Posted on 06/01/2005 7:27:48 AM PDT by strategofr
Facing an extremely difficult recruiting environment, the U.S. Army has begun to offer a shortened 15-month active duty enlistment option. The move by the Army comes at a time when the number of new enlistments has fallen well short of recruiting goals and while we are faced with the ongoing Global War on Terrorism. Previously, the shortest enlistment offered was for two years.
As with most things, the Devil is in the details. The option is only available for 59 of the 150 military occupational specialties (MOS) offered by the Army. Basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) do not count toward the fifteen months of active-duty time. For example, an enlistment as an Infantryman (MOS 11B) would add an additional eight weeks for basic training and another thirteen week for AIT, bringing the total active duty commitment to nearly 18 months.
Training for more technically oriented jobs can take even longer. AIT for an Intelligence Analyst (MOS 96B) is roughly four months long. Making the "fifteen-month" enlistment more like twenty months.
So after basic training, AIT and your fifteen months on active duty, you're done, right? No, not exactly.
After active duty there is a mandatory two-year commitment in the National Guard or in the Army Reserve. The chances of being called back to active duty would probably be pretty high during this time considering the reliance on the Guard and Reserve in Iraq.
Okay, so I have done my fifteen months-plus on active duty, I have done my two years in the Guard, now am I done, right? Well actually, no.
You see, the overall obligation is for eight years, so you would spend the remainder of your time in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and be subject to recall to active duty (which has been happening with more frequency lately).
So, the 15-month "hitch" isn't exactly what it appears to be. It amounts to the recruiting equivalent of "This car was only driven to church on Sunday by a little old lady." With the all volunteer military model the Army has to get people in the door, and this is the latest strategy of doing just that.
Recruiters these days definitely have the chips stacked against them when trying to persuade young men and women to serve in the Army. With the steady stream of bad news coming out of Iraq, it is a wonder anyone even talks to a recruiter, let alone enlists. We are constantly updated on car bombings, kidnappings, allegation of detainee abuse and what "disgruntled" Iraqis think of the war, but we never hear about the military building schools, distributing aid, offering medical attention to Iraqi civilians or any of the generous and helpful activities that the Army does without a second thought every day in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We have prosecuted soldiers for life-and-death decisions that they are making while engaged in combat with a ruthless and disgraceful terrorist enemy that has absolutely no regard for human life. We are sending lower enlisted soldiers to Fort Leavenworth to serve prison sentences while giving the officers that commanded them administrative "slaps on the wrist." Abu Ghraib is a household word, but the name of the recent of Medal of Honor recipient, Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, is not.
It is not difficult to see why enticing people to join the Army is becoming more and more difficult with each passing day. We are kicking recruiters out of high schools and ROTC programs off university campuses, making an already tough job even tougher. The military is trying to be as creative as possible with incentive programs as the number of new prospects continues to dwindle. However, even after dipping into the IRR and issuing multiple stop-loss orders, the Army continues to come up short regarding personnel. This is the biggest challenge that our all-volunteer Army has faced since its inception in 1973. After the lightning-fast victories in Afghanistan and twice in Iraq, let's hope the Army is up to this challenge. Contributing Editor Chad Miles is a U.S. Army veteran who served with the 82nd Airborne Division and the 5th Special Forces Group during the 1990s. He founded the website WhoServed.com, which tracks the military service of previous and current U.S. government leaders, and is currently pursuing a degree in political science from the University of Michigan - Dearborn. He can be reached at chad@whoserved.com. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
The Army needs to cut the BS and offer a legitimate, reasonable hitch. With all the training now, and the related expense, they need a payback for their investment. So maybe offer a 4-year hitch, straight-up, with no "tail". 8 years is nearly halfway to retirement, too long for a "minimum".
At the same time, we need to accelorate our exit from patrolling Baghdad, Mosul, etc., replace that function with Iraqis, and move US troops into roles like our recent raids on the border area and even create a solid, impermeable border.
I am happy to see we are moving in this direction with the recent Baghdad operation. Personally, I beleive it is time to start training Iraqi tank & artillery crews and turn more of the heavy functions over to them.
It's like training wheels on a bike or a wrist support when you have a tennis injury. You don't want to build dependency on a crutch.
Ultimately, Iraqis will learn to defend themselves when we leave them to it. It is absolutely essential that the media be barred from a presence on the Iraqi battlefield.
I agree completely.
It has been an 8 year committment for as long as I can remember. The Army has always been upfront about this.
This POS article is nothing more than an attempt to continue to hurt recruiting efforts, making the war on terror more difficult and in the end helping our enemies bring us harm. The author of this crap should just stay at home and burn flags.
They are Journalists, not Americans. They would never pledge Allegiance, nevermind enlist.
