October 6, 2005
BUT WHAT ABOUT MARINE RECRUITING?
The Dumbing-Down of the U.S. Army (Fred Kaplan, 10/04/05, Slate)
Further evidence that the war in Iraq is wrecking the U.S. Army: Recruiters, having failed to meet their enlistment targets, are now being authorized to pursue high-school dropouts and (not to mince words) stupid people.This year the Army set a goal of recruiting 80,000 active-duty soldiers, but it wound up with just 73,000—almost 10 percent short. As a result, the Army Times reported this week, the Pentagon has decided to make up the difference by expanding the pool—by letting up to 10 percent of new recruits be young men and women who have neither graduated high school nor earned a General Equivalency Diploma.
DoD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for August (Department of Defense, 09/12/05)
For the month of August, all of the active service branches exceeded their recruiting goals, and for the fiscal year through August, all of the active service branches but the Army were at 100% (or greater) of their recruiting targets. While the Army was at 90% of quota, the Navy was at 100%, the Air Force at 101%, and the Marines at 102%.
Kaplan wants to slip a package deal past readers: The Army (and therefore the military) can't meet its recruiting goals because of alleged widespread dissatisfaction with American foreign policy. He suggests fewer people are joining the Army because Army soldiers are most exposed in any war, and there may be some truth to that, aside from Kaplan's ignoring the fact that the Marines are above quota for the fiscal year.
The Army lacks prestige compared to the other service branches, and it may well be the case that incentives need to be improved for recruiters to meet their goals. But it's not clear that widespread dissatisfaction with American foreign policy is responsible for a shortfall in one active service branch of only several thousand recruits for the year.
Posted by kevin_whited at October 6, 2005 8:43 AMI believe that reenlistments are also meeting or exceeding targets.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 6, 2005 9:46 AMThe army has always had a lackluster recruitment campaign than the other services. The Air Force is inherently glamorous. I can't even recall even seeing an Air Force commercial (although I have seen Air National Guard). People join anyway. The Navy offers adventure and a chance to see the world. And the Marine Corps always stress pride and being elite.
I always thought the Army commercials were just a little lame though. They speak more about the benefits you'll have once you leave, than serving the country. Since the Army must recruit a larger pool, I guess it makes sense to have a wide appeal, but they'd do better if they had a concurrent campaign stressing duty and country, especially in a time of war. How come 9/11 images aren't tastefully included in a patriotic appeal? Combined with images of the army's 200 years in defending America, it might make an effective "Shield of the Republic" campaign.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 6, 2005 11:52 AMMr. Kaplan had his answer. Then he went looking for his question.
Posted by: Mikey at October 6, 2005 11:55 AM"He suggests fewer people are joining the Army because Army soldiers are most exposed in any war, and there may be some truth to that,[...]"
I guess I missed that point when I originally read the article but a check of the numbers concerning Iraq shows the Marines carrying the brunt of the grunt work and casualties.
Democrat wars i.e. Korea are another story when the Army was thrown to the wolves grossly unprepared, undermanned and atrociously equipped, as they also were in the beginning of WW2 in the Pacific theater. In both those cases the Army sacrificially bore the brunt by being stuffed into the breach until we got to a war footing nationally.
In the past one often joined the other services in peacetime to learn a trade for use in the future beyond the service -- except for the Marines. Most joined the Corps to test their courage, to serve their country; and they learned leadership for their future from the experience.
That's part of their message the Army needs to broaden. The have the history and the current organization to back it up.
Today's Army regulars stand among the finest to have ever served our nation. The reserves and N.G. have proved their mettle in our wars of memory except for Viet Nam where a poor Democrat decision denied their participation for political reasons. Go Army and Semper Fidelis!
Posted by: Genecis at October 6, 2005 2:41 PMIt is my understanding that the Army increased its recruiting goals for this year as well. They would have made last year's goal, but not this year's.
Posted by: John Thacker at October 6, 2005 2:49 PMChris Durnell:
The Air Force commercials are the ones with the tag line of "We've been waiting for you".
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 7, 2005 12:24 AM
My understanding of the recruiting goal was that the original goal was 72 thousand, and that this rate was raised to 80 thousand to meet the new end strength goals due to increased manning authorization by the DOD. This would mean that we actual added 1000 new troops in excess of what was then a lower end strength number. If this turns out to be the case then the spin by the MSM about the failure to recruit is so much BS.
In addition reenlistment rates are up significantly especially in combat units. One of our NC based units the 82nd Airborne has exceeded reenlistment goals significantly over the last two years.