NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON -- For the fifth year in a row, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command hit its fiscal year active-duty and Reserve recruiting goals.

As of Sept. 27, the command brought in 77,587 active Army recruits against a Department of the Army mission of 77,000, and 21,278 Reserve recruits against a 21,000 requirement.

"Recruiting Command has served the nation well for the past 40 years and I am positive it will continue to serve well for the next 40 years at least," said Maj. Gen. Michael E. Rochelle, Recruiting Command commanding general, during a media briefing at the command's Fort Knox, Ky. headquarters

Rochelle acknowledged that current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may be seen as a drawback by some young people who would otherwise serve. However, he said, those operations are seen by others as a call to serve a nation in need.

"There are hundreds in the training base that will tell you they want to make a difference," Rochelle said.

The current generation of young Soldiers is about as close to the "Greatest Generation" of the World War II era as you can get, Rochelle said. They are not asking, "What's in it for me?" like some recent generations and the nation is lucky to have them, he said.

The targets would have been a hell of a lot higher had they not forcibly re-enlisted a whole bunch of people who should have finished their service by now.

You know why they made it? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/01recruit.html) Because they've lowered their standards.
To help meet its recruiting objectives at a time when its forces are strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's recruiting command has lowered some goals for recruits.

The changes are among the clearest signs yet of the military’s growing problems in recruiting and retaining soldiers. They mean that many hundreds of prospective recruits who were likely to have been rejected last year could now be enlisted this year....

Army officials said Thursday that for the recruiting year that started this week, at least 90 percent of new recruits should be high school graduates, compared with 92 percent last year. And up to 2 percent of recruits can be enlisted even if they scored in the lowest acceptable range on a service aptitude test, compared with 1.5 percent last year....

Officials said Thursday that the Army met most of its goals for the 2004 recruiting year, which ended on Monday. The active-duty Army exceeded its recruiting target of 77,000 soldiers by 587, and the Army Reserve exceeded its goal of 21,200 by 78, according to Douglas Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command, at Fort Knox, Ky. But the Army National Guard missed its recruiting target of 56,000 soldiers by 5,000, the first shortfall by the Guard since 1994....

Typically, the Army wants to enter each recruiting cycle with a cushion of incoming volunteers whose entry has been deferred from the previous year - about 35 percent of the service's overall goal for the year. But several weeks ago the Army projected that it would reach only 25 percent, and officials said Thursday that the cushion was 18 percent.
So what does this all mean? They made their quota, but only by cutting into numbers they would normally have used to start the next year with (sound familiar?) and they're going to lower standards so they can accept more recruits in the future. And the Guard came up short.

It should also be noted that this is Army only--no mention of the Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

You know why they made it? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/01recruit.html) Because they've lowered their standards.

So what does this all mean? They made their quota, but only by cutting into numbers they would normally have used to start the next year with (sound familiar?) and they're going to lower standards so they can accept more recruits in the future. And the Guard came up short.

It should also be noted that this is Army only--no mention of the Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

Ah, selective editing by Eutrusca. Very nice.

Ah, selective editing by Eutrusca. Very nice.
Actually, I don't know where Eutrusca got his story from. I knew about this because there was some question about whether or not my brother-in-law and his wife were still IRR. They aren't, so we don't have to worry about either of them being called up, but I still follow it pretty closely.

Ah, selective editing by Eutrusca. Very nice.

Not "selective editing." The Army figures are the only ones I have.

You know why they made it? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/01recruit.html) Because they've lowered their standards.

So what does this all mean? They made their quota, but only by cutting into numbers they would normally have used to start the next year with (sound familiar?) and they're going to lower standards so they can accept more recruits in the future. And the Guard came up short.

It should also be noted that this is Army only--no mention of the Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

Further down in the article was this:

Speaking about a recent news article that claimed the Army had relaxed its entry standards in order to get recruits, Rochelle said the article was very misleading. The Army standard for the past five years has been for at least 90 percent of all recruits to be high school graduates. The lowest acceptable score of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, known as Category IV, to no more than two percent of all recruits, he said. Recruiting Command met those standards each of the past five years.

The targets would have been a hell of a lot higher had they not forcibly re-enlisted a whole bunch of people who should have finished their service by now.

Contrary to what you wish to believe, the military cannot "forcibly re-enlist" anyone. Once your term of service is up, if you choose to not re-enlist, you are discharged from military service on your DEROS date.

Actually, I don't know where Eutrusca got his story from. I knew about this because there was some question about whether or not my brother-in-law and his wife were still IRR. They aren't, so we don't have to worry about either of them being called up, but I still follow it pretty closely.

