Army: Looser rules could attract up to 600 new officers

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.recruits09jun09,1,3170259.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=2&cset=true

 

Hmmm, I wonder if the new, relaxed requirements will make the army attractive to Congressmen?

Probably not.

One might be able to judge the "justness" of the war by looking at what happens to the recruitment numbers. No matter what people say, fewer and fewer are "dying" to get into the army these days.

 

When I served, public law limited the commissioning age for line officers at under 35. Nurses and other non-line officers could be commissioned at older ages. Personally, I don't have a lot of trouble with that, just as I'm utterly against the way the military employs its "up or out" process of getting rid of almost everyone by their mid-40's. Age should not be a limiting factor, only performance.

But the other qualitative factors? Eeesh. Having spent my entire career in either training or in command of units, I have something to say about that. Enlistment standards have risen and fallen over the years since the end of the draft, almost always as demand and supply varied. In the late 1970's, it was difficult to recruit, so the services lowered their standards to meet their quotas. But they had to (a) enlist people they'd normally deny, (b) sustain many more training and disciplinary problems, (c) retain people they'd normally discharge, (d) experience much higher training costs to remediate deficiencies (reading, math, etc.).

During the 1980's we had a surge of patriotism in the U.S. Also, the government brought back the G.I. Bill (Montgomery) and raised salaries dramatically. Also, we were at peace and a few more years beyond Vietnam. So enlistments surged. The services reacted by raising test scores and education requirements, tightening standards regarding prior criminal history and drug use, and got rid--at least in the Air Force--the remedial training programs. For example, when I enlisted in 1977, trainees who couldn't read beyond the 10th grade level were allowed to continue in training, then entered into a 12-week remedial progam (1/2-day in class, 1/2 on the job) when they arrived at their bases of assignment. By 1984, when I was commissioned as an officer, trainees were tested in boot camp. If they didn't test at the 10th grade level or higher, they were pulled from active training for 1 week, put through a very brief reading program (which my unit ran) and tested again. If they failed again to read at the 10th grade level, they were gone. Discharged. Bye! The difference? The Air Force no longer had to train these people and take the risk they wouldn't work out down the road. They could just recruit someone else.

In fact, we used to joke that the Air Force wasn't in the recruiting business, that we were in the selecting business. I wonder if they tell that joke anymore. I can guarantee you the other services can't imagine thinking in those terms.

Lowering standards fixes a short-term problem with recruiting goals, but it also creates huge long-term problems. These thing are quantifiable, and I'm sure the services are re-calculating their break points as we speak.

And what is the only thing that has changed to create this situation? Iraq. Getting people killed for no good reason--and no naitonal resolve for doing so. Suddenly, McDonald's and community college starts looking much better.

 

I don't agree with the archaic (sp?) and arbitary age limitations of the military. With the exception of some specialized duties (Rangers, Airbourne, etc), I can see no reason why someone couldn't perform a majority of the duties required of them.

This reminds me of what happened after 9/11. My best friend and I went down to the National Guard office and inquired about getting into OCS (he has a Masters in Engineering, and I have a BS). Being over 40 (he was 46 at the time), we were of course shown the door. It seems that although both of use are in good enough condition to work the 60 hour SV weeks (and work with dangerous equipment and processes), we were not good enough to serve. Funny thing, now my friend is in Baghdad working for the State Dept. He works hand in hand with the Marine Corps -- I guess he is in good enough condition for that! (lol).

My Uncle was a Master Loader for the USAFR. He loaded up with C130 and was ready to fly from Co. Springs to the Gulf when his Col. ordered him off the plane - it seems that he was turning 60 the next month. Here, a man who can run marathons and is in better shape than most men of 35, couldn't serve his country one more time.

I think in this day and age, if you want to serve, and you are able to serve, then you should be able to at least be given the chance to do just. Frankly, as much as I can't stand GW and his draft dodging buddy Cheney, I would much rather put myself in harms way than have an 18 year old do it.

 

Interesting assessment Rich. Thank you for posting your insights. When I took my ASVAB in 1980, I scored so high I was offered any job in the Navy enlisted ranks. This C student (me) thought the test was for dopes. Alas, about half the people taking it barely scored high enough for a Bowswains Mate.

 

I think only one Congressman has a family member (son) in Iraq. I still think that if this is such a "just and noble cause", the Bush twins should join up. If that happen, I would sign my son up tomorrow!

 

Hmmm....

That's Boatswain's Mate...

So are we to assume that since fewer people are volunteering that the cause is unjust? Just what does enlistment rates have to do with the justness of the cause? You may hate Bush but for someone to say that the departure of someone who murdered over 400,000 people is "unjust" is a sorry indictment of that person's morality.

Actually in some demographics enlistments are up. I won't get into a conversation on that as it is loaded. Oh, and before some on this board run their mouth, I retired from the Army in 1995, my voluntary recall application is up to date and my daughter enlisted last year. My wife also served six years on active duty. PS, my ASVAB scores and SAT scores put me in the top 1% intellectually so neither was I someone who had no other choice. Neither were my wife or daughter. Our family serves and is proud of it. ....

 

Lets be honest, most people join the military for the educational benefits. As an ET, I had my pick of jobs when I got out even though we were in a recession at the time. I doubt most people join to fight or think they will be killed.

I don't agree with your rhetoric about 400K deaths. That number is really not important as we did not go to war with Iraq for that reason (estimates say between 25K - 400K depending on who you talk to). During the same period, there were worst genocides in Africa and Asia. Of course, non of these countries had oil.

 

Having JUST received my Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Navy...

Enlistments aren't a problem for the Navy or the Air Force, the trouble is with the Army and Marines. They ARE in trouble.

