A pretty detailed report detailing the troubles facing Army recruiters going into the next fiscal year:
The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.
Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger – perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million – in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service.
Officials insist the slump is not a crisis.
Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the recruiting shortfall this year does not matter greatly – for now.
“The bad news is that any shortfall shows how hard it would be to increase the Army’s size by 50,000 or more as many of us think appropriate,” O’Hanlon said. “We appear to have waited too long to try.”
The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest – in absolute number as well as in percentage terms – since 1979, according to Army records.
Read the whole thing, and remember that this is Army specific, and not a military-wide analysis.
Lines
Operation Yellow Elephant to the rescue!
Shygetz
Anyone know how the Army/Marines recruiting is going compared to Air Force/Navy? Is it military-wide, or mainly due to Iraq?
Richard Aubrey
It’s been said, when this was new news, that the Marines are right on the money. As were enlistments for the Army’s combat arms.
The guys who believe in God, Country and Kicking Ass are still taking themselves to the fight. It’s the support branches which weren’t getting the numbers.
Also, re-enlistments of the combat units are several times target, and there have been reports of a direct correlation between high re-enlistment rates and time in theater.
Had the Army not been trying to increase its size, they’d have been on target. Increasing size will take time.
neil
But I thought I read last month on all the blogs about how Army recruitment was above target?! What happened, and why was it the Democrats’ fault?
Steve S
Well not surprising. If you are an andrenaline junky you’re just going to keep going back for more.
Although I suspect the $10,000+ recruitment bonuses probably also help.
Rusty Shackleford
Had the Army not been trying to increase its size, they’d have been on target. Increasing size will take time.
Had the Army not revised their targets down they would have been further below their recruitment targets.
Barry
Rusty, you’re obviously an America hater, judging from your use of quaint, outdated targets. You have to forget those, and stick to the current targets. Remember that history is a tool of terrorists!
CaseyL
Yes, but compared to how enlistment’s going in Iraq, those are pretty good numbers. At least there’s some enlistment here, whereas in Iraq the three companies we used to have is now just one company.
Since the negative progress in recruiting Iraqi security forces has deep-sixed plans to reduce US forces there, I hope those newbies realize what they’re getting into:
Endless war in Iraq (unless whoever gets elected in 2008 decides to pull the plug), and the possibility of an expanded war into Iran (since the neo-cons are still pushing for military action there).
Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, ret., former NSA director and now a scholar with the Hudson Institute: “The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.”
Thanks to Bush, the MSM, and Congress. To rephrase an old Irish saying, “May you all be in Hell half an hour before God knows you’re dead.”
scs
What I don’t understand is why is the casualty rate is so high in Iraq from the roadside bombs. I think, since we don’t have a real way to fight this, we ought to pull back to bases in Iraq as much as possible to save American lives. That way we’ll still have our presence there as a bagaining chip, but we won’t have as much risk to the soldiers. It seems the policy of just going along over there and letting random soldiers get killed everyday is a policy of denial.
Andrew Reeves
At least there’s some enlistment here, whereas in Iraq the three companies we used to have is now just one company.
Dare I ask what exactly you are talking about?
BrianOfAtlanta
But I thought I read last month on all the blogs about how Army recruitment was above target?! What happened, and why was it the Democrats’ fault?
The last 4 months or so of recruiting were good. They just weren’t good enough to make up for the shortfall in previous months. The fault for the inaccurate, overly pessimistic portrayal of the situation in Iraq lies predominantly with the media.
What I don’t understand is why is the casualty rate is so high in Iraq from the roadside bombs. I think, since we don’t have a real way to fight this, we ought to pull back to bases in Iraq as much as possible to save American lives.
That’s a lesson we learned the hard way in Vietnam. Sure, you take casualties when you get out there and patrol, but you absolutely must do it or you will lose the support of the population and give the enemy bases on your doorstep. Staying in garrison is a proven way to lose a war.
TallDave
Well, the military is overwhelmingly Republican, so I think the reason for the shortfall is clear. Come on Dems, pull your weight.
Just kidding! The military doesn’t want you lefties anyway, anymore than you want to to be there, so please don’t run out and join up (not that you need me to tell you that).
Note the other three branches are doing fine and re-enlistment is at record highs in some places. The troops believe in America and believe in the mission to free Iraq.
Com Con
After the media spends 24 hours a day telling everyone how bad things are in Iraq, of course no one wants to join up. If the media would be more truthful about the good news, this wouldn’t be a problem.
steve o
if they want soilders all they have to do make a contrac if you serve you will not ever have to pay TAXES again..this would work…anyone who puts there life on the line should be eximp