Recruiting Command hits active Army, Reserve recruiting goals
By Joe Burlas
Army News Service
October 01, 2004

Contrary to what you wish to believe, the military cannot "forcibly re-enlist" anyone. Once your term of service is up, if you choose to not re-enlist, you are discharged from military service on your DEROS date.


Ummm no. There's something called stop loss which prevents you from leaving once your time is up for a period until stop-loss ends.

Contrary to what you wish to believe, the military cannot "forcibly re-enlist" anyone. Once your term of service is up, if you choose to not re-enlist, you are discharged from military service on your DEROS date.
True, but they can stop-loss you, they can refuse to let you go when your tour is up if you're deemed irreplaceable, and they can threaten you with immediate redeployment to Iraq if you don't re-up, which is apparently what they did to some guys in Colorado, I believe.

True, but they can stop-loss you, they can refuse to let you go when your tour is up if you're deemed irreplaceable, and they can threaten you with immediate redeployment to Iraq if you don't re-up, which is apparently what they did to some guys in Colorado, I believe.

Stop loss comes from the Commandant/ Head of the Army or whoever down, its not something at the CO level. They can't "threaten" you with it because its not in their hands. If a stop loss is in place for a specific MOS though, the choice is between re-upping into a different MOS, unit, whatever, and possibly getting a bonus, or waiving that, staying in under your current MOS or getting shipped (back) to Iraq. Yeah it sucks, but don't add more to it than is already there.

The targets would have been a hell of a lot higher had they not forcibly re-enlisted a whole bunch of people who should have finished their service by now.

No one is every "forcibly re-enlisted". True, there is a stop-loss/stop-move, but that's different.

And before you say so, yes, it does mean that we serve beyond our tour. Few of us (soldiers) complain about it.

True, but they can stop-loss you, they can refuse to let you go when your tour is up if you're deemed irreplaceable, and they can threaten you with immediate redeployment to Iraq if you don't re-up, which is apparently what they did to some guys in Colorado, I believe.

If you're not under stop loss, "they" can't threaten you to do shit.

Stop loss comes from the Commandant/ Head of the Army or whoever down, its not something at the CO level. They can't "threaten" you with it because its not in their hands. If a stop loss is in place for a specific MOS though, the choice is between re-upping into a different MOS, unit, whatever, and possibly getting a bonus, or waiving that, staying in under your current MOS or getting shipped (back) to Iraq. Yeah it sucks, but don't add more to it than is already there.
I wasn't talking about being threatened with stop-loss, I was talking about this. (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8995&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported)
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) - Soldiers from a combat unit at Fort Carson say they have been told to re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq, the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday.
Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last week, two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity told the newspaper.

"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant.

The second soldier, an enlisted man, echoed that view: "They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not."
And if they've got you in Iraq and your tour expires, they don't necessarily have to send you back if they feel they need you.

I wasn't talking about being threatened with stop-loss, I was talking about this. (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8995&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported)

And if they've got you in Iraq and your tour expires, they don't necessarily have to send you back if they feel they need you.


Yeah this story isn't the soldiers being threatened. It may sound fucked up but they're being given an out. If there MOS is needed in other units or in Iraq, like I said, they're going to get reassigned and re-deployed. If they re-up, its a completely different process.

And your little comment there at the end is not at all how it works. They have people on a rotation right now. If you get delayed its because there's a kink in the rotation, either the individual isn't trained or there's some other kink meaning the person can't be deployed yet. There are no "tours" like Vietenam, no DEROS. You're deployed for an approximate period of time but that can be extended, as it states in those orders. And if your MOS is on stop loss, than it may be your only chance to get out is to re-up under a different MOS.

It wouldn't be the purpose of a draft to meet recruitment goals, at least not from the far left point of view. The idea is that it is mostly socially and economically disadvantaged youths that sign up. A draft would create some semblance of equal representation. Instead of poor kids being deployed by politicians that mostly hail from an upper-middle class background or higher, we would have an even mixture in the armed forces.

Ummm no. There's something called stop loss which prevents you from leaving once your time is up for a period until stop-loss ends.

"Stop Loss" is not a re-enlistment.

Yeah this story isn't the soldiers being threatened. It may sound fucked up but they're being given an out. If there MOS is needed in other units or in Iraq, like I said, they're going to get reassigned and re-deployed. If they re-up, its a completely different process.

