Army misses recruiting goal in April by 42% -- 3rd straight month

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army missed its April recruiting goal by a whopping 42 percent and the Army Reserve fell short by 37 percent, officials said on Tuesday, showing the depth of the military's wartime recruiting woes.

With the Iraq war straining the U.S. military, the active-duty Army has now missed its recruiting goals in three straight months, with April being by far the worst of the three, and officials are forecasting that it will fall short again in May.

The all-volunteer Army is providing the majority of the ground forces for an Iraq war in which nearly 1,600 U.S. troops have died.

The active-duty Army signed up 3,821 recruits last month, falling short of its goal of 6,600 for April, Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith said. That left the Army 16 percent behind its year-to-date goal, officials said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8378239

Where are all these college republicans who support the war so much? Why not recruit these guys on campus? They should be more than willing to serve their president. Guess people are starting to realize that once you're in the military, you're in for life: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002233738_stoploss07.html

So much for that "all-volunteer army".
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002233738_stoploss07.html[/url]
[/QUOTE]

I think this article explains it all. People don't want to sign up for military service when they have no idea how long they're going to be expected to serve for.
 
The Army Reserve is down in recruitment too. They lied to all those reserves in regards to Iraq.
 
i was wondering why some army recruiters just came to my class one day. they tried to recruit us by telling us the plus' of joining the army, but they failed to mention that you have a large chance of going to iraq and dying in iraq. i'm also only a sophomore in highschool
 
[quote name='Xevious']The Army Reserve is down in recruitment too. They lied to all those reserves in regards to Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget about 9/11, some of them got shafted after that also.
 
I've heard of some recruiters telling people that if they join the military, they'll constantly get laid.

Maybe if you pay for it...
 
There's also a new leaked report that the US military has told Congress that it would have difficulty winning any new conflicts that that US may get involved in because of strains on its manpower due to the continuing quagmire that is Iraq

Link
 
[quote name='CappyCobra']Enlistment rates are down during a time of war? :shock: It's inconceivable!![/QUOTE]

Not with wars that we, the people, viewed as justified: the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Yugoslavia, and even the war with Afghanistan. People were lining up, willing to serve their country.

There is no honor with this war. Bush simply wanted to get revenge on Saddam for trying to kill his daddy, so he lied to the public about Iraq's WMDs to dispose of Saddam and control the oil. As a result of Bush's sins, thousands of americans are dead and many thousands more are wounded.
 
Hmm...
"As a result, the shift in threat has meant a shift in national response - while nearly 1 in 10 Americans served in World War II, only about 1 in 500 is fighting the war on terror."

"In a normal year, the Army National Guard expects 18 percent of its soldiers to leave because of retirement, injury, and death, or because they do not reenlist. This year, the attrition rate is only 18.9 percent. Meanwhile, reenlistment rates for the Army and Marines are either exceeding goals or are within a few percentage points of them. Some data even show that reenlistment rates are higher for units deployed overseas than for those that have remained at home."

05/03/05

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html?s=hns

"The Army hasn’t achieved its recruiting goals in recent months, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck acknowledged to reporters April 7 at a Pentagon roundtable."
"However, the general asserted, this year’s mission of signing up 80,000 active-duty recruits, is doable. “We’re going to make that (number),” he said."

[They're actually looking big picture, rather than at one or two months that fail to meet the goal.]

Looks like the nanny state isn't providing very well for its citizens:

"noting more than 70 percent of potential recruits 17 to 21 years old aren’t eligible for enlistment because of low entrance-test scores, educational deficits or criminal records."
But I'm sure they have good self-esteem, since that's more important.

