NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Apparently, despite a brief dip in numbers, the Army is putting the lie to the allegation that "the armed services are broken." Strange that the Army being over its enlistment goals doesn't seem to draw near the media attention as when they weren't meeting the goals, yes? Hmm. I wonder why. :rolleyes:


Army recruiting tops new goals (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 13, 2005


The Army has exceeded recruiting goals in the first two months of this fiscal year, reversing a trend that had some Iraq critics saying the armed services branch was "broken."

The Pentagon yesterday said the Army signed up 5,856 recruits in November, 5 percent above its goal. It previously announced the Army also exceeded its target in October, the first month of the 2006 fiscal year.

The Army has that hit its recruiting mark for six straight months, a promising development for the Bush administration. President Bush's critics had cited the Army's failure to achieve its recruiting goals in fiscal 2005 as proof that the war in Iraq is breaking the force.

Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and one of the party's chief Iraq war critics, has called the Army "broken" and urged the White House to withdraw all U.S. troops from the country. [ Murtha seems to be suffering from early-onset Alzheimers. ]

But Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the service is more confident of filling the ranks as the recruiting year unfolds.

"Part of the reason is it's like steering a boat," he said. "The changes we made in the last year take a while to take effect."

Those changes included putting more recruiters on the street and offering specific assignment incentives. If a high school graduate was willing to commit to the 3rd Infantry Division bound for Iraq, for example, he could receive a bonus of several thousand dollars. Enlistees can receive up to a $20,000 bonus depending on the length of commitment and their job skills. The Army also changed its ad campaign to focus more on patriotism.

"I think the Army as a whole is working harder at recruiting," Col. Hilferty said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials explained the 2005 recruiting shortfall this way: the active-duty Army is growing by 30,000, making the sign-up goal larger, and parents in some cases are counseling against joining the combat arms at a time when more than 2,000 American service members have been killed in Iraq since March 2003.

Soldiers typically spend a year in Iraq or Afghanistan, and then a year at home before deploying again. In contrast, Marines spend six months overseas and six months at home.

The Army fell far behind its goal of 80,000 recruits in fiscal 2005, but made up much of the lost ground during the summer, when high school graduates typically decided their next step. By Sept. 30, recruiters had brought in 73,000 future soldiers, a number the Army said was sufficient to sustain the force the next year. The Army last missed its mark in 1999.

Col. Hilferty said he "can't guarantee" the Army will meet its end goal of 80,000 by next Sept. 30, noting the winter and spring are traditionally difficult recruiting seasons. The Army has 492,728 active-duty soldiers in the 1.4 million-member armed forces.

The Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force all met their November enlistment quotas.

Anyone know if the recruitment goals the last few months were lowered in order to make it easier to meet them?

I read that, and was going to post it, but some of the unbelievers on this forum would say it was all a lie, or that the Washington Post was the court stenographer's publisher.

Anyone know if the recruitment goals the last few months were lowered in order to make it easier to meet them?
It sounds like the goals were higher for a while (during the shortfall), then the Army had to catch up, which they did, and now they're meeting the regular cycle.

The goals are set more by operational demands than by people on high. Same system drives most enlisted promotion up to E-6.

It's a computer system that predicts the number of people in each specialty getting out of service, at each rank level, and anticipates how long it will take to train an initial replacement, and how long it will take to have them rise through the ranks and eventually replace the person who got out. It comes up with the numbers, and that's how recruiters know what they can offer you - they obviously can't offer you every specialty - but they can offer bonuses and other perks if you sign up for things the computer system indicates.

It's a very sophisticated system, and it drives the recruiting quotas. If you were to arbitrarily mess with the numbers, it would screw everything.

Well, I feel compelled to point out that the Army usually does meet its quotas, so it may actually be news when it doesn't. Reporters aren't paid to report the normal state of things: this is the same reason why we dont see CNN camera crews on the runway when a plane takes off safely.

Well, I feel compelled to point out that the Army usually does meet its quotas, so it may actually be news when it doesn't. Reporters aren't paid to report the normal state of things: this is the same reason why we dont see CNN camera crews on the runway when a plane takes off safely.

