Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

West Point grads leaving U.S. Army
upi ^

Posted on 04/12/2007 8:59:57 PM PDT by PAUL REVERE TODAY

WASHINGTON, April 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army is struggling to convince recent West Point graduates to make the military their career. Recent graduates of the U.S. Military Academy are exiting active duty at the highest rate in more than three decades, the Boston Globe reported Wednesday. Many military specialists say repeated tours in Iraq are driving out some of the Army's best and brightest young officers.

Of the 903 officers who graduated from West Point in 2001, nearly 46 percent left the service in 2006. More than 54 percent of the 935 graduates in the class of 2000 had left active duty by this January, Army statistics showed.

In most years during the last three decades, between 10 percent and 30 percent of West Point graduates opted out after their mandatory five years of service, the newspaper reported.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: army; military; officers; westpoint
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-229 next last
To: Danette

’ AND there is no point in making the military your career when they’re slowly taking away healthcare for when they retire.’

LOL, that’s a good reason for a military career! And I thought it was just for college money and travel to exotic places.


61 posted on 04/13/2007 9:38:48 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
No, f_f, I don't believe I will. I've looked at some of your posts and have recognized that such an endeavor would be a waste of my time.

Have a lovely day!

62 posted on 04/13/2007 9:57:42 AM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Quiet Down Out There!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PAUL REVERE TODAY

We should. We need more troops, more officers, so we just don’t rotate the same guys/gals over and over again. Again, if we are going to sustain two wars, for the next 5-10 years, you gotta have the manpower. Otherwise, in the immortal words of Rumsfeld, you go to war with the officers you have left, not what you wished you had.


63 posted on 04/13/2007 10:01:41 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: PAUL REVERE TODAY
No one wants a battlefield command with the current rules of engagement. Get rid the PC attitude and JAGS and we’ll see how many officers leave.
64 posted on 04/13/2007 10:04:49 AM PDT by miliantnutcase ("If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -ichabod1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middie

Sadly, I must agree with you, middie. We have had to watch our beloved country go down the tube to outright Communism. All the warnings of all the signs I’ve made were met with rolling eyes, which broke my heart over and over. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. God bless us all, and God bless America!


65 posted on 04/13/2007 10:38:01 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( Duncan Hunter '08 (Read Ultra Sonic 007's profile))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PAUL REVERE TODAY
Academy grads are required to serve five years and more if they take money for grad school. They repay the debt.

I don't believe the Globe's numbers for the 1970's, the year groups I'm most familiar with. A lot of Pointers got out then, too.

That said, we do need a bigger Army. This rate of deployment puts too much pressure on families and will lead to people leaving the service.

66 posted on 04/13/2007 10:43:23 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB
Many ROTC grads have achieved 4 star positions. Casey, Schoomaker, and Shelton come to mind.

BTW, do you remember the post Vietnam era wherein the RIF also included, for the first time, USMA grads?

67 posted on 04/13/2007 11:15:42 AM PDT by verity (Muhammed is a Dirt Bag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Thus, the candidate pool was tilted toward the "free education, five-and-out" contingent.

Oh, horsecrap. There's easier ways for people that talented to get a free education than enduring West Point.

68 posted on 04/13/2007 11:17:50 AM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: verity
It seems to me that those leaving because of repeated tours in Iraq are NOT the Army's best.

Have you done multiple tours in Iraq, or are you another one of these keyboard commandos who talks big on FR?

69 posted on 04/13/2007 11:20:56 AM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PAUL REVERE TODAY
Do a lot of the graduates that leave the military in peace time go to West Point for the free education? I had no idea the rate of officers from West Point leaving the Army was this high.

what's happening is that the people that graduate are serving their required 4/6 year terms and THEN leaving. They are not breaking any contracts or anything; it's just that a military career is looking less and less appealing for a variety of reasons (low pay, chance of prosecution for actually fighting a war, PCness and other stuff)

70 posted on 04/13/2007 11:21:18 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Killing all of your enemies without mercy is the only sure way of sleeping soundly at night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
I wonder how many are actually Clinton era students who fought to get in for the education, prestige and couldn’t wait to get out to move on to something better?

People who go to the military academies don't attend on a whim. For almost all of them it's the culmination of a process that they started in junior high, and anyone who honestly believes that the motivation of those who feel called to military service are different under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents are damned idiots.

71 posted on 04/13/2007 11:23:42 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jude24
I completed multiple tours in Vietnam with MACV and my son has completed multiple tours in IRAQ with the 101st Airborne.

What is your follow-up question?

72 posted on 04/13/2007 11:39:12 AM PDT by verity (Muhammed is a Dirt Bag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: LadyNavyVet

Hey, wait a minute. This morass is not Bill Clinton’s fault. Cohen was a damn good SecDef and DoD was well run and effective. I’m not Clinton devotee, but the truth is the truth and that allegation is ass-backwards. The force was in fairly good shape to carry out the National Strategic Plan after the Bush I creation of the two-war concept. If there’s anything at which the Clinton administration failed, it was the understanding of logistics and the need to keep resupply depots stocked with spare parts. Otherwise, the fielded force was well trained, properly led and efficient. Please keep ideology out of the equation pre-2000. This 100% GWB’s war, no one else’s.


