The Army Exceeds Recruiting Goals

Not!

Published on June 10, 2005 By Texas Wahine In Politics

While our resident Colonel has been ranting about all things military and Bush-related and put out a lot of stats and assertions that are questionable, he is right about one thing.

The US Army is unable to keep up with recruitment goals and keep up the desired troop level.

Here are the facts:

While the May recruitment numbers were not available until today, according to a cnn article, the Army fell about 25% short of its recruitment goal (6,700, lowered from an original target of 11,050).

Army Times (must be a subscriber to access the linked article, my apologies), reports that "eight months into the fiscal year, the Army has enlisted 40,964 soldiers out of a year-to-date goal of 49,285, a shortfall of 17 percent." Army Times also confirms May's 25% shortfall.

Beyond the recruitment figures, there are other indications that the Army is having trouble maintaining force strength.

The Department of Defense has recently begun holding the recruitment stats, with a policy change that has the figures being released on the tenth of the next month rather than within days of the end of the month that the numbers cover. In April, the recruiting statistics (active duty and Reserve) were released (also delayed a week) by Army Public Affairs rather than Army Recruiting Command which has been responsible for releasing the information in the past. (Army Times)

Under the Critical Skills Retention Bonus program, new, larger bonuses have been approved to help convince noncommissioned officers to "stay green." Depending on rank, specialty, and the number of years the Soldier re-ups, lump sum bonuses are available ranging from $8K to $150K, and are tax free if received in the Middle East combat theater. (Army Times, May 23, 2005).

These large bonuses are intended for middle-ranking and senior NCOs who are nearing 20 years of service (or retirement) who sign up for two to six years, with Special Forces Soldiers meeting the requirements of the program receiving the highest bonuses.

Another bonus package, intended to promote recruitment and retention, approved May 11th, ups the 2006 maximum re-enlistment bonuses for the average GI Joe from $60K to $90K and raises the maximum enlistment bonus from $20K to $30K.

Also approved was a finder’s fee of $1K for new recruits who bring another person into the service, an increase in hardship duty pay (to $750 a month), and a 3.1 percent across-the-board raise in basic pay (intended to close the gap between military and private sector pay). (Army Times, May 23, 2005)

An additional financial enticement has been added to boost enlistment, an “early ship bonus” of up to $14K for active duty Army recruits who agree to ship out early to basic training. (Army Times, May 16, 2005)

A new revamped marketing campaign has been unleashed as well. The new Army ads are designed to target the parents of potential recruits rather than the potential recruits themselves (Rock and Roll Army of One commercials?). According to Army Times, “Many parents, fearful their children might add to that tally, opt to discourage their children from serving in the military or say nothing about the responsibility to consider such service. Recognizing this, the Army’s recruiting campaign appeals to the patriotism of parents, hoping they will become catalysts in the recruitment effort.” (Army Times, May 23, 2005)

Now, this information does not, to me, say that we are going to have or should have a draft. Instead, what I see is an undeniable problem with recruitment and maintaining the number of troops needed in today’s Army.
I also see various methods by which the problem is being addressed.

While money definitely talks, and the bonuses seem to be very successful in retaining Soldiers, it does not seem to be working in recruitment (yet, anyways), and at a time when the military is having to ask for billions more in war funding as the money for the fiscal year has already run out, I question whether this is a realistic method, particularly long term. (Not that I don’t like money!)

I don’t believe that postponing or attempting to hide or downplay the numbers is helpful, either. Not only does it make the military and the administration look shifty and dishonest, but I also think it’s bad for recruitment.

Possibly the new ads are a step in the right direction, by promoting discussion in families and portraying the Army as a way to increase your integrity and earn respect rather than a way to show off in a helicopter with Godsmack playing in the background. If parents’ disapproval or concern is a major factor in many potential recruits’ decisions not to join, then appealing to the parents (hey, look, we can take your lazy, slob of a son and turn him into a man who looks you in the eye and shakes your hand with kung fu grip) may be a good idea.

Personally, I believe that the biggest obstacle for the Army is not the wars, per se, but the culture of fear we live in (fed by 24/7 gloom and doom newscasts) that overshadows whatever patriotism may be lying dormant underneath.

Boosting patriotism is not something the Army can really do. However, in order for them to meet and exceed recruiting goals and keep the Army at a tough, fighting size, American teens and young men and women need to be excited by the prospect of doing something meaningful for the country they love. Military service must be regarded as an honorable profession, and praised at the dinner table just as much as brother Billy’s new $70K a year IT job. Gloom and doom needs to be replaced with optimism and love of country. A fire needs to be lit under the ass of the American youth, and it falls to each of us to make some sparks.

The Army admitting that they are consistently falling short is a good thing. What better to motivate Americans than a crisis, a shortage, a need that has to met? Just as many Americans enlisted after 9/11, the shortage could inspire many to answer the call when others won’t.

I don’t think throwing money at the problem or hiding it or offering 15 month enlistments (yeah, they’re trying that, too) will work.

