Army in Worst Recruiting Slump in Decades

[SLCPUNK]

WASHINGTON - The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.

Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger ? perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million ? in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service.

Officials insist the slump is not a crisis.

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the recruiting shortfall this year does not matter greatly ? for now.

"The bad news is that any shortfall shows how hard it would be to increase the Army's size by 50,000 or more as many of us think appropriate," O'Hanlon said. "We appear to have waited too long to try."

The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest ? in absolute number as well as in percentage terms ? since 1979, according to Army records.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.

The active-duty Army had not missed its target since 1999, when it was 6,290 recruits short; in 1998 it fell short by 801, and in 1995 it was off by 33. Prior to that the last shortfall was in 1979 when the Army missed by 17,054 during a period when the Army was much bigger and its recruiting goals were double today's.

Army officials knew at the outset that 2005 would be a tough year to snag new recruits. By May it was obvious that after four consecutive months of coming up short there was little chance of meeting the full-year goal.

A summertime surge of signups offered some hope the slump may be ending. An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, said that despite the difficulties, recruiters were going full speed as the end of fiscal year 2005, Sept. 30, arrived.

"We have met the active Army's monthly recruiting goals since June, and we expect to meet it for September, which sends us into fiscal year 2006 on a winning streak," Hilferty said. He also noted that the Army has managed to meet its re-enlistment goals, even among units that have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there are compelling reasons to think that Army recruiters are heading into a second consecutive year of recruiting shortfalls.

The outlook is dimmed by several key factors, including:

? The daily reports of American deaths in Iraq and the uncertain nature of the struggle against the insurgency have put a damper on young people's enthusiasm for joining the military, according to opinion surveys.

? The Army has a smaller-then-usual reservoir of enlistees as it begins the new recruiting year on Saturday. This pool comes from what the Army calls its delayed-entry program in which recruits commit to join the Army on condition that they ship to boot camp some months later.

Normally that pool is large enough at the start of the recruiting year to fill one-quarter of the Army's full-year need. But it has dwindled so low that the Army is starting its new recruiting year with perhaps only 5 percent "in the bank." The official figure on delayed entry recruits has not been released publicly, although Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, has said it is the smallest in history.

The factors working against the Army, Hilferty said, are a strong national economy that offers young people other choices, and "continued negative news from the Middle East." To offset that the Army has vastly increased the number of recruiters on the street, offered bigger signup bonuses and boosted advertising.

Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., said in an interview that the Army would attract more recruits if it could offer shorter enlistments than the current three-year norm.

As it stands, the Army faces a tough challenge for the foreseeable future.

"The future looks even grimmer. Recruiting is going to get harder and harder," Moskos said.

[lynn1961]

I just hope that, if a slump continues, they don't reopen the draft.   

[Izzy]

But i thought Republicans loved the war? - surely they should be rushing to join this noble cursade against America's legitmiate enemies

No one wants to fight and die in an illegal war against an enemy like that...that so few are joining the ranks is testament to even moron's abilities to see an absurd war when they see it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

All we have to do is pull troops out of where we don't need them at this point. How many troops do we really need in Germany? The cold war is over.

It cracks me up when people call it an Illegal war. Saddam violated UN mandates and we enforced them. This isnt even bringing the WMD fiasco into it.

[sandman]

But i thought Republicans loved the war? - surely they should be rushing to join this noble cursade against America's legitmiate enemies

No one wants to fight and die in an illegal war against an enemy like that...that so few are joining the ranks is testament to even moron's abilities to see an absurd war when they see it.

so what you are saying is that anyone who is for the war (like myself and others on this board), are lower than a "moron"

nice insult.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The anti war left is all about pointing fingers and being extremely critical, maybe they should come up with real solutions instead of complaining because they are so partisan.

[Prometheus]

But i thought Republicans loved the war? - surely they should be rushing to join this noble cursade against America's legitmiate enemies

No one wants to fight and die in an illegal war against an enemy like that...that so few are joining the ranks is testament to even moron's abilities to see an absurd war when they see it.

so what you are saying is that anyone who is for the war (like myself and others on this board), are lower than a "moron"

nice insult.

next on spin factor........

[Surfrider]

First of all, the story is misleading.  The Army is getting just as many recruits as it has in recent years.  If you read the story it talks about how they are trying to increase the size of the army by 50,000.  The army is not reducing in size, it is getting larger.  Maybe their goals were too optimistic? 