Damn. Nothing to add on after that! :D

I read that, and was going to post it, but some of the unbelievers on this forum would say it was all a lie, or that the Washington Post was the court stenographer's publisher.
See the idiotic post just above yours! :(

Anyone know if the recruitment goals the last few months were lowered in order to make it easier to meet them?
Try reading the frakking article.

I'll give you a hint. The Army made quotas for an obscenely long amount of time; something like 10 years straight. Then, a few years back, they started NOT making quotas. For a while. All in a row. THAT is news. The fact that they've gotten back to normal for two months isn't news. No one cares when things are going fine. It's unfortunate, but true.

edit: It appears that Melkor posted in the time it took for me to write this and hit send. Dang.

Well, I feel compelled to point out that the Army usually does meet its quotas, so it may actually be news when it doesn't. Reporters aren't paid to report the normal state of things: this is the same reason why we dont see CNN camera crews on the runway when a plane takes off safely.
Awww, but you've just burst the big conspiracy bubble...though I'm sure Eut will still manage to get a dig in at 'liberals'.

I'll give you a hint. The Army made quotas for an obscenely long amount of time; something like 10 years straight. Then, a few years back, they started NOT making quotas. For a while. All in a row. THAT is news. The fact that they've gotten back to normal for two months isn't news. No one cares when things are going fine. It's unfortunate, but true.

Yes, it's never news when things get better or are going right.

Can't ever give anyone the perception that the military does anything right, can we? :rolleyes:

Yes, it's never news when things get better or are going right.

Can't ever give anyone the perception that the military does anything right, can we? :rolleyes:Sure you can. What you cannot do is imply that there is a shady reason for the lack of media coverage, and expect to get away with it. Go ahead and celebrate...but spare us the 'oh teh liberals are evil and don't want people to know that the army is making its quotas'. (just so there's no confusion, that is directed at Eutrusca)
COMMENTARY: Apparently, despite a brief dip in numbers, the Army is putting the lie to the allegation that "the armed services are broken." Strange that the Army being over its enlistment goals doesn't seem to draw near the media attention as when they weren't meeting the goals, yes? Hmm. I wonder why.

Yes, it's never news when things get better or are going right.

Can't ever give anyone the perception that the military does anything right, can we? :rolleyes:

It's not news. Things are supposed to go right. That's normal. Normal isn't news. Abnormal is news, and the army not meeting quotas is abnormal. The fact that things have returned to the norm isn't exactly groundbreaking.

Sure you can. What you cannot do is imply that there is a shady reason for the lack of media coverage, and expect to get away with it. Go ahead and celebrate...but spare us the 'oh teh liberals are evil and don't want people to know that the army is making its quotas'.
I can submit the immediate post that was made that implied that the numbers were somehow a cooking of the books - there are plenty of liberals who not only don't want to see any good news about the military, but will dismiss it out of hand if they do see it.

Try reading the frakking article.

Easy there big fella. I did read the article, and it made no mention of what the 2002, 2003 and 2004 recruitment goals were...

I can submit the immediate post that was made that implied that the numbers were somehow a cooking of the books - there are plenty of liberals who not only don't want to see any good news about the military, but will dismiss it out of hand if they do see it.
Yes well, that's as idiotic as this title: Army surpasses enlistment goals; most media strangely silent.

There are people I won't label out there who want to pretend that liberals have some sort of grand conspiracy to rain on your parade. Both groups are idiots.

Awww, but you've just burst the big conspiracy bubble...though I'm sure Eut will still manage to get a dig in at 'liberals'.
There are plenty of digs to be had against 'liberals,' and none of them require grasping for straws that are quite as enormous as this.

Also, the myth of a liberal bias in the media is something of a misnomer. Do any of you happen to know who owns these media outlets? Here's the skinny:

ABC is owned by Disney
NBC is owned by General Electric --who, by the way is the largest defense contracter in the world
CBS is owned by Viacom and Reuters [This is probably the most likely netowrk to actually have a perceivable liberal bias, since Viacom's owner is one of those bleeding heart, self-hating capitalist types]
CNN is owned by Time freaking Warner
And we all know who owns Fox.