And your little comment there at the end is not at all how it works. They have people on a rotation right now. If you get delayed its because there's a kink in the rotation, either the individual isn't trained or there's some other kink meaning the person can't be deployed yet. There are no "tours" like Vietenam, no DEROS. You're deployed for an approximate period of time but that can be extended, as it states in those orders. And if your MOS is on stop loss, than it may be your only chance to get out is to re-up under a different MOS.It sounds like a threat to me--re-up or we'll ship you back to Iraq. Forget that there's no guarantees that you won't get sent back anyway even if we transfer you to another unit--if you don't re-enlist, you're going back to Iraq where you could die, be horribly injured, or be stuck by having your rotation extended because there aren't enough people there.

It wouldn't be the purpose of a draft to meet recruitment goals, at least not from the far left point of view. The idea is that it is mostly socially and economically disadvantaged youths that sign up. A draft would create some semblance of equal representation. Instead of poor kids being deployed by politicians that mostly hail from an upper-middle class background or higher, we would have an even mixture in the armed forces.

Let me see if I have this straight: you would FORCE people who would rather be almost anyplace else serve in a combat zone so they could replace those who WANT to be there in order to achieve some sort of politically correct objective? :eyeroll

Let me see if I have this straight: you would FORCE people who would rather be almost anyplace else serve in a combat zone so they could replace those who WANT to be there in order to achieve some sort of politically correct objective? :eyerollI think you're stretching it a bit to say that everyone who's currently in the combat zone wants to be there. I'd bet that if you gave them a choice between serving in that combat zone or being stateside, very few would ask to be over there.

And the idea of the draft as political correctness is nonsense. The argument is that the public may not be so willing to rush to war if their kids are the ones who could be in the line of fire, instead of it just being those from the lower and middle income classes.

There will not be a draft....there NEVER has been a draft planned.

Those who see the stop-loss as some sort of "back door" draft are just morons who know NOTHING about the military and it's retention policies. EVERY soldier, airman and marine KNOWS these policies.

There will not be a draft....there NEVER has been a draft planned.

Those who see the stop-loss as some sort of "back door" draft are just morons who know NOTHING about the military and it's retention policies. EVERY soldier, airman and marine KNOWS these policies.

Good post! You are exactly correct!

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr.
CPT, INF, USA
Vietnam, 1967-1969

I think you're stretching it a bit to say that everyone who's currently in the combat zone wants to be there. I'd bet that if you gave them a choice between serving in that combat zone or being stateside, very few would ask to be over there.

And the idea of the draft as political correctness is nonsense. The argument is that the public may not be so willing to rush to war if their kids are the ones who could be in the line of fire, instead of it just being those from the lower and middle income classes.

If you knew anything at all about the all volunteer force and how it works, and how much better and more effective it is than dragging a bunch of whinners and complainers in who would rather be anywhere else, you would never make a post like this one.

Like most on these boards, you lack sufficient humility to even bother to listen to others. I feel sorry for you.

Let me see if I have this straight: you would FORCE people who would rather be almost anyplace else serve in a combat zone so they could replace those who WANT to be there in order to achieve some sort of politically correct objective? :eyeroll
Did I say that I agreed with it? No.
But the people who are there don't want to be there. They are there because they don't have any better options. And the finacially well off aren't there because they don't have to be. They can get their mommies and daddies to pay for an expensive college education, so they won't lack job skills when they seek employment. And Icertonia is right, the problem is that it is the upper class sending the lower class out to fight their wars, and if it were people a little closer to home, maybe this whole "war as a first resort" policy would be abandoned.

Did I say that I agreed with it? No.
But the people who are there don't want to be there. They are there because they don't have any better options. And the finacially well off aren't there because they don't have to be. They can get their mommies and daddies to pay for an expensive college education, so they won't lack job skills when they seek employment. And Icertonia is right, the problem is that it is the upper class sending the lower class out to fight their wars, and if it were people a little closer to home, maybe this whole "war as a first resort" policy would be abandoned.

You make so many unwarranted assumptions in this post that I scarcely know where to begin! Let me try to explain:

1. Where do you find statistics which back up your statement that "the people who are there don't want to be there?" Every poll I have seen of military personnel in Iraq indicates they are there because they believe that what they are doing is right.

2. A sizable proportion of American military personnel in Iraq are not the "poor and downtrodden" you portray them to be.

3. On a personal note, I am definitely not "upper class," yet I fully support the military action in Iraq, as do almost all of the people I know, none of whom is "upper class."

I would love to hear you say this sort of thing to any of the American military personnel I have talked with after they came back from Iraq. I guarantee you would get an earful.