Second, I have heard that the rest of the armed services have more than met their numbers.

Third, the US economy has a very low unemployment rate.  It doesn't surprise me that many won't join the military in an all volunteer army when they have jobs and are doing OK in private employment.

Finally, even if it is as bad as some may be alleging, it is understandable.  I understand the war was not the best option, but all anyone hears is negative, negative, negative things about the war and those that served.  They are dying for nothing? They are brainwashed?  I think it is understandable that the numbers would decline, but I am not sure that this is what is actually happening.


I am not exactly sure how this war is illegal?  However, most in the military believe in the cause.  Just because one is not holding a weapon doesn't mean they can't be in support of the war.  I am saying this as someone that thinks the war was a big mistake.

[Prometheus]

all fine and true, but if recruiting numbers are down they are down no matter if you are just tring to mathc attrican rates, expansion be left on one side basic recruiting numbers are down, recruiting figures/ goals, are set to match the attrician rates of the military so that there were always be someone coming in to fill voids left by departing members. so if your low your low, add in a 50k expansion ....... its going to take canada 5-10 yrs to do a 15k expansion of reg force, and our recruitment numbers are up. we jsut cant train them fast enough to make it faster. i would say to fill 50k new slots with numbers slightly above standard, ud be looking at 5yrs or more for teh us to fill them out.

again the story doe mis lead to a point but it does say that recruitment numbers are down to their lowest point since '79, and that they are tring to expand by 50k, so everything is there, you just have to look at it

[SLCPUNK]

All we have to do is pull troops out of where we don't need them at this point. How many troops do we really need in Germany? The cold war is over.

Yea, places like Lousianna.

If your solution was that simple, it would have been done already.

[sandman]

All we have to do is pull troops out of where we don't need them at this point. How many troops do we really need in Germany? The cold war is over.

Yea, places like Lousianna.

If your solution was that simple, it would have been done already.

there's no "solution" needed. we have more than enough troops right now.

and as B-riot pointed out. this story tells us very little. the Army fell short of its goal by almost 7,000 in 1999 and will be about the same this year. but it doesn't say what the goal was in 1999, or any other year. so we're not getting an accurate comparison.

[Izzy]

But i thought Republicans loved the war? - surely they should be rushing to join this noble cursade against America's legitmiate enemies

No one wants to fight and die in an illegal war against an enemy like that...that so few are joining the ranks is testament to even moron's abilities to see an absurd war when they see it.

so what you are saying is that anyone who is for the war (like myself and others on this board), are lower than a "moron"

nice insult.

Thanks,

if you can't see the war for what it is and for the damage its done, then i don't think ur a a moron - but i do pity u

[sandman]

But i thought Republicans loved the war? - surely they should be rushing to join this noble cursade against America's legitmiate enemies

No one wants to fight and die in an illegal war against an enemy like that...that so few are joining the ranks is testament to even moron's abilities to see an absurd war when they see it.

so what you are saying is that anyone who is for the war (like myself and others on this board), are lower than a "moron"

nice insult.

Thanks,

if you can't see the war for what it is and for the damage its done, then i don't think ur a a moron - but i do pity u

well good to see you backed off of your statement.

(obviously, only a fuckin pussy would stand behind that type of blanket statement.  afterall, i think we all agree that just because someone has a different viewpoint does NOT make them a moron). 

i was for invading iraq and taking out saddam years before this war started. so i was glad to see it finally taken care of. clinton threatened to do it. bush finally took care of it.

but there have been many mistakes made in the way and things have not been done effectively. that is disappointing and i expected a better plan and execution.

[Axls Locomotive]

(obviously, only a fuckin pussy would stand behind that type of blanket statement.  afterall, i think we all agree that just because someone has a different viewpoint does NOT make them a moron). 

just curious but dont morons have viewpoints?

[Izzy]

But i thought Republicans loved the war? - surely they should be rushing to join this noble cursade against America's legitmiate enemies

No one wants to fight and die in an illegal war against an enemy like that...that so few are joining the ranks is testament to even moron's abilities to see an absurd war when they see it.

so what you are saying is that anyone who is for the war (like myself and others on this board), are lower than a "moron"

nice insult.

Thanks,

if you can't see the war for what it is and for the damage its done, then i don't think ur a a moron - but i do pity u

well good to see you backed off of your statement.

