Posted on 12/13/2005 10:24:34 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
The Army has exceeded recruiting goals in the first two months of this fiscal year, reversing a trend that had some Iraq critics saying the armed services branch was "broken."
The Pentagon yesterday said the Army signed up 5,856 recruits in November, 5 percent above its goal. It previously announced the Army also exceeded its target in October, the first month of the 2006 fiscal year.
The Army has that hit its recruiting mark for six straight months, a promising development for the Bush administration. President Bush's critics had cited the Army's failure to achieve its recruiting goals in fiscal 2005 as proof that the war in Iraq is breaking the force.
Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and one of the party's chief Iraq war critics, has called the Army "broken" and urged the White House to withdraw all U.S. troops from the country.
But Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the service is more confident of filling the ranks as the recruiting year unfolds.
"Part of the reason is it's like steering a boat," he said. "The changes we made in the last year take a while to take effect."
Those changes included putting more recruiters on the street and offering specific assignment incentives. If a high school graduate was willing to commit to the 3rd Infantry Division bound for Iraq, for example, he could receive a bonus of several thousand dollars. Enlistees can receive up to a $20,000 bonus depending on the length of commitment and their job skills. The Army also changed its ad campaign to focus more on patriotism.
"I think the Army as a whole is working harder at recruiting," Col. Hilferty said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The sickening scumbags on the left do all they can to disrupt recruitment. To me, that is TREASON!
So it didn't really reverse a trend. It reinforced the existing trend. Which is to hit or exceed the recruiting goal each month.
Thanks for posting this! I hope Mr. Mirthless chokes on his words! This sure doesn't sound like a "broken" Army to me!
I also found it interesting that the army now is only 1/3 of the military. Wasn't the military ratio formerly something like 10 army soldiers to 6 navy seamen, 3 in the air force and 1 marine?
GO ARMY!
Democrats are deeply saddened.
Murtha is an IDIOT. And whatever brave past he had is being wiped out by his chicken-little, chicken-s**t rantings.
I noticed a blue star flag (meaning son/daughter in service) in the window of a family I had a slight acquaintance with. I called them and thanked them for their son's service and for their support and concern for him. His mother was pleased I called.
I did it as I think we all should let service families know the rest of us appreciate what they are doing for our country.
Don't know what it is today, but the Army's goals used to be the equivalent of replacing the entire USMC each year.
Army recruiters were expected to take at least 40% of the market share.
That's pretty tough in small schools where only 3-4 enlist each year!
A good start. The biggest obstacle to recruiting, however, is not the Iraq War, but a good economy! If we continue expanding prosperity across the nation, it will get more & more difficult for our hard-charging new recruiters out pounding the pavement.
The only recruiting (and retention) goals missed were for women. Overall, the regular military and reserves have been meeting or exceeding their recruiting and retention goals all along.
What has not been mentioned is that the military has all-time high numbers volunteering for Rangers, Special Forces, SEALS, etc. Their only problem is trying to increase class size to meet the new demand without sacrificing quality. Or rigor.
Interesting. This could be taken several ways.
I could not possibly agree more with you! I just want to know why so many sheeple listen to these dimwits!
Yes, I checked... In 1964, the army:marine ration was better than 5:1. But the Air Force was huge, much bigger than the navy! I had no idea. Army:air force: marine was about 5:4:1. By 2002, the marines had contracted only slightly, while the army was much less than half its old size.
What these news stories neglect to mention is that the old Army enlistment targets were about 70,000, and as recently as 1995, only 57,000. Today, the target is 80,000.
4 reasons:
1) The MSM has drifted so far to the left over the last 30 years and many sheeple believe that the NY Times and its ilk is still news.
2) They do not teach civics, history, and logic to youngsters in the public schools. Or what is taught is influenced by the cancerous NEA.
3) The welfare state has created a dependent class of people who grew up thinking they are "owed" something by this country. In turn, they identify with the welfare party.....the democrats and tend to believe them.
4) Until recent years, conservatives have been content to sit on the sidelines and shake their heads. No more.
"The welfare state has created a dependent class of people who grew up thinking they are "owed" something by this country. In turn, they identify with the welfare party.....the democrats and tend to believe them."
This is the only area where I just slightly deviate from your opinion. I think the welfare class are the ones who've been sitting on the sidelines with their hands out. It takes more than they are willing to pull out of themselves to stand up and pick themselves up and get a life.
The smart ones are beginning to see that the Dems have done them a dire disservice in 'keeping them down' in the welfare pits. The lazy ones would prefer to just sit and 'blame whitey' as Cosby put it!
Also...the Army normally relies on prior service enlistments for a small, but important number of their volume.
Not only are reenlistments high, but with the reserve and guard activated, there are fewer prior service type available.
That is why they're making offers to other service vets to fill the gaps. Smart move IMO.
And to get 80k accessions (those that actually ship to basic training) they'll need about 20% more contracts written to cover medical/moral DQ's as well as those that back out.
Oh they have been doing that. But the demonrats round them up every election cycle to go vote to keep the bennies coming. And yes, more are realizing what a pathetic trap that liberalism is, but not nearly enough. One of these days the black community is going to snap out of it and realize that the dems are the modern plantation owners.
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.