Posted on 04/05/2005 9:14:41 PM PDT by xzins
Army comes up short of recruiting goals for second consecutive month
Service adds incentives in effort to reverse downward trend
By Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes European edition, Wednesday, April 6, 2005
ARLINGTON, Va. — With all three Army components once again missing their recruiting goals, service leaders quickly added another series of incentives in an effort to boost enlistments.
The active Army missed its recruiting goal in March by 32 percent, marking the second month in a row the component has not brought enough new soldiers into the fold, according to statistics from the U.S. Army’s Recruiting Command at Fort Knox in Kentucky. The last time the active Army missed any monthly recruiting targets at all was May 2000.
The Army Reserve, meanwhile, missed its March recruiting goal by 46 percent, the third month in a row the component’s recruiters have fallen short.
Fort Knox does not keep recruiting statistics for the Army National Guard, which is the responsibility of each state component, according to Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith.
On March 23, however, Army Secretary Francis Harvey told Pentagon reporters that the National Guard has met just 75 percent of its recruiting goals. Harvey added that he expects recruiting shortfalls for all three components to continue throughout April.
With just six months left before the end of the government’s fiscal 2005, it is unclear how much longer any of the Army’s components can afford to miss monthly enlistment goals before their year-end targets are hopelessly out of sight.
Active Army recruiters have been told to sign 80,000 new recruits by the end of fiscal 2005, or Sept. 30. Army Reserve recruiters are supposed to find 22,175 enlistees. As of the end of March, however, the active Army had met 89 percent of its recruiting goal, short by 3,973 enlistees.
The Army Reserve, meanwhile, had met just 82 percent of its March goal, and was short by a total of 1,382 recruits for the year to date. Statistics for the National Guard for March were not available. But the Guard is the component senior Army leaders say provokes the most worry.
“I am cautiously optimistic about the reserve and the active component,” Harvey said March 23 when asked to assess the ability of the three Army components to meet year-end goals. But “obviously, I’m concerned about the National Guard,” he said.
In the past week, Army officials added three new enlistment incentives in an effort to reverse the negative recruiting trends:
***A test option in the Northeastern United States that allows recruits to serve three years in a Selected Reserve Troop Program Unit, or TPU, and the remainder of their eight-year military service obligation in the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR. In regions where the test is not under way, new recruits still have to commit to serve six years in an Army Reserve TPU and two years in the IRR in order to be eligible for enlistment bonuses, which max out at $10,000.
***A new $6,000 Army Reserve bonus for Officer Candidate School or Warrant Officer Candidate Flight Training candidates who apply to serve in concentrations including aviation, ordnance, transportation, petroleum supply, engineer and health services.
***A boost in the translator enlistment bonus from $7,000 to $10,000 for individuals with Middle East language skills who join the IRR.
NG & AR numbers are down very low and it cannot continue, but it will.
Weekend warriors don't want to be considered active duty troops....they have jobs and families.
If they're going to be deployed constantly, then these guys might as well join the active army. I'm sure that's what they're thinking.
And since they don't want to join the active army, then they're not joining the AR/NG.
In there minds, there is no difference. Therefore, there is no option.
One of the problems just may be Veteran considerations. Recently there has been a drastic increase in Veteran's benefits such as concurent pay for retirees and disability. People who go in the service watch these things and wonder where they all were in the first place.
I feel a draft.
"If they're going to be deployed constantly, then these guys might as well join the active army. I'm sure that's what they're thinking."
During my years as an Army Reserve officer (1982-1993) the Guard/Reservist thought only in terms of a world war and fighting Russians or some other super power. The Gulf War changed that thinking some, but not too greatly in that it didn't last that long and it seemed like an emergency similar to a world war. Plus, they didn't mobilize that many combat type troops, just support (supply, medical, etc.) I left service shortly after Clinton took office in 1993.
In my opinion, it was his (Clinton's) use of reserve/guard units in Kosovo/Bosnia that really started people to looking hard at being in the Reserve/Guard. Then when the WOT started and many were (with necessity) mobilized at first stateside for homeland protection and then units were sent to the Mideast in various assignments. Plus, the conflict has been going on since 2001 and no clear end is apparent, then the perception that the Guard/Reserve were really not that much different than regulars took hold.