There are plenty of digs to be had against 'liberals,' and none of them require grasping for straws that are quite as enormous as this.
There are digs to be had against all groups. Perhaps NS should have an airing of the grievances??? *runs off to start a thread*

CBS is owned by Viacom and Reuters [This is probably the most likely netowrk to actually have a perceivable liberal bias, since Viacom's owner is one of those bleeding heart, self-hating capitalist types]

While being one of the most ruthlessly capitalistic media conglomerates out there. Strange duality there.

While being one of the most ruthlessly capitalistic media conglomerates out there. Strange duality there.
It's because people like that have an odd habit of contradicting themselves.

I read that, and was going to post it, but some of the unbelievers on this forum would say it was all a lie, or that the Washington Post was the court stenographer's publisher.

Does noone but me see the irony of a post that complains that the media is silent on an issue and then post a big media story to demonstrate the truth of the story that the media are supposedly not covering?

Strange that the Army being over its enlistment goals doesn't seem to draw near the media attention as when they weren't meeting the goals, yes? Hmm. I wonder why. :rolleyes:

Hmmm. Deja vu...


As I posted the last time you started a thread like this:

Man bites dog. Dog bites man.

Are you now wanting equal coverage whenever the army achieves beyond its goals, exactly matches them and fails to achieve them?

Does noone but me see the irony of a post that complains that the media is silent on an issue and then post a big media story to demonstrate the truth of the story that the media are supposedly not covering?
Read title. Notice the word "most." Remove foot from mouth. Rinse. Repeat.

Does noone but me see the irony of a post that complains that the media is silent on an issue and then post a big media story to demonstrate the truth of the story that the media are supposedly not covering?

I did see it, however he said MOST media. Well, the Army surpassed its goals. Good for them, honestly I don't really care about recruiting goals.

Does noone but me see the irony of a post that complains that the media is silent on an issue and then post a big media story to demonstrate the truth of the story that the media are supposedly not covering?
I'm just not seeing the irony...:D

Does noone but me see the irony of a post that complains that the media is silent on an issue and then post a big media story to demonstrate the truth of the story that the media are supposedly not covering?

Silly. Don't you know that anything the media publishes or broadcasts that can't be construed to be "librul", by definition, doesn't come from "the media"?

Fox is not "the media".

Conservatvie reporters are not "the media" (until they get thrown in jail for some reason, then they're "the media" again...see Judy Miller.)

Bob Woodward was "the media" when he helped expose Watergate. He lost his "the media" status when he poo-pooed the Plame case (without revealing that he was involved.)

Silly Domici.

Anyone know if the recruitment goals the last few months were lowered in order to make it easier to meet them?Not a b loody chance in hell of that ever happening. Even when the Army wasn't making goal (in some instances for stretches that lasted a year or more), they didn't monkey with the goals for PR sakes.

You see, the goal-setting process is rigourously scientific. They set goals based upon 1) projected attrition (EAOS, retirement, disciplinary, medical, and casualties), 2) needed specialties in the service and how hard it is to find qualified candidates, 3) anticipated promotions, 4) actual technical school capacities, including maximum and minimum student loads (at what point are there too few students in any one pipeline to justify keeping a school staffed and supplied?), 5) school pipeline attrition, and 6) various other factors. Ther can be no room for playing politics with these numbers - The end requirements of the Army's capabilities are set in law (Bottom-Up Review, and other requiremnts) to meet certain minimum requirements. Anything less than that is a career-ending proposition for many high-ranking and perpetually-worried flag-rank officers.

There's a reason why it sucks to part of Recruiting Command. :p


Sock Puppetry
Former, (mildly) successful, Recruiter

Are you now wanting equal coverage whenever the army achieves beyond its goals, exactly matches them and fails to achieve them?
Bolding mine.

There's been a lot of coverage in the press I see whenever the Army in particular fails to make goal.

However, I may, being a former (Naval) Recruiter, be hypersensitive to the issue, and so may notice the reporting when everyone else glosses over it.

Bolding mine.

There's been a lot of coverage in the press I see whenever the Army in particular fails to make goal.

