Re-enlistment rates exceed Army estimates

[5stringJeff]

Re-enlistment rates exceed Army estimates

New recruits are hard to find, but the Army is having no trouble persuading the soldiers it already has to stick around. They're re-enlisting at rates well above the Army's goal for this fiscal year, attracted by a mix of tax-free bonuses, educational opportunities and other benefits. Many are re-upping under stability plans that allow them and their families to stay at one installation for several years, rather than cope with the constant moves that typically are part of military life. And while the war in Iraq is cited as the major reason for Army recruiting woes, re-enlistment rates at Fort Lewis and elsewhere are highest among soldiers returning from the war, career counselors said.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4976385p-4547341c.html

 

[Annie]

Re-enlistment rates exceed Army estimates

New recruits are hard to find, but the Army is having no trouble persuading the soldiers it already has to stick around. They're re-enlisting at rates well above the Army's goal for this fiscal year, attracted by a mix of tax-free bonuses, educational opportunities and other benefits. Many are re-upping under stability plans that allow them and their families to stay at one installation for several years, rather than cope with the constant moves that typically are part of military life. And while the war in Iraq is cited as the major reason for Army recruiting woes, re-enlistment rates at Fort Lewis and elsewhere are highest among soldiers returning from the war, career counselors said.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4976385p-4547341c.html

Gee, what might they know that the MSM doesn't? For some reason, well deserved without question, I don't think it's the 'benefits' that would convince this number to put their lives on the line...

 

[Gunny]

Re-enlistment rates exceed Army estimates

New recruits are hard to find, but the Army is having no trouble persuading the soldiers it already has to stick around. They're re-enlisting at rates well above the Army's goal for this fiscal year, attracted by a mix of tax-free bonuses, educational opportunities and other benefits. Many are re-upping under stability plans that allow them and their families to stay at one installation for several years, rather than cope with the constant moves that typically are part of military life. And while the war in Iraq is cited as the major reason for Army recruiting woes, re-enlistment rates at Fort Lewis and elsewhere are highest among soldiers returning from the war, career counselors said.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4976385p-4547341c.html

Just imagine all the disappointed leftist, anti-US nimrods sitting in the corner moaning over this one. :baby:

 

[gaffer]

This stuff will never be reported in the MSM.

It benefits the military more too, new recruits have to be trained and are not ready to perform their duties for almost a year, then another year of OJT before they are competent. This way they have more competent troops with less training time to get them ready. Win, win situation here.

 

[Gabriella84]

Of course, they had to cut their goal by 2,000 in order to exceed it by 500. :firing:

 

[gaffer]

Of course, they had to cut their goal by 2,000 in order to exceed it by 500. :firing:

:finger:

 

[Merlin1047]

Of course, they had to cut their goal by 2,000 in order to exceed it by 500. :firing:

Do you have a reputable source for that one? Or did you dig it out of your ass like you do everything else you post?

 

[Gabriella84]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/national/30recruit.html

old goal new goal actual #'s +/-
May 8,050 6,700 5,000 (1700)
June 6,650(FY04) 5,650 6,157 500

 

[Annie]

Of course, they had to cut their goal by 2,000 in order to exceed it by 500. :firing:

The thread was about re-enlistment, not enlistment. Your column citation was on Enlistments:

For First Time in Months, Army Meets Its Recruiting Goal​

That was the headline. Gee, for someone with so much education, you are certainly in need of some remedial reading courses.

 

[Gabriella84]

So what did you expect from a blonde anyway?

 

[OCA]

So what did you expect from a blonde anyway?

Stupid quip aside you got busted trying to bullshit us, don't try it anymore, we are not Democrats, it won't get by.

 

[Gabriella84]

So I posted about enlistment screw ups instead of re-enlistment screwups. I stand chastised. :fu2:

 

[Annie]

So I posted about enlistment screw ups instead of re-enlistment screwups. I stand chastised. :fu2:

You really don't understand the difference, I mean analytically, not just for word meaning? Can you explain the significant difference between the two-inference wise?

 

[Gabriella84]

Enlistment goals, the ones I posted, are getting people to sign up for military service.

Re-enlistment is attempting to persuade current military members to come back for another tour of duty.

If I am wrong, please inform me. I am willing to listen.

 

[5stringJeff]

Enlistment goals, the ones I posted, are getting people to sign up for military service.

Re-enlistment is attempting to persuade current military members to come back for another tour of duty.

If I am wrong, please inform me. I am willing to listen.

