Comments anyone? ********************************************************* 08-14-06, 10:08 AM frankvan Question: What standards were changed, if any, to accomplish the improved recruitment figures ?
08-14-06, 10:14 AM Scotty
quote: The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of July. This marks the 14th consecutive month the active duty services have met or exceeded their goals
The American spirit!
08-14-06, 10:25 AM Koz Frank, the stadards were slightly modified last year. The Army last fall amended its rule that it can sign up no more than 2 percent of recruits who score between 15 and 30 out of 99 on the Army's aptitude test. Now, up to 4 percent of Army recruits can score under 30 on the aptitude test.
I also believe that at least 90 percent of new recruits must be high school graduates, compared with 92 percent last year.
This is still a far cry from the recruitment acceptable standard that was used in the 1970’s. I believe upwards of 30% that scored between 15 and 30 on the aptitude test were permitted.
08-14-06, 10:29 AM methos perspective on the army numbers:
62,505 so far this year, projected to reach 80,000 by the end of the fiscal year (Sept 30).
1996-7 numbers are rounded to the nearest 100.
08-14-06, 10:30 AM newnickname 'The Army has begun training the oldest recruits in its history, the result of a concerted effort to fill ranks depleted during the Iraq war. In June, five months after it raised the enlistment age limit from 35 to just shy of 40, the Army raised it to just under 42.
To accommodate the older soldiers, the Army has lowered the minimum physical requirements needed to pass basic training.' www.usatoday.com
To be fair, 'So far, only five people 40 and older — and 324 age 35 and older — have enlisted, Army records show'.
Is it really the American spirit, or are most of the new recruits unable to find jobs elsewhere? How many rich, or comfortably settled, folk are putting their lives on hold and willingly signing up, as happened in WWII and just post-9/11?
08-14-06, 10:39 AM Koz NNN, maybe the older recruits are just now feeling a need to serve their country have you even considered that? I did not think so,,,
There is also a very privileged young man who will be heading off to boot camp next month. He is barely eighteen years old and he easily could have enlisted in the Navy if he felt the need to serve like his father, but he chose the Marine Corps. Jimmy McCain (Son of a United States Senator) could have taken an easy road in life but chose not to. I commend him on his decision.
08-14-06, 12:33 PM DorianGreyed If I remember correctly, serving is a family tradition in McCain's family. The country needs, and is bettered by, such families. -------- Koz, your first post spoke only of Fiscal 2006. Do you know if the goals for that year were lowered after the initial goals were announced? I know that this was done in at least one year (since 9/11), possibly to make things look better than they were.
08-14-06, 01:16 PM Koz DG, to the best of my knowledge the numbers were not lowered, just some of the Army’s recruitment standards were lowered slightly.
The Marine Corps recruitment standards or numbers were not lowered at all and they came in at 112%, I am not sure of the other branches.
While serving is a tradition in the McCain family Jimmy McCain decided to join the Marine Corps not the Navy as his family members did. While the Marine Corps is indeed a Department of the Navy it is a different lifestyle completely.
The senator has a book called “ Faith of My Fathers ” that is a good read for those interested.
08-15-06, 12:42 PM aminator2002 I don't know how irregular it is for recruiters to be over aggressive. 15 years ago, I remember meeting several aggressive recruiters, getting phone harrassed by them and having my brother get the same. I remember there used to be a rather familiar sitcom/comedy plot where the main character ends up accidentally joining the army after dealing with an aggressive recruiter. Typically the character is all happy until they get home and realize the gravity of the situation... it was light comedy with a message to not enter into military service without seriously considering it.
No offense to recruiters in the crowd on this next part. I'm sure there are many more good than bad and my experience is very limited. It just seems like a pretty horrible job..."each recruiter must enlist 2 people per month". It's pretty much a crap job but somebody has to do it. To think that every recruiter out there is the type we would like - a fine upstanding citizen with only pureness of heart to see our nation's military enriched is a pipe dream. Some of these folks probably go through rough patches and stretch the truth just to get the job done. Perhaps the solution is making it mandatory to talk to two recruiters before enlisting to assure that there are no inconsistencies.
My advice to anyone thinking of joining would be to wait for about 6 months before making the decision. It should have a waiting period like buying a gun... complaining after you sign up is simply not an option.
Everyone told me to watch out for slick recruiters. Doesn't anyone tell kids this stuff? Is it really a surprise now?
I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that recruiter irregularities is anything but normal business during any presidency. Just my opinion.
