Playing Politics with Recruiting Numbers
The New York Times recently ran a headline about the US Army missing its June recruiting goal. As you would expect the article begins with all the usual doom and gloom and how this is a sign that the US public no longer supports the Army because of casualties in Iraq. Now this is what the article won’t tell you, for the fiscal year the US Army’s current enlistment total is at 101%. Here is a complete breakdown of 2007 recruiting numbers:
07 Recruiting Statistics:
Component Accessions Goal Percentage
Army 51,889 51,150 101%
Navy 25,176 25,101 100%
Marines 21,866 19,629 111%
Air Force 20,211 20,211 100%
Notice the two branches of the military that are conducting direct combat operations, the Army and the Marines are the only branches with recruiting totals that are above their maximum percentage, especially the Marine Corps. So if people are discouraged from joining the military due to the fear of casualties as the New York Times alleges, than how do you explain the vast majority of new recruits are overwhelmingly joining the two branches that you are mostly likely to get wounded and not the Air Force and the Navy?
At least the NY Times mentioned this fact towards the very end of their article, but the US Army is in the midst of a massive force expansion of 33,000 soldiers, which means this year they have to recruit a higher total of numbers compared to in the past and yet both the Army and Marines Corps are recruiting over the projected number.
To add to this fudging of facts TIME magazine has published an article that once again raises fears about installing a draft to make up for the lack of recruits which doesn’t exist except in the minds of dishonest reporters. The dishonest reporting of military recruiting is just another prime example of politicization of the military by the media fudging recruiting numbers to confirm a thesis they want the reader to believe is happening instead of actually reporting what is happening.
I'm not sure if the media does it intentionally or not, but an accessions goal is different from a recruiting goal.
An accessions goal is the number of recruits who graduate successfully from AIT. This is the bottom line.
The recruiting goal, which is always higher than the accessions goal is designed to send more recruits into the system after factoring in average drop out rates from things such as medical conditions, injuries, or just failure to adapt.
Recruiting command must focus the recruiting force on the recruiting goal or it kind of defeats the purpose.
Regardless, I think there will turn out to be a lot of PVT Adams' in that 101%.
"So if people are discouraged from joining the military due to the fear of casualties as the New York Times alleges, than how do you explain the vast majority of new recruits are overwhelmingly joining the two branches that you are mostly likely to get wounded and not the Air Force and the Navy? "
Shorter enlistment periods. More generous incentives.
I'm surprised that all branches of the military have met or exceeded their enlistment goals. However, is it not true that enlistment requirements have been modified to expand the pool of qualified applicants? I also wonder how 2007 enlistment goals compare with previous years.
Sonagi,
What is wrong with shorter enlistment periods and better incentives? Would you rather our soldiers not be paid well for serving during a time of war? Also just think these guys that enlist for two years enlist for the sole purpose of going to a war zone. They go to basic, AIT, and then deploy with their unit followed by coming back and outprocessing. Most of the two year guys I have seen are older people usually former GIs who wanted to serve their country one last time and feel like they have done their part during this time of war. That is why the minimum enlistment age was raised. Older former GIs want to serve again. I respect these people that make such a choice to serve their country during a time of war but it seems many do not simply because of a political position.
Also I have already demolished the so called lowering of standards argument:
http://rokdrop.com/2007/03/29/a-dumber-army-fact-…
I have blogged about this before but the only dropping of standards I have seen compared to prior years is the number of heavier soldiers because basic training does not chapter overweight soldiers anymore. Only the gaining unit can chapter them. Most people I could get underweight with a vigorous PT program the ones that didn't cut it got chaptered.
Bottom line is that every opportunity should be given to be able to serve their country and the elitist attitude, usually from those who have never served, who look down on the people that do decide to enlist as being uneducated low lives is incorrect and is only perpetuated because of people's political positions.
