The problem doesn't look as bad at the Times would like us to think. The real news was the drop in '02 and '03, and the fact that the attrition is still low in '04, '05 and '06.
Posted on 04/10/2006 8:20:44 AM PDT by 68skylark
WASHINGTON, April 9 — Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.
It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.
Mirroring the problem among West Pointers, graduates of reserve officer training programs at universities are also increasingly leaving the service at the end of the four-year stint in uniform that follows their commissioning.
To entice more to stay, the Army is offering new incentives this year, including a promise of graduate school on Army time and at government expense to newly commissioned officers who agree to stay in uniform for three extra years. Other enticements include the choice of an Army job or a pick of a desirable location for a home post.
The incentives resulted in additional three-year commitments from about one-third of all new officers entering active duty in 2006, a number so large that it surprised even the senior officers in charge of the program. But the service's difficulty in retaining current captains has generals worriedly discussing among themselves whether the Army will have the widest choice possible for its next generation of leaders.
The program was begun this year to counter pressures on junior officers to leave active duty, including the draw of high-paying jobs in the private sector; the desires of a spouse for a calmer civilian quality of life...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
For those who want to serve, this is a good time to be in uniform -- the opportunities have never been better.
AND, the issue would be?
The problem doesn't look as bad at the Times would like us to think. The real news was the drop in '02 and '03, and the fact that the attrition is still low in '04, '05 and '06.
Keep the trash off the board from a intrety-challanged rag like the NYT. Not worth reading, let alone responding to IMHO.
Everything is relative with the NYT. All depends on how they are slanting things today.
*IF* there were any truth to this, it's the result of publications such as the NY Times which is determined to sink the ship of State. Where's their patriotism?
The U.S. Army has a shortage of officers. This has been a long-term issue -- starting back in the early 1990's when the Army got a little carried away with their downsizing. This slowly-developing problem has become more acute in the last few years, and the Army is getting more serious about trying to correct the issue.
The times got it right for once - these guys can write their own ticket in the civilian world. It is really hard to hire them.
"The real news was the drop in '02 and '03,"
Where was the Times on that one?
Also, it seems to me that NCO's have become a whole lot more professional in the last 10-20 years -- a lot of these talented folks take real pride in being great NCO's, and they don't have much desire to go to OCS.
Gee, a certain percentage of officers leave when their committment is fulfilled. BIG SHOCK!!!!!!!!
nobody cares about a shortage of timid oficers,
if there was a shortage of NCOs or DIs,
I would be concerned
I cannot read the rest of the article since I don't buy the NYT. I've been told that the headline is clarified near the end of the story.
Ouch.
I don't buy it either. You can register for free and get access to most articles (like this one). You can also try http://www.bugmenot.com.
So, in other words, the graph tells us that Bill Clinton's presidency drove a higher percentage of young officers out of the military than the Iraq War has.
Since this is the NYT is have no reason to believe it.
I have friends in the army and they do not seem to have such "issues".
This is pure NYT wishful thinking and an effort to push their let homos in the military agenda. (iow we need to let homos into the army because we are short handed)
NYT=lie
I would submit the drop is the Clinton era military blue helmet types who were bailing because they could not advance their careers in a real army vs a PC army.
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.