Ralph Peters presents some recruitment numbers I was unaware of:
Every one of the Army’s 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.
Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.
This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?
* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.
* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.
* And then there’s the Army National Guard. We’ve been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I’ve even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let’s wait for confirmation on that.)
Make of it what you will, but in light of the Cindy-mania and the grotesque Vietnam fetish that seems to be all the rave in the media, this does put a different spin on things.
Matt
“The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.”
Well, I see no reason to doubt this guy’s commitment to factual correctness.
And, is it just me, or is the use of the words “needs” and “requirements” a bit troubling? If my income is only 102% of my “needs,” I’m having a tough time of it.
Marcus Wellby
Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.
I’ve even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let’s wait for confirmation on that.
Oh yeah, this is a non-partial observer. Journalisming is hard, its hard work.
Nate
Well, the Post is always so fair and balanced, I see no reason to dispute their claims.
I couldn’t follow the link, not being a Post subscriber (surprise, surprise!), but the “bad” news we’ve been hearing about recruitment numbers falling has been from official sources. It’s not as if Seymor Hersh did an expose that declared that actually numbers are falling. So it isn’t really a partisan issue, although surely it will be used for that purpose.
The author CLEARLY has an axe to grind, and that should make *anyone* of whatever affiliation take a long close look at the numbers. But, whatever the case, I reiterate that I do not think this is a partisan issue. If recruitment is up, great. That still has little bearing on whether or not we feed these young souls into the Iraq meatgrinder. Something I would think you, John, would be particularly sensitive to.
Blue Neponset
I can’t read the article because I don’t want to register to read the NY Post, so perhaps someone can tell me what the difference between a recruiting ‘goal’ and a recruiting ‘requirement’ is?
Also, what would happen if the military did not meet its requirements?
If I had to guess I would say a ‘goal’ would be something similar to a corporation’s projected yearly earnings while a ‘requirement’ would be the minimum needed to avoid bankruptcy.
John
Instapundit has several links contradicting Peters http://instapundit.com/archives/025079.php
Peters admits his numbers were wrong http://media.nationalreview.com/073973.asp
neil
Oh, PLEASE, John. In fact, I just read this article and was going to see if you had seen it. Unfortunately, nobody ever takes the Insta-advice of reading the whole thing.
Correction: My article above contained a substantial error: The new-enlistment rates I cited were wrong. The Army is still falling short on new enlistments. I deeply regret the mistake.
The whole column is premised on phony numbers. And the “fact-checking blogosphere” sucks it down and begs for more. You can bet that Powerline has it on their chin…
neil
I mean, it’s not even hard. Any combination of Google News searches for things like “army “fy 2005”” or, say, “2005 army recruiting” turns up no end of articles about how the Army is missing its 2005 goals by huge margins. And then, of course, a few utterly gullible conservative blogs pushing Peters’ fabrications.
This is totally disgraceful.
Nikki
I was wondering if anyone would catch that his numbers were for re-ups and not new recruits.
Anna
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08recruit.html?ex=1275883200&en=f79f57d55b8ded83&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The Army met its recruiting goals only after significantly altering (lowering) it’s projected numbers.
It’s spin.
Jorge
I find it interesting that the NRO uses the re-enlistment numbers as a sign of success. I have a few questions
1) How do 106% of people re-enlist for something. Or is it just that the stated goal for re-enlistment was met at 106%. Maybe I just answered my own question.
2)How do re-enlistment figures play out? Do they include people scheduled to stay home that are kept for another year or two even if when they want to leave?
Capriccio
Another sign that John Cole is suffering from the fatique factor that goes with trying to be The Independent/Rational/Nonpartisan Voice of a Grateful Nation. Powderline tried trafficking in this bullshit yesterday before Dailykos called them on it…within minutes, I believe.
neil
It just makes me furious. These right-wing doofuses scream about how only they and George Bush know enough about war to keep America safe, and they think that with enough charges of media bias and invocations of Al Franken’s name, they can turn up into down. It is totally, blindly obvious that there is a severe recruitment problem in the Army, and rather than writing a hateful, venomous column decrying this statement of fact as a unpatriotic, anti-Bush lie. And even John falls for it, hook, line and sinker. Are you so blinded by the “good news from Iraq” that you can’t realize that the Army _must_ be having recruitment problems if Bush is having to drain the National Guard dry? Do you think that if you just hate liberals a little bit more, then the backdoor draft will stop?
