Posted on 12/16/2004 8:19:49 PM PST by nj26
Army Reserve recruiting is in a "precipitous decline" that, if not slowed, could provoke new debate over a draft, the Reserve's top general said Monday.
Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly – saying he opposes reinstituting a draft – blamed the bureaucracy for dragging its feet in implementing new bonuses for recruits and re-enlistments that Congress included in this year's defense bill.
....
President Bush has vowed that there will be no return to a draft while he is president, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top military officers have also opposed conscription.
....
The Army Reserve and other arms of the military met their recruiting and retention goals last year, but the Army National Guard and Air National Guard fell short. The Army Guard achieved 87 percent of its recruiting objective, the Air Guard 94 percent.
For the first two months of fiscal year 2005, which began Oct. 1, the Army Reserve also has lagged, falling 315 recruits short of its goal of 3,170 – a drop of 10 percent, Gen. Helmly said.
An improving job market and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be the reasons for the decline, he said.
If the trend continues, Gen. Helmly said, his arm of the Army could fall more than 5,000 soldiers short of its mandated end strength of 205,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Some interesting points, although I don't understand some of the distinctions here, with recruits switching from one program to another.
Has anyone considered the monetary cost of a draft? It would be far cheaper to tripple the salary of new recruits and attract more people that way than it would to set up a draft system and deal with all the legal battles, civil unrest, and disobedient slackers who fail to perform should they even show up for duty when called.
"It would be far cheaper to tripple the salary of new recruits and attract more people that way than it would to set up a draft system and deal with all the legal battles, civil unrest, and disobedient slackers who fail to perform should they even show up for duty when called."
Exactly. As many companies find out, it's better to pay enough to get the right person for the job, then underpay and get the wrong person.
And, in the modern era, there would be so many complications. What about liberals who would might collude with the enemy? Would gays be exempt from serving? What about women?
Wall Street pays 23 year olds out of Harvard or Princeton $75,000/year. If necessary, that may be what we need to do for the military, rather than endangering our existing soldiers with incompetent, disloyal, or disruptive draftees.
Now if a Democrat were in power (FDR, JFK, LBJ), that would be a different story.
315 recruits short of their goal? WE'RE DOOMED!!!
.
True.
Not only that, but the new military is not of the 'foot soldier' variety. They have to be intelligent young people who will be in a techno-military.
No surprise that young people are hesitant to join the reserves or national guard after the way they were dissed by the old media in the memo gate scandal.
Even enlisted folks have to make a minimum score on the ASVAB to be able to enlist.
Yeah right. It takes a real Einstein to drive a truck or peel potatoes or handle freight. Or shuffle papers or fix flat tires or set up facilities or run errands or or or .............
Solution is simple.
TAKE US OLD VETERANS, DAm**IT
We have 70,000 troops in Europe defending against nothing.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40243
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.