08-15-06, 12:44 PM DorianGreyed There was a thread about a year ago about some recruiters in Colorado(?) that were overly aggressive, to the point of almost kidnapping young men on trips to view bases. I don't recall the outcome of that incident, but from what I remember of what I read, some of those recruiters got in hot water, deservedly so.
There have always been a few dishonest and unscrupulous recruiters. During an upopular war, it makes sense that the numbers of that small few would grow. They are salesmen selling a product, touting the product's benefits and downplaying its downside. Some salesmen lie, regardless of the product. Some salesmen seem not to hear the word "No" and some get too aggressive in their sales pitch. It's a shame, however, that a small group can tarnish the image of the entire group, but that's how it goes. Frankly, I suspect that today's recruiters are, on the whole, more upfront about things that they were in the past. During the Vietnam war, potential recruits were told whatever they wanted to hear, and promised whatever was necessary to get them to join. After you got in, those stories and promises meant nothing. -------- Boy, checking that story was easy. I Googled recruiters + Colorado + trips.
Army Recruiters Face Investigation -------- The U.S. Army Recruiting Battalion Denver office released the following press release on April 29 in relation to this case:
Yesterday the Denver Army Recruiting Battalion took action against two Army recruiters for alleged impropriety. One recruiter is suspended from recruiting until completion of the investigation. The other recruiter, who was in transition to a new duty location, is being called back to the area for the investigation and is also not recruiting.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Brodeur, Denver Army Recruiting Battalion commander, said: "We began conducting an investigation immediately upon finding out about the allegations made toward these recruiters and are required to complete the investigation within 30 days.
"Recruiter misconduct is not acceptable and it violates honor, duty and trust.
"The Army takes a very serious approach to proper enlistment procedure and integrity. All allegations are investigated. We do not tolerate unprofessional behavior and our stringent guidelines for policing the recruiting force is evidence of that commitment."
McSwane recorded the recruiter saying that on the phone. -------- PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: And good evening, everybody. Glad to have you with us. Tonight, some serious and shocking allegations about what some recruiters are doing to get young men and women to go Army.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): How far will Uncle Sam go to get your child to sign up?
JIM MASSEY, FORMER MILITARY RECRUITER: I recruited 75 young men. And I would say 98 percent were frauded into the military. - CNN -------- I found nothing in the two pages of links that referred to the recruiters taking young men on trips without parental permission (day trips), but I am not going to look further. Obviously, some recruiters lie, and lie a great deal.
09-15-06, 10:01 AM newnickname 'Earlier this year, the Army admitted that, to maintain desperately needed numbers, it was forgoing almost any measure of quality when it came to its officer corps. According to 2005 Pentagon figures, 97% of all eligible captains were promoted to major -- a significant jump from the already historically high average of 70-80%. "The problem here is that you're not knocking off the bottom 20%," one high-ranking Army officer at the Pentagon told the Los Angeles Times. "Basically, if you haven't been court-martialed, you're going to be promoted to major." Despite near-guaranteed promotions, the San Antonio Express-News reported that the "Army expects to be short 2,500 captains and majors this year, with the number rising to 3,300 in 2007."'
09-15-06, 11:29 AM Dwight In the concept of this thread, my thoughts means nothing of course, since I'm only talking about 1 recruiting station and 3 recruiting NCO's.
Both my wife and were commenting only today about how much we liked the three Sergeants involved in enlisting my son into the Army Reserves. My son spoke with them first, then at their suggestion, both Mrs. Dwight and I were invited to visit with them and hear of their suggestions (my son was over 18-years of age, so this was not required).
All three were very willing to answer questions and they seemed to be very free to offer their opinions about what they thought he should do. All three made it very clear that nearly anyone enlisting in the Army today stands a very good chance of being sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan. One of the three was the First Sergeant of the unit and he was (IMO) the most forthright of the group about both the positive and the negative aspects of military life.
Make no mistake, they believe that the Army is a good career choice, but I felt they were very honest with our son, and I felt no overt "salesmanship" that crossed the line.
Dwight
09-15-06, 12:38 PM DorianGreyed Thanks for letting us know, Dwight. It is good to hear of ethical recruiters. The bad ones are the ones who get all the press. Back when I was Son-of-Dwight's age, it was the norm for recruiters to promise you whatever you wanted to be promised, but once you were in, your chances of going to Vietnam were very high.
I agree that the military can be an ezcellent career choice for some. It has many benefits, not all of which are tangible. (And before anyone jumps up and tells me that I am just mouthing those words and that I hate the military, let me point out that I have said several times that it is not the military I hate, but the need (and misuse) of the military that I hate. I hate that we need one; I'm very glad that we have one.)
