It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:00 PM
Thank you West. I appreciate your effort.

The Washington Post (your link) says:

"The Army is expected to meet or exceed its monthly recruiting goal for August but is likely to miss its annual goal for the fiscal year that ends next month amid one of the most difficult recruiting environments since it became an all-volunteer force, the Army's chief of staff said yesterday."

I also note Schoomaker percentages of 112 and 138. Remember these numbers reflect the percentage of a GOAL.

The only way you could reenlist more than 100% would be if MORE than your GOAL number reenlisted. In other words, if Third Infantry set a GOAL of 8 to reenlist and nine did, then they would show 112.5% reenlistment rate and exceed their GOAL.

Same applies to the idea of retention GOAL. If you expect to reenlist 100 and 109 do reenlist, then your retention GOAL would be 109%.

IMHO any article that cites retention as being above 100% is not quite on the level. I for one wouldn't trust someone who offered me 112% of anything.

You did a great job West. Thanks you.

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:20 PM
Army Recruiting Command raised enlistment goals in 2001/2. All services are easily reaching the former levels, and are only falling short of the new levels.

Re-enlistment, on the other hand, is through the roof in nearly all major commands...including unprecedented levels of re-ups in the combat zones.

From Article:
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.

73,ooo recruits is well over the old level of 65,ooo, but obviously falls short of the new level. While the report is accurate in what it does say, it is NOT complete in what it needs to say.

BTW, military recruitment actually was short of its 1998.

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:45 PM
Ok its time to look at the big picture here. Army's post helps here. In real terms the recuiting slump really isnt happening. Next, the reup numbers are great so says the army. But last, the new goal of 30 thousand more active troops and the brac realinement arent being worked in here. Its fair to say the numbers will be close to an average most years and there isnt a big problem there. The problem is longterm enlistment. I have been looking for anything on how many soldiers put out 20 years now. Still lookin, but Im just putting this out there. I dont see as many career troops anymore. I have seen more than a few senior nco walk away after even 16 or 17 years then go back to Iraq. Im in the guard and other than fulltimers and those who want to be the morale isnt there anymore. More over, the senior leadership is much younger than even four years back. I will look for the number but Im afraid a bunch of the numbers Im looking for arent for public use.

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Jaryn

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.

Sorry, guess I don't understand the US political process. The way the last US election was portrayed outside the US was that those that voted to give President Bush a second term were in support of his actions, therefore in support of the Iraq action.

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:06 AM
Codger America is a numbers nation. Political numbers work like this:

George has $50. He wants to save $25.
He gets drunk, passes out and realizes later he saved $30.

Rather than say he is $5 to the good, the government will tell us he met that budget by 120%! And Americans will feel all warm and fuzzy because they don't know what the budget goals were to begin with.

[edit on 2-10-2005 by garyo1954]

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by shantyman
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.

They were expecting that because that's what the military was advertising.
I can't ind the ads but I remember them well.
The big selling point was all about college tuition and it was just going to be "One weekend a month, two weeks a year" if they joined the National Guard.

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:50 AM
That's what the military may stress, but they don't tell you not to read the contact before you put your name on the dotted line.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in