• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The revolution will be supervised.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Republicans don’t trust women.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

A consequence of cucumbers

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Bark louder, little dog.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

Republicans in disarray!

Ron DeSantis, the grand wizard, oops, governor of FL

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

This fight is for everything.

This blog will pay for itself.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Military / Retention Woes

Retention Woes

by John Cole|  April 10, 20069:18 am| 59 Comments

This post is in: Military

FacebookTweetEmail

This is disturbing news:

Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.

It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.

Mirroring the problem among West Pointers, graduates of reserve officer training programs at universities are also increasingly leaving the service at the end of the four-year stint in uniform that follows their commissioning.

To entice more to stay, the Army is offering new incentives this year, including a promise of graduate school on Army time and at government expense to newly commissioned officers who agree to stay in uniform for three extra years. Other enticements include the choice of an Army job or a pick of a desirable location for a home post.

Ask any old vet what happen to the military after drawdowns and radical thinning of the NCO corps, and you will get an idea what will happen shoujld we fail to retain young officers. I would not necessarily be as apoplectic as this article, but it is something I would follow closely and work to correct.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Now We Know
Next Post: Evolution News »

Reader Interactions

59Comments

  1. 1.

    Ancient Purple

    April 10, 2006 at 9:28 am

    Those “inticements” aren’t worth the paper they are written on. They may look appealing, but chances are that once you sign on the dotted line, your incentives will be scaled back dramatically or pulled completed with that idiot smirk from Bush while he says that we all need to make sacrifices in a time of war.

    Sorry, but the government is already on record as not keeping its promises to the military.

    So why should anyone believe them now?

  2. 2.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 9:30 am

    Why, it seems like just the other day I was reading a piece from America’s Finest Journalist, Ralph Peters, explaining that re-enlistment was the best it has ever been.

    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?

    In light of the Cindy-mania and the grotesque Vietnam fetish that seems to be all the rave on this blog, this does put a different spin on things.

  3. 3.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 9:34 am

    I’d like to know what John thinks about the story that Zarqawi isn’t quite the terrorist mastermind we’ve made him out to be.

    The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program.

    Five years ago, if I told you that the American military was working together with al-Qaida agents to make them seem more threatening, what expletive would you have called me?

  4. 4.

    Geek, Esq.

    April 10, 2006 at 9:37 am

    Neil:

    You’re still making the GIGANTIC leap of assuming collusion between Zarqawi and the US government.

  5. 5.

    stickler

    April 10, 2006 at 9:45 am

    I would not necessarily be as apoplectic as this article, but it is something I would follow closely and work to correct.

    “Work to correct?” We all know what this means — get out of Iraq before our guys are on their sixth tours over there.

    What chance is there Bush will get us out of Iraq before he leaves office? (Voluntarily, I mean.)

  6. 6.

    Bob In Pacifica

    April 10, 2006 at 9:47 am

    When I was within a couple of months of being discharged from the army, in 1973, my biggest fear was that a couple of my sergeants would get me drunk and make me sign reenlistment papers.

  7. 7.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 9:50 am

    You’re still making the GIGANTIC leap of assuming collusion between Zarqawi and the US government.

    You’re right, of course. It could just be that they are working independently towards the same goals.

    Any chance we can get a mention of this on the news?

  8. 8.

    ppGaz

    April 10, 2006 at 10:07 am

    Five years ago, if I told you that the American military was working together with al-Qaida agents to make them seem more threatening, what expletive would you have called me?

    Karl Rove. Who else could dream up such a thing? And make it work … at least for a while.

  9. 9.

    ppGaz

    April 10, 2006 at 10:26 am

    ‘Villainize Zarqawi’
    The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. “Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response,” one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: “Media operations,” “Special Ops (626)” (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein’s government) and “PSYOP,” the U.S. military term for propaganda work.

    One internal briefing, produced by the U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, said that Kimmitt had concluded that, “The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date.

    Kimmitt is now the senior planner on the staff of the Central Command that directs operations in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. In 2003 and 2004, he coordinated public affairs, information operations and psychological operations in Iraq — though he said in an interview the internal briefing must be mistaken because he did not actually run the psychological operations and could not speak for them.

    Kimmitt said, “There was clearly an information campaign to raise the public awareness of who Zarqawi was, primarily for the Iraqi audience but also with the international audience.”