I did?

obviously, only a fuckin pussy would stand behind that type of blanket statement.

I'd be a 'fuckin pussy' for viewing anyone that was prepared to go to Iraq and get himself killed in an absurd war as a 'moron'?

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

That recruiting figures have slumped indicates that behind America's flag waving right wing nonsense there is some sense - if u were all morons u'd be joining in the millions!

afterall, i think we all agree that just because someone has a different viewpoint does NOT make them a moron.?

Wrong. If someone has a viewpoint that is absurd (i.e this wonderful war is worth a fraction of the deaths its caused) then they most likely are a moron

i was for invading iraq and taking out saddam years before this war started. so i was glad to see it finally taken care of. clinton threatened to do it. bush finally took care of it.

Ironically enough so was I. I saw the error of my ways about 10 mins after the first bomb dropped

but there have been many mistakes made in the way and things have not been done effectively.

Many mistakes eh?

Like, maybe - there being no WMD's? Or perhaps the fact that tens of thousands of civilians have died as a result of the violence. Wait - perhaps the mistake was turning the Muslim world from hating us to actively trying to kill us?

Or maybe the thing that hasn't been done effectively is the fact that a war for oil yielded us no economic benefit whatsoever......

that is disappointing and i expected a better plan and execution.

No shit!

This rather poor 'battle plan' has turned a nation with a rather unpleasant leader into a bloodbath, opps

[Charity Case]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

Everything you said after this was ignored because this statement was so ignorant.  This is the dumbest thing I have read here in a long time.  Let me use your approach to describe this sentence.  If you think this war was about settling a score for Bush Sr. or for oil, then you must be a moron.   As the left likes to say all the time...show me a link.   

[Prometheus]

All we have to do is pull troops out of where we don't need them at this point. How many troops do we really need in Germany? The cold war is over.

Yea, places like Lousianna.

If your solution was that simple, it would have been done already.

there's no "solution" needed. we have more than enough troops right now.

and as B-riot pointed out. this story tells us very little. the Army fell short of its goal by almost 7,000 in 1999 and will be about the same this year. but it doesn't say what the goal was in 1999, or any other year. so we're not getting an accurate comparison.

total goal was 80k....... ways it right in the body of the article in plain english, looking at '79 the golas were about 160k and was missed by 17k..... FYI the us army size has not really changed since '97 so recruit goals would still be at around 75k higher personnel losses would make up for the 5k increase if there was one, i still think that 80k was a soild goal for the last 10yrs, the 30k increase in size will not start till next fiscal yr well now i guess, and the goal is not going to be 110k it will be more like 85k that would give a 6yr window to train the new recruits up and maintain the existing and exiting soilders

[SLCPUNK]

(obviously, only a fuckin pussy would stand behind that type of blanket statement.  afterall, i think we all agree that just because someone has a different viewpoint does NOT make them a moron). 

just curious but dont morons have viewpoints?

Do they ever.....

[SLCPUNK]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

Everything you said after this was ignored because this statement was so ignorant.  This is the dumbest thing I have read here in a long time.  Let me use your approach to describe this sentence.  If you think this war was about settling a score for Bush Sr. or for oil, then you must be a moron.   As the left likes to say all the time...show me a link.   

The oil link has been showed you more than once. But as usual, you are asking for it again.

Imagine that....

[Izzy]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

Everything you said after this was ignored because this statement was so ignorant.? This is the dumbest thing I have read here in a long time.? Let me use your approach to describe this sentence.? If you think this war was about settling a score for Bush Sr. or for oil, then you must be a moron.? ?As the left likes to say all the time...show me a link.? ?

 

Of course it wasn't for the oil

Strange that North Korea with proven WMD capabilities was left alone and yet Iraq was hit!

I wonder why! Maybe...err....let's see.....oil? Settle a score for Bush snr?

Maybe it was all that evidence that showed the 9/11 bombers were from Iraq - oh wait, no, ithey were from Saudia Arabia!

Or maybe the war was to help those poor Iraqi's being repressed - which would kind of beg the question, why not Sudan? (I'd imagine u won't even know what I mean by that)

Maybe u can offer a reason why North Korea which has developed, and threatens to use, its weapons was ignored (and is still ignored) but Iraq was hit despite no reliable evidence of WMD's being there at all?

U can do it!