Some of the standards that have changed in the last 2 years were the physical assessment was no longer required, and body fat standards were raised by 2%. I believe it is roughly 26% for men and 32% for women. Tattoo standards have also changed. You see much more tattoos on the back of the neck, arms and hands now due to this.
Whether these changed standards means lower quality of recruits is another argument. Furthermore, recruits these days are the most educated recruits the Army has had yet.
Your response details two strawman arguments:
"What is wrong with shorter enlistment periods and better incentives? "
I did not say there was anything wrong with those benefits. I cited them in response to your rhetorical question about why more enlistees were choosing the army and the marines over the navy and the air force.
RE: changing enlistment standards. I didn't use pejoratives like "dumbing down." I mentioned "modified standards" within the context of discussing meeting recruitment goals – it's easier to meet goals if more people are qualified. Nowhere did I criticize the fitness of enlistees made eligible by the new standards.
You didn't answer my question about enlistment goals. Have they remained constant since 2003 or have they changed?
Well, the standards have dropped in my MOS, but that was more due to politics than anything else. I don't see standards as having dropped much Army-wide.
A lot of the ways people on the outside judge recruit quality is from statistics like the number of High School grads vs GEDs etc. Things like that aren't always a true indicator of how someone will perform in the military. I enlisted with a GED and ended up getting accepted to a service academy. If anything, I'd say that the officer shortage is a little more critical. The standards at say… West Point, are dropping.
Sonagi,
This years recruiting mission is 80,000 soldiers while the retention mission is 62,200 which is also at about 101%:
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/docs/public affairs/Recruit and Retain fact sheet 11Jun07.pdf
Sorry for being a bit snarky but I get sensitive when I read all these BS articles trying to slime new recruits in the military. People should be proud of these people joining instead of trying to find ways to demean them.
Dan85,
Never been to West Point but know plenty of West Point officers and really see no difference in quality between West Point, ROTC, or OCS grads. All three commissioning sources have about the same amount of good, bad, and in between officers. The officer education system though once these LTs hit OBC has been greatly improved in my opinion. LTs are coming to their units with better all around training compared to prior years.
kakusu,
Yes you are right about tatoos, I don't have any tatoos but they don't bother me. I see it more as a generational fad with youths today.
[…] [GI Korea] Playing Politics with Recruiting Numbers Published: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:26:06 +0000 The New York Times recently ran a headline about the US Army missing its June recruiting goal.?* As you would expect the article begins with all the usual doom and gloom and how this is a sign that the US public no longer supports the Army because of casualties in Iraq.?* Now this is what […] Read More… […]
The real secret is the re-enlistment rate, which is pretty rock solid.
They are far from stupid…educated and clever criminals, they are. Most know the entire UCMJ better than their commanders, unfortunately.
And how can one say we've lowered standards when a record-breaking 17 percent of the new plebe class is female?
Mark, that may be a good thing. I remember a female plebe who failed three classes (Just a yearling 2nd year) and was grossly overweight. The academy could not kick her out until the % of females at the academy exceeded the % in the Army. This meant she was waiting on enough male cadets to be kicked out before raising the female percentage. I'm told that never happened and she graduated wasting 80 K of taxpayer dollars.
[…] met their 2007 recruiting goals is hardly mentioned in the media? Back in August I called the media’s attempts to politicize the fact that the active duty Army did not meet their June and July recruiting goals a "False […]
THIS ONE IS UNJUST
The only thing I´d like to do
Is drink my wine and wine my wench,
But even if you´d like a screw
The government has thrown a wrench:
By starting this infernal war
It like enslaves the mind of me
To sins "undreamt in Singapore,"
Or would that be too blind of me?
There´s women that can go around,
But men are getting poorer, dude,
Our economics based "unsound"
But government will not "intrude."
So I will get sent overseas
To keep some camel-jockey safe
When oil is all the matter? Please,
My neck is not like a giraffe.
You keep your purple prizes, for
When war is an unjust one, we´re
Not worth supporting anymore,
And this one is unjust, you hear?