Honor, pride, patriotism, and honesty.

This is what I think will work, but the responsibility doesn’t just fall on the Army. It also falls on American citizens like you and me.

Comments (Page 1)

MasonM

on Jun 10, 2005

The family does have a lot to do with it, and directing their ads toward the parents is good thinking. I know in my family, it's tradition and expected that all males enter the service either as enlisted or officers when they come of age. That family tradition and expectation is a very powerful thing.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Jun 11, 2005

You seem to be much too polyanna about the US army and its potential to trcruit. In fact accordingto Pentagon, the US army cannot sustain the level of cazxualitie it is taking in Iraq withopu DRAFT. Just this morning 5 to 8 solfdiers were killed in Bagdad.

COL Gene

on Jun 11, 2005

Very Good Article, Tex

The issue of military size and the world wide committments is also an issue. The active component is undersized for the missions that have been given. We have far too large a portion of the force from the Guard and Reserve and their deployments have been too long. Rotations of active components are occurring too frequently. The end strength of the active component needs to be significantly increased as most senior military officers have now admitted. We therefore have a problem to maintain the military at its current size but sustaining it at a higher levels to do the job throughout the world will be even more of an issue.

The Army was 25% short in May after lowering its objective from 8,050 to 6,700. That means they are 38% short in May, 42% short in April, 31% in March and 27% short in Feb. The Army Guard and Reserve are even further off the mark

A disturbing change is the attitude of parents and family members toward military service. If that becomes a trend, we have a MUCH bigger issue. Military service is horrible and needs to be performed by motivated and dedicated members of our society. However, if we can not sustain our ALL volunteer army during a time of war, we need another viable option, to ensure the manpower both in numbers and skill types are available for all branches of our military. If that means a Draft, then we need to determine that and not just say "That is what the Democtats want"!

The way in which this war is perceived is part of the equation. Unlike the Second World War, we were not attacked and the conduct of the Iraq War has been anything but positive. To kid yourself that the Iraq war is not part of the problem with the Army and Marine Corps not meeting recruiting goals would be an error.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 12, 2005

Mason:

I agree completely. Military service does not seem to be something that parents view as a successful or desirable career for their children. Careers that bring large amounts of money and prestige are what parents want for their children, and careers that are of great value to our society but are not high paying are overlooked.

I think it has so much to do with the kind of society we live in.

I also agree that family tradition has a large influence on an individual's life choices and choice of career.

Bahu:

You seem to be much too polyanna about the US army and its potential to trcruit.

I won't disagree with that. My view is simple and Pollyanna-ish, although I can't imagine why that's a bad thing.

In fact accordingto Pentagon, the US army cannot sustain the level of cazxualitie it is taking in Iraq withopu DRAFT.

Could you provide a link for that information? I'd be very interested in reading it.

Little Whip:

Great article, Tex.

Thank you. I actually worked very hard on this, but it seems to be getting overlooked because it's not controversial or alarmist. So it goes, I guess.

I think it's a sad reflection of our current society when our military has no problem recruiting when the worst thing a recruit has to worry about is surviving basic training to get a free college degree, yet when the situation changes and people realize they might have to actually DO what the military was MEANT to do if they enlist, they stay away in droves.

I agree. I think that the youth of today (and I'm including myself in that) are far too spoiled and have a very selfish mindset. The concepts of sacrifice and honor and duty are foreign to us. We are lazy and extraordinarily selfish.

I'm for bringing back the draft, anyway, and I think it should be permanent. We shouldnt have to bribe people to do what they should be doing in the first place, serving their country.

Adrian feels the same way. He thinks military service should be a requirement for all able-bodied males. He has more insight into that than I do, but I worry about having people serving in our military that don't want to be there. That seems dangerous and ineffective to me.

Our security is too important to be jeapordized by a shortage of man (and woman) power

Absolutely.

ColGene:

Very Good Article, Tex

Thank you.

The issue of military size and the world wide committments is also an issue. The active component is undersized for the missions that have been given. We have far too large a portion of the force from the Guard and Reserve and their deployments have been too long. Rotations of active components are occurring too frequently. The end strength of the active component needs to be significantly increased as most senior military officers have now admitted. We therefore have a problem to maintain the military at its current size but sustaining it at a higher levels to do the job throughout the world will be even more of an issue.

I agree with your assessment that the Army is overstretched and overburdened at this point.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about problems that would be caused by maintaining a much larger force.

A disturbing change is the attitude of parents and family members toward military service. If that becomes a trend, we have a MUCH bigger issue. Military service is horrible and needs to be performed by motivated and dedicated members of our society. However, if we can not sustain our ALL volunteer army during a time of war, we need another viable option, to ensure the manpower both in numbers and skill types are available for all branches of our military. If that means a Draft, then we need to determine that and not just say "That is what the Democtats want"!

I agree that the general attitude of our society (made up of parents and family members) is a major factor in the enlistment problems.