    From MSNBC.

    “International audience” in this case apparently includes the United States.

  10. 10.

    OCSteve

    April 10, 2006 at 10:49 am

    Obviously a concern, although in general I would trade you 3 Lt’s for one SSG, and a captain or two for one SFC. I wonder how enlisted retention compares. I think I have seen several times lately that enlisted retention is pretty good. If enlisted retention is better than officer retention I wonder what accounts for that. Fewer opportunities ‘back in the world’ for enlisted? More stress and burn-out among the leaders vs. the led? Historically more incentives for enlisted? Possibly something darker, like dissatisfaction with the senior commanders and the top brass… Note that comparing enlisted to officer retention is not the raw percentages, rather the trend. Officer retention has always been significantly higher than enlisted.

    One thing to point out – overall officer retention while down is still better than pre-911:

    In 2001, but before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 9.3 percent of the Army’s young officers left active duty at their first opportunity. By 2002, the number of those junior officers leaving at their first opportunity dropped to 7.1 percent, and in 2003, only 6.3 percent opted out. But the number grew to 8.3 percent in 2004 and 8.6 percent in 2005.

    A two percentage point jump after more than a year of war in Iraq is not that surprising, more surprising to me is the minor .3 point growth from 04 to 05. Does that reflect more optimism?

    The West Point figures are the most discouraging thing here. I suppose the Ivy League degree opens up a lot of doors out in the real world.

  11. 11.

    G. Hamid

    April 10, 2006 at 11:01 am

    Jeez, I’m confused.

  12. 12.

    Pb

    April 10, 2006 at 11:08 am

    G. Hamid,

    Heh, heh, heh. That’s what I like to call ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’.

  13. 13.

    Don

    April 10, 2006 at 11:29 am

    I wonder how much impact the mad dash for people with active security clearances has on this? If you were a 23 year old who walked into my office looking for work and had an active secret clearance, you could be employed by 5pm at a salary approaching what I make as a 15 year ‘vet’ and all you’d be doing is watching a terminal, drinking coffee and making an occasional phone call. People with actual experience and skills do even better.

    Or you could go get shot at some more.

    I have a friend who passed his 20 year mark in the Air Force last year and his wife-to-be thinks he’s nuts for not cutting out and riding the gravy train this way. In his case he could probably even be a contractor in the exact same local facility that the AF has him in now. I can only imagine the family pressures (not to mention personal survival instinct) you’d be under if you had an active duty station and could make that choice…

  14. 14.

    Slide

    April 10, 2006 at 11:30 am

    its all very sad what Bush has done to our military. From failing to heed the general’s warnings on Iraq, to failing to provide our troops with the needed body armor, to cutting veteran’s benefits, to using the military as political props when it suits him. A disgraceful performance from the “chicken hawk” administration. An administration so anxious for war yet so completely devoid of any military experience whatsoever.

    The chicken hawk parade: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Steven Hadley, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Senator Frist, Dennis Hastert, Doug Feith, Scotty McClelland, Lawrence DiRita, Richard Pearle, Bill Krystol, Fred Barns, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg… etc… etc… etc… All the tough guys. Tough with someone else’s blood however. I have nothing but total disdain for the whole lot.

  15. 15.

    don surber

    April 10, 2006 at 11:53 am

    Read the story, not the headline

    “In 2001, but before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 9.3 percent of the Army’s young officers left active duty at their first opportunity. By 2002, the number of those junior officers leaving at their first opportunity dropped to 7.1 percent, and in 2003, only 6.3 percent opted out. But the number grew to 8.3 percent in 2004 and 8.6 percent in 2005.”

    Before 9/11 9.3% left.

    After 7.1%, 6.3%, 8.3%, 8.6%

    The only bad I can see is too many officers, not enough slots

  16. 16.

    don surber

    April 10, 2006 at 11:55 am

    Slide:

    Your brigade does not include Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bob Byrd and all those other Democrats who supported and even waged wars

    Where is youyr DD 214?

  17. 17.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Don, are you being intentionally dense or are you just angling for a job at the NY Post?

    In 2005, the Army appointed 97 percent of all eligible captains to the rank of major – normally the rate is between 70 and 80 percent.

    This is not what you do when you have ‘too many officers, not enough slots.’ In fact, this is what you do when you have the exact opposite situation.