It is time to admit that the anti-war liberals have been right about this war from beginning to the present day, and that the hawks have been wrong about everything, everything, everything. This sickening column is like an article crowing the success of the latest Soviet five-year plan. This kind of party loyalty won’t help our country any more than it did Stalin’s.
Gary Farber
John, you might want to make a correction above the fold on the fact that the explanation for why no one else is writing about these numbers is because they’re not accurate numbers. Just a suggestion, of course.
Gary Farber
You were right about the “positive spin,” though.
capelza
Lt. Gen. Lovelace of the Pentagon said the Army will miss it’d recruiting goals. He also said that the Army can maintain troop levels of 100,000 in Iraq for 4 years, but it would require three and four rotations for some troops.
As has been said, it’s spin.
Don’t know if this means anything, but one of the “orphans” living in the boy cave of my stepson downstairs went to sign up for the Navy a few days ago. He’s a welder and wants to join the Navy. The Navy recruiter spent quite a bit of time trying to get the kid to join the Army. Which said offer the boy declined.
Darrell
with all the media focus on recruiting shortfalls for new recruits, the fact that re-enlistment rates among deployed personnel, the ones who actually know what’s going on first-hand.. their re-up rates which are exceeding expectations should have been news. Instead, it got little or no coverage. Also, a growing, vibrant economy provides more competition for these new recruits.. While doom and gloom reporting undermine recruiting efforts. “But the media is only reporting the truth(tm) about the Chimp’s war-for-oil”. Based on what I’ve read from Michael Yon and Iraqi blogs, MSM reporting is wildly out of synch with the reality on the ground. Let’s not pretend that doesn’t have an effect on new recruits hesitant to sign up for a ‘poorly planned hopeless quagmire’
Johnny
2+2=5? Gosh, I just can’t think of it, but I know I’ve heard that somewhere before…
neil
Disturbing, if true.
StupdityRules
Darrell, I’m guessing people who been to Iraq sees all the money the army is throwing at them if they return and since they survived the first time they might as well give it another try.
Also what are the the army’s re-enlistment goals? They obviously are below 94% but does anyone know the exact numbers? 25%, 50%, 75% ? And have they changed lately like the recruitment goals?
neil
StupidityRules, I checked a bit and the FY2005 reenlistment target is, indeed, significantly higher than the FY2004 target was. But people like Darrell forget about stop-loss orders, probably from reading too many Ralph Peters editorials.
Darrell
“all the money thrown at them” = one time lump sum of $5,000 – $10,000, depending on specialty and for how many more years they commit. High re-up rates couldn’t be a desire to finish what they see first-hand is a worthwhile mission, right?
Also, I’d like to know details about stop-losses applying to troops deployed overseas. Who it applies to, who it doesn’t, and whether there actually were reported cases of intimidation as Nate posts (without evidence)
Matt
Didn’t really sound like intimidation…sounded like pragmatism. As in, “Look, due to stop-loss, odds are you’re going to be here longer either way. Might as well get a bonus for it.”
That said, I have no idea if it’s true or not (not stop-loss, that’s real. I meant if anyone has made this argument for reenlistment).
StupidityRules
Darrell, or they might have decided since they are still going to suffer from post war depressions why not earn some more money and postpone the depression.
Actually, I feel it’s pointless to second guess why soldiers are re-enlisting. I haven’t experienced what they have so I really can’t guess how they feel. And I’m confident you can’t either.
Anyway, do you know what the army’s re-enlistment goals are percentage wise?
DougJ
The trouble is that the MSM has realized that it can attract a lot of viewers by playing up the idea that Iraq is going badly. That’s what drives them, unfortunately, ratings not facts.
The truth is that the situation in Iraq is months, if not years, ahead of schedule. Before the war, planners would have jumped for joy if they had known there’d be a constitution nearly written by summer 2005. This was a step that was seen as taking many, many years. No one could have thought the various factions within Iraq would come together like this.
Before the war, the left-wing naysayers — and you know who you are — were predicting burning oil fields, massive casualties, civil war. None of that has come to pass. The fact that the left won’t admit they were wrong about Iraq just goes to show that you can lead a librul to reason, but you cannot make him think.
BinkyBoy
Its al about the Stop Loss, baby. You can ignore that reality, but its there and its not going away any time soon.