However, I may, being a former (Naval) Recruiter, be hypersensitive to the issue, and so may notice the reporting when everyone else glosses over it.

It has been pretty well covered, but that's because it's news. Doing what they're supposed to isn't news. Failing is news.

Not a b loody chance in hell of that ever happening. Even when the Army wasn't making goal (in some instances for stretches that lasted a year or more), they didn't monkey with the goals for PR sakes.

You see, the goal-setting process is rigourously scientific. They set goals based upon 1) projected attrition (EAOS, retirement, disciplinary, medical, and casualties), 2) needed specialties in the service and how hard it is to find qualified candidates, 3) anticipated promotions, 4) actual technical school capacities, including maximum and minimum student loads (at what point are there too few students in any one pipeline to justify keeping a school staffed and supplied?), 5) school pipeline attrition, and 6) various other factors. Ther can be no room for playing politics with these numbers - The end requirements of the Army's capabilities are set in law (Bottom-Up Review, and other requiremnts) to meet certain minimum requirements. Anything less than that is a career-ending proposition for many high-ranking and perpetually-worried flag-rank officers.

There's a reason why it sucks to part of Recruiting Command. :p


Sock Puppetry
Former, (mildly) successful, Recruiter


Excellent. See, THIS is the kind of answer I like. Well organized and I leave actually knowing something new. Much better than "shut up, librul!" or "Did you read the article?" - where said article doesn't answer the question I asked.

Bolding mine.

There's been a lot of coverage in the press I see whenever the Army in particular fails to make goal.

However, I may, being a former (Naval) Recruiter, be hypersensitive to the issue, and so may notice the reporting when everyone else glosses over it.
And I hadn't even realised this was a news issue at all...recruitment I mean. This is honestly the first I've heard of it. I think so much of these cries of 'bias' have to do more with selective reading/viewing based on interest than actual conspiracies...

Failing is news.Point.

And it is important news. OTOH, a change in 'business as usual' (Army ceasing to fail at making goal) is news, too.


Gymoor II:
You're welcome - my pleasure.

:)

Sinuhue:
Fair point there, too.

Point.

And it is important news. OTOH, a change in 'business as usual' (Army ceasing to fail at making goal) is news, too.


Gymoor II:
You're welcome - my pleasure.

:)


Well not really. The only time failing to make goals comes up is when there is a war going on......

The only time failing to make goals comes up is when there is a war going on......
Perhaps - I'm not sure I can say, on this point, because I tend to notice every recruiting story. I think you're more-or-less correct, but I freely admit to looking for recruitment stories.

*shrug*

COMMENTARY: Apparently, despite a brief dip in numbers, the Army is putting the lie to the allegation that "the armed services are broken." Strange that the Army being over its enlistment goals doesn't seem to draw near the media attention as when they weren't meeting the goals, yes? Hmm. I wonder why.
Maybe it's just boring.

Maybe it's just boring.
P'raps.

But important none-the-less. Miss goal this month, and eighteen months down the road, you have a shortfall of soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen/whatever (there are seven uniformed services).

Miss goal several months in a row, and you have a serious problem - The military that is still left becomes ever more over-worked. Deployment cycles become more harsh, retention falls-off, and the force begins to hemmorage experienced, expensive, capable personnel to more attractive civilian work. They're being replaced by a shortfall of less experienced, less-capable personnel, and the military's ability to do what the nation demands of it begins to fall-off. What does that mean to foreign policy? What does that mean to domestic policy? Is clowngress gonna have to come up with something to make the military more attractive (like ceasing to screw with retirees' and vertains' benifits)?

Miss goal long enough, and you have real trouble, and will spend years reestablishing capabilities you once had, and have lost.

Not a b loody chance in hell of that ever happening. Even when the Army wasn't making goal (in some instances for stretches that lasted a year or more), they didn't monkey with the goals for PR sakes.
Except that it did happen (ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001954.html?nav=rss_politics). Gymoor's comment reminded me that this happened over the summer, but the very first item to pop up in a google search said this:
The Defense Department opened its new recruiting year with good news: announcing yesterday that the Army met its goal for October. But officials also said that the Army lowered the October recruiting goal by about a third from last year's.
Now, was it done for PR sakes? I hope not, and the article says that wasn't the reason, but it was done, which makes Gymoor's question early in the thread quite legitimate, and the responses from Eutrusca and Deep Kimchi assholish.