Dwight, please let us know how your son is doing. From his few posts and talking to him in Chat, coupled with his volunteering, it is obvious that you and Mrs. Dwight did a fine job of raising him.
09-27-06, 09:28 AM newnickname 'Last week on the NBC Nightly News, General Barry McCaffrey, now retired, said of the current state of the US military, "I think, arguably, it's the worst readiness condition the US Army has faced since the end of Vietnam." This isn't a big surprise when we consider the facts that many soldiers are already into their third combat tour, frequent deployments have cut training time at home in half, and two thirds of all Army combat units are rated not ready for combat...
... 60% of National Guard soldiers have already reached their limit for overseas combat...
...Lieutenant General Steven Blum, of the National Guard... ...told NBC, "If you think the National Guard's busy today, I think we're going to look back and say 'these were the good old days' in about three years." A comment to which General McCaffrey responded: "More is being asked of them, particularly the National Guard and reserve components, than they signed up to do. And in the near-term, we think it's going to unravel."
That "near-term" seemed to be about 72 hours away from McCaffrey's comments. On Monday, the Army announced that because it is stretched so thin by the occupation of Iraq, it is once again extending the combat tours of thousands of soldiers beyond their promised 12-month tours. It's the second time since August (i.e., last month) that this has occurred.' A Broken, De-Humanized Military in Iraq
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3587 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
(Among the incentives - "Creating a more pleasant boot camp environment".)
'Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday...'www.nytimes.com
Recruiting back on track after successful July By Michelle Tan - Staff writer
After missing its recruiting goals for two straight months, the active Army rebounded in July by bringing in 9,972 soldiers, 102 percent of the monthly goal of 9,750, the Army announced Aug. 10.
The active Army has also achieved 102 percent of its year-to-date mission, with 61,863, or 102 percent, of the goal of 60,900. The annual goal for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, is 80,000 new soldiers. That means the Army has two months to recruit 18,137 soldiers, the number of people needed to reach the annual goal.
The Army National Guard and Army Reserve also exceeded their recruiting goals in July.
The Reserve reported recruiting 3,822 soldiers, 118 percent of the monthly goal of 3,250. So far this year, the Reserve has recruited 21,496 soldiers, 99 percent of its year-to-date goal of 21,675. The target for the year is 26,500, 1,000 more than last year.
In July, 4,908 soldiers joined the Army Guard, 100 percent of its mission of 4,900. The Guard is at 100 percent of its year-to-date goal, with 55,264 soldiers. The goal is 55,239. The fiscal 2007 mission for the Guard is 70,000.
The monthly recruiting figures, contrary to common perception, are not a tally of new sign-ups, but the number of enlistees who were shipped to basic training. That number, however, is tied to new enlistments.
Army recruiting has come under scrutiny recently as the service is stretched by repeated and lengthy combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at the same time leaders want to grow the component by about 40,000 soldiers for an end strength of 547,000 in the next two to four years.
The tough recruiting environment has led the Army to try a variety of remedies leaders hope will carry them at least through to the end of the fiscal year.
“We are balancing two things: [bringing] the Army to the size that it needs to be and also to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars,” Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, commanding general of Recruiting Command, testified Aug. 1 on Capitol Hill.
Bostick later added that “this is not just a mission from the Army and a challenge for the Army, but this is a challenge for the nation.”
In late July, the Army ordered 1,106 former recruiters back to that duty. Their temporary return to recruiting is slated to last no later than Oct. 15.
The Army also began offering a variety of seasonal bonuses, including up to $20,000 to qualified soldiers who depart for active duty by Sept. 30. And as part of its more aggressive bonus program to attract new soldiers, the Army is offering up to $45,000 tax-free for soldiers to accrue throughout their career to help buy a home or build a business. In recent years the Army it also raised the maximum enlistment age to 42, loosened weight and tattoo rules and relied more heavily on its delayed entry pool.
The DEP, which has since been renamed the Future Soldier Training Program, consists of recruits who have enlisted but have not shipped to basic training. These soldiers have up to a year to ship to basic, and they are not counted in the monthly recruiting totals until they do.
A healthy pool of promised recruits eases pressure on recruiters and enables officials to better manage recruiting throughout the year.
The Army entered fiscal 2007 with 15 percent of its mission in the DEP, compared with 46 percent as recently as 2004. However, a shallow DEP does not mean the Army will fall short of not meet its annual goal at the end of the year. The Army started 2006 with 12 percent of its mission in the DEP, and at the end of the year the Army had exceeded its recruiting goal.
The other components, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, also exceeded their recruiting goals in July.