Besides, It seems like every article I read, the author has no friggin clue what they are talking about. The only people who seem to know their stuff are sportswriters who write about sports I know nothing about, like curling and badminton.
Now if only all those neo-cons would sign up. Alas.
"It has been an 8 year committment for as long as I can remember. The Army has always been upfront about this."
Thanks for that information. Not being a military person, I did not know that.
This has always been the case. One has always had to serve in the IRR following active service. Nothing new.
s,
There's other stuff that this author overlooks, regarding the basic/AIT timeline.
I was injured in basic training, so instead of 8 weeks (this was 1989), I was there for like 12. So an extra month in, but it wouldn't count according to the Army's new concept.
Similarly, when I got to my AIT post, I had to wait 2 weeks for a new class to form. Some folks, in different schools on the same post, had already waited longer and would continue to wait after I'd started- all time that also wouldn't count.
"They are not off their recruitung goals. This has become a media meme. They are 909% there and it is only May."
This is a mind-blowing statement. Can you refer me to a source on this?
Google for it. it is out there. This recruitment issue is hooey. THey take some regional recuriting offices statitics and try to make them national. They are also getting beter recurits. more high schoolgradutates, beter scores, that sort of thing. THe USMC is turning people away.
All enlistment were and have always been 8 years. Anyone who has enlisted knows this and they are rebriefed when discharged.
More people were killed in auto accidents over this Memorial Day weekend than died in Iraq and/or Afghanistan since the beginning of the war.
The media endless rants against our heroes takes it's toll but we cannot allow the media to do to this President what they did to our country during Viet Nam.
All enlistment were and have always been 8 years. Anyone who has enlisted knows this, is briefed on this and they are rebriefed when discharged. If you don't know what the IRR is, you must live in a cave or be a jounalist.
When did it go to 8 years? Back in the 70's, it was, in my case, 4 years active, plus two in inactive Ready Reserve, where you had to advise of any address change and keep your uniforms ready if called up.
No all enlistments have not always been 8 years. I joined in March of 1971 (Regular Army NOT drafted) and the enlistment was 6 years. Three years active duty and 3 years inactive reserve. It was a reasonable amount of time and should be considered again.
And allow me to add a few other things:
-The Army offers plenty of opportunity during the enlistment process for you to declare that you're a conscientious objector. S'funny how no one's a CO until the balloon goes up, isn't it?
-The enlistment contract clearly states that your assignments, training/schools, and length of service can be changed according to the needs of the Army.
-The contract further states that your enlistment may be extended for the duration of a national emergency. Like, for the entire time it takes to fight and win a war.
Read it before you sign it, and you shouldn't be surprised later.
Soldiers who complain to the press or their Congresspeople about getting lied to, hoodwinked, or otherwise shafted by the Army are whining. Soldiers who complain to their buddies, NCOs, and chain-of-command about getting lied to, hoodwinked, or otherwise shafted by the Army are bitching.
There is a world of difference between the two.
I also notice the author failed to recognize that you could start the IRR portion prior to leaving for boot camp.......
I guess the author didn't even bother talking to recent recruits or a recruiter.
I figured you weren't familiar with the military and it's policies, but didn't want to point out my suspicion for fear of it being translated as a bash on you. Glad to be of assistance.
The author is a puke tho' that is doing this with all intention of causing harm to America. Hey, if it's bad for the country, it's bad for GWB.
I don't know when it went from 6 (for you) and 8 (for me). I signed in the fall of 88 and it was 8 years then.
CSM,
Yes, I don't know if it's still in place, but in my day recruits could be in the Delayed Entry Program for like a year.
I spent most of my senior year in HS as DEP and shipped in August. That time counted toward the 8 year total, but not toward the 4 year active commitment. Went I went into the Guard later, I didn't have to do 4 but 3 years and a few months, which was the balance on the reserve commitment.
You are absolutely correct! This propaganda by the MSM and leftists in the country belie the fact that many men and women are enlisting to fight for their country and freedom. The MSM & MSP along with academicians are trying to portray a generation of young people as appeasers, unwilling to stand up for their country. Being a patriotic American is not in vogue – or so they try to lead us to believe.
Fly your flags; join the Military; be Patriotic; be openly proud of your country and be prepared and willing to defend it. Tell your President he is doing a great job of thwarting terrorism around the world – tell him that Militant Islam is wrong and the world knows it. Call a spade a spade…anti-American sentiments are not welcome from those who are elected to represent us in Washington. We are Americans and We are Proud of it!
Thanks for the reminder. I couldn't think of the name of the program.
Believe it or not, a friend of mine told me this weekend that I should be ashamed of my service to this country. He based this on his opinion that America causes all of the world's problems and that the only people that serve in the military are just selfish dumb a**es that enlist because they couldn't find any other alternatives.