73 posted on 04/13/2007 11:47:21 AM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PAUL REVERE TODAY
This story is utter bravo sierra---an example of advocacy journalism at its most blatant and destructive. The author of the Globe piece, Bryan Bender, attempted to draw a correlation between the retention rates at the end of the service commitment for two Woop classes, 2000 and 2001, and the war in Iraq by suggesting that "military experts" are concerned the dip in rates has to do with Iraq deployments. Bender burned seven paragraphs to prove that there was a noticeable dip in retention rates for these classes, but it wasn't until the eighth paragraph (which ran on A14 of the Globe, by the by, after the story appeared as the feature first page story) he attempted to draw a link between that and Iraq . . . which he did by quoting a Democrat Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed.

Reed was the only "expert" Bender quoted, and Reed's "proof" was extremely anecdotal at best---something about the operational tempo as a result of Iraq.

As we Freepers well know, correlation does not prove causation. Just because you take a piss every morning before the sun comes up doesn't mean your piss causes the sunrise.

Bender, the Globe and UPI thinks you're all a bunch of idiots. Don't bite off on this BS.

Oh, and by the way:

BEAT ARMY


74 posted on 04/13/2007 11:48:51 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix
Many West Pointers are by the way, political appointees, of a sort.

Not even remotely in the sense of the expression as its commonly used when discussing politics. Everyone who aspires to attend a military academy has to fight for an "appointment" first, from a senator or congressman, but the candidate's personal politics do not factor into the equation. Nor does the politician typically have anything to do with you if he or she gives you his or her nomination. It's just a process you go through when applying to a service academy.

I got John Kerry's nomination. I'm a Freeper. You do the math.

75 posted on 04/13/2007 11:52:54 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LadyNavyVet
GWB viewed the undertaking of this war as an essentially riskless enterprise. He --and thus Rumsfeld--took a casual approach to the military effort. They were deluded and their understanding of the lesson of Gulf war I was that it was predicted to be a painless war without a significant incident of American or British deaths. GWB saw war with Iraq as casualty free and the US effort as trivial.

In fact, the actual invasion and deposing of Saddam was consistent with that belief. It was the total lack of understanding how to occupy a defeated nation and stabilize it that caused the present international insurgency confronting our troops. The rejection of real generals who attempted to tell truth to power and the interposition of their own arm chair Commander in Chief phoney baloney strattegy, like Adolph and his General Staff in the early 1940s and Saddam in Gulf War I, neither bush nor Rumsfeld had any idea of how to accomplish the mission. And when the generals told them how much in error they were, it was retirement or banishment to the boondogs for those guys. They then rolled in the Perfumed Prince Generals who told the dumb president and his even dumber SecDef that whatever they chose to do could be accomplished easily and with very few troops.

Bush and his cabal are a travesty and monument to ineptitude born of ignorance and arrogance.

76 posted on 04/13/2007 12:00:52 PM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: middie
The force was in fairly good shape to carry out the National Strategic Plan after the Bush I creation of the two-war concept.

No it wasnt.

If you'll recall through the '90s we went from: "Have the ability to fight and win two wars simultaneously"
to
"Have the ability to fight and win two wars very nearly simultaneously."
to
"Have the ability to fight and win one war and delay one regional conflict simultaneously."
to
"Have the ability to fight one war and one regional conflict very nearly simultaneously."

That was the force GW Bush got when he entered the oval office.

I watched as the Army was cut in half.

As far as the Iraq "morass", would you have preferred that we had enforced the sanctions and no-fly-zone indefinitely?

At what point would policing the No-fly-zones and enforcing the sanctions cost as much as a war?

77 posted on 04/13/2007 12:12:14 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (There's an open road from the cradle to the tomb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: middie
Bush and his cabal are a travesty and monument to ineptitude born of ignorance and arrogance.

Really, calling an elected US President and his cabinet a 'cabal' makes you look dumb... and rabid....

Pretty much you got it all in there: "Troof to powah", "Bush is Hitler", "Rumsfeld is stupid", "absence of real generals".

I think you hit all the leftist agitprop points there.

Me? I'm still enjoying my General Shitsacki Self Esteem Beret.

78 posted on 04/13/2007 12:17:50 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (There's an open road from the cradle to the tomb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jude24

sounds like verity is an armchair general.


79 posted on 04/13/2007 12:26:43 PM PDT by art_rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Since you feel I must be one of what you call a “damned idiot,” does that negate my 8 years active duty U.S. Army, including 18 months boots on the ground Viet Nam, mid 69 to Jan. 71?

Some of us “damned idots” may not be as ignorant as you think about the military!


80 posted on 04/13/2007 12:29:56 PM PDT by DakotaRed (Democrats don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-229 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson