Posted on 03/03/2005 10:31:20 AM PST by Righty_McRight
WASHINGTON - In what could be a troubling sign for the military, the active-duty Army missed its February recruiting goal by more than 27%. It was the first time in almost five years that the Army has failed to meet a monthly target.
The Army signed up 5,114 recruits in February, 1,936 fewer than its goal of 7,050. The last time the Army missed a monthly target was in May 2000.
The February shortfall is especially worrisome because it comes as the Army is trying to lure recruits with the largest enlistment bonuses it has ever offered: up to $20,000 to some recruits willing to sign on for four years. The Pentagon (news - web sites) has also been adding thousands of recruiters for the Army and other branches.
Doug Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox in Kentucky, attributed the shortfall in part to competition from the improving economy and parents' fears that their children could be injured or killed in Iraq (news - web sites). As of Wednesday, nearly 1,500 U.S. servicemembers had died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003.
Smith also said the Army has used up many of its "delayed entry" recruits - people who agree to sign up, but whose enlistment is delayed until later for their convenience or the Army's. Last year, the Army rushed several thousand recruits in the delayed entry program into basic training to meet its 2004 recruiting target. Normally, those recruits would have been available this year to boost recruiting numbers.
"It's just going to be a rough year," Smith said.
The Marine Corps missed its monthly target in January for the first time in nearly 10 years, but it met its February goal.
David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland who monitors personnel trends, said the Army's February numbers reflect the extraordinary demands on the nation's ground forces and the uneasiness many Americans feel about the war in Iraq.
"We all knew this was coming if you looked at what is happening in the Army Guard and Army Reserve," Segal said, pointing to recruiting problems in those two part-time military forces. "The question was not whether it would happen to the Army, but when."
The active-duty Army needs to recruit 80,000 new soldiers this year - 3,000 more than last year - to replenish its ranks. Segal said he does not think the Army will achieve that goal.
Guard and reserve recruiting has lagged. Through January, four months into a recruiting year that runs from October 2004 through September 2005, the Army Guard was almost 24% behind its recruiting target. Figures were unavailable for February. The Army Reserve was about 10% below its recruiting target through February.
The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve are part-time forces made up of soldiers who train typically one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer in peacetime. That has changed dramatically, however. Guard and reserve troops now make up about 40% of the full-time U.S. troops in Iraq.
February's results are the first sign that recruiting problems plaguing the Guard and reserve are spreading to the active force.
Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said several Army generals told him last year that recruiting was likely to "fall off a cliff" in 2005. "I think this spells a major recruiting shortfall for the Army," he said.
My father lost two cousins on Guadalcanal.
The reason why I got out in 2002 after 22 years in service was because I could no longer keep up with guys half my age. I was, therefore, a liability to the unit. The true test of a warrior is to know when he must turn the reins over to the next generation. Anything else is just ego and misplaced testosterone talking.
Righty_McRight
Since Feb 19, 2005
CAREFUL!
Last I heard they had managed to get fewer than 200 people to transfer from the Air Force and Navy to the Marines and Army.
Well, I don't think that the government will just say never mind to an army and we deserve what happens to us. This is 2005, and people think differently than they did 50-60 yr ago.
We need another invasion, or a bigger, better enemy?
got it- I see where you're coming from...depending on your rank, etc...you can stay in a long time...I could have done 30 years of warrant officer service had I wanted to, which would have put me out right around 63 years old- the problem is, when you stretch into that middle 40's mark, you're really starting to slow down; you've already put in a couple of decades of wear and tear on your body- I could run a sub 12 minute two mile when I was 32, and even though I still work out everyday, I can't come close to that now...when I got to where I couldn't push the 18 year olds, I knew it was time to go...but that's just me...
absolutely right...see my post 47...it's a young man's Army...if you can't lead from the front cause you can't keep up, it's time to hang up the spurs...
Yes, you are right, especially when you factor in the separation and stress for your family.
You are right. I didn't want to retire when I did, but I knew it was the right time, both for me and for my family. You have to go sooner or later and it's a bitch trying to find a job when your 48 years old. Still wish I was 30 years younger and 30 pounds lighter.
I'm not talking about the Blue to Green Program, I'm talking about end strength authorized by Congress. The Army and Marines will have 40,000 more NEW positions that need to be filled.
I was asking if anyone knows whether the end strength change has taken effect, thus sharply increased recruiting goals?
Double or triple their pay. Cut where needed. God knows that there are money pits would could realocate this money from. They just aren't being compensated enough to make the risk and hardship worth it. Double or triple the pay!
You're 22. What would it take to get you to enlist?
No wonder this is happening with all the seditious propaganda by the treasonous MSM. We are winning but you wouldn't know it by listening to the news.
Quit putting soldiers on trial for actions in combat that tick off some reporter.
We had a Medal of Honor recently -- that should have been a big story but it wasn't. And we could use a few more stories about the reality of Saddam's regime, and the noble reasons we liberated the country.
Not everyone is well suited for military service -- only a fraction of our young people meet all the requirements. I hope no one here will give anyone a hard time for choosing not to serve in the military -- those folks can (and do) serve their country in hundreds of other ways.
You're right. They're out their 24/7 waiting for our soldiers to do something bad. They put no effort into reporting the good stuff.
You'll get no arguement on that from me. People enlist for a variety of reasons, call to serve, patriotism, a desire to return something to their country, even adventure and travel. It was my experience that money was pretty far down the list. But JBlain seems to think that it's all a matter of throwing more cash at people. I was wondering if that would work for him, and if it wouldn't then what made him think it would work for others?
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.