  18. 18.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    As for the retention rates, it is worth noting that the stop-loss program does not just apply to grunts. In other words, a lot of the ‘re-enlistments’ you pointed out above are probably coerced — you get a bonus for re-enlisting but you don’t get one for getting stop-lossed.

  19. 19.

    DougJ

    April 10, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    You go to the war with the army you’re left with, not with the army a wiser Department of Defense would have created.

  20. 20.

    Barry

    April 10, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    And if your choice is to re-up and get a bonus, or not re-up and get stop-lossed without a bonus, the choice is pretty f*cking clear. It should’t take too many quietly publicized cases of this happening to boost re-enlistment rates.

  21. 21.

    The Other Steve

    April 10, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    Maybe we ought to give illegal immigrants the opportunity to become a citizen if they fight in Iraq for 2 years?

    We’ll call it to the American Foreign Legion.

    And if you die, a $100,000 insurance payment goes to your mother back home.

  22. 22.

    don surber

    April 10, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    I love liberal math, where 9.3% is smaller than 7.1%, 6.3%, 8.3%, and 8.6%

    Keep panicking; it amuses me

  23. 23.

    Ancient Purple

    April 10, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    And if your choice is to re-up and get a bonus, or not re-up and get stop-lossed without a bonus, the choice is pretty f*cking clear.

    Except there is no guarantee that you will ultimately get your bonus, no matter what your contract says.

  24. 24.

    CalDevil

    April 10, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    That “news” would even be more distrubing if it were true.

  25. 25.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    I love conservative logic, where as long as you’re convinced you’re right, you don’t have to listen to any of the facts.

    9.3%!!!

  26. 26.

    Mike Crichton

    April 10, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    Neil: Are you aware that the Army counts those of us who have been stoplossed, towards their re-enlistment numbers? And most of the people in my own unit who re-enlisted betyween OIF1 and OIF3, immediately PCSed to non-depolyable ‘strategic’ units.

    Don: Where do you work? I’m out in a few weeks, I got a clearence, and am very impressionable and easily led… :-)

    John Cole: I like yer blog, so I’m linking it. You are powerless to prevent it, mwahaha!

  27. 27.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    Or I guess I could slap at Don for his pre-9/11 thinking. Hell, losing 9.3% of your officer corps a year was OK once, but everything has changed now.. or has it?

  28. 28.

    Pb

    April 10, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    For those interested in actual numbers from the annual defense report:

    DoD continuation rates for all officers:

    92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
    88 88 88.9 89.9 90.8 90.7 90.8 90.4 90.3

    At least during the Clinton years, these things were reported; can anyone find where Rumsfeld has been hiding these same numbers, or dig up any from Cheney’s time in the DoD?

  29. 29.

    jg

    April 10, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Is this thread a jackalope? Never seen one, still hoping.

  30. 30.

    Faux News

    April 10, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Is this thread a jackalope?

    Nope, merely a truimph of Don Surber’s ignorance and that of his mouth breathing friends at RedState.

    Chocolate ration has been INCREASED to 20 grams per week.

    Doubleplusgood that!

  31. 31.

    G. Hamid

    April 10, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Now I’m really confused. Officers can’t leave because of stop-loss, yet an increasing number of officers are leaving.

    Whatever.

  32. 32.

    stickler

    April 10, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    Chocolate ration has been INCREASED to 20 grams per week.

    Doubleplusgood that!

    Yeah, but I don’t care what Ingsoc says, the Victory Gin sucks nowadays.

  33. 33.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    G. Hamid, you are only confusing yourself. Nobody has ever said that no officers can leave. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that due to the stop-loss policy, not everyone who is supposed to be eligible to leave can actually do it, including officers.

    On the other hand, why stop now? You might be able to convince yourself that the Iraq war never even happened!

  34. 34.

    Pooh

    April 10, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    Is this thread a jackalope? Never seen one, still hoping.

    No, no, no threads are not Jackalopes (well, except for John’s occasional Sheehan rant, but we’ve all learned to recognize that beast and are all largely amused by it as this point).

    Though this:

    Your brigade does not include Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bob Byrd and all those other Democrats who supported and even waged wars

    certainly is an attempt to conjure the Fallacious Clintondidittoonous species of ‘Lope.

  35. 35.