Sorry, I should add a quialifier.
The people who are there don't necessarily want to be.

What I meant was, many of the young people who enlist in the military do so because they don't have any better options financially, and they believe they are serving their country. They are, and that is admirable, but the reason many of them consider it in the first place is because they have very little else to consider.
I also didn't say anyone who supports the war is upper class, I said that most high level politicians, who are the ones that make the decisions to send these soldiers into combat in the first place, hail from affluent backgrounds. Look at Bush, Cheney, and Kerry. All rich. The leading politicians in this country.
I'm not saying that our service men and women all "do it for the money", but it is a factor. I'm not saying they aren't patriotic, or idealistic, or courageous. I am saying that these sentiments are encouraged by their economic predicaments.
You support the war in Iraq. Okay, do you also support the policy of going to war as a first resort?

And here I come to place the final nail in the coffin of the draft bills (one by Rep Charles Rangel, D-NY and one by Sen Ernest Hollings, D-SC.)

I'll give you the url AND a copy of the article (2 for the price of 1, emphasis added by me where warranted)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20041005-2239-thedraft.html


House Republicans click delete on draft rumor e-mails
By Devlin Barrett
ASSOCIATED PRESS

10:39 p.m. October 5, 2004

WASHINGTON – The specter of a new military draft is being dismissed as "the hoax of the year," but Republicans are still doing everything they can to kill the rumor that has spread like wildfire among young voters and worried parents.

Both parties accused the other of shameless political gamesmanship in a House vote Tuesday that saw Democrats and Republicans line up against a bill that would have paved the way for another draft.

The 402-2 vote, on a bill sponsored by a Democrat, was called by House Republicans hoping the vote will quash the persistent rumors which have seeped into the presidential campaign.

The concerns were fueled in part by an e-mail driven rumor mill and a public awareness campaign by Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan group that seeks to boost voting among young people.

Republicans blamed Democrats for the rumors and charged they want to scare young voters and their parents into voting against President Bush.

"This campaign is a baseless, malevolent concoction of the Democratic Party and everyone in this chamber knows it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Democrats denied it, arguing the current situation in Iraq is reason enough to worry about the possibility of a draft.

"We're not trying to scare kids, this president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio.

Even the lawmaker who originally offered the bill, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., urged Democrats to vote against it[/b], claiming Republicans were cynically trying to use the measure to escape election-season questions about the war.

Just two lawmakers, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., struck off on their own and voted for the measure.

"We are in a war, and not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war," said Murtha.

[u]House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the lopsided vote was necessary "to expose this hoax of the year which has been needlessly scaring millions of young people."

Much of the Internet gossip circling the World Wide Web has suggested that Republicans, including the president, have a plan to surreptitiously bring back the draft if Bush wins a second term.

Democrats say draft worries are spurring voter registration on college campuses and among people in their 20s in urban areas.

"Everywhere they go on the Internet, all they see is the draft, the draft, the draft," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "The Rock the Vote effort among kids in this country is afire and they (Republicans) know it."

The Bush administration has strongly denied any plan to reinstate the draft, but the denials have not killed the rumor.

"There are some who have tried to bring this up as a scare tactic and that is highly unfortunate," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Speaking to Iowa voters Monday, Bush said, "We will not have a draft so long as I am president of the United States."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has suggested the draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect Bush.

Kerry said his plan for Iraq, which calls for a summit and for allies to share a greater part of the burden, would not need a military draft.

Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, Kerry told reporters, "I've never said they're going to have a draft. I've said I don't know what they're going to do. I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to pursue a policy that guarantees we don't have to have a draft."

Rock the Vote said it is raising the draft issue because the presidential candidates haven't addressed it.

"This is not an Internet rumor," said Rock the Vote spokesman Jay Strell. "Young people in America deserve an honest and open debate about the possibility of a draft. Neither side has offered up what they're going to do to meet the current and future military needs."

The defeated measure would have required two years of military or civilian service of men and women aged 18-26. Senate Republicans said they will not consider such a measure.
I truly like Jean Francois Kerry's "Howard Dean"-esque statement"I've never said they're going to have a draft. I've said I don't know what they're going to do."
That's the latest Kerry flip. It wasn't too long ago he claimed Bush had a "secret plan" for a draft as soon as the elections were over. Can Kerry please make up his mind?

Can you provide proof of that second Kerry quote as well, or has it come, as so many of your claims do, from your fevered imagination? My guess is that it's yet another mis-paraphrase of something Kerry said that means exactly the opposite of what you claim it does--sort of like your wrong take on the global test remark.