The Army met the recruiting goals for ’06:
One year after the Army failed to meet its annual recruiting goal by the widest margin in two decades, the Pentagon is to announce this week that the ground forces, and the rest of the military, all reached their targets for recruits in 2006.
Joining Up Weakness remained in filling the reserves, however. The Marine and Air Force Reserves topped 100 percent of their goals, although the Army National Guard hit 99 percent of its target.
For active-duty forces, the Army signed up 80,635 people in the 2006 fiscal year, which ended at midnight on Sept. 30, topping its goal of 80,000. The Navy recruited 36,679, after setting a goal of 36,656. The Marines enlisted 32,337, with a goal of 32,301, and the Air Force recruited 30,889, topping its goal of 30,750.
“The big question out there is, ‘How did you guys do better in ’06 if you fell short in ’05?’ ” the top Pentagon personnel officer, David S. C. Chu, said. “And yet we have a very demanding set of deployments going on overseas. And, if anything, the nation is more debating this issue of war against terrorism and our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan than was true in 2005.”
A verry good question, and the answer is simple- you change the rules:
Some efforts to reach recruiting goals brought criticism, especially Army decisions to raise recruits’ maximum allowable age and to accept a larger percentage of applicants scoring at the lowest acceptable range on a standardized aptitude examination.
Fantabulous!
salvage
And don’t forget this bit:
You’ll have a whole generation of gang bangers learning not only how to kill but to kill in urban settings with military grade hardware. The ones that survive will come home as paramilitary, I’m thinking the next version of Crips, Bloods and god knows will make the current batch look like Girl Guides.
Feeling safer America?
Keith
Since Rumsfeld is such a big fan of a small, efficient army, why didn’t they just lower their goals?
RSA
Has anyone suggested offshoring yet?
Tsulagi
Yeah, don’t forget the helpful moral waivers. What’s a rape or gangsta drive-by shooting when you’re looking to get more troops to support with bumper stickers?
Maybe Rummy can order new ads for the Army using 50 Cent. The new slogan could be “Do all you wanted to do.”
Is there anything these guys don’t fuckup?
MAX HATS
Proud to say I’m one of those 8056 marine reservists enlisted this year. Boot in two weeks. Little nervous.
Throughout the enlistment process, it’s definitely come to my attention that the army is pretty fuck-up tolerant. All services are, to an extent (I’m getting the impression it’s always been this way). Speaking as a fuckup myself, the thing is that their fuckups tend to be really dumb. Like, nervous about failing the ASVAB dumb. While marine fuckups tend to be psyco or slightly criminal and navy fuckups are in my experience hilarious burnouts (I’m already wondering if I joined the wrong service), army fuckups tend to be, well, kind of bottom of the barrel.
Maybe it’s alwasy been this way. Maybe the folks I’ve met so far have not been representative. Maybe inter-service rivalry is already clouding my brain. But most terrifyingly – maybe I’m onto something.
We need to hype military enlistment as a patriotic duty, and less so much as a vocational school. If people join for purely or largely economic reasons, then it’s a given that the economic equation will change unfavorably in wartime, right when you need new enlistees most. We need the president and political leaders from across the spectrum hyping enlistment in JFK since Iraq started taking a bite out of recruitment.
Kirk Spencer
Salvage,
You missed the really dangerous problems with the gang enlistments.
First, sure, it trains them on military hardware, but that’s not so hard to use. What’s scary is that it gives them ACCESS to military hardware. Missing equipment isn’t a new thing, but after the “broken army” of the 1970s was corrected the problem reduced — a lot.
Second, it’s not the hardware training that makes them dangerous. It’s the other skills. Stuff the Rah-Rah-Killemall gangbanger wouldn’t think to pick up, but which experience has taught makes soldiers dangerous. Techniques of movement and communication. Combat first aid. Military discipline.
That last… soldiers beat warriors because the latter are after the glory and honor, while the former’s honor is from the unit doing its job.
ThymeZone
Best explanation I’ve seen yet why the US should get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. Ralph Peters, via WaMo:
Warner to US troops: Hang in there, try not to get killed until after the Republicans have held onto Congress.
Now THAT’S a recruiting slogan if I ever heard one.
American troops are now being used as disposable props in a political shell game.
salvage
Kirk all good points and I suspect there are fresh horrors that we can’t even imagine.
Bush’s horror show is going to go on for decades after he’s out of office both foreign and domestic.
Pharniel
on the other hand, we might wind up with some professional criminals, which while alot more dangerous on a high level are alot less dangerous to your average joe, because your average joe doesn’t usually have anything worth stealing/taking and smart criminals running drugs etc. know that dead clients don’t keep buying.
in short just enough crime to keep the cops busy but enough stability and prosperity that people can afford thier stuff.
