| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Why U.S. Troops Re-Enlist in Record Numbers |
| 2006-04-14 |
| April 14, 2006: In the last six months, the U.S. Army is seeing 15 percent more soldiers re-enlist than expected. This continues a trend that began in 2001. Every year since then, the rate at which existing soldiers have re-enlisted has increased. This despite the fact that 69 percent of the troops killed in Iraq have been from the army. New recruits continue to exceed join up at higher rates as well. All this is extremely important, especially when there is a war going on. Experience saves lives in combat, and more of the most experienced troops are staying in. This means that, a decade from now, the army will have a large and experienced corps of senior NCOs. That, in turn, means the younger troops are likely to well trained and led. The army makes a big thing, internally, about the number of troops re-enlisting, especially within combat units that are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Pictures of mass re-enlistments are published in military media, but the civilian media has generally ignored this phenomena. Also ignored, except by some local media interviewing locals who are in the army, is the positive attitude of the troops, especially those in combat units. The large number of re-enlistments occur because the troops believe they are making a difference, and winning. This is especially true for soldiers who have come back to Iraq on a second tour, and noted the improvements since the first tour. The large re-enlistment bonuses, paid to some specialists, does get some media attention, as do those who did not re-enlist, as do the wounded and the families of the dead. But the attitudes of the troops themselves, the people closest to the war, are generally ignored by the mass media. If these attitudes are noted at all, they are dismissed as misguided, because the troops are too close to what is going on. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #15 All things equal, NUMBERS BEATS QUALITY - iff as Jerry Corsi, author of ATOMIC IRAN, that any US-Iran regional war may induce or trigger a potentially worldwide nuclear confrontation and war amongst the major nuke powers, i.e. against Russia andor China, etal. then for America and its USDOD going back to Cold War levels of volunteer manpower may no longer be sufficient. We will eventually need a draft, andor in the alternate a raising of Reserve and Guard allotments - the Guard as example can be stratified into younger men [Ready Guard]for immediate or ready military service in suppor of the Reserves and Regulars, while the older men [Inactive/Reserve Guard]can be put for State and Community defense and policing in suppor of non-activated Guard or Reserve units. GREAT BRITAIN during WW2 had its HOME GUARD while even NAZI GERMANY had its VOLKSTSTURM. iff memory is correct, during WW2 the maxi legal limit for drafted Amer men was age 45 or 47, of which the US Army by itself was able to form approxi 100 well-trained divisions, not all or most of which saw actual combat, and NOT including the then US Army Air Corps/USAAF or Sea Service. Its not well known in America that during WW2, and many years afterwards, the Army actually controlled more planes, ships, and crafts than the US Navy or its child the USAF. My point is - AMERICA IS IN A WAR FOR CONTROL OF THE WORLD, THE NWO, AND FUTURE OWG,AND WHERE ITS VERY EXISTENCE, SURVIVAL, BELIEFS SYSTEMS, COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES/ ENDOWMENTS, AND SOVEREIGNTY, ETC. IS UNDER THREAT! GOP-CONSERVATIVES AND ALL AMERICANS MUST DO WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR OUR SIDE TO PREVAIL AND WIN, AND TO DO SO DESPITE WHAT THE WAFFLING, DIALECTICAL, POLICRATIC, HYPER-CORRECT, BIG GOVT.-, LAISSEZ FAIRE = TOTALITARIANISM, ETC. LOVING LEFTIES DO OR DESIRE AGAINST ANYONE AND ANYTHING.The Right wants AMerica to win, the Left wants America to win and then to surrender, where winning = surrendering and vice versa, but somehow is also not the same. The Dems and Lefties are going hell-bent for that handful of special reserved seat(s) on the future Socialist-Communist Amerikan Politburo, Presidium, and People's Congress which the Commies from Russia-China never promised them. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-14 21:35 |
| #14 I left the Air Force in 1977, due primarily to President Carter's words and deeds. My wife and I wanted to adopt a couple of children, and knew we'd never be able to do so in the military. I joined the Reserves shortly after I left active duty. We adopted one child, tried to adopt another and were turned down. When Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, I re-enlisted in the Regular AF, and stayed until 1991, when I was forced to retire for medical reasons. A president and his attitude toward the military can have a HUGE influence on whether people reenlist or not. I know dozens that bailed on Carter, and more that left under the Clintons. Most of the people I knew on active duty were highly patriotic, knew the work they were doing was important, and would work 20-hour shifts for weeks at a time to accomplish the mission. They also have a very distinct impression on Congress, the Presidency, and the government in general. The pay and promotion isn't enough to compensate for the work required. It's only the sense of pride, honor, and duty that keeps most of the military in uniform. Show open disrespect for those people, as Carter and the Clintons did, and watch the best of them leave in droves. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-04-14 21:02 |
| #13 CS, I still remember the late 70s with Carter. I saw a lot of good NCOs and officers leave because their pay was crap. Don't you recall how may of the troops qualified for food stamps. And the guys overseas were screwed because they didn't have access at that time to the stamps. The guys had to feed their families and the amount of pay that the Carter Administration was budgeting wasn't doing the job. They left to feed their families. Carter didn't recommend a decent pay increase till the election year when it became an issue. At the same time the inflation had started to head to double digits because of the impact of the oil embargo. Troops getting 2 and 3 percent pay increases with prices going double digit didn't cut it. |
| Posted by: Glolung Crish8020 2006-04-14 18:23 |