    Pb

    April 10, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    G. Hamid,

    The CBO estimated that stop loss orders artificially raised the continuation rates of enlisted men in the army by 0.3% last year. Or something like that.

  36. 36.

    OCSteve

    April 10, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    As for the retention rates, it is worth noting that the stop-loss program does not just apply to grunts. In other words, a lot of the ‘re-enlistments’ you pointed out above are probably coerced—you get a bonus for re-enlisting but you don’t get one for getting stop-lossed.

    Actually this is news to me. I was just a grunt, but I always thought that officers could resign their commission at any point beyond their initial obligation. Bet that was a surprise to a few folks.

  37. 37.

    neil

    April 10, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    MikeCrichton: Did not know that. Thanks for mentioning it.

  38. 38.

    Birkel

    April 10, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    Meanwhile, Army re-enlistment is 15% higher than projected.

  39. 39.

    Pb

    April 10, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    Birkel,

    I reiterate: that’s what I like to call ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’.

  40. 40.

    Tim F.

    April 10, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    One year back I projected that I would be ten million dollars in debt and hunted by the FBI, interpol, Russian FSB and the Sicilian mob. Without revealing too much I can say that my year has come in way, way above expectations.

  41. 41.

    The Other Steve

    April 10, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    Some background stats…

    Recruitment and Retention rates 1990-2000

    RAND study on recruiting rates and costs

    One of the things I hate is when people play with statistics in articles. Some articles mention percentages of first termers… others mention raw numbers. In some cases they mix and match.

    Just interesting.

    The first article I linked to from afa.org shows army retention was on the increase throughout the 1990s.

    I’ve found nothing to compare that trend with what has happened the last six years. Which indicates to me that they’re afraid to do that comparison.

  42. 42.

    Pb

    April 10, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    The Other Steve,

    That CBO stuff I linked to previously has a little info stretching into 2004, but not enough to satisfy me. Now I want to know just where Rumsfeld buried all the numbers…

  43. 43.

    wickedpinto

    April 10, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    The enticements are the problem. We made being an officer in the US Military a proffitable endeavour, when it should have been an act of honest duty on the part of the individual for their nation. Heroic acts do not need to be rewarded with a bribe, but acknowledged as a great act of the individual outside of the financial compensation.

    We have spent the last 15 years recruiting people who see it as a career building kickoff point, rather than what it is. A truly noble endeavour. Right now, the numbers are less pleasent (since officers, I believe have 6 year requirements) but we are weening out the chaff of our Officer Corps, and replacing them with the valiant men/women who will serve in the name of the nation, not for an inclusion in their resume.

    Right now the enlisted ranks have stabilized, and in fact prospered, and in the next 2 or 3 years, the Officers will catchup.

  44. 44.

    Mike Crichton

    April 10, 2006 at 8:31 pm

    G. Hamid: The current stop-loss is entirely unit based. Soldiers in units that are about to deploy or are currently deployed, can’t get out; Those in units that aren’t deployed or deploying can.

    Pb: Those CBO numbers confuse me. If the annual retention/recruiting goal is 80,000, and there are 7,000 grunts stopplossed at any one time, where does the 0.3% come from? Is it because most of them get out as soon as their stopploss is lifted, so they only count towards the numbers for the years they’re stopplossed? That paper confuses me, but then, I’m just a dumb grunt/soon-to-be-hippy-civilian. :-)

    Birkel: You weren’t paying attention. Those numbers are artificially inflated. According to the Army, my being stoplossed counted towards retention numbers, and I’ll be getting out in less than a month.

    wickedpinto: I would so badly like to believe that. Tell me again when I’m drunk off my ass, and I might. :-/

  45. 45.

    Pooh

    April 10, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    Onward neoconChristian Soldiers, eh WP?

  46. 46.

    G. Hamid

    April 10, 2006 at 10:49 pm

    For what it’s worth, here is a GAO report on Military retention through 2004. Combined with pb’s CBO report, which also goes into 2004, it may help out. BTW, the numbers were provided by the DoD, Rumsfeld’s department. It took one google search consisting of the string “recruitment and retention rates”. It was the 4th or 5th hit on the first page.