Don’t forget, most of the IIR’s have been called up, which boosts re-enlistment numbers as well.
Oh, but wait, it all has to do with the honor of serving on an invasion into a country, of feeling that every Iraqi has a gun and will shoot you in the back. It has to do with knowing that the single road in and out of the airport is still the most dangerous place in the entire country. Damn, the glory these guys are going through must be really boosting their ego’s.
StupidityRules
DougJ, actually didn’t the planners say that the soldiers should be met with flowers and that the war should take 6 months at most? According to Pat Roberts Bush thought that no one was going to die. (Could be because none of his buddies in the National Guard died during Vietnam..)
Matt
Alright, I wasn’t before, but you can now count me clearly in the “DougJ is a put-on” camp.
DougJ
There were SOME planners who said things that were unduly optimistic, such as the claim that the war would only cost 1.6 billion dollars. But these weren’t really planners, but spokesmen who maybe got carried away. If you read what the actual planners said, those in the military and pentagon, it was nothing of the sort. They were prepared for a long, hard slog from the beginning. And have been pleasantly surprised by how well things have gone, all in all.
Peter T.
Along with DougJ, I’d like to applaud President Bush for helping Iraqis realize their dream of becoming an Islamic republic. Those who planned this must indeed be jumping for joy – and living in Tehran.
Burning oil fields, massive casualties, civil war – liberal weenies, eat your words. The oil fields were easily put out. Massive casualties? Look at all the Iraqis who haven’t been killed. Civil war? Those bound, shot or beheaded bodies are just the result of excessive horseplay.
DougJ – you are one of the Iraq war planners, aren’t you?
DougJ
Okay, okay, I admit it. The J stands for my middle name Jonathan. This is Doug Feith from the Pentagon ;)
StupidityRules
DougJ, as I recall it the military asked for more troops and then the civilians who outrank the military politically (not saying that’s a bad thing) fired those who did.
And as I recall if Rumsfeld was the one who thought that the war would last 6 months at most. (Cue someone saying that the war is over and what we are seeing now is foreign fighters…)
Darrell
Seems there is a lot of exaggeration from the left on what stop losses signify. I read that stop loss can extend a deployment a Maximum of 12 months only. Is that true?
Also this:
I’m a bit confused. If he’s reading, I’d like John Cole to throw in his $0.02 regarding his understanding of stop-loss rules.
Oh, and while on this topic, let’s not forget Repub leadership killed the Democratic proposal to reinstate the military draft Cheap scare tactic.. typical Dem deceitfulness.
DougJ
Just cos you hear it a lot doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The war WAS over when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier. That phase of it was over anyway. We’d run the Baathists and their Al Qaeda cohorts of Baghdad. Mission accomplished. What we’re dealing with now is a different enemy, one that is more difficult to truly drive out, but also one that has very limited ability to do significant damage (which is not to ignore the very real tragedies they have caused). And, while you won’t hear this from the White House (which wants to err on the side of caution), these foreign fighters won’t be able to sustain themselves that much longer. There are only a limited number of Syrians and Iranians that wanted to come in in the first place and there numbers are dwindling day by day.
Darrell
Wasn’t he referring to major combat operations in order to topple Saddam’s control? Because the left seems to be dishonestly conflating major combat operations with the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq… a long, hard struggle that Bush warned us about before invading
neil
This is sure a rich thread to bring up “the left” being “dishonest,” Darrell. The point at hand, in case we forget, is that Ralph Peters is dishonestly saying that the left is fabricating the Army’s recruitment problems. Now a question: If the Army really -is- in trouble, and the Right is calling it a bunch of liberal lies, who benefits?
JoeTx
Those great new jobs reports fail to mention that most new job creation is in the service industry, government and low paying retail jobs. High paying manufacturing and high tech jobs are being shipped overseas and being replaced with plenty of spots at the local Walmart, where benefits are low or non-existent.
Those spokesmen, i.e. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rice and co told us, “The war will probably last 6 weeks, but doubt 6 months”, “we’d be greeted as liberators”, “Iraqi oil would pay for the war and reconstruction”, “we have an exit plan”, “we KNOW where the WMD’s are, they are in the areas to the North, East and West of Tikrit”, etc. etc.
As our elected officials, we gave them the benefit of the doubt, ANYBODY, I MEAN ANYBODY who went counter to their talking points was slimed and discredited, including those planners in the Military you speak of.
