Article

2005-06-02 Home Front: WoT

Pentagon delays release of May recruiting data

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-06-02 00:09|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ...This is exceptionally bad. During my time as a USAF Recruiter (89-93), delay of the previous month's data was a sign that something had happened to embarass the leadership, and they were A)trying to manipulate the data to show something it didn't, or B)spin the hell out of it. My guess is that not only did none of the services make their numbers, they missed 'em by a country mile. Sadly, the only real response from the services will be to pick a few poor bastards at random from the offices and 86 their careers - "pour encourager les Outres..."

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2005-06-02 00:36|| 2005-06-02 00:36|| Front Page Top

#2 I hope not, Mike.

Look, of COURSE the numbers are bad. With the MSM constantly playing up casualties and violence and downplaying the stable parts of Iraq, the progress there and most importantly the THREAT to us, why would people risk their lives?

Every one of us needs to work around the MSM to make sure our friends, neighbors and relatives understand what is at stake here. I know some of my family don't and it's not easy to have those discussions. At times I'm discouraged and tired and just want to give up. But if you and I give up, there won't be a free society to defend 20 years from now ... we'll all either be Chinese-speaking dhimmis or we will have descended into barbarity ourselves when we finally wake up and have no options other than massive use of force, i.e. nuclear or other.

Posted by too true 2005-06-02 06:38|| 2005-06-02 06:38|| Front Page Top

#3 At what point do the actions of the press cross over into treason?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-06-02 07:51|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-06-02 07:51|| Front Page Top

#4 A point so long ago I can't remember it.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-06-02 08:38|| 2005-06-02 08:38|| Front Page Top

#5 Recruitment has historically been tied to the economy rather than military actions. While Iraq may be a factor in this, the economy is doing just fine, regardless of the lies distributed by the Dems and their DNC talking points agents in the MSM since before the November elections. Add to the additional increase of 24,000 more Army personnel in the recruitment pool with the, late as usual in rebuilding the force, authorization in the FY2005 budget, and I don't know how anyone expected to achieve goal. Just with the good economy I'd doubt they could make FY2004 numbers. The effect of Iraq will be seen more in retention. Of that, how much loss can be accredited to the constant tempo driven by 6 and 9 month rotations? They may need to rebracket the time frames and replacement process.

Posted by Throluth Clush3562 2005-06-02 08:52|| 2005-06-02 08:52|| Front Page Top

#6 This is a collective effort. The MSM amplifes the Dummycratic messsage, the universities, but also the favorable economy.

Posted by Captain America 2005-06-02 09:06|| 2005-06-02 09:06|| Front Page Top

#7 The US needs to establish a foreign legion - it would be far more useful than the French one.

Posted by Homer 2005-06-02 09:37|| 2005-06-02 09:37|| Front Page Top

#8 The effect of Iraq will be seen more in retention

I'm hearing about a lot of guys changing their minds about enlisting because of parental pressure based on TV images of Iraq - the "mom factor". The economy isn't all that working here ....

Posted by too true 2005-06-02 09:39|| 2005-06-02 09:39|| Front Page Top

#9 18, 19, 20 year old momma's boys probably are not the basic material you want for the kind of work that needs to be done. There's a difference between respect and pandering.

Posted by Fleretle Whasing9843 2005-06-02 10:26|| 2005-06-02 10:26|| Front Page Top

#10 The best thing the services could do is up the pay rate, and I don't mean a measly 4 or 5 %. I mean big time. Make it a profession competitve with civilain wages. You will then see enlistments up in response.

Posted by Bill Nelson 2005-06-02 12:20|| 2005-06-02 12:20|| Front Page Top

#11 A few weeks ago, there were stories about out-of-college hiring being up 19% or so this year. Probably similar numbers of out-of-high school hiring, and the draw into college is probably also up.

It doesn't help that the press is trying to create another Vietnam loss, of course, and I think they should be held accountable for it. Perhaps some GIs should start a class-action suit against the press for defamation.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-06-02 13:56|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-06-02 13:56|| Front Page Top

#12 Bill,
They do 'up' the pay but through bonuses and those have gone way up and far across the skill listings. There is a reason why they prefer bonuses to base pay. Its retirement costs projected out in twenty years with 50% of base pay, not housing, not uniform, not bonuses. Manpower is the single biggest cost to DoD. Both parties had reduced the Army after Gulf War I from 750,000 to under 500,000. Now they discovered they cut too deep. When the war is stablized to a level of minding the injuns on the reservations, they can't demobilize like after GWI, Vietnam, or WWII. However, they can cut back on bonuses, which will be another 'peace dividend' till the next flare up. What they'll have on hand is what they will need for a long time and the retirement costs will eat the budget up if they put it all in base pay. Military retiree pay is accounted for in the defense budget now and it isn't small. The alternative would be to switch new generations out of the retirement program and just pay them the big bucks up front. That has its own personnel problems.

For everyone else this is something the republic has to pay attention to carefully. The cost of maintaining a highly professional volunteer force is expensive and one of the underlying issues that undermined another historic republic. That expense is one but not the only reason so many Democrats sponsor legislation to return to the draft. Slaves are cheaper than free men. Less defense spending particularly in the form of pay means more money for bread and games to support their power base.

Posted by Fleretle Whasing9843 2005-06-02 14:47|| 2005-06-02 14:47|| Front Page Top

#13 I'm putting 9843 in my big book of Whasings to read closely.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-02 15:10|| 2005-06-02 15:10|| Front Page Top

#14 Military retiree pay is accounted for in the defense budget now and it isn't small

Especially as the baby boomers have retired / will retire shortly and draw not only pay but medical benefits. It's a serious issue.

Posted by rkb 2005-06-02 19:51|| 2005-06-02 19:51|| Front Page Top

00:01 Frank G
23:58 muck4doo
23:49 Jaiter Whosh4012
23:47 Jame_Retief
23:40 muck4doo
23:34 muck4doo
23:31 muck4doo
23:28 muck4doo
23:27 edmundo4dulce
23:26 Frank G
23:22 muck4doo
23:21 Karl Marx
23:20 muck4doo
23:19 muck4doo
23:15 muck4doo
23:12 Frank G
23:11 Frank G
23:06 Zhang Fei
23:03 Zhang Fei
23:02 Rex Mundi
23:01 Captain America
22:59 Captain America
22:48 bigjim-ky
22:44 Matt