    My original comment linking to the yahoo news item regarding the 15% retention above goal was simply to point out two seemingly conflicting news items appearing on the same day. pb’s response about the “soft bigotry of low expectations” I take to mean that the DoD set expectations low in order to more easily meet or exceed them. I do not presume to know if that is the case or not.

    Most of the responses to my comments were respectful in their disagreement, however, neil ends one comment with either an attempt at humor or a condescending ad-hominem. I’ll hope it was the former.

  47. 47.

    rilkefan

    April 11, 2006 at 12:51 am

    G. Hamid, two points: I applaud your linking to data, and I suggest you get a better sense of the melee here before gettting concerned about something that might be “an attempt at humor or a condescending ad-hominem”.

  48. 48.

    Pb

    April 11, 2006 at 1:15 am

    G. Hamid,

    Nice study you found there–it doesn’t specifically have the numbers I was looking for, but it’s certainly relevant. Similarly, it didn’t take me much Googling to find “After Lowering Goal, Army Falls Short on May Recruits”–and yes, there’s more where that came from.

  49. 49.

    Pb

    April 11, 2006 at 1:32 am

    Mike Crichton,

    They’re the CBO, they confuse everyone. Although they’re probably talking about continuation numbers for *everyone*, and not just for the 80,000 grunts who were just recruited. That’s the difference between continuation and retention, I guess. You work with the government released statistics you have, not the government released statistics you might want or wish to have. :)

  50. 50.

    Kimmitt

    April 11, 2006 at 4:07 am

    Okay, before we get into percentages, since the US military was shrinking during the ’90s (because we, you know, won the Cold War), we’d expect to see a decrease in retention, as there were not only fewer opportunities for advancement, but also, once we hit ’95 or so, the job market was good, so there were lots of opportunities elsewhere.

    Since 9/11, any officer could reasonably expect that the military would be expanded (or at least that the contractions were over), and the job market still isn’t as good as in the ’90s, so we’d expect to see much better retention rates nowadays than in ’99 and ’00. That’s not what we see — we see slightly better rates, with those rates buttressed by stop-loss orders. I’d be concerned, if I were Army brass. Of course, with a Republican President, the private job market isn’t likely to pick up (still the first President since Hoover to preside over a net private job loss in his first term), so at least one pressure on recruiting won’t be an issue.

    I really wonder how the folks who are stoplossed will act once the Iraq occupation is determined to be a political liability and abruptly ended. Will they bail, or will they figure that future service is unlikely to be as onerous as current service and maybe there’s a career in the armed forces? Dunno.

  51. 51.

    Pb

    April 11, 2006 at 5:04 am

    Kimmitt,

    That’s it, more or less. Also, as a reaction to the falling retention rates, Clinton raised salaries to compensate. And then the economy went south, which would also make the military a more attractive option. Then, 9/11 and Afghanistan, a lot of people signed up to catch Osama and defend the US. Finally, the bait-and-switch–stop losses and Iraq!

  52. 52.

    OCSteve

    April 11, 2006 at 7:33 am

    Since 9/11, any officer could reasonably expect that the military would be expanded (or at least that the contractions were over), and the job market still isn’t as good as in the ‘90s, so we’d expect to see much better retention rates nowadays than in ‘99 and ‘00. That’s not what we see—we see slightly better rates, with those rates buttressed by stop-loss orders. I’d be concerned, if I were Army brass.

    Well you do have to factor in the combat aspect. When you sign on the dotted line in peacetime, even in times of great potential conflict, it is still in the back of your mind that you are not really going to see combat. Re-upping in 99 or 00 was a much different decision. If you re-upped post 9/11 you did so with the knowledge that you would most likely see combat. If you re-up today, you likely already have more than one combat tour under your belt.

    Now for lifers, you pretty much need at least one combat tour to really get ahead. If you want to make it into the top brass, the more you lead men in combat the better your chance. This isn’t meant to be macabre, it just is. The combat veteran is going to get promoted faster and higher than the desk jockey. That is how it should be for obvious reasons.

    If you went in for the college however, have no interest in a lifetime military career, then short of any overriding patriotic reasons you will be getting out of dodge first chance.

    So I am actually somewhat impressed by slightly higher retention rates (higher than pre 9/11) – less so now that I realize they may be fudged with stop-loss in the mix.

  53. 53.

