Army's retention crisis

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
May 29, 2007
1,414
127
48
This focuses on why the military's best young officers are leaving the military at an alarming rate. And yes, Iraq is a big part of it, but not the only part.



The Army's Other Crisis

Why the best and brightest young officers are leaving

Andrew Tilghman, a former Iraq correspondent for Stars and Stripes, is a staff writer for the Marine Corps Times.

For several years now, we've been hearing alarming warnings about the strain that the Iraq War has placed on the military. Since the conflict began, around 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps' large-scale equipment has been used, worn out, or destroyed. Last year, the Army had to grant waivers to nearly one in five recruits because they had criminal records. There are no more combat-ready brigades left on standby should a new conflict flare.

These problems are of vital concern, and are reasonably well understood in newsrooms and on Capitol Hill. But the top uniformed and civilian leaders at the Pentagon who think hardest about the future of the military have a more fundamental fear: young officers—people like Matt Kapinos—are leaving the Army at nearly their highest rates in decades. This is not a short-term problem, nor is it one that can simply be fixed with money. A private-sector company or another government agency can address a shortage of middle managers by hiring more middle managers. In the Army's rigid hierarchy, all officers start out at the bottom, as second lieutenants. A decline in officer retention, in other words, threatens both the Army's current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its long-term institutional future. And though many senior Pentagon leaders are quite aware of the problem, there's only so much they can do to reverse the decline while the United States maintains large numbers of troops in Iraq.

In the last four years, the exodus of junior officers from the Army has accelerated. In 2003, around 8 percent of junior officers with between four and nine years of experience left for other careers. Last year, the attrition rate leapt to 13 percent. "A five percent change could potentially be a serious problem," said James Hosek, an expert in military retention at the RAND Corporation. Over the long term, this rate of attrition would halve the number of officers who reach their tenth year in uniform and intend to take senior leadership roles.

But the problem isn't one of numbers alone: the Army also appears to be losing its most gifted young officers. In 2005, internal Army memos started to warn of the "disproportionate loss of high-potential, high-performance junior leaders." West Point graduates are leaving at their highest rates since the 1970s (except for a few years in the early 1990s when the Army's goal was to reduce its size). Of the nearly 1,000 cadets from the class of 2002, 58 percent are no longer on active duty.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0712.tilghman.html
 
Just because someone graduated from West Point does not mean they are the best and the brightest. In fact one can do studies that show a good number of West Point graduates went on to be dull, boring mediocre leaders retained because they had that ring.
 
Just because someone graduated from West Point does not mean they are the best and the brightest. In fact one can do studies that show a good number of West Point graduates went on to be dull, boring mediocre leaders retained because they had that ring.


"In 2005, internal Army memos started to warn of the "disproportionate loss of high-potential, high-performance junior leaders."
 
I would think that the Army's troubles in this arena would make the libs happy.

There have been some on this board who encouraged military members to leave because of the "illegal and immoral" war while others have admitted that they would not view military service as a credible career for their sons and daughters. How many times have we seen posts implying that soldiers are stupid, robotic toys of warmongering idiots? War is wrong, immoral, the last resort, etc. The libs should be delighted that the means for making war (i.e., no personnel to prosecute such) are diminished.
 
I would think that the Army's troubles in this arena would make the libs happy.

There have been some on this board who encouraged military members to leave because of the "illegal and immoral" war while others have admitted that they would not view military service as a credible career for their sons and daughters. How many times have we seen posts implying that soldiers are stupid, robotic toys of warmongering idiots? War is wrong, immoral, the last resort, etc. The libs should be delighted that the means for making war (i.e., no personnel to prosecute such) are diminished.

Anyway to bash Bush is a good argument according to a Liberal. And that is all this is, an attempt to blame Bush.
 
Sure and I bet when pressed for those memos they won't be provided. It will be all, anonymous sources.


So the Marine Corps Times is now part of the insidious Bush bashing liberal media?

DCD just shot a hole in your stupid west point post, so now the entire report is bullshit? :rofl:
 
So the Marine Corps Times is now part of the insidious Bush bashing liberal media?

DCD just shot a hole in your stupid west point post, so now the entire report is bullshit? :rofl:

You are of course aware that all the military papers are run by the liberal press? Just because it says Army or marine Corps Times on it does not give it any more credibility then any other paper.
 
This focuses on why the military's best young officers are leaving the military at an alarming rate. And yes, Iraq is a big part of it, but not the only part. ....

Shitty pay, greatly reduced contact with family, filthy and dangerous working conditions. I suppose it would all be worth it, but constant villification by Democrats would put nealy all mere mortals over the edge. Why would anyone stay in? I have the utmost respect and reverence for those that do.
 
You are of course aware that all the military papers are run by the liberal press? Just because it says Army or marine Corps Times on it does not give it any more credibility then any other paper.


so... are there any media outlets in the world that report news, in your opinion? and if that is the case, where the fuck do you get YOURS?

And if you think for a miniute that the editors of Marine Corps (or Army or Navy or Air Force) Times would be able to stay in business if they followed a liberal agenda, you haven't ever taken a marketing course.

The POINT was: you tried to make it about West Pointers and it wasn't, and true to form, you NEVER admit when you step on your dick.
 
Shitty pay, greatly reduced contact with family, filthy and dangerous working conditions. I suppose it would all be worth it, but constant villification by Democrats would put nealy all mere mortals over the edge. Why would anyone stay in? I have the utmost respect and reverence for those that do.

only those who "do", and not those who "did"?
 
Sure and I bet when pressed for those memos they won't be provided. It will be all, anonymous sources.

this is reported by a Marine Corps Times reporter; it's confirmed in Army memos; and I believe its public knowledge and has been acknowledged by the Pentagon itself, that the retention rate of high performing junior officers is plummetting to alarming levels.

It makes total sense of course; never ending war in iraq, multiple combat tours; a mismanged and bungled war policy from BushCo; massive strain on the military; not to mention a host of other issues. Like higher pay with civilian contractors.

But, the fact that you dismiss this all as "liberal lies" is very telling. It tells me that you are so deeply in love with Bush, that you will defend him, even to the detriment of your country, and our army.
 
Do we have any actual numbers?

Though I have to say, this would explain how my daughter-in-law, who I love dearly and who will make an excellent soldier...got into the Army.

Her test scores were too low for the Navy.
 
I do not find that at all surprising!:rofl:

Except that it is incorrect. The Army and Navy BOTH will enlist with a 35% AFQT. The Marines and Air Force require a 50% AFQT. The Marines will waive that down to 35% if you go open contract.

I'd say the problem will be with what she wanted to do in the Navy vs what she ended up doing in the Army, and what each service specific requirement for those respective jobs are.

Point is, the basic qualification for enlistment is the same. If she was not qualified for the Navy, she would not be qualified for the Army either.
 

Forum List

Back
Top