Except that it did happen (ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001954.html?nav=rss_politics). Gymoor's comment reminded me that this happened over the summer, but the very first item to pop up in a google search said this:

Now, was it done for PR sakes? I hope not, and the article says that wasn't the reason, but it was done, which makes Gymoor's question early in the thread quite legitimate, and the responses from Eutrusca and Deep Kimchi assholish.For PR sakes? Not a bleeding chance. Goals do change, but only for reasons directly tied to readiness, or with the forces ability to absorb new recruits.

If retention goes up, for instance, goal goes down. If volunteering goes up, goal goes down. School pipeline pass-through rate goes up? Goal goes down.

For PR sakes? Not a bleeding chance. Goals do change, but only for reasons directly tied to readiness, or with the forces ability to absorb new recruits.

If retention goes up, for instance, goal goes down. If volunteering goes up, goal goes down. School pipeline pass-through rate goes up? Goal goes down.
It's a reasonable assumption. Look--the Army failed to meet its goals for a significant period last year and missed the yearly goal by a big chunk--nearly 10% I believe. They've taken heat because they've been dropping the standards for new recruits. They've had to jump bonuses to significant levels, and still they were falling short. They need a success, something to point to that will make it look like they've turned the corner--so they drop the levels and make a goal. That looks like improvement and hopefully gives them momentum that they can build on.

And I'd like to see the Army make their goals, despite what Deep Kimchi says about me and my fellow liberals. I'd like them to be able to take the very best people and turn away those who won't cut it. I'd like for people to be clamoring to get in, and if the Army has truly turned the corner on their recruiting efforts, then great for them. But you can't simply dismiss the idea that they dropped their numbers in order to get some good PR. It's very possible, especially in this administration, where appearances are always more important than realities.

COMMENTARY: Apparently, despite a brief dip in numbers, the Army is putting the lie to the allegation that "the armed services are broken." Strange that the Army being over its enlistment goals doesn't seem to draw near the media attention as when they weren't meeting the goals, yes? Hmm. I wonder why. :rolleyes:


Because bad things make better news. You don't hear about it when someone drives to work and comes home with no incident; you only hear about it when they get into a car crash and wind up dead or hospitalized.

It's a reasonable assumption.Assumption, huh.
:rolleyes:

The Army has missed goal more often, over more years, than you'd ever guess. They missed it for two years straight when Clinton was Pres, for instance. Goal changed then, too, when conditions called for it. Up, and down. Your assumption is without basis, and further indicates ignorance of the subject.

Assumption, huh.
:rolleyes:

The Army has missed goal more often, over more years, than you'd ever guess. They missed it for two years straight when Clinton was Pres, for instance. Goal changed then, too, when conditions called for it. Up, and down. Your assumption is without basis, and further indicates ignorance of the subject.


MInd you I am going on little sleep so keep that in mind. He said they lowered Goals and you mention they change goals when needed.

What am I missing here?

Assumption, huh.
:rolleyes:

The Army has missed goal more often, over more years, than you'd ever guess. They missed it for two years straight when Clinton was Pres, for instance. Goal changed then, too, when conditions called for it. Up, and down. Your assumption is without basis, and further indicates ignorance of the subject.Dude--this is the Bush presidency and the Rumsfeld Defense Department. PR is all they do. When things are their shittiest, they're spinning them as though nothing could possibly be better. "Mission Accomplished" on the Abraham Lincoln. The fake turkey dinner with the soldiers in Iraq. There is no part of this administration that isn't stage-managed to within an inch of its life, so when I say it's a reasonable assumption, that's because there's no reason to believe that this administration wouldn't lower the recruiting goals to negative ten thousand if they thought they could sell the story that they'd beaten expectations by eighteen thousand recruits. Had this happened in a vacuum, I might defer--but we're talking about an administration where everything--everything--is political, everything is public relations.