"The Army’s retention picture looks bright, Hagenbeck reported, with re-enlistments at 102 percent of the service’s target."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2005/20050408_527.html

The CRs who support the war, already joined. And are continuing to stay in.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Looks like the nanny state isn't providing very well for its citizens:

"noting more than 70 percent of potential recruits 17 to 21 years old aren’t eligible for enlistment because of low entrance-test scores, educational deficits or criminal records."
But I'm sure they have good self-esteem, since that's more important.[/QUOTE]

You mean the Republicans who have controlled Congress since '94 have failed to make education a priority even with Dubya "The Education President"? :lol:
 
More campus news from Salon:

The battle over recruiting on campus

The Pentagon's recruitment woes continue -- and they could get worse, depending on a case now before the Supreme Court. On Monday, the nation's top justices agreed to hear a case that could allow universities to bar military recruiters from their campuses without the threat of losing federal funding.

Last November, a coalition of law schools challenged the Solomon Amendment -- which permits the government to withhold funding from schools that deny recruiters access -- by invoking the right not to "associate" with people linked to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The schools argued the policy was anti-gay and conflicted with their own non-discrimination guidelines. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and issued an injunction barring the government from enforcing the amendment. The Defense Department appealed the ruling, along with another ruling in February, in which Yale University's law school won the right to bar recruiters from their campus for the same reason.

The U.S. government is citing national security as part of its argument to maintain access to campuses: "Effective recruitment is essential to an all-volunteer military, particularly in a time of war," the government's lawyers said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

While students have mounted anti-recruitment campaigns from Chicago to California, GOP Congressman Richard Pombo, a co-sponsor of the Solomon amendment, isn't sympathetic to their cause. He told the Los Angeles Times that the amendment was created to "send a message over the wall of the ivory tower of higher education" and that "starry-eyed idealism comes with a price. If they are too good -- or too righteous -- to treat our nation's military with the respect it deserves, then they may also be too good to receive the generous level of taxpayer dollars presently enjoyed by many institutions of higher education in America."

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the federal government, Yale university could lose $300 million in taxpayer dollars for taking its stand. Other schools in the coalition, including Georgetown and Stanford, would pay a similar price.

-- Julia Scott
Click to expand...

link
 
and in other news, the well-to-do Christian right in America secretly plans to secure their sons in national guard positions as they come of enlistment age, and to swell overseas military ranks with poor minorities, who by all accounts, were just sitting around driving up welfare costs, anyways. The President and first lady have assured us that their thoughts and prayers are with these poor souls and feel confidant that God will sort them out.
 
[quote name='CappyCobra']Enlistment rates are down during a time of war? :shock: It's inconceivable!![/QUOTE]

I will only fight wars that are worth fighting for. World War 2 is one of them. Iraq is not.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']That next America's Army game better be kick ass![/QUOTE]

But the software agreement will sign you up for a one year hitch in Iraq. :lol:
 
[quote name='Xevious']I will only fight wars that are worth fighting for. World War 2 is one of them. Iraq is not.[/QUOTE]
Point taken
 
[quote name='bignick']The numbers should go up in the next month or two when the high school kids graduate.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I know several kids in my senior class that are going to join the army after they graduate.
 
Army National Guard Misses Recruiting Goal Ninth Straight Month

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army National Guard, a cornerstone of the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military officials said Monday.

The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June but signed up only 4,337, a 14 percent shortfall, according to statistics released Monday by the Pentagon. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and has missed its recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months.

``The recruiting environment remains difficult in terms of economic conditions and alternatives,'' the Army said in a statement released Monday. ``We are concerned about meeting the fiscal year 2005 recruiting missions, but we are confident that our recruiting initiatives will take hold and the American public will respond.''

Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, said that despite the shortfall, the service is still able to meet its commitments to the Pentagon as well as to state governors, who call on the Guard during disasters and other emergencies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5133966,00.html

Economic conditions? I don't seem to remember this crisis during the Clinton Administration.

Too bad Young College Republicans won't let the military recruit from their ranks. I guess "supporting the troops" doesn't mean standing alongside next to the troops with Republicans.
 
Nine straight months? Don't you remember what dtcarson was saying?

Don't look at just a few months, look at the overall trend!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Why don't they go pick up Scrubking at his house? He has a gun avatar, and is an ardent mongoloid supporter of this administration, so that's a freebie from your local neighborhood mykevermin.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']
Too bad Young College Republicans won't let the military recruit from their ranks. I guess "supporting the troops" doesn't mean standing alongside next to the troops with Republicans.[/QUOTE]

What's even funnier is a tool like you will do two things....

