Has anyone else heard this?

[Spoonman]

So, we all agree that waivers can be obtained to get in a group of people who might not otherwise make it in...

People with criminal records, for example.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh yeah. I said it. Go figure.

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

 

[ABikerSailor]

perhaps you can tell me why the army is accepting applicants with scores lower than the minimum required AFQT score of 31.

With a waiver, recruits may be admitted with an AFQT as low as 26, during times of high need.

Waivers were being granted under TESI (temporary endstrength increase) for example.

Its always about meeting recruiting goals.

interesting, so we are in a post war period where military forces are typically drawn down. It generally becomes more to get into the military, standards are raised and acceptance becomes more selective. So why now in a post war period would we be lowering standards and stepping up enrollment? What could we possibly be expecting?

Can you provide specific links showing that we currently are lowering the standards for entry into the military? Because, according to some here on this thread (ArmyCowboy), who is actually CURRENTLY active duty Army working in retention, there is no current lowering of standards, if anything, they are being raised.

His example about AFQT scores was just that.............an example of where it MIGHT be considered.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, we all agree that waivers can be obtained to get in a group of people who might not otherwise make it in...

People with criminal records, for example.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh yeah. I said it. Go figure.

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

He's not a recruiter idiot, he's a Career Counselor, which means that he's a senior enlisted person who is responsible for the reenlistments, not bringing people onto active duty.

And yes, they made extra allowances when the Iraq war started, but they have since gone back to where the standards were prior to the war.

BTW..................did you know that Reagan loosened the entry requirements for military service while he was president?

 

[Two Thumbs]

In the last 6 months i've heard from 3 people in the military who were reupping that officers are being asked if they would fire on US citizens if a situation arose that called for it. The first two I heard it from were younger and reupping for the first time. But I guy i just heard it from is career and said it was the first time he'd ever been asked it and was really concerned about it.

I'm wondering if anyone else here who has been in the military knows if this is standard or a new thing, or if anyone else has heard the same?

I heard the same rumor under Bush and Clinton.

Who's routing for who is who does or doesn't believe it this time.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So, we all agree that waivers can be obtained to get in a group of people who might not otherwise make it in...

People with criminal records, for example.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh yeah. I said it. Go figure.

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

He's not a recruiter idiot, he's a Career Counselor, which means that he's a senior enlisted person who is responsible for the reenlistments, not bringing people onto active duty.

And yes, they made extra allowances when the Iraq war started, but they have since gone back to where the standards were prior to the war.

BTW..................did you know that Reagan loosened the entry requirements for military service while he was president?

During strong economic times, enlistments go down, so it needs to be easier to get in.

 

[ABikerSailor]

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

He's not a recruiter idiot, he's a Career Counselor, which means that he's a senior enlisted person who is responsible for the reenlistments, not bringing people onto active duty.

And yes, they made extra allowances when the Iraq war started, but they have since gone back to where the standards were prior to the war.

BTW..................did you know that Reagan loosened the entry requirements for military service while he was president?

During strong economic times, enlistments go down, so it needs to be easier to get in.

Actually, part of it was because he was looking to expand the Navy up to 500 ships.

 

[Spoonman]

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

He's not a recruiter idiot, he's a Career Counselor, which means that he's a senior enlisted person who is responsible for the reenlistments, not bringing people onto active duty.

And yes, they made extra allowances when the Iraq war started, but they have since gone back to where the standards were prior to the war.

BTW..................did you know that Reagan loosened the entry requirements for military service while he was president?

During strong economic times, enlistments go down, so it needs to be easier to get in.

and anti war sentiments from the vietnam war were still high and a negative view of the military existed. the draft had recently been ended as well.

 

[Two Thumbs]

He's not a recruiter idiot, he's a Career Counselor, which means that he's a senior enlisted person who is responsible for the reenlistments, not bringing people onto active duty.

And yes, they made extra allowances when the Iraq war started, but they have since gone back to where the standards were prior to the war.

BTW..................did you know that Reagan loosened the entry requirements for military service while he was president?

During strong economic times, enlistments go down, so it needs to be easier to get in.

Actually, part of it was because he was looking to expand the Navy up to 500 ships.

and yet, we were still under manned

 

[ABikerSailor]

During strong economic times, enlistments go down, so it needs to be easier to get in.

Actually, part of it was because he was looking to expand the Navy up to 500 ships.

and yet, we were still under manned

Bullshit................we have more ships than most other countries COMBINED, with more and better firepower as well.

Wanna know what Reagan's 500 ship Navy plan did? Almost broke the Navy, because there were more ships than there were people, and a lot of people went on deployment with their ship being only 85 percent manned, meaning lots of extra watches and work.