The Army Reserve reported recruiting 3,822 soldiers, 118 percent of the monthly goal of 3,250. So far this year the Reserve has recruited 21,496 soldiers, 99 percent of its year-to-date goal of 21,675. The target for the year is 26,500, 1,000 more than last year.
In July, 4,908 soldiers joined the Army Guard, 100 percent of its mission of 4,900. The Guard is at 100 percent of its year-to-date goal, with 55,264 soldiers. The goal is 55,239. The fiscal 2007 mission for the Guard is 70,000.
Yes, for every story about how the army can't recruit enough people of the right standard, the army has an array of statistics showing how everything is on track. But why would Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute say the draft is worth considering if recruitment is, in fact, on target?
Actually, just because of demographics, institutions in many countries that need youngsters to sign up are struggling to find people - universities, the nursing profession and so on, as well as armies.
Originally posted by newnickname: Yes, for every story about how the army can't recruit enough people of the right standard, the army has an array of statistics showing how everything is on track. But why would Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute say the draft is worth considering if recruitment is, in fact, on target?
Actually, just because of demographics, institutions in many countries that need youngsters to sign up are struggling to find people - universities, the nursing profession and so on, as well as armies.
Well, this is what he actually said.
Question: You know, given the stress on the military and the concern about these extended deployments for an all-volunteer military, can you foresee, in the future, a return to the draft?
Answer: You know, that's a national policy decision point that we have not yet reached, Michele, because the —
Question: But does it make sense militarily?
Answer: I think it makes sense to certainly consider it, and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another. Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well. It would be a major policy shift — not actually a military, but a political policy shift to move to some other course.
Unless I missed it, something not in the article is that moral standards have been lowered, and the list of criminal conviction that are now acceptable has been increased.
Posts: 16154 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Unless I missed it, something not in the article is that moral standards have been lowered, and the list of criminal conviction that are now acceptable has been increased.
This is why gang activity has become a problem in the military.
"Gang-related activity in the military is highly underreported, and the Army is the only branch of the military that collects gang-related statistics, she wrote.
“It’s often in the military’s best interest to keep these incidents quiet, given low recruitment numbers and recent negative publicity. The relaxation of recruiting standards, recruiter misconduct and the military’s lack of enforcement (gang membership is not prohibited in the Army) have compounded the problem and allowed gang member presence in the military to proliferate...”
The title of the Stars and Stripes article to which Gar links to is
FBI says U.S. criminal gangs are using military to spread their reach
A bit more from the article -
Soldiers are reluctant to talk openly about gang problems. However, Spc. Bautista Kylock, 21, of the 2nd Cavalry (Stryker) Regiment in Vilseck, Germany, said last week that there are gang members within his unit.
Kylock blamed recent violence around Vilseck on soldiers affiliated with the Crips and Bloods street gangs.
Scott Barfield, a former Defense Department gang detective at 2nd Cav’s last duty station, Fort Lewis, Wash., told the Sun-Times earlier this year that he had identified more than 300 soldiers at the base as gang members.
“I think that’s the tip of the iceberg,” he said.
However, Vilseck Provost Marshal Maj. Robert Ray said there is not a big gang problem in Vilseck and he has no information on gang members within 2nd Cav.
“The military comes from all walks of lives, from rich to poor, and with that comes the ‘society,’” Ray said. “Are there members of the military that belong to gangs? No doubt about it. But the military is not rampant with gang members.
“The military chain of commands do not tolerate things like that and do their best to weed out problems,” he said.
There are no official statistics on gang membership in the military, but some experts have estimated that 1 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. military are gang members, Simon said. That compares with just 0.02 percent of the U.S. population believed to be gang members, she wrote.
“Gang membership in the U.S. armed forces is disproportional to the U.S. population,” she added.
Jim Kouri, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, wrote recently that, in addition to the Gangster Disciples, other Chicago gangs such as the Latin Kings and Vice Lords have infiltrated the military along with neo-Nazi groups.
Nice. Real nice. Recruit'em, train'em ("The best trained military in the world", right, Scotty?), and then let'em go back to the streets, where, no doubt, they'll be good citizens, attend church, abide by the law, and vote. Just another bonus of bush's war. Thank You Very Much, Mr. President. Heck of a job.
(Of course, this just could be more Liberal spin, coming from the Stars and Stripes and the FBI.)
Posts: 16154 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Unless I missed it, something not in the article is that moral standards have been lowered, and the list of criminal conviction that are now acceptable has been increased.
1. What were the old "moral standards", and what are the new "moral standards", now compare the militarys "moral standards" to jobs in the civilian world.
" I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy but, by God, they terrify me!" Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, considering his recruits. See, there's nothing new.They became a terrifying, and effective, army.
