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.
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.