You are correct, young padawan. While enlistment rates have lagged this year, re-enlistment rates (or re-up, as some call it) have not.

 

[Annie]

Enlistment goals, the ones I posted, are getting people to sign up for military service.

Re-enlistment is attempting to persuade current military members to come back for another tour of duty.

If I am wrong, please inform me. I am willing to listen.

As Jeff answered, you are definition correct, but what about:

Can you explain the significant difference between the two-inference wise?

Well I guess not. Those that are 'here' and their loved ones have heard what the media is saying. Hard to get those recruits, which I'm sure you are very happy for.

What perhaps should give you pause, IF you are the thinking independent you keep telling us you are, why those that have 'served' in Iraq seem to be re-enlisting at higher rates that projected? What do they know that you may not?

 

[Annie]

Links at site!

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/07/chickenhawks.html

Atrios - All Chicken And No Hawk

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change responds to more claims of "Chickenhawks" from the left side of the aisle...but first a definition of "Chicken hawk":

chicken hawk
n.

Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of preying on chickens.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

I'm getting real tired of the whole "Chickenhawk" theme running through the left blogosphere. It's use by the left is to attempt to silence debate - i.e. you can't be for the War on Terror unless you or your children are enlisting in the war. Being a Soldier does not make my opinion about the war more valid than anyone else's opinion - even if they never served in the military, let alone combat.

Duncan Black who blogs as Atrios has a post about the recent problem with recruiting - basically that there are not enough Young Republicans signing up - and he resorts to some 3rd grade sarcasm about chickenhawks.

Per one of Armed Liberal's commenters, Glen Wishard,

let's ask Duncan Black if he'll support efforts to increase recruiting by allowing recruiters on all campuses (where, BTW Black, a lot of Young Republicans go to school) - and let's throw in allowing JRROTC and ROTC on campuses, too. Then, maybe we'll recruit a few more Ivy League types.​

Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping responds to Black's chicken hawk post with a list that Black should answer - unless he's all chicken and no hawk. I think he's pissed off the Reverend Sensing...that's hard to do and ill-advised. It's a must read (One Hand Clapping was one of the first blogs I ever read and was certainly one of the original MilBlogs).

While the Army is the only service suffering a serious recruiting shortage, it's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq surpassed it's re-enlistment goal by 250%...that should tell you what the men and women that are actively engaged in the fight think of the mission in Iraq.

Update: Tigerhawk has a post about the false individualism in the anti-war movement...

Posted by Blackfive

 

[Annie]

Umm, yeah, he's mad...Links at site

http://www.donaldsensing.com/?p=307

“Chickenhawk” works both ways
by Donald Sensing @ 10:49 am. Filed under Domestic affairs, Federal, Military

Armed Liberal points out that the “chickenhawk” argument is being raised yet again, this time by Duncan Black (Atrios), who cites the BalSun,

THE ARMY can’t find enough recruits. Could there be a clearer expression of Americans’ disenchantment with the war in Iraq? …

… Certainly, the sons and daughters of the unimpeachably idealistic neoconservatives who prayed for the war and brayed for what they stupidly supposed was victory back in 2003 are staying as far away from it as they possibly can.

Gosh, where to begin? Let me start with the spurious argument that the Army is having dificulty meeting recruiting goals (true) principally because young Americans oppose the war in Iraq. If that is true, why are the Marines - who suffer a higher casualty ratio than the Army (though lower absolute numbers) - meeting their goals much more easily? It isn’t simply that the Marines need fewer recruits than the Army. One big reason is that the Army has never changed its recruiting methodology from peacetime to wartime. See my previous post, “Army’s bad recruiting strategy means low recruiting.”

But that’s not the only reason. There’s an AP story this morning about how “Recruiters are having a hard time finding people fit to fight.”

Nearly two out of 10 men and four out of 10 women of recruiting age weigh too much to be eligible, a record number for that age group.

‘’This is quickly becoming a national security issue for us. The pool of recruits is becoming smaller,'’ said Col. Gaston Bathalon, an Army nutrition expert.

Unless weight rules relax, ‘’we’re going to have a harder time fielding an Army,'’ he said.

My eldest son, Stephen, had to weigh in at the recruiter’s office before enrolling in the USMC’s delayed-entry program in 2003, the summer before his senior high-school year. He was not overweight by Marine standards and was not required to lose weight to go to boot camp, but his recruiter advised him it would be a good idea anyway. He dropped 20 pounds over the next year, then another 25 pounds in boot camp. Another recruit had to lose 70 pounds to go to boot camp, and did.