Once again, Eut posts a story saying that it isn't being covered, despite the fact that simple search of google for "Army exceeds recruiting goal" brings back lots of hits.

Like: USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-army-recruiting_x.htm), ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1398933&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312), UPI (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051212-063411-9617r), AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruiting_1), SanFran Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/12/national/w143027S13.DTL), was part of the daily headlines on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/wednesday/index.html), hell it even hit the news at the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5475142,00.html) in britain!

I'm beginning to think that Eut doesn't actually follow the news, but instead consults a Ouija board for what he assumes that they are saying...

In an interesting related story, the next question is: But who are they recruiting? (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47491)


A new report by the Government Accountability Office says the Pentagon must do a better job finding and retaining recruits for specialties that are chronically understaffed, especially with ongoing challenges in meeting recruiting goals.

In its report, the GAO noted five of the Defense Department's 10 components – the Army, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and Navy Reserve – missed their recruiting goals by a range of 8 to 20 percent in fiscal year 2005, with the Navy experiencing "aggregate shortages by up to 8 percent" by itself.

The government watchdog agency also found that the Pentagon was continuing to pay thousands of dollars in recruitment bonuses for specialties which were overstaffed, recommending the money be spent on filling posts where shortfalls exist.

"Because enlistment and selective reenlistment bonuses generally range from a few thousand dollars up to $60,000, providing these bonuses to servicemembers in overfilled occupational specialties can be quite costly," the report said.

In addition, the GAO noted a Pentagon find that could foreshadow successive years of poor recruitment: "DOD reports that over half of today's youth cannot meet the military's entry standards for education, aptitude, health, moral character, or other requirements, making recruiting a significant challenge," said the report.

In all, "19 percent of DOD’s 1,484 occupational specialties were consistently overfilled and 41 percent were consistently underfilled from [fiscal years] 2000-2005," it said. Though service branch "components offered reasons why occupational specialties may be over- or underfilled, GAO believes that consistently over- and underfilled occupational specialties are a systemic problem for DOD that raises two critical questions. First, what is the cost to the taxpayer to retain thousands more personnel than necessary in consistently overfilled occupational specialties? Second, how can DOD components continue to effectively execute their mission with consistently underfilled occupational specialties?"

The watchdog agency found that last fiscal year alone, there were nearly 31,000 more personnel in overfilled specialties than authorized, while simultaneously the Pentagon "was not able to fill over 112,000 positions in consistently underfilled occupational specialties."




The actual report is here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06134.pdf

Once again, Eut posts a story saying that it isn't being covered, despite the fact that simple search of google for "Army exceeds recruiting goal" brings back lots of hits.

Like: USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-army-recruiting_x.htm), ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1398933&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312), UPI (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051212-063411-9617r), AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruiting_1), SanFran Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/12/national/w143027S13.DTL), was part of the daily headlines on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/wednesday/index.html), hell it even hit the news at the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5475142,00.html) in britain!

I'm beginning to think that Eut doesn't actually follow the news, but instead consults a Ouija board for what he assumes that they are saying...
Damn, I hadn't even thought about that possibility. I'll have to track Eutrusca even closer from now on.

Anyone know if the recruitment goals the last few months were lowered in order to make it easier to meet them?See the idiotic post just above yours! :(
Try reading the frakking article.
Short of recruits, Army redoes its math
December 15, 2005
WASHINGTON – This week, the Department of Defense reported that for the second month in a row, the service hit hardest by the recruiting shortfall - the Army - exceeded its monthly recruiting goals.

Yet both this month and last, there has been hardly a peep about that success. The reasons have more to do with math than media bias.

Even within the Defense Department, few suggest that the Army has seen its way through the crisis. Instead, what the Army has done is backload the goals for its recruiting year, which runs from October through next September.

For instance, last fiscal year, the Army's October recruiting goal was 6,935 recruits; this year it dropped to 4,700. To make up the difference, the Army will look to sign up more recruits next summer: Last July it sought to bring in 7,450 soldiers; next July it is seeking 10,450, an extra 3,000.

