It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Army in Worst Recruiting Slump in Decades

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   



Army in Worst Recruiting Slump in Decades

WASHINGTON - 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.

...


Ya think??

Of course, I fully expect renewed discussion concerning the *DRAFT.* Numbers are numbers, and no amount of wishing otherwise will make it true.



[edit on 30-9-2005 by loam]




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Well duh?

Could it be the young people don't want to die halfway around the world in a war nobody needed in the first place?

Again I say......well, duh?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Since the majority of the population voted for the war I don't understand the recruiting shortfall. Does this mean that those that voted for it didn't go and volunteer to fight it right after casting their votes?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
First up, this has been beaten to DEATH on these boards so many times...

But...

#1 The people NOT showing up at the recruiters right now are the people who were just their for the benefits in the first place, i.e. a large percentage of people who never had any intention of fighting but were willing to risk it. But now that war is all but guaranteed, they are staying clear. The people who are willing to defends and fight for their countries are still signing up as always.

#2 "in decades" means what? About the time of the last war. Makes sense huh? Man I am so sick of the people twisting things to fir their agendas...

So basically what these nimrods are saying is this: "Hey, people don’t sign up as much when a war is going on!" Really Brainiac?

I bet if you were inclined (you aren’t) you would look up the recruiting numbers from previous conflicts and see nothing but a consistent trend. But you won’t because that would not show your agenda in the light you want it too.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Indeed shocking news less people signing up for the military during a debatable war.

Fighting in a real war makes that college tuition assistance program seem like less of a bargin.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

#2 "in decades" means what? About the time of the last war. Makes sense huh? Man I am so sick of the people twisting things to fir their agendas...



Skippy, Skippy, Skippy? I have no agenda to further. I made an honest observation regarding a fact.

Neither am I inclined to go searching for recruiting numbers from previous conflicts since it is your responsibility to provide these as you brought up the issue. And did you not state, "I bet if you were inclined (you aren’t) you would look up the recruiting numbers from previous conflicts and see nothing but a consistent trend?"

Proof, please?





[edit on 30-9-2005 by garyo1954]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
#1 The people NOT showing up at the recruiters right now are the people who were just their for the benefits in the first place, i.e. a large percentage of people who never had any intention of fighting but were willing to risk it. But now that war is all but guaranteed, they are staying clear. The people who are willing to defends and fight for their countries are still signing up as always.


This is speculation. Are you willing to defend and fight for your country? Be honest.



Man I am so sick of the people twisting things to fir their agendas...


Which of your threads would you like me to point you to? Perhaps the one about the French changing their tune over their "newly discovered terrorist threat"?



So basically what these nimrods are saying is this: "Hey, people don’t sign up as much when a war is going on!" Really Brainiac?


Huh?



I bet if you were inclined (you aren’t) you would look up the recruiting numbers from previous conflicts and see nothing but a consistent trend. But you won’t because that would not show your agenda in the light you want it too.


Prove your point. It's not up to others to do your homework for you. You make an assertion regarding recruitment numbers in previous conflicts then you should be inclined to support it with the data. You are basically saying that you believe he has no inclination to search for data to prove or disprove your own point. If you are not careful, someone might one day call your bluff.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Codger
Since the majority of the population voted for the war I don't understand the recruiting shortfall. Does this mean that those that voted for it didn't go and volunteer to fight it right after casting their votes?


When and where was this vote conducted?

I don't seem to remember being given the opportunity to vote on this.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Codger
Since the majority of the population voted for the war I don't understand the recruiting shortfall. Does this mean that those that voted for it didn't go and volunteer to fight it right after casting their votes?

How many people do you know who voted for the War? Was it up for voting?

I know four people who have served in Iraq, and none of them voted for any War.

Was it just the select few in the US who got to vote? No one in the UK had any say in it, or had any kind of vote either.

No one voted for this War, it was brought upon us by our Governments who bull S**ted us into believing there was some thing more sinister.

END OF STORY EH?..........................



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
No one voted for this War, it was brought upon us by our Governments who bull S**ted us into believing there was some thing more sinister.


how does it go?



one voice for the people by the people


something like that



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Look, on big problem isnt getting people to join but keeping them in. The sad fact is many young people in this nation has no better choice but to join. Money for school and a real job are out of reach for more and more of us. I have been in army for 7 years now and dont have an reason to stay. I join the active army for the GI bill and its was well worth it. There is much to gain and grow on being a soldier. After four year active I joint the guard and have found the weekend warrior thing ok, but now Im in Iraq and I see that as a backdoor draft. Yes, Im very willing to do what is needed for this nation but not enought to stay in the active army. I saw the guard as a way to support my local area and give back a little to the people around me. This war sure isnt doing that, to me. I cant see being away from my job and family for another year ever again. I dont support this war but could see myself doing this in future, but not for a year at a time. Many others in the uniform feel this same and retention is a big problem for the army. I have to do many things I dont want to, to be a soldier, but giving up me home life and job shouldnt be part of that. Their the reasons for my sercive in the first place.
Problem two, the loss vetrain soldiers. I have found that too many of the current soldiers have no idea what wars is all about and need the older more seasoned to help fill the void. More and more vetrains arent staying in for 20 years or more now. The training and info drain will only make the army less able to react to future "real wars."
Yes recruiting will drop durning war, but now so is the very life blood on the army too



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
You elect officials to represent you, and they vote on your behalf, I know you don't like that concept so we’ll just stay clear of it.