    G. Hamid

    April 11, 2006 at 8:33 am

    Pb,

    Now that’s discourse. Even though your two links refer to recruitment rather then retention, if they tinker with one set of goals, one can be suspect regarding others.

    rilkefan,

    Now that’s definitly humor. Thanks.

  54. 54.

    Barry

    April 11, 2006 at 9:11 am

    Me: “And if your choice is to re-up and get a bonus, or not re-up and get stop-lossed without a bonus, the choice is pretty f*cking clear.”

    Ancient Purple: “Except there is no guarantee that you will ultimately get your bonus, no matter what your contract says.”

    True. But if your choice is to not get the money, and probably get stop-lossed, or probably the money for re-upping, that should sway some people. Not all people, of course, but a chunk.

    As for units, there was one mention in a Colorado newspaper that soldiers nearing the end of their enlistments were threatened with transfers to units heading to Iraq. Those units were under stop-loss, so a transfer in brought the soldier to ‘involuntary re-up land’, so to speak.

    I haven’t heard anything further about that, though.

  55. 55.

    Barry

    April 11, 2006 at 9:14 am

    Kimmitt:

    “Okay, before we get into percentages, since the US military was shrinking during the ‘90s (because we, you know, won the Cold War), we’d expect to see a decrease in retention, as there were not only fewer opportunities for advancement, but also, once we hit ‘95 or so, the job market was good, so there were lots of opportunities elsewhere.

    Since 9/11, any officer could reasonably expect that the military would be expanded (or at least that the contractions were over), and the job market still isn’t as good as in the ‘90s, so we’d expect to see much better retention rates nowadays than in ‘99 and ‘00. That’s not what we see—we see slightly better rates, with those rates buttressed by stop-loss orders. I’d be concerned, if I were Army brass. Of course, with a Republican President, the private job market isn’t likely to pick up (still the first President since Hoover to preside over a net private job loss in his first term), so at least one pressure on recruiting won’t be an issue.”

    As has been said above, the job opportunities in the military-industrial complex have boomed since 9/11. Given veteran status, a secret clearance (required for officers, IIRC), and some recent active-duty/combat experience, there should be little problem getting a job. For officers at least, probably for NCO’s. Joe Blow Spec 4 might find things a bit rougher; assuming that the average grunt isn’t qualified for a merc unit, or doesn’t want to re-up for combat, even for merc pay.

  56. 56.

    neil

    April 11, 2006 at 11:11 am

    G. Hamid, why couldn’t it be _both_?

  57. 57.

    G. Hamid

    April 11, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    I guess it could.

  58. 58.

    Johnny

    April 11, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    From a republican point of view, this is probably a good thing. Most of those not remaining, if they are doing so because of “problems” in the military, are probably the kinds of folks who insist on “moral” responses rather than “security” responses. Yes, we will have a smaller military, but those who remain will be less likely to give traitorous discs with torture pictures on them as evidence. The new military that will result in the future will obey in ways that the military has refused to in the past. No more leaks over torture. We can begin to have a proper military, one that doesn’t look back, and one that follows orders without question.

    Than we’ll get some real work done. The kind of work Bush, Cheney and the Party have long dreamed of.

  59. 59.

    wickedpinto

    April 12, 2006 at 12:27 am

    Most of the discussion is in terms of proffit, like I said.

    OC said it best, and Barry Proved it.

    Serve, or don’t because you love your nation.

    I left service for selfish reasons in PEACE time. Had I been allowed to be tested, I don’t know, I really don’t I might have been a weak knee’d bitch. But right now, the service is being tested, and their recruitment and retention is GROWING, OTHER than the Officers who are just now being allowed to leave?

    Once again, Like I said, the Enlisted Corps, has stabilized, which it has, because they have already thrown off the people that can’t be counted on in war.

    We just have to wait for the next year or two, for the REAL Zero’s, the REAL leaders of men, to face the same risks that EVERYone of their enlisted knew was coming.

    Don’t jump to conclusions. a year or two will tell the story for Zero’s. It already has for enlisted, and. . . .HELL if PATRIOTISM doesn’t win the day.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • gwangung on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 2:30am)
  • unctuous on Friday Night Wind-Down Open Thread – David ‘BoBo’ Brooks Edition (Sep 24, 2023 @ 2:12am)
  • Joey Maloney on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 1:16am)
  • Alison Rose on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 1:09am)
  • sab on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 1:06am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!