something unexplained. Well, not entirely since I have a pretty good idea of who the culprit is.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
How stop loss was a covert draft. How poorly armored transports were. How utterly lacking in planning the whole “quagmire” was. Yet, they re-up.
And they vote 4-to-1 for Bush over Kerry. Sounds like the soldiers in Iraq don’t know as much about the “quagmire” outside their door as the tatooed, latte-drinking Berkeley protesters, who have never been within 3000 miles of Iraq, do!
(Cue “US soldiers are stupid/brainwashed/propagandized, that’s why they voted for Bush” assertion. At least, that’s what I usually get.)
ppgaz
You’re right, of course, Compu-dumbname.
We should just turn the USA over to the military. It makes everything simpler, and really, better reflects the intent of the current government.
By “military”, of course, I don’t mean the men and women in harm’s way out there, I mean the geniuses in the Pentagon who obviously know everything and would have it all in hand if we’d just let them alone.
Nash
Actually, you don’t answer my question. It may not be re-enlistment, but is it reported separately from re-enlistment? There’s a dif there.
On the other hand, I tend to agree with you–I was just asking whether there was anything funny done with stop loss numbers, because I have a nasty tendency to question authority. And if the snark about asking for links is directed at me as one of the “you,” I’d suggest you either be willing to bring the facts rather than tell me to go get them myself; else, I’ll (politely) suggest you go to hell.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
You’re right, of course, Compu-dumbname.
Well, duh, I’m right. And don’t blame me for the name. Blame Homer Simpson.
We should just turn the USA over to the military. It makes everything simpler, and really, better reflects the intent of the current government.
It’s that kind of rhetorical buffoonery that undercuts the good, sane points that you (occasionally) make.
I realize that it’s hard for anti-(Republican)-war/pro-troops types to wrap their brains around the resounding landslide of military support for President Bush, but facts are facts.
The people who have the most on the line in Iraq, the people whose lives are at stake, the people who should feel the most betrayed if this war was really not worth the effort…voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
ppgaz
Well, there ya go. When you add all the stupid people, you got yourself a coalition ;-)
ppgaz
And, could ya get a shorter handle?
How about “compughm”?
Anything. I’m old, don’t make me read a 20-character anagram. I’m beggin ya here.
frontinus
Nash, stop loss prevents active duty personnel from separating from their unit after their term of service is up so I don’t see how it’s a part of retention. AFAIK the retention officer for a unit doesn’t even report who gets stop loss designated because that is done by command. The two might be conflated later on but even if that’s the case everything I’ve seen states that stop loss hurts retention in the long-run(2002-2005 qualifies I think). And I haven’t seen a discrepancy between retention rates and the reenlistment numbers put out(in that both are slightly above 100% including the Army’s). But regardless, all you ever hear about is the raw recruiting number and pontifications about a crisis. You never hear about reenlistment or the increase in target end strength or the Army last year tightening reenlistment guildines. It’s a complex issue but treated in a post hoc fashion by both the media and (how to put this delicately) internet users who generally hold pessimistic views aside from this one.
The snark was directed mainly at ppgaz but really it applies to anyone who bandies about the recruitment crisis without citing. Retention is every bit as public and every bit as easy to find since it’s in the same monthly press release. And if it’s an important topic to be discussed by interested parties is it uncouth to assume they’ve looked beyond the headlines in their paper?
ppgaz
“bandies about the recruitment crisis without citing?”
WTF are you talking about?
First of all, I used the noun “shortfall”.
Are you asserting that there have not been reports of late that recruitment has fallen short between 20 and 40 percent, depending on the scope of the individual stat?
I didn’t say it was a “crisis”. I said it was a big problem. If you don’t think it is, then good for you. I don’t agree.
Nash
frontinus,
Fair enough…and thanks.
frontinus
I wasn’t aware I used quotation marks around that phrase, ppgaz. Did you think I was quoting you? If so you’ve got more immediate concerns than the military’s recruiting.