Faux News
Ah, let’s not forget about the neo nazis who are joing the armed forces as well:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=66
Dreggas
Salvage,
It’s worse than crips and bloods just look up MS-13.
yet another jeff
Better stay away from Copperhead road…
yet another jeff
Good luck to you, Max Hats. BTW, how old are you?
Beej
Suppose there was a law which provided that if the Pres and Congress want to declare war, they must first enact a draft. Congress would have to pass the bill, the Pres would have to sign it, and all the mechanisms to start drafting would have to be in place. Only then could war be declared. Now the law could also say that the draft doesn’t necessarily have to be IMPLEMENTED, only that it needs to be ready to be implemented. Do you think that might make the decision to go to war a more considered one?
Zifnab
I’ll say this, the Iraq War has done a great job of training up the next generation of Military Dems. After Vietnam we had the John Kerrys and the John Murthas after Kissenger’s ass. Now we’ll have a need breed of men and women ready to kick Rummy’s.
But I seriously don’t see why the US Military shouldn’t be vocational training plus. How many civilian pilots got their start in the Air Force? How many mechanics gave their first tune-ups to a Hummer? Patriotism is all well and good – we had record enlistments after 9/11 – but your never going to sell patriotism to a nation that thinks it can have war AND taxcuts, heavy handed politics AND blind patriotism, disrespect for generals AND a military that looks strong and capable. If you want military recruitment to go up, treat your military with respect.
SeesThroughIt
Best of luck to you, MAX HATS. I hope you make it through intact.
Steve
I’m in favor of a draft. I’d like to see the notion of war taken a little more seriously.
ThymeZone
Aren’t there large effects having to do with a permanent standing force of lower-quality inductees, higher costs, training issues? I thought the idea was to have a smaller, lighter, smarter force of better-trained people?
While the draft has some political effects, which are TBD as far as I am concerned … I think the practical effects on the armed forces are of paramount importance. It seems to me that the military doesn’t want a draft. If it does, why aren’t we hearing that? If it doesn’t, why would we want something that they don’t want?
Pb
I’m in favor of a voluntary draft of a sort–that is to say, consider any war-monger who wants to have an involuntary draft involuntarily volunteered. Then we’d finally get to see what the 104th Chairborne Brigade and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists (Chickenhawk Division) are really made of, and they could single-handedly save our nation physically instead of just trying to do it virtually!
bob
I’d like to see a draft too – one with a deferrment for anyone whose family makes less than $200K a year. Want some accountability, put the kids of the people who actually have a say in this government (the rich) in harms way – see how fast this oil-tanker government turns around.
DwightKSchrute
Just curious, how does the goal of 80,000 for this year match up to last year? Not the number of people enlisted – I mean the goal itself, was it higher or lower than previous years?
Davebo
A look at Army enlistment bonuses. Note, these are not re-enlistment bonuses.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/bonus/blarenlbonusnew.htm
Pretty alluring to many.
ThymeZone
I got your recruiting poster, right here.
DwightKSchrute
Never mind, should have just read the entire article. Looks like 80,000 was the goal last year as well.
Proud Liberal
Well.. if the military keeps lowering its standards perhaps some day Darrell and MacBuckets can join up and fight for the cause they so strongly support.
Andrew
Without the draft, the military is made up of some people who are gung ho to serve and fight and a whole lot of people who want a job and college benefits, including quite a few that can’t pass some pretty basic aptitude tests.
With a draft, the military would be made up of some people who are gung ho to serve and fight, some people who want a job and college benefits, and a bunch of bitter folks who will either fix that Humvee or sit in prison.
But here’s the best solution:
A completely optional draft.
If you register for the optional draft, you are given access to benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. If you don’t register, don’t expect any federal government services.
Tsulagi
Congratulations, MAX HATS. Another smart move you made was not joining Air Force. Whatever you do, don’t call those guys in for close air support. Quickest way to see your own ass airborne while you’re still on the ground.
BTW, not all in the services are fuckups. On the whole, the general population has nothing on them in intelligence, character, and class.
Zifnab
That sort-of works. Except I’m not going to fork over a percent of my paycheck just so I have the opportunity to get it back AFTER I serve in the military. Might as well just call it the “no-service” tax.
That would, in my mind, be a better solution if not exactly the best. Give soldiers tax breaks. Perhaps exempt them (at least for their tour of service) from paying SS and Medicare.
Steve
I thought it was the other way around. In other words, if the draft is available, then we can rapidly induct and train a large number of people in the event we decide to have a war. If the draft is not an option, then we have to train a standing army just in case a war comes along.
