US Army To Let Recruits Leave After Just 15 Months (moved from ATSNN)

After a sharp decrease in applicants joining the US Army they have decided to drop the minimum sign up time from 4 years to just 15 months. The Army has been struggling recently to meet their sign-up quota's, this is thought to be due to the ever rising number of US casualties in Iraq!

---

The falling number of recruits to the US Army just proves that the opinion on the Iraq war has totally changed over the las 2 years.

At the beginning of the war people were quick to enlist, but after all the attacks, kidnappings and growing casualty list the people of the US dont seem as eager to join knowing that they'll end up fighting a war with no signs of ending!

Well, the people who were quick to enlist 2 years ago are still in the Army. Now, there remains the people coming out of high school and the people who have been debating about joining over the past two years.

About two years ago, the Army enlisted all the people who were on the fence about joining who would eventually decide to join. Now, there's a vaccum there that those on the fencers usually filled.

As to the 15 month enlistment, I think that's a bad idea. My cousin joined the Green Barrets about 2 years ago, and recieved about 16 months of training. If any special ops join under this, they're going to finish their training and then be out of the army.

We have seen time and time again that the enlistement time frame does not matter. I see this as a trick to get more soldiers, then not let them leave, as has already been done to those on 4 year contracts.

This story has already been upgraded here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually those are not 4 year contract.... i think you should have research this a bit more before jumping t the conclusion that people have unjustly been kept from leaving the Armed forces.... When people join the military, you join for active duty and IRR, or individual ready reserve.

You have to continue your military cointract in the reserves after you complete your active duty, unless you decide to fulfill your contract in active duty. There are no 4 year contracts..(well, there are some contracts that are less than the 6-8 year, depending on the rating you choose ect)...

If you sign for a 4 year contract of active duty you still have from 2-4 years of reserve, depending on the branch of the military you join, and if there is a war, the reserves are going to be recalled to join the war.

I do understand, and probably should have included that information, but it does not discredit what I said in any way. And I should have used the word "commitment" instead of "contract." Nonetheless:

How long is the reserve commitment after the new 15-month deal? I really don't care to do the research, because I will never join the armed forces. I was simply making the point that even with a "shorter" commitment, you will be in longer than advertised, and they can change the rules at any time, such that your "agreement" really doesn't mean anything. If they want to keep you active, you will be kept active, or pay the consequences.

Actually you don't understand. It is true that some recruiters don't tell you the whole enchilada in some cases like you might not get your first or second choice of school, but they have to tell you what your full contract is going to be like....

When anyone signs the contract they should know by then that the whole contract includes reserve time, and if you are needed to be back to active duty while you are still under the contract then yes, they will put you back in active duty. This is not going back on the contract, on the contrary it is part of the contract for them to be able to do this. Once you sign a contract for a certain amount of time, you will be put where the military needs you for the entire amount of time the contract was for.

BTW, if you don't care why even respond here with false information?


[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Have you read my posts? If so... let me re-explain the point. If not, please do so before you repeat yourself by saying I am providing inaccurate information.

Articles like the one mentioned on this topic make A LOT of people think "hey, if I join the army, it's only 15 months now." I ABSOLUTELY agree the information is in the printed contract. I was making a point about the "advertised" time frame. If you don't read the contract, and you sign it, you deserve to be held to anything in it, and if you do sign, well, then you agreed, and deserve to be held to anything in it.

My point, for the third time, is that until you actually talk to a recruiter (and not always initially), AND read the fine print, most people are misled into thinking it will be over at the end of the "advertised" time frame. I 100% agree that the details are in the fine print.

I continue to post because I don't think you understand what I am saying. If you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to U2U me. Otherwise, I've made my point, and I think it is time for this thread to move back toward the topic at hand; Shorter commitments.

They're almost certainly not accepting people into Special Forces (the green berets) under this deal tho.

When you sign up, you go, formerlly, for 4 years, and then can be 'called up' at any time 5 years after that right? To serve as needed. Does this change that? I'd think it doesn't/

Duplicate
www.abovetopsecret.com...
created the 12th, already voted in.

Have I read your posts cohiba?...

Well, i can't seem to quote you for some strange reason, but here is your response right after the original post of this thread.



Everyone who joins the military knows how long they are going to serve....even as ready reserve....it is not only on the fine print but the recruiters have to let you know, and they do. i have talked to several recruiters from the different branches of the military before i joined the back in the 90s, and all of them mentioned the ready reserve time, not only the active duty time i would be serving.

Anyways....i do not know what the IRR is for this new enlistment.

An interesting discussion, and I still don't think I got my point through to you.

When I was leaving high-school, I looked into military service. I can assure you the recruiter was not all about telling me how long I would be there. I think he planned on saving those details for after he convinced me it was a good idea (which he also failed at). Much easier sell, that way, don't you think? Get 'em hooked, them give 'em the details. That was my point. Again.

How many recruiting posters say "I WANT YOU" then in little print "to serve a four year commitment, after which we will keep you on active reserve for five years, and we can change this at any time without notice." Too much ink, I suppose. They save that for the papers you sign.

Oh-well, I'm done repeating myself for now. This entire thread should be deleted anyway, because this is a REPEAT THREAD of an ALREADY UPGRADED SUBMISSION.

Pretty soon, they will say that you can sign up for a week to give it a try...

then they will change the law again, and boom... they have another batch of 4yr...i mean 6yr,... make that 8yr tour recruits... well hell, how about they keep ya as long as they damn well please...
after all...
you voluntarily signed up for the week trial... didn't ya?

In light of the military's recent "stop-loss" orders it seems to be almost a given that this is a bait-and-switch operation. Offering a reduced active duty stint in exchange for liberal IRR periods during which "stop-loss" will likely be ordered will effectively extend the active duty period.

Unfortunately the military hasn't caught wind of the fact that they've already recruited all of the idiots who can't read a contract and this new scheme is unlikely to draw in more than a handful of new recruits. Once they show their true colors and place "stop-loss" orders on the 15 month active duty recruits, they'll have to come up with another scam to increase enlistments.

On a side note, though I commend the administration for providing its recent list of base closure recommendations in order to reduce the costs of maintaining our military, it is interesting that no one has mentioned the fact that though this will help the federal government's budget, it will have a stinging effect on the American economy when those bases close. Many who rely upon the soldiers of their local base to boost the local economy will be in serious financial peril.

Again it is clear that what is good for the government is not necessarily good for its citizens. Read the fine print!