August 3, 2007 -- THE media love to trash our troops. Every crime alleged to have been committed by a soldier or Marine in Iraq is headlined until it seems that those in uniform are so busy with atrocities they haven't got time to fight.
No accusation is too preposterous for "respected" media outlets to feature, and the left-wing press convicts our troops long before they see a courtroom. Our service members are portrayed (by those who never served) as a sadistic rabble.
But when you look at the facts - the hard numbers - a very different picture emerges.
While crimes committed by our troops can't be condoned (and they certainly aren't), official crime statistics make it clear that we have the best-behaved military in history - one that's vastly more law-abiding than our general population.
The here-at-home numbers are readily available from public sources. So let's compare some domestic crime rates with the misdeeds of those vicious storm-troopers of ours.
In the 19-month period - over a year and a half - from Jan. 1, 2006 until the morning you read this, misbehavior by our troops resulted in a total of 59 scheduled court-martials in Iraq - 21 of them general court-martials, which are reserved for the most-serious crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, arson and so forth). The other 38 were special court-martials, invoked for lesser offenses, such as disciplinary infractions or petty theft.
OK: 59 trials in 19 months, among an average troop population of almost 140,000. Compare that to civilian crime statistics back home, and it's clear that any of us would welcome the chance to live among such model citizens - even though our troops are overwhelmingly within the age window where criminal behavior is most frequent.
Start with a city that Money magazine rated as "one of the 10 best places to live" in the United States: Ann Arbor, Mich. Home to a great university, the town has a population of about 113,300 - about 20,000 lower than our pre-surge troop numbers in Iraq.
In 2005 (the last year for which statistics are available), that ideal place to live recorded 1,476 crimes that, if committed by a soldier, would have required a general court-martial - plus a further 2,282 thefts and similar infractions that, depending on the details, would have been handled by either a general or a special court-martial.
Twelve months in Ann Arbor, 3,758 court-martial-equivalent trials. If all the crimes had been taken to court, which one doubts. Nineteen months in Iraq, under the complex stresses of combat? Fifty-nine court-martials. Guess that bastion of ethical liberalism in Michigan needs to go through basic training.
But let's give peace a chance: The most dogmatically left-wing city in the United States is undoubtedly (the People's Republic of) Santa Cruz, Calif. With a population of some 55,000 - about a third of our current troop numbers in Iraq - Santa Cruz, where the Age of Aquarius reigns, had 503 violent crimes in 2004 (the latest statistics available) and a total of 3,665 crimes that would qualify for court-martials.
Extrapolate those numbers to match our current troop strength, and you'd have a requirement for more than 10,000 court-martial equivalents. If Santa Cruz were as serious about punishing its criminals as our military is . . .
The military doesn't do warnings and probation. If a soldier does the crime, he or she will do the time or pay the other relevant penalty - court-martials directly reflect the number of crimes committed. That means that our troops in a combat zone have had less than 1 percent of the crime rate in Santa Cruz - whose City Council in 2003 was proud to be the first in the United States to adopt a resolution denouncing the war in Iraq.
Nor are these hotbeds of peace, love and shirked responsibility alone in being criminal empires compared to the good order prevailing in our military. Take a genuinely decent American city, Lynchburg, Va., with a strong religious tradition, 11 colleges, universities and technical schools and a population in 2006 of 67,720 (about half the pre-surge number of troops in Iraq).
In 2005, Lynchburg suffered 857 criminal acts that would've demanded general court-martials in the military and a further 1,805 thefts, many of which would have resulted in special court-martials.
Yet Lynchburg is particularly well-behaved. The stats for many cities are far worse.
Now set those facts against the hypocrisy of so many in the media toward our men and women in uniform. Did any of the reporters wailing about the deplorable behavior of our troops in a half-dozen incidents over four years bother to put those crimes into perspective?
Our troops are performing remarkably well under difficult conditions, and our military does a solid job of screening out sociopaths. But, inevitably, some slip through (the private-for-life who recently conned The New Republic might qualify). And it's the one scumbag among 10,000 honorable men and women in uniform who gets the press attention.
Of course, we rightly demand model standards of behavior from our troops, as we do from law-enforcement agents and officers. And today's U.S. armed forces deliver, taking good order and discipline very seriously. We all should be proud of how selflessly and honorably our troops have served as the jackals on the home tear at the military's carcass.
I learned an important lesson myself in digging out these statistics: I knew, of course, how decent our troops are. I served with them for almost 22 years (and testified at two court-martials in two decades). But on future trips to California - my favorite foreign country - I'll be sure to give Santa Cruz a wide berth.