Be that as it may, if no one has the right to support the war against Islamist terrorism except those who are serving or have a family member who is serving, then why do other stay-at-home slackers have the right to oppose it?

Here are my questions for Duncan Black:

My son is a lance corporal in the US Marine Corps. He will deploy to Iraq in two months. I myself am a retired US Army artillery officer.
#

Do you, Mr. Black, agree that you are kept free and safe only because my son and others like him are risking their lives on your behalf?
#

Why have you never served in the armed forces?
#

What gives you the justification to speak against the war?
#

What are your credentials that make you someone I or our nation’s leaders should listen to regarding national security?
#

Why should non-serving supporters be silent while non-serving critics be heard?
#

Do you agree that no one except veterans and presently-serving military members should ever decide when the nation shall go to war, and why?
#

I am a veteran and my son is now serving. By your lights these amounts to a “double credit” for me to speak about the war. Also by your lights, you yourserf suffer from a double deficit, since you have never served and have no immediate family member serving. Therefore, your logic would inexorably find that my opinion is of magnitudes greater value than yours.

Do you agree? If not, why not?
#

I support a vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq and have written several times (i.e., here) that it is the actual focal point of the war against Islamist terrorism.

Do you now, therefore, consider yourself well instructed and will you, therefore, bow to my experience and insights (which by your own standards are far superior to yours) and now fully support prosecuting the Iraq war until victory is achieved? If not, why not?
#

Finally, on what basis can you persuade me that you, personally, are not simply a coward of the most craven kind who hides behind anti-war cliches merely to keep intact your own precious skin?

Armed Liberal responds to Black,

I thought I’d beaten this to death and put a stake in it. It’s an immoral position, a politically naive position, and one that undermines our polity.

See also Army veteran James Joyner’s destruction of the chickenhawk argument.

Update: A clarification of my position: What disturbs me is the idea that one’s lack of veteran status disqualifies one from exercising the duties and responsibilities inherent in citizenship of the country, which are no time more crucial than in matters of war specifically and national security generally. All citizens have incumbent upon them the right and the duty to be heard in such matters and have their say at the ballot box or in the nation’s debate.

Likewise, I deny, along with Blackfive, James Joyner and every other vet I’ve talked to, that simply serving in the military gives anyone special insights about national security. There are certain kinds of assigmments and training that do so qualify a military member, but they are gained only after many years service and rising to at least field-grade officer rank. But such training is also available to most any college grad civilian who really wants to achieve that level of education.

Back when some in Congress were pushing a draft, I demonstrated that neither military service nor its lack made any difference in the national-security stewardship of presidents of the 20th century.

All that being said, I also deny that any citizen has a greater obligation than any other to endure the risks of defending the country. Merely supporting the Iraq war does not make anyone specially obligated to enlist, nor, IMO, does opposing it relieve one from the same obligation. I believe that all able-bodied, sound-minded men and women are equally obligated to serve, regardless of their political views or affiliation.

There sadly continues to be such things as sunshine patriots; among the gung-ho flag wavers one can surely find service-shirkers. But among Atrios and his ilk practically no one else can be found. For some reason they think this establishes them on high moral ground when all it really does is certify them as poltroons.

 

[Annie]

Links at site:

http://instapundit.com/archives/024379.php

July 21, 2005

STRATEGYPAGE ON RECRUITING:

The army is also noticing regional patterns. Recruiting is holding steady in the Midwest, and is up in the South. In other words, the recruiting tends to follow political patterns. The Blue (Democratic) states are sending fewer volunteers, and the Red (Republican) states more. But the Blue/Red state may have more to do with job prospects than political beliefs. Areas where the unemployment rate is the lowest tend to be the toughest for recruiters.

There’s also the reality factor. Troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan are more likely to reenlist. Some of this is due to higher re-enlistment bonuses, but those re-enlisting (and 35 percent of them do it in a combat zone) often say they believe strongly in what they are doing, and that’s why they volunteer to keep doing it. By the end of the year, the army expects to get 4,000 more re-enlistments than it expected. A disproportionate number of these are coming from combat troops, which is very helpful.

More on how retention is going better than recruitment here, from USA Today: "Soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets, even as overall recruiting is suffering after two years of the Iraq war."

My guess is that part of it stems from media coverage: Serving soldiers have better information about what's really going on than potential recruits, who just see the gloom-and-doom on TV. Thanks, media guys!