I told him to get the F off my property and to never utter another word in my direction. I was not so polite in calling him the piece of crap that he is and that if our nation had gonads like his we would all still be cowering under our beds from fear of another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
Thank goodness he is in the minority. Socialist piece of crap that he is.
That author wants to project an image of this country's next generation as frightened children. That image is far from the truth. My grandson is preparing for military service when he graduates and he is only an junior in HS.
God bless him!
Recruiters have a reputation that's hard to overcome. "Marine Corp basic training...don't worry about it, kid! It's like camping for a couple of weeks. Nothin' to it!" LOL
Forget the talk of a draft. We need to have a 2-year mandatory military service for every male between 18-25. That's the one thing most European countries do right. Take those spoiled, do-nothing teenagers and teach them discipline, respect, and how to measure up to high expectations. It would be a good foundation for the rest of their lives. Consider it paying back what America gave them the first 20 years of their life.
Here's the problem.
By the way, I admire these guys, I can't tell you how much. American soldiers have always been known for their essential decency, but these have to be some of the finest, and most decent, soldiers we've ever fielded.
I am so impressed with them.
C,
Your friend told you that?! Sounds like a swell cat.
This line was interesting:
"...the only people that serve in the military are just selfish dumb a**es that enlist because they couldn't find any other alternatives."
I met all kinds when I was in, as I'm sure you and countless others have: great people, jerks, strong family men, cheating scoundrels, superior leaders, piss-poor leaders...all the types you'd expect from a population pool as broad as the Army.
But "dumb"? Not so much. As for "selfish", what has your friend done to improve his country, or anyone else's, in his miserable life?
Look, I didn't serve because I wanted to be Audie Murphy, and no one would ever confuse me for Sgt York. I did it because I had nothing else to do, and alot of folks are or were in the same boat. I learned alot, and got alot out of it.
Even if I never served in combat or was tabbed out from high-speed schools, my 214 says "Honorable" on it. Some people do more for their nation by their 22d birthday than jagoffs like that do in their entire lives.
That is not the problem. Part of the problem is that the domestic war on terror is proving to be a joke. People no longer believe the government wants to protect us. The government just wants to control us. Not worth fighting for.
A good place to look for recruits is government employees. Make joining the reserves a condition of employment.
Actually, that mandatory military service is also the primary reason why European countries rarely get involved in major military campaigns around the world. The only reason the U.S. could muster the political support for the Iraq war was that most of the war's staunchest "cheerleaders" weren't taking any risks at all.
I was well aware of the "TOTAL" 8 year commitment when I signed up back in 1988.......of course this article makes it sound like some "Oh my gosh!" new thing and they are tricking people.....
gimme a break...
"what has your friend done to improve his country, or anyone else's, in his miserable life?"
Specifically, well,....let me think....still thinking.....well, I guess the answer is NOTHING. Let me clarify something else, this guy is no longer my friend and he is dang lucky he didn't get his A$$ kicked. My time is to valuable to spend with socialists/democrats/liberals/RINOs.
You hit the population of the Army on the head. The biggest difference between their population and the general civilian population is that I could count on 99.9% of the Army population and I can only count on 19% of the general population (53M/280M).
To be honest, I'm not sure why I joined. Your phrase of "nothing else to do" would probably qualify, but I think deep down I always had the desire to serve in the military and "college money" just became the excuse. The experience was well worth it and my sense of pride for it has served me well in my daily life.
I really wish I could find better information on serving in Iraq as a civilian. Every now and then I check some websites and do some surfing, but I can't find anything of value. Any of you FReepers have any ideas?
C,
Does it have to be Iraq? Today's Stars and Stripes has an article about DoD looking for civilians in Afghanistan.
Great suggestion. I feel like a total dork for not thinking of "Stars and Stripes" as a resource. I'll take a look, thanks.
fr,
That sounded weird to me, too. I wasn't an 11-series but 13 weeks for infantry AIT sounded just off.
Which is all very odd because at the end of the piece, it reads that Chad Miles was 82nd and 5th SF.
That doesn't necessarily mean he was an infantryman, but...it's kinda weird he overlooked or got some things wrong.
I guess you don't know much about enlistments. It has been an 8-year bite for about 20 years now. And that is fully explained to the prospective recruits. And they sign an acknowledgement.
Nothing new, nothing misleading, nothing crooked about it.
Can't help it if you are uninformed.
All enlistment were and have always been 8 years.
Almost correct. They were six years until about 1980.
Maybe the Army had a different deal going but, I don't know how they did it.
"Thank the media for overstating the battle losses by about 30%."
Yes. Caught that on the Drudge Report.
Huh? 15+4=20?
My son lost someone in a live fire exercise when he was stationed in Germany.
We pray for them all and wish we had a media that honored their service rather than denigrated them at every turn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.