I remember ships that were getting ready to deploy going to all the other ships that just got back, begging for people to deploy with them.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

perhaps you can tell me why the army is accepting applicants with scores lower than the minimum required AFQT score of 31.

With a waiver, recruits may be admitted with an AFQT as low as 26, during times of high need.

Waivers were being granted under TESI (temporary endstrength increase) for example.

Its always about meeting recruiting goals.

interesting, so we are in a post war period where military forces are typically drawn down. It generally becomes more to get into the military, standards are raised and acceptance becomes more selective. So why now in a post war period would we be lowering standards and stepping up enrollment? What could we possibly be expecting?

We're not doing any such thing.

We're not granting waivers at anywhere near the pace we were granting them during TESI.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

So, we all agree that waivers can be obtained to get in a group of people who might not otherwise make it in...

People with criminal records, for example.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh yeah. I said it. Go figure.

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

No genius, we're doing the same thing with recruiting waivers we've been doing for decades.

 

[Oldguy]

In the last 6 months i've heard from 3 people in the military who were reupping that officers are being asked if they would fire on US citizens if a situation arose that called for it. The first two I heard it from were younger and reupping for the first time. But I guy i just heard it from is career and said it was the first time he'd ever been asked it and was really concerned about it.

I'm wondering if anyone else here who has been in the military knows if this is standard or a new thing, or if anyone else has heard the same?

Only an officer would know if he'd been asked that...and officers don't "re-up."

Bullshit premise.

 

[Spoonman]

With a waiver, recruits may be admitted with an AFQT as low as 26, during times of high need.

Waivers were being granted under TESI (temporary endstrength increase) for example.

Its always about meeting recruiting goals.

interesting, so we are in a post war period where military forces are typically drawn down. It generally becomes more to get into the military, standards are raised and acceptance becomes more selective. So why now in a post war period would we be lowering standards and stepping up enrollment? What could we possibly be expecting?

We're not doing any such thing.

We're not granting waivers at anywhere near the pace we were granting them during TESI.

why are you graning any in a post war period? kind of odd son't you think. Especially amid cries for cuts in military . it just doesn't add up.

 

[Spoonman]

So, we all agree that waivers can be obtained to get in a group of people who might not otherwise make it in...

People with criminal records, for example.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh yeah. I said it. Go figure.

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

No genius, we're doing the same thing with recruiting waivers we've been doing for decades.

i disagree with that statement.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

interesting, so we are in a post war period where military forces are typically drawn down. It generally becomes more to get into the military, standards are raised and acceptance becomes more selective. So why now in a post war period would we be lowering standards and stepping up enrollment? What could we possibly be expecting?

We're not doing any such thing.

We're not granting waivers at anywhere near the pace we were granting them during TESI.

why are you graning any in a post war period? kind of odd son't you think. Especially amid cries for cuts in military . it just doesn't add up.

If you actually knew what was going on in the military, rather than clinging to ridiculous conspiracy theories, it would make sense.

During the period of TESi (roughly '04-'08) we recruited an extra 35,000 Soldiers or so. These Soldiers who stuck around are now in the NCO ranks and that's what needs to be cut. The Army is top heavy right now and the cuts are hitting the E6 pay garde the hardest.

These cuts are a force shaping tool and in order to get the Army in the proper shape, rank wise, we also must continue to bring Soldiers in at the lower ranks. Problem is that many current E4s and below are getting out do to promotion stagnation. To fill those slots, waivers are sometimes being granted to recruits.

Its actually quite simple.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

exactly the point i was driving to. and now we have confirmation from an army official responsible for recruiting

No genius, we're doing the same thing with recruiting waivers we've been doing for decades.

i disagree with that statement.

Based on your exprience and the fact you're a subject matter expert?

 

[Spoonman]

No genius, we're doing the same thing with recruiting waivers we've been doing for decades.

i disagree with that statement.

Based on your exprience and the fact you're a subject matter expert?

pretty much yes.

 

[Spoonman]

well I mean it's not like there are any other warning signs as well

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans - Yahoo! News

Human rights advocates were floored on Monday night when NBC News published the details of an alarming Justice Department memo detailing the protocol for sending drones after United States citizens. It's not as if they hadn't suspected that the Obama administration's top secret drone attack protocol contained some unsavory details. They just didn't expect them to be so frightfully broad. The scoop by Michael Isikoff is actually startling not for the details but rather for the lack of details. It's very vague about a decision-making process that puts American lives on the line. Put simply, the government believes that a lethal drone attack against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaeda or b) "an associated force."

 

[ArmyCowboy]

i disagree with that statement.

Based on your exprience and the fact you're a subject matter expert?

pretty much yes.

 

[Spoonman]

Based on your exprience and the fact you're a subject matter expert?

pretty much yes.

At least my answers aren't quotes from google searches