Posted on 08/24/2005 8:46:05 AM PDT by kellynla
Recent media coverage has given extended time to the Army's difficulties in signing new recruits while largely ignoring the phenomenal recent success in getting combat veterans to re-enlist.
The Army is already far ahead of the pace needed to reach its goal of persuading 64,162 current enlisted men, from privates to top sergeants, to commit to additional service.
Among elite units bearing the brunt of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, overwhelming numbers want to return to the fight: the 82nd Airborne, for instance, reached an astonishing 97 percent of its yearly re-enlistment goal by the end of May!
These numbers show that alarming press coverage of fighting in Iraq may scare away some civilians from military service, but those who know the situation first hand feel disproportionately eager to continue the struggle.
Despite any stateside skepticism, the rising numbers of reenlistments prove that our men and women in uniform overwhelmingly believe in their mission, and want to insure its ultimate success
My difficulty comes from the fact that I don't listen to, read, or watch, MSM.
I have better uses for my time (polishing my nails, combing my hair, walking my pet fish, breathing, going potty, playing "Farkel" with friends, etc.).
Perhaps if a great many more of us did that (or didn't do that, whatever....), the MSM would go away.
To me, whether they go away nor not...it's all the same.
Well said. I'm also surprised by the amount of "veterans" (read that as 40 something turds like me) that want to get back into the action. I've been looking at jobs from KBR because I'm to old to re-enlist now, but hey.....I'm not to old to serve.
I don't know. This met our quota vs. didn't meet our quota mantra seems to change like the weather in Chicago. Watched an interview on Fox this morning with an Army General who admitted they would fall short of meeting their quota for the year.
You are confusing "new enlistment" quotas with "reenlistments".
"You are confusing "new enlistment" quotas with "reenlistments"."
Yes. I should have been clearer, but still, it seems like the overall numbers seem to fit whatever side you're on. And of course, there's the Charlie Rangel draft argument tha treaaly stirs the pot.
"it seems like the overall numbers seem to fit whatever side you're on"
"overall numbers?"
there is no "overall number" discussed.
The MSM has been reporting "new enlistments" and Michael Medved is talking about "reenlistments."
just as Michael Medved & I have noted.
The press, Charlie Rangel and the rest of the naysayers have only been talking about "new enlistments."
Medved and I are talking about "REENLISTMENTS!"
which has not been reported by the MSM.
And if you can't tell the difference then I can't help you. LOL
You're missing the point of my general observation vs. the theme of the article. If you're like my wife, I'm sure you'll want to get in the last word. Go right ahead.
not a matter of getting in the "last word"
the whole point of the article was the fact that the MSM has not reported the HUGE number of "reenlistments"
end of story
gezzzzzzzzzzz
I don’t think that's having too much affect because active duty forces aren’t as affected. This is more a reserve problem.
bttt. kudos for the professionals.
You know the MSM can't report "good news!" That would be reporting "propoganda." (sarcasm)
It's past time to call the mainstream media what they are: the anti-American media (AAM).
The old media is irrelevant, we don't depend on them for news anymore unless we wish to rip them apart. They're nothing more than a cat toy to us these days.
I would be very disappointed if the new media didn't report it but we all know they have it covered.
the 82nd Airborne, for instance, reached an astonishing 97 percent of its yearly re-enlistment goal by the end of May!
Airborne!
Here in LA there are killings 24/7.
If you're going to get shot at anyway, might as well be somewhere you can shoot back.
Reminding me that The North won the Civil War because of its volunteers. At the end of their enlistments, they chose in great numbers to reup.
US active military peaked at 3.1 million in 1969. In 1973 with the end of Vietnam and the draft, we were down to about 2 million soldiers. We stayed at around 2 million until Reagan added about 200,000 more soldiers and we peaked again in 1987 with 2.18 million. From 1987 to 1992 we declined by 375, 000 to 1.8 million. During the 1st 4 years of Clinton our military declined by about a 100,000 soldiers a year. The following 4 years had small reductions until by 2000 we had 1.38 million active soldiers. In Dubya’s first four years we added 50,000 soldiers bringing us to 1.43 million. From late 2004 till last June we have declined about 43,000 soldiers bringing us back to 2000 levels of 1.38 million. In July soldier strength rose 3,000.
BTTT, Thanks for the good news K.
I'm betting the media spins the reenlistment numbers into an unemployment issue, i.e. people are signing back up because they know there's no jobs to be had.
Unfortunately for them, the data does not support that contention. 5% Unemployment is what Economists define as "Full Employment". We have been at 5% for quite a while now.
I'm betting the media spins the reenlistment numbers into an unemployment issue, i.e. people are signing back up because they know there's no jobs to be had.
Unfortunately for them, the data does not support that contention. 5% Unemployment is what Economists define as "Full Employment". We have been at 5% for quite a while now.
Army General who admitted they would fall short of meeting their quota for the year.
Was he talking about Reserves or Active Duty?
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.