If these “spokesmen” were HONEST with the American people, NOBODY would have supported this war.
I am not anti-war, I am ANTI-IRAQ!
BinkyBoy
Nice try Darrell
JoeTx
Please explain this to the 1500+ soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqi’s that have been killed since flyboy landed on the Carrier.
EVERY ONE of those deaths is on Bush’s hands. The experts TOLD this administration what would happen when Saddam was taken out of power, they told them more troups would be needed to fill the power vaccuum and keep the peace. They told them what would happen is civil war, etc, etc!
These are exactly the reasons Bush I did not go into Baghdad in the first Gulf War, he knew better!
Darrell
Seems the ‘right wing’ NY Times reports a 180 degree opposite take in their Aug. 5 news story:
But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your rant – “The sky is falling!! and it’s Bush’s fault”
Darrell
Yes, but that seems to contradict this and this:
12 month stop loss seems to be clear language, 12 months only. That’s why I wrote previously that I am a bit confused.
Otto Man
Really? Care to provide some links that demonstrate this?
Kimmitt
That’s not how I read the quote, but it is somewhat ambiguous; the transcript is here.
Darrell
Kimmitt wrote:
Ambiguous?
I’m not seeing even a sliver of ambiguity, especially after the ‘six months’ comment he states “After that, we have a responsibility…” After the six months or whatever time frame, we then have responsibilities
Rip Van Smith
So are we still at war with Eastasia? Eurasia is our ally right? Has the chocolate ration been increased to 25g this week? Let me know. Thanks
Matt
Yeah, but Darrell, he’s specifically talking about that responsibility outside of the realm of “conflict.” It’s fairly clear that he’s talking about more of a diplomatic responsibility. Also, the “coalition of the willing” hardly “grew,” did it?
And when you combine this with the fact that Rumsfeld was predicting major troop reductions at around the same time as the carrier posturing, then I think it’s safe to say that the administration didn’t envision anything close to the insurgency we’re seeing.
Otto Man
True. Remember this?
Well, that was wrong. Not only did we not let 90,000 or so troops stand down, but we’ve actually added 12,000 more.
And now it looks like we may stay at that level for a good long while:
(From the Deseret News. Link didn’t work for some reason.)
Darrell
You’re probably right about the admin underestimating the insurgency. But they didn’t say 6 months in and out either. Nothing of the sort. Right off the bat Bush told us “We cannot know the duration of this war, but we are prepared for the battle ahead” and similar reminders again and again.
Otto Man
True. But that was a reference to the war to overthrow Saddam, and not the postwar stage:
Again, can you provide any evidence that Bush “warned us” this would be a “long hard struggle” in the post-Saddam phase and that he did so “before invading” the country?
Darrell
The Media matters link Otto man provides does not cite which “Pentagon officials” made such a claim or when they made it. Just a vague unnamed, unsourced statement.. In early March 2003, Rumsfeld said this:
Rumsfeld took it even further in case there was any shred of doubt:
Doesn’t get any clearer than that, wouldn’t you agree?
DougJ
To back up Darrel’s point (and my point), Rumsfeld said the war might last up to 12 years. If that’s not a hard slog, then I don’t know what is. Now, some are saying we may be out, at least partly, by next fall. How is that not “ahead of schedule”?
Jeff
I love reading Darrell’s posts. They make the Cool Aid go down so easy.
searp
Darrell,
My nephew got $20,000.00 and a promise to be re-trained as a helo mechanic to re-up. The promise went quickly once he signed on the dotted line; they may need helo mechanics, but they need combat veterans to drive gas tankers more. I guess his high-demand MOS was Iraq combat veteran, because it certainly wasn’t his anti-air artillery expertise.
I don’t blame the Army, it has a job to do and is trying its best. I do blame the civilians – they have screwed Iraq up in so many ways that it would take a book to enumerate them.
My nephew is out now, injury and partial disability. He is now considering going back to Iraq, but for $120,000.00 a year. Isn’t that kind of a sick joke?
Darrell
Bush ALWAYS said it could be a long, hard struggle in Iraq. He never said anything to the contrary. Can you show me one quote where he suggested it would be quick and easy? No? that’s why you are truly moonbats. Dishonest ones too, desperately trying to deny and change what was actually said at the time
George W Bush
Otto Man
Yet another quote that obviously refers to the toppling of Saddam, and not the aftermath.