1. Quote DU as an intelligent source.

2. Neglect to mention the ad in question was not an official U.S. Army recruiting ad.

When the U.S. Armed Forces are denied advertising with the group you have a point. Now you're just a partisan hack who needs to have a heaping helping of STFU.
 
What was wrong with the ad? It sounded like the message was that the patriotic thing to do for your country right now is to join the military. You're just mad that the Young College Republicans are exposed as a bunch of chickenhawks.
 
Is it a U.S. Armed Forces advertisement? Yes, or no.
yrad.gif

sticker.gif


EZB=Partisan Hack
 
Well, the ad had to do with the convention program. Its existence (or nonexistence) had no effect on the Young Republicans that aren't currently serving in the military, which is what the DU was pointing out.

Would you deny the DU report based on your dislike of their bias, rather than question why people who share your point of view are not providing the same community service that you did?
 
Why would the College Republicans accept this ad? Why? What possible reason would they have to accept it from a group known as "Operation Yellow Elephant"?

It's like me making a post saying DU wouldn't take ad dollars from Focus on the Family, Operation Rescue or the NRA. No fucking shit.... they wouldn't accept the ads?

Like I said, if they were denying the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard ad space it would be an issue. However they aren't and they didn't. They turned down a bunch of kooks. There is no issue here.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Not with wars that we, the people, viewed as justified: the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Yugoslavia, and even the war with Afghanistan. People were lining up, willing to serve their country..[/QUOTE]

Civil War? Tell that to about 23 of my Irish ancestors (I suppose you can call them that) who must have supported the war so much that they lined right up, at gun point even, after getting off the boat(does everyone think the movie "Gangs of New York" was founded purely on fiction?). And how was WWI a justifiable war? I'm not trying to flame you, but those two are bad examples. I would use WWII (even though conscription was high then) and the Revolutionary War. Probably Korea as well, but I'm not too big on the history of that one.
 
Reality's Fringe said:
Civil War? Tell that to about 23 of my Irish ancestors (I suppose you can call them that) who must have supported the war so much that they lined right up, at gun point even, after getting off the boat(does everyone think the movie "Gangs of New Yorf" was founded purely on fiction?). And how was WWI a justifiable war? I'm not trying to flame you, but those two are bad examples. I would use WWII (even though conscription was high then) and the Revolutionary War. Probably Korea as well, but I'm not too big on the history of that one.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you. The Union took immigrants and drafted them during the Civil War and there were countless draft riots in major immigrant centers.

WW I was a complete horse shit war. It should never have erupted to the scope that it did. However our shipping was being torpedoed by the Germans and denial of freedom of passage on the high seas is as historical and legitimate reason to go to war that exists. We were only in it for 1917-1918, not the entire war and only entered it after being attacked repeatedly on the high seas. It was the Lusitania that really swept the public opinion on entering the war.
 
The majority of people still viewed the Civil War as justified in the mid 19th century. Did they want the north telling them what they could and could not do? Did they want the south to break away from the unioin? It doesn't matter what we think of these wars today - it matters to what the people living through those wars thought of it.
 
EDIT: Dupe post. Server hiccuped.

Anyway, The College Republicans didn't know it was from a group called "Operation Yellow Elephant". They're not going to tip them off like that. The Yellow Elephant symbol is just posted in various places on their website.
 
Looks like the military continues to scrap the bottom of the barrel:

The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.
Under current law, the maximum age to enlist in the active components is 35, while people up to age 39 may enlist in the reserves. By practice, the accepted age for recruits is 27 for the Air Force, 28 for the Marine Corps and 34 for the Navy and Army, although the Army Reserve and Navy Reserve sometimes take people up to age 39 in some specialties.

The Pentagon’s request to raise the maximum recruit age to 42 is part of what defense officials are calling a package of “urgent wartime support initiatives” sent to Congress Monday night prior to a Tuesday hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top