I hesitate to support a draft, and I don't believe that it's imminent, but if it's what's necessary, then it should be done.

To kid yourself that the Iraq war is not part of the problem with the Army and Marine Corps not meeting recruiting goals would be an error.

Yes, the war in Iraq is part of the problem. First of all, it is one of the big reasons why parents have been so opposed to their children joining the service. Second, as I mentioned in my article, the culture we live in is very alarmist and gloom and doom about Iraq and the state of our nation at large.

While I do believe that the deaths should be reported and proper respect should be given to the Soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, the way in which the news media does this contributes to culture of fear. Deaths are not reported and mourned, but rather sensationalized, with photos of bloody Kevlar and lingering discussions on the deadliness and danger of Iraq, repeated every half hour.

The attitude, which I'm not immune to, is "why should I risk MY life (or a family member's) for something that doesn't affect me?" instead of "does my country need me?". As I said before, we've become very selfish.

COL Gene

on Jun 12, 2005

The problem with the Iraq War is that the danger to America is not established. To argue that Saddam was a dictator that either had or wanted WMD makes him one of many identical Dictatotrs in this world. In fact, many of them are more of a danger then Saddam i.e. North Korea, Iran and Seria. Thus, the idea that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism falls flat. Iraq may have been a distant problem but there were far more urgent dangers that Bush ignores as we commit lives and $300 billion in Iraq. Parents and potential military members see this and is part of the problem.

We also have never tried to have an all volunteer Army during a time of war. We do not know it is possible to sustain the military during a period of war. The issue of maintaining a larger military may be expensive and may not be possible with just volunteers. However unless we're willing to reduce the commitments for our military, we must be willing to increased manpower regardless of what the cost or if it requires a limited Draft.

During the election of 2000 George Bush acknowledged the military was understaffed and did absolute nothing to fix the problem that he identified. He made the problem much worse by increasing the commitments. The extended use of guard and reserve forces is also creating huge problems both in recruiting and retention and is claused by an insufficient active component as well as some structural changes that need to be made in combat support and combat service support elements which have always been concentrated in the reserve and guard units. The consequence of that is to require guard and reserve combat support units to sustain the active forces in a combat situation. Bush is not addressing these issues and the long term impact will not be positive on our military forces!

MasonM

on Jun 12, 2005

The concepts of sacrifice and honor and duty are foreign to us.

Bingo.

COL Gene

on Jun 12, 2005

The concepts of sacrifice, honor and duty are not dead when the cause is worth the sacrifice. The problem with the Iraq war is it was an elective war against a country did not present a real danger to the United States of America. Removing an evil dictator or enabling the Iraqis to vote are not issues which American lives and treasure should have been demanded.

Common Sensei

on Jun 12, 2005

'security' has never been the question...wisdom of the war chosen is...

drmiler

on Jun 12, 2005

#10 by Common Sensei
Sunday, June 12, 2005

'security' has never been the question...wisdom of the war chosen is...

Oh really? Have you forgotten 9/11 so quickly?

COL Gene

on Jun 12, 2005

drmiler Are you DUMB.. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You would have attacked Mexico after Dec 7, 1941

drmiler

on Jun 12, 2005

#12 by COL Gene
Sunday, June 12, 2005

drmiler Are you DUMB.. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You would have attacked Mexico after Dec 7, 1941

Who's the DUMMY? Not me ya fool! Where in his post did he say either way?

COL Gene

on Jun 13, 2005

drmiler

You ( in reply # 11) are the one that said" Have you forgotten 9/11 so quickley?" Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11! It is you that does not know hat you are talking about - but that is nothing NEW!

Rightwinger

on Jun 13, 2005

Well, you know, it is wartime....and the war is of debatable popularity, after all. Unless the military starts offering some really cool bennies, like they did in the 70s and 80s, we're likely going to see another draft go into effect.
Not that that would be a completely bad thing. I see lots of directionless teens wandering the streets these days. Military service, even compulsory military service, would do them some good. Give them some purpose and discipline. It certainly did many, many others up til the early 70s.

COL Gene

on Jun 13, 2005

The troops have nothing to do with the decission to send them into harms way. That is my issue not how the military performed. The policy of the Commander-in-chief was wrong and we all have the right to question that policy. It is also the decission of the Commander -in-chief to fail to send the number of troops required even though the top military told the president what was needed. It now appears the British memo also questioned the poor planning for the occupation of Iraq BEFORE we invaded. There are two issues- one is if we should have gone into Iraq. The other is how the President conducted the war. There is no question that the second one was a Bush error. About 60% of Americans now feel the first choice was also a Bush error! Neither in these two choices were made by the military!

Island Dog

on Jun 13, 2005

It now appears the British memo also questioned the poor planning for the occupation of Iraq BEFORE we invaded.

That "memo" has already been debunked.

About 60% of Americans now feel the first choice was also a Bush error! Neither in these two choices were made by the military!

Where do you get 60% percent from? And don't quote a media poll?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!