I love the two standards Darrell has.
If you’re arguing against what he believes, you apparently need to have DNA evidence and a confession signed and notarized.
If you’re arguing in support of what he believes, then rumor and hearsay are all you need. A dream — that would probably count too.
You have yet to provide a single Bush quotation that (1) came before the war and (2) indicated he understood the length and severity of the postwar crisis. If, as you say, “Bush ALWAYS said it could be a long, hard struggle in Iraq. He never said anything to the contrary,” then it should be really easy to come up with just one quote. Go ahead.
Darrell
Now you’re in full retreat and denial. Inventing that Bush was “obviously” referring to the toppling of Saddam, because ‘clearly’ to moonbats like you, Bush told us it would all be over after Saddam was toppled, right? pathetic, you dishonest scumbags
Otto Man
No, I never said that quote implied that Bush said it would be easy after Saddam was toppled.
What I said was that that quote obviously did not refer to the postwar world, as you insisted it did.
Read the entire quote, in context of the two paragraphs it’s in, once again:
It seems obvious — to me — that Bush here is talking about the military conflict with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Why do I think that? Because he refers to the Iraqi “regime” four times in those two paragraphs, with a mention of Saddam and Saddam’s generals, too.
Why do I not think that statement refers to the post-Saddam insurgency? Well, maybe because he makes no mention of insurgents, or chaos, or anything about the postwar era at all. None. Nothing.
And yet you insist this refers to the postwar phase. I’m merely saying, no, it doesn’t. I’m not saying this quote reveals Bush said the postwar era would be easy; I’m saying this quote reveals nothing about the postwar era, including the meaning you’re breathing into it.
Coming from you, this is the best compliment I could ever receive. Thanks.
Cullen
Just one question: why is everyone wasting their time with Darrell and DougJ?
Darrell
Oh of course, the Bush admin never spoke of the possibility of an insurgency or ethnic strife. That possibility never came up. You do realize that is your position, right?
Bush NEVER said it would be easy. He said the opposite many times. Every time you claim differently, you are showing how dishonest you are
Otto Man
Really? One quote. Prove it.
Or please. For the love of God. Shut the fuck up.
Boredom. I’m home waiting for a repairman, and watching Darrell spin himself in circles is more fun than watching the dog do the same. Though the dog sometimes manages to catch his tail.
Anyway, I’m done. Darrell is so far removed from reality, there’s no reasoning with him. I could say the sky is blue and he’d either demand proof in triplicate or call that a smear from the “dishonest leftist scumbags.” Whatever.
DougJ
You’re no better. In fact, everyone is kind of like that when you get right down to it.
Peter T.
It pains me to admit this, but Darrell is right – Bush unequivocally spoke of the possibility of ethnic strife after the overthrow of Hussein – in fact he thought such conflict would be inevitable. He and Brent Scowcroft go over this in a book they wrote about the Gulf War, and why they left an emasculated Saddam in power, rather than depose him and have the US inherit a volcano.
Oh you mean George W Bush – it was H.W. that wrote the book. I don’t know what W was preparing for, but it wasn’t the massive looting that took place after Baghdad fell. If he was ready for IED attacks on our troops, you have to wonder why armored vehicles remain in short supply two years on and counting.
Jeff
Funny shit, Peter T. As others have argued, you could do worse in analyzing the W. presidency than assuming it all represents the biggest and deadliest manifestation of “daddy issues” in history.
Darrell
Hasn’t that leftist meme already been hashed out thoroughly? There were plenty of armored vehicles available (strykers, tanks, personnel carriers, etc). Humvees were not designed to be front line combat vehicles. They were built for relative speed for supply and other missions. The terrorists figured out that the Humvees with light armor were vulnerable and targeted them with IED’s. Our military adapted with up-armoring of existing vehicles and ordered new ones. Seems this is another textbook case of “Rumsfeld should have known”, although experienced military commanders didn’t anticipate it
No different than if the terrorists had successfully targeted jeeps.. then the left would be screaming that “BushRumsfeld sent our troops into harms way in unarmored jeeps” as evidence of cold-hearted incompetence.
Peter T.
I don’t think that’s a leftist meme Darrell. I think it’s a troops on the ground in Iraq meme, and it’s been rather constant since the insurgency really got going.