The Volunteer Army is stretched too thin at this point, I think, and that in turn leads to fewer young people willing to join which makes the manpower shortage worse...

A draft of some sort is inevitable. We seriously underestimated the size and length of the committment in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld tended to ignore opinions that he didn't want to hear from the Pentagon; now we're stuck. The "government" survives only because we prop it up; even the Administration knows this, else why are we still there?

I swear nobody in D.C. since Colen Powell has ever read a history book!

 

You, like most....

Miss the point.

Lets clear the air here, deposing Saddam had been the policy of the United States government since 1998. The deaths were mentioned several times by the Bush administration as a reason to depose Saddam even though for political and legal reasons they felt the need to emphasise the WMD. Your 25K casualty number is ridiculous and designed to bolster the left's pathetic position. Even the UN's casualty figures were over 300,000.

Regardless of what was "the reason we went to war" those deaths are most definately the point. To say they are not is hideous and reflects poorly on your humanity. It is exactly that attitude which allowed Saddam to flourish and persist to kill even more. Other people being killed, but not over such a long period and so systematically. Comparing a 6 month slaughter in Ruwanda to a decades long one in Iraq is a straw man argument which is a typical tactic of the left. International politics simply doesn't respond that fast. Also, to say someone else is doing something as an excuse ones action or inaction is childish. Who was president then, was it Bush? No, so he wasn't inactive on Rwanda. He is president now with Sudan but just who do we have to send there? Of course, the bleeding heart French haven't done anything either.

You on the left can deny it all you want. Every government in the world thought Saddam had WMD. Even the report that the left gleefully quotes that said he didn't have it also said everybody thought he did. The only disagreement was on how to handle it.

My shame as an American is that it was only the threat to ourselves which could be justification for the likes of people on the left and some on this board to take Saddam out. The deaths of thousands of men, women and children meant nothing. THAT IS SHAMEFUL!!!!!

 

Yeah, but

I agree that we (the US) entered into a just war, but we're a long way off from where we started. The failure of the Army and Marine Corps to find enough recruits is a solid indication of how people feel about this war. I mean, jeez, the Marines haven't had a problem recruiting for decades, in part based on the small size of that branch of the service and in part based on marketing themselves as something to be rather than a job to do. That Marine recruiters can't make quota is a huge red flag that I can't ignore.

I'm a lifelong republican, and I supported the president twice, but I now feel that there has to be a change of management at the DOD. Don Rumsfeld is 72 years old and very wealthy-give him another medal and send him home.

While you're at it, figure out how many hum-vees in Iraq have the proper amount of armor, then, multiply that number by the number of passengers each armored hummer can carry and keep exactly that number of US soldiers in Iraq. Bring the rest home until they can be adequately equipped.

For the record, I was honorably discharged from the US Navy in 1998 after 8 years of active duty as a hospital corpsman.

 

DTechBA:

The WMD dead horse has recently twitched again, I'm afraid. It appears from the now infamous Downing Street Memo (the accuracy and authenticity of which neither the U.S. nor U.K. governments has denied) tends to show that neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Blair considered the evidence of WMD to present more than a "thin" case for invasion. If you haven't read it, and you are open to seeing the truth, I suggest you find a copy.

It is always a troubling question whether to use our military to force regime change in a sovereign nation that presents no credible threat to the U.S. That doing so is a violation of international agreements to which the U.S. is signatory is abundantly clear. That doing so can also lead to horrifically greater bloodshed and expense than anticipated is becoming clearer every day.

A "just" war? Who knows? I'm not sure that individual morality actually applies to sovereign governments. I do know that we are, and remain, the occupying power and that any regime that we uphold in Iraq is doomed to fail. That is the lesson of history, a lesson, ironically, that the British themselves learned in this exact location between 1919 and 1948.

They seem to have forgotten.

 

Rumsfeld is an idiot...

Worse, he is an idiot who thinks he is infallible. His treatment of Shinsecki was awful and his furthere insistence on proving his points at the expence of the military is criminal. He should have been gone eons ago.

Getting rid of saddam was just period. Now it is incumbent on us, and the world to help something better take his place...

 

Or else what?

Is that what is happening in Iraq? I agree, that's what I'd like to see happen, but I fear that the reality of what we're doing in Iraq looks more like the establishment of a puppet regime with zero chance of surviving a US pullout. What's more, were doing a bad job of protecting our own troops in the meantime. Bad business.

Like I said, a management change at the pentagon would be a good thing. A scaling back of US forces in Iraq, at least until our men and women got all of the equipment and supplies that they need, would be better.

PS: Before I forget, I've seen predictions of an "inevitable" draft on this and other boards. With a senate full of presidential hopefulls that has already established that it will not be a rubber stamp for a lame-duck president, I say FAT CHANCE. There is no way for this administration to get that many politicians to commit career suicide by approving a draft in the ramp up to a presidential election. Just my two cents.

 

Re: Yeah, but

The Corps did ok. The Army is still hurting.

From a DOD press release today.

Active duty recruiting. _ The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their recruiting goals in May. The Navy's recruiting goal was 1,939, and it enlisted 1,947 (100 percent). The Marine Corps' goal was 1,843, and it recruited
1,904 (103 percent). The Air Force goal was 1,037, and it recruited 1,049 (101 percent). The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent).

 

Maybe the Corps did okay THIS time but they've been having plenty of recruiting troubles in the last few months.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712/

 

Army exceeds retention goals

The Marine Corps appears to be meeting its recruiting goals.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050610-113612-1091r.htm

 

Excellent points!

 

Excellent points!

 

Excellent points!