There has been a profound paradigm shift in what Guard/Reserve duty means. In some ways I think this is a good thing in that I knew many, many Guard/Reserve members that served over 20 years in that capacity and never saw any active duty. However, as you have pointed out, most folks don't have jobs that will let them be called off on a regular basis. All the "legal protections" in the world cannot stop employers from being biased against hiring these folks. So, we can't sustain a Guard/Reserve force that has a high probability of mobilization on a regular basis, and in less than world war situations.
The obvious answer, which Rumsfeld refuses to entertain, is to increase the regular army's size a great deal. I would speculate that four(4) more divisions are needed (two light ones -air assault or airborne, and two heavy ones - armour or mech infantry). Then the Guard/Reserve could go back to being a strategic reserve that isn't called upon so often.
Of course, we would really have a time manning those new divisions. More parents are going to have to stop thinking, "I support the military, but not with my son going." In my own family I have nephews that are at or approaching military age, and their mothers get freaky at the idea of them serving, as I have suggested to them they should do, while at the same time talk about how they support the war effort? My own son is only 9 years old. I hope that when he reaches military age I will encourage him to serve, and not just leave it to someone else's son.
Trends. Project the lines beyond fiscal 05.
How are the other services doing? Is there a web site for that?
The answer to all this is simple. Increase combat pay SUBSTANTIALLY. If the average soldier in Iraq were pulling down $100,000 a year and the elites among them were getting twice that, there would be more volunteers than the pentagon could handle. It wouldn't even cost that much more than we're already paying since salaries are a small percentage of the cost of the war.
And increase Hazardous Duty Pay!!!!!!
"The answer to all this is simple. Increase combat pay SUBSTANTIALLY."
I agree with you that this should be done, however it WILL NOT work to increase recruitment to the reserve. Many times reserve forces are not actually sent into what would be considered a combat zone. For instance an OKARNG Infantry Brigade just came home from a tour in the Mideast. They were not sent to Iraq or Afganistan, they did "peace keeping" in the Sinai as a substitute for regular forces that used to do this duty. This is not a combat zone, and there is no combat pay. Many times the reserves are used to take over more mundane tasks to free regular units for combat duty.
Pay the full-timers what the market requires and we'll have no shortage of volunteers to work in the Sinai.
Not to pick a fight, because pragmatically I agree, but reservists take the same oath as active duty folks do--and that isn't to serve when there's an emergency. More money for soldiers is great; they work hard and put everything at risk. But we don't have a problem because of pay. We have a problem because the best of the military-age population has already volunteered, and many of the rest don't consider it duty or an honor to serve their nation's defense. The problem is cultural.
perhaps just lowering the age of retirement pay to something reasonable, like 50 or 55......
Perhaps this is reflected in the article posted here recently in which a woman widowed by this war is receiving $12,000 for the death of her husband.
If life is that cheap something is very wrong.
The problem with that philosophy is that it makes recruitment for the reserves darn near impossible. When people sign up for the reserves they're signing up to be part-timers. If we're going to frequently activate them and send them all over the globe then it's not a part time job anymore.
Agree completely. That's why Rumsfeld better get busy doing something. All I'm getting at is that no matter what motivates soldiers to sign up, it's pretty clear when you go through the process what risks you are taking. I've had the unique pleasure of going through MEPs twice--first as a reservist, and five years later for active duty. It was the same ceremony in the same Pittsburgh MEP station room and the same oath.
Incidentally, one of the reasons I posted earlier was a "conversation" I witnessed in 1988 between an irate drill sergeant and a recruit dumb enough to say he just wanted the college money and the country could go to hell. I agree they are being used in a way they didn't expect--but the blame falls in two places: those who signed for unpatriotic reasons, and the government that doesn't have the political will to treat our soldiers like the heroes they are. Better pay, increased strength, better benefits. Take every penny we dump into welfare and give it to them. Take every dime of pork and give it to them. Hell, fire half of Washington's machine and give it to them. Until this country reflects its gratefulness with more than words, recruiting will suffer.
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.