Maybe my thinking is fuzzy. My point is that when the burden of a war falls upon everyone, everyone tends to take it more seriously. One of the reasons the Iraq war has dragged on for so long with no oversight is that for most people, the costs of war are strictly intangible.
Zifnab
Everything has been rendered strictly intangible. One of the Republican methods of government. Like a mosquitto, they don’t let you know you’ve been bit until they’re long gone.
But simply making the rich serve in the military doesn’t solve the problem. You’ll still have plenty of young rich yuppies spending time guarding the US-Mexico boarder from Vietcong invasion. You’ll still have defered enlistment and legions of flat-footed would-be recruits, people spending 8 years in college or suddenly coming out of the closet.
One of the jokes behind the Vietnam draft was that a number of havens from military service – moving to Canada, hiding in college, paying off a local Congressman with clout, or having a friendly doctor to discover a herefore unknown medical malady – were all reserved (surprise, surprise) for the rich, white, suburban teenager.
Steve
Well, the idea is that with the benefit of hindsight, we’d eliminate many of the exceptions that were so prevalent in the Vietnam era. The existence of a draft obviously didn’t prevent Vietnam in the first place, but I think it would prevent another Vietnam.
Andrew
No, you don’t have to serve to get the benefits. You would just have to be available for the draft.
The only problem is that really rich people don’t care about government benefits, so I’ll have to figure out a way to deal with that.
I like your idea of a flat tax break — 20% off of all federal taxes for your entire life if you’re in the draft pool. That might even get rich people to be draftable. But the key is that it is not just for soldiers (who really shouldn’t be paying much tax anyway), but for people in the draft pool with the potential to be called up.
Punchy
Davebo nails it. Hell, I could recruit 150K newbies if I offered all of them $50K to sign up.
They BOUGHT these recruits. They didn’t recruit them. They spent a SHITLOAD of coin to get these (probably) lower-income dropouts to sign up. Ya know, $11K can buy you a LOT of new gang tats and 40’s of 8-Ball.
Temple Stark
A lot of your dates here are saying Oct. 11, which it isn’t anywhere in the US of A, yet.
The enlistment nnumbers were down last year TO 80,000 were they not? No time to look it up, at the moment, sorry.
r€nato
you know what’s interesting about those recruitment numbers?
The Navy and Marines exceeded their goals by two or three dozen. Out of 36,600 and 32,300 respectively. The AF made it by ~150 out of 30,750. The Army, 600 over its goal of 80,000.
I mean, isn’t that kind of interesting that they just squeak over? I bet they were engaged in some bookkeeping chicanery, like when legislatures delay paying bills by a week to make budgets balance.
Just saying.
Bruce Moomaw
Well, look how well it worked for Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, in which he crammed his army with 13-year-olds. Oh, wait…
MAX HATS
26, since a couple weeks ago. There’s a good story about why I took this long to enlist (first tried in 2004). That story is embarrassing, so I won’t tell it. But in the end, I’m glad. A couple years in the civilian world really polished me. If I went straight from hippie school to marines, I’d be unable to function in polite society.
ThymeZone
No, not even close. Social Security works when all wage earners participate. If you carve up the demographics, you can’t invent a financial model that works. It’s hard enough to do that when you have everyone participating. And the cost of putting millions into the service in order to qualify them for SS later is about as bad a bargain as you could possibly make.
Did we learn nothing from the George Bush “I’ll fix Social Security” fiasco? Please don’t invent new, unsupportable ways to fuck with it.
Andrew
Who is putting millions in the service?
I propsed that you have to be in the draft pool to get the benefits. There’s only a small chance you’d be drafted, anyway. Everyone still pays.
We wouldn’t really want to withhold medical care or SS. A general tax modifier is a better idea. %5 less taxes for a potential draftee, or 5% for a non-draftee, however you uwant to sell it.
ThymeZone
Yeah, okay, I’m going to need to see a 40-60 year financial model that is based on sound actuarial realities.
Then we’ll talk.
So far, no politician who shoots his mouth off about SS can produce this kind of information, and therefore so far, I have no interest in their schemes.
Show me the money.
BlogReeder
Your grasp of the obvious is truly astounding. Imagine, offering money for risk. That’s not how the government should work.
You just want that so your little anti-war rallies get protestors. It’s embarrassing having no one show, isn’t it?
Why, with the right laws we can change anything!!! Yeah! Get those rich bastards!
Mike
Some efforts to reach recruiting goals brought criticism, especially Army decisions to raise recruits’ maximum allowable age and to accept a larger percentage of applicants scoring at the lowest acceptable range on a standardized aptitude examination.
I seem to remember that the pivotal rule change was simply lowering the recruiting goal numbers.