| #12 My son just enlisted - graduates HS and enters in September. He has a SAT rating at 86% percentile, a GPA at 3.76 and could've got into college easily. I asked him why he chose the Army and when he decided, he said 9/11/01. He's not in for the money, hopefullly will get to use the College money, but he's there for each and every one of us. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-14 18:09 |
| #11 CS, I think Wes Clark, Clinton, and Half-Bright really should explain that strategery to the rest of the world. As well as Short, who burned Belgrade to the ground in order to shut down a radio tower, who should go to jail for it in my opinion. I did not take insult, I probably did not get my point across right and would never infur any one soldier is better than another one. My poor explaination was I really think most soldiers stay in from a sence of honor and duty, and thats all. I was in 1AD during the start up of the Balkans and was stunned as well by the lack of attention to mission planning by the CORPS HQ while our soldiers, you and I included, busted our asses. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-04-14 18:01 |
| #10 49 Pan, your right but USASOC isn't a small select group? I did not infer that those that serve are any less dedicated and your are correct that when the shit hit the fan we were ALL dedicated to the mission. I only had experience in the Balkans and EVERYONE worked hard to ensure success. FYI many (if not most) of us were dumbfounded by the lack of a planned ground campaign and by the Russians showing up (seeming uninvited). I think Wes Clark, Clinton, and Half-Bright really should explain that strategery to the rest of the world. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-14 17:30 |
| #9 ...or have a sense of duty but they are very small group. CS I have to disagree with you on this statement, the rest is spot on. Units that had a genuine mission and where the soldiers were performing their missions experienced great re-up rates, even during the bad times. Soldiers join for many reasons, school, adventure, etc..., but most stay because of the love for their country and their honor of being able to defend it. For example I was lucky enough to serve in a company, in USASOC, in the mid 90's. I did not have or need a reenlistment folder on the soldiers. We had a 100% reenlistment rate for the years I was there. Even though it was tough times with the drawdown and all, these troops had a good mission and they loved what they were doing, and they stayed as long as we could let them. The troops today do not enlist for the college or a bonus, they have no misconceptions about their roll in the military, their risks, and why they are there. As long as we let them do their missions they will continue to re-up. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-04-14 15:19 |
| #8 The administration in power has a great deal to do with the makeup of the senior officer corp. It should come as no surprise that generals promoted under Clinton do not like the aggressive use of force. Clinton was not looking for fighters. The expectation can be that the military, including the senior ranks, will be much more geared to war fighting as the current crop of senior and mid-level officers rise. The next administration will then determine what qualities it chooses to promote. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2006-04-14 15:15 |
| #7 Unless we are involved in a conflict the pay and benifits don't get increased under any administration (Dem or Rep). Actually Bush 41 rifted a large number of people from the services and started the "Peace Dividend" reduction. There was a time when few in the military were sure IF we could re-enlist let alone if we wanted. We closed a lot of bases after the Berlin wall fell and cut our intelligence structure to the bone under Clinton. It made sense at the time because NOBODY saw the rising tide of Islamofacists as a threat (even after the first WTC bombing). I am sure that some people serve because they love the country, are patriotic, or have a sense of duty but they are very small group. That doesn't mean that those serving are not motivated by pride or sense of duty because they are and I respect them for that. I doubt very seriously that there would be large re-enlistments if pay and benifits were cut or remained stagnant. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-14 14:05 |
| #6 I agree with the first comment. But the reasons are that such an LLL predicetn woudl be a disaster for morale, pay, equipment and employment of the military. Which military do you wast, the timid one under Jimmy Carter (Iran Afghanistan), or the resurgent one under Reagan that wonthe cold war? The babysitter military under Clinton (hands tied in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, Afghanistan, Sudan), or the Hunter military under Bush II (even tho Bush now seems to be wavering)? |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-04-14 12:49 |
| #5 Are you saying "he President, his policies, or his party had no bearing" on "Pay, benefits, advancement, and opportunity"? |
| Posted by: Snuns Thromp1484 2006-04-14 11:24 |
| #4 Pictures of mass re-enlistments are published in military media, but the civilian media has generally ignored this phenomena. That is because the MSM wants us to loose. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-14 11:22 |
| #3 The occupant of the White House has little bearing on re-enlistment. Pay, benefits, advancement, and opportunity have EVERYTHING to do with re-enlistment. I also think the same reasons are true for someoneÂ’s decision to stay with a civilian job. I started my career with Jimmy Carter and ended with Bill Clinton and at no time did the President, his policies, or his party had no bearing on my decision to stay one enlistment to the next. People in the military today are getting nice (deservedly so) bonuses, better pay, more benefits, and lots of opportunities to advance in rank. That is why they are staying in record numbers. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-14 11:17 |
| #2 Not much of an endorsement of the patriotism of the troops. The Army serves America, not a particular President. Luckily, the soldiers know that better than you. |
| Posted by: Greremp Jatch3034 2006-04-14 10:29 |
| #1 "This means that, a decade from now, the army will have a large and experienced corps of senior NCOs." Not if the LLL get back in power. If Kerry, or Gore, or Hillary, or Russ Feingold becomes President in 2008, don't count on anybody being left in the military 10 years from now. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-04-14 10:22 |