Now, would somebody check out the numbers of soldiers Re-Enlisting for the military, It might shock you to see those soldier that are according to some of you against the war re-insisting



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Those who remember the other President Bush's war in Iraq will recall how the incredible hue and cry from reservists who - oddly enough - didn't think that they would have to fight a war. I heard more than once "I just joined for .... (college), (the extra paycheck), (the chance to play with guns)... etc, etc. I was disgusted on a daily basis by the whining of idiots who took an oath, accepted the money, bonuses, and benefits, and - when the bill came due, were unwilling to live up to their end of the bargain.

I am not advocating the current oppupation in Iraq. I do believe Afghanistan wasn't a bad idea - the Taliban was a boil that needed lancing. The Iraqi occupation will be a controversial issue; the US has a habit of long and unpopular occupations. Vietnam, the Phillipines, the DMZ...and now a long and costly occupation of Iraq.

Is a draft likely? Probably not. The DoD will eventually start throwing big money around to lure the poor, underemployed, and unemployed into donning the uniform...another American tradition. At least we don't have mandatory conscription. As a veteran, I can tell you I would not want to be dropped into the pot with someone who hadn't made the conscious choice to fight.

As to who voted for the war. Well, the US is a representative democracy. We elected our representatives to Congress, and they did vote overwhelmingly for war. Most of them are still there, and they will likely remain in office. The biggest problem with the United States is that sovereignty truly does rest in the hands of the people - but most are too apathetic to be bothered to use this power wisely.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
WestPoint23

Good idea, go check. If you find any real numbers Im sure it would help in this debate. The army isnt really putting out the numbers for the public or its people to see. Yes there are a ton of reclass and ten thousand dollar reups for 3 to 6 years but how many are stay the course? Infact reclass MOSs have only grown in the last few years. Could that be the need for more MPs or a real shortfall in other MOS's?
I sure dont have any real numbers showing that loss of senior ncos but if you have been in over more than a few years its far to easy to see. Anyone can make E-6 in four now. No training is needed to be an nco(E-5) anymore and most nco schools are way over booked, why?
Look re-insisting and be for the war dont go hand in hand. Many have no real choice but to stay in what ever they think about the war, you should understand that. A year from home over and over is whats killing the morale of the troops not a anti-war movemnet in the ranks.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
shantyman

Thanks for your post. Dont let pride get in the way here. You dont know a thing about my will to fight and even less about be soldier I asume by judging one so quickly. The need to support my unit, the mission and seeing everone home in one piece is far more important than not supporting the reasons for this war, duh.
We all have to make choices and being in the army isnt the easiest, as you should know, and we all have reasons for way we joined. No one reason is enough to make a person kill and suffer. Those reasons come within and thats not what this post is about, yes? The point is what a bad job the army is doing in keeping people in. This whining,idiot who took an oath is just ask if the army has an oath to its people too?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
As a recently (1st of the month) retired veteran, I have to agree with dirk d.

From the official information briefed to us, reenlistment rates are very low and from my personal observations retirements/seperations are way up. The most common reason I heard for retiring/seperating was deploying too much.

These are just my observations and opinions and I'm sure there are a lot of people who will disagree.


Oh, by the way, if you're naive enough to believe that your elected officials actually vote based on your beliefs and opinions, I feel very sorry for you.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Welcome to the old vets club Jaryn! Please excuse our clusterfark here. It is temporary, a form of insanity.

As you can see loam posted an article with a byline from Washington that says recruiting is in a slump. Many of us accept that article (like you, dirk d, Codger, and I, ect.) and comment.

Then there will be others (skippy and West so far) who will challenge what is said even when the information posted is linked to a reliable source, AP Military Writer Robert Burns, citing the Brookings Institute, Northwestern, as well as several high ranking military officers.

What really boils me is when someone jumps in, ignoring the original post, and challenges others to disprove the original article. How does that work?
If I have no problem with the article why should I choose to disprove it?

Of course, if someone wants to bring numbers/new facts to the table, it is their responsibility to provide them or at least links. That is where we stand now.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Oh, by the way, if you're naive enough to believe that your elected officials actually vote based on your beliefs and opinions, I feel very sorry for you.


We elect them to represent our views, however, we cannot force them to do anything once they take up their position. If they don't do as they promise, well, we have to wait 2 years to replace them. Now, considering that most of the officials that voted for the Iraq war are still there, that either says that we as voters don't care, or we are happy with their decision. If it’s the former, it’s not really surprising the politicians continue to get away with it.

By the way here is that article from the Washington Post about the Army's Reenlisting percentage. This article is a month old.


Schoomaker said recruiting problems are offset by high retention among active divisions, especially in units that have served or are serving in Iraq. He said the Army has exceeded its personnel retention goal by 9 percent, with soldiers in the Third Infantry Division -- now on its second tour in Iraq -- reenlisting at 112 percent of the goal. The First Cavalry Division has the highest reenlistment rate, at 138 percent of the goal, according to the Army. All 10 of the Army's divisions are surpassing retention estimates.


Link



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
WestPoint

link

Good link, I see the idea. What was the goal, I have a feeling we wont get a good answer there. Not that you cant find some big brass blowing smoke to Congress. The next problem, active duty is more of a career path and 1CD hasnt been over to Iraq but one time. This link talks about uping the age limit to join, 39 for guard. Could a 39 year ago really see 20 years in? Next many other things like armor are being cut to cover financial incentives for reuping.

link



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
WestPoint
Now looking at your story, I see a ton of spin-offs racing to show how great the number are. Most posted on neo-co sites. Thats to be expected right? I think have to go along with you on active numbers reups based on an army goal no one can see, but look at the guard numbers.
link
link




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join