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 2)

COL Gene

on Jun 13, 2005

What you can not debunk is that the way Bush directed the conduct of the Iraq War has wrong. He told us it would be short and the cost was to 20-40 Billion. He did not listen to the Generals as to what it would take to control Iraq after the government fell. Americans have died because Bush failed to plan properly for the War he insisted on conducting even though Iraq was NO DANGER TO US! The Iraq War is NO PART of the war on terrorism and most Americans now believe the war was not worth the cost! Even conservatives are expressing their discontent with the war and the way it is progressing. Bush has overstated the number of fully trained Iraq troops and has no plan to bring our forces home. He is a disgrace as a President!

Dr Guy

on Jun 13, 2005

He's not human. He's a machine. He's an auto-rantic generator, pulling random Bush-slams out his machined ass.

Good thing! Otherwise he would be busting a blood vessel.

COL Gene

on Jun 13, 2005

The truth is what you call a Bush Slam.

drmiler

on Jun 13, 2005

#22 by COL Gene
Monday, June 13, 2005

The truth is what you call a Bush Slam.

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you.

Island Dog

on Jun 14, 2005

The truth is what you call a Bush Slam.

You don't know what truth is.

Common Sensei

on Jun 14, 2005

Oh, allow me to spell it out in small words for you, drmiler.

Iraq had not a thing to do with 9/11. And no, I have not forgotten. You and Alan Jackson want to keep us all on September 11. Forever. Amen. The only possible link to al-Qaeda in Iraq was in the Kurdish North...an area Saddam Hussein didn't control...but like the Pakistanis, the Kurds get big hugs and kisses from the USA, even though they harbor the very people who planned the horrible attack you invoke every time someone doesn't agree with George Bush. I think you've used up all the political credit you had with that one.

Now, if you want to argue the whole "Saddam was bad, it was good we took him out..." well at least that's more honorable. But the point was made that people not wanting to fight in Iraq was people not being 'security' minded (but not by you, drmiler, you don't make points, you just cut and paste other people's). That's just conservative pap. Now I'll be called a Neville Chamberlain type or some other nonsense. That's fine. Either that, or the poetic drmiler will call me a 'butthead' like he did someone on another thread.

But he's a self-professed redneck, so what do you expect?

Island Dog

on Jun 14, 2005

Remember, Saddam was not a threat.

MasonM

on Jun 14, 2005

#25 by Common Sensei
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

You're absolutely right! It's not like Hussein had a long history of financially supporting terrorists or anything.

drmiler

on Jun 14, 2005

#25 by Common Sensei
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Oh, allow me to spell it out in small words for you, drmiler.

Iraq had not a thing to do with 9/11. And no, I have not forgotten. You and Alan Jackson want to keep us all on September 11. Forever. Amen. The only possible link to al-Qaeda in Iraq was in the Kurdish North...an area Saddam Hussein didn't control...but like the Pakistanis, the Kurds get big hugs and kisses from the USA, even though they harbor the very people who planned the horrible attack you invoke every time someone doesn't agree with George Bush. I think you've used up all the political credit you had with that one.

Now, if you want to argue the whole "Saddam was bad, it was good we took him out..." well at least that's more honorable. But the point was made that people not wanting to fight in Iraq was people not being 'security' minded (but not by you, drmiler, you don't make points, you just cut and paste other people's). That's just conservative pap. Now I'll be called a Neville Chamberlain type or some other nonsense. That's fine. Either that, or the poetic drmiler will call me a 'butthead' like he did someone on another thread.

But he's a self-professed redneck, so what do you expect?

Hey sensi....small words comne from small minds! And while I'm thinking about it, do you "actually KNOW" what the meaning of a redneck is? I don't think you do! Enlighten us, oh wise one!

Texas Wahine

on Jun 14, 2005

*Texas Wahine quietly and discreetly tiptoes away from this thread*

drmiler

on Jun 14, 2005

#29 by Texas Wahine
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

*Texas Wahine quietly and discreetly tiptoes away from this thread*

GIT BACK HERE woman! You started this thread the least you can do is stick around until it finishes.

Dr Guy

on Jun 15, 2005

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Monday, June 13, 2005
The truth is what you call a Bush Slam.

this is a recording.

Dr Guy

on Jun 15, 2005

Reply By: Common Sensei

You are new and naive. I would suggest pulling this and your tail before your head is on the platter.

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!