Relying more heavily on the summer months is a logical step on many fronts. First, the months after high-school graduation are the best recruiting months. Even last year - when the Army finished 6,627 recruits short of its goal of 80,000 - it exceeded its recruiting goals each month from June through September.

Moreover, backloading the recruiting calendar prevents the Pentagon from having to explain missed quotas throughout the year. Perhaps most important, it also allows time for events on the ground in Iraq to change.

The recruiting shortfalls have corresponded with growing public criticism of the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has already said that a successful election in Iraq this week would lead to a drawdown in the number of troops - and that more could soon follow.

That said, the hope of luring 38,900 recruits - nearly half of the entire year's goal - in the last third of the recruiting year is a challenge. "I know there is concern," says Douglas Smith, a spokesman for Army Recruiting Command.

Once again, Eut posts a story saying that it isn't being covered, despite the fact that simple search of google for "Army exceeds recruiting goal" brings back lots of hits.

Like: USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-army-recruiting_x.htm), ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1398933&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312), UPI (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051212-063411-9617r), AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_recruiting_1), SanFran Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/12/national/w143027S13.DTL), was part of the daily headlines on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/wednesday/index.html), hell it even hit the news at the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5475142,00.html) in britain!

I'm beginning to think that Eut doesn't actually follow the news, but instead consults a Ouija board for what he assumes that they are saying...

In an interesting related story, the next question is: But who are they recruiting? (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47491)


Interesting. I should have looked myself. I just didn't after Melkor exploded Eut's conspiracy theory of the evil liberal biased media.

Good work!.......

Every day, over 80 million barrels of oil make it to their point of use safely. People only care when a couple million barrels leak or explode.

Every day, people switch on the lights when they get home, and don't even notice the effort that went into making them work. But give a neighbourhood a 10 minute powercut, and watch the calls pour in.

I'm not whining about the crap the energy industry gets, it's life. Just accept that few people care about the Army.

Every day, over 80 million barrels of oil make it to their point of use safely. People only care when a couple million barrels leak or explode.

Every day, people switch on the lights when they get home, and don't even notice the effort that went into making them work. But give a neighbourhood a 10 minute powercut, and watch the calls pour in.

I'm not whining about the crap the energy industry gets, it's life. Just accept that few people care about the Army.

When was the last time that you thanked a real live soldier for their service? Or bought them a meal or a drink? Or sent one a package?

Or are you one of those people who I saw standing outside of Walter Reed, holding up signs that accused the wounded soldiers of being baby killers, who in the same breath said they "supported the troops"?

It's a reasonable assumption. Look--the Army failed to meet its goals for a significant period last year and missed the yearly goal by a big chunk--nearly 10% I believe. They've taken heat because they've been dropping the standards for new recruits. They've had to jump bonuses to significant levels, and still they were falling short. They need a success, something to point to that will make it look like they've turned the corner--so they drop the levels and make a goal. That looks like improvement and hopefully gives them momentum that they can build on...

...But you can't simply dismiss the idea that they dropped their numbers in order to get some good PR. It's very possible, especially in this administration, where appearances are always more important than realities.

The whole thing puts me in mind of the "Houston Miracle," when Bush was Governor of Texas. A standardized test designed to judge the effectiveness of public schools there was administered to 10th graders. 9th graders who were deemed poor candidates for the test were left back a year, and then at the end of the year they were told that they had made up enough of their credits to jump directly to the 11th grade. Because only people who were likely to do well on the test were given the test it looked as though Houston public schools had made dramatic improvements in their academic standards, when they had in fact just juggled the numbers for the sake of appearances.

When was the last time that you thanked a real live soldier for their service? Or bought them a meal or a drink? Or sent one a package?
Went out for a drink with a Royal Marine Commando a couple years back, with whom I went to high school and played hockey at weekends. I bought a round of beers. He laughed as he told me how he urinates in mailboxes at night while on leave, and threatens to beat up fast food restaurant staff when he's drunk.

Another soldier I spoke to while working as a barman (I served him his beer), said he regretted not being sent to Afghanistan because he "want to kill myself a ******". He then got sent to Iraq. He returned a happy man.

I'll be blunt, the ones I have known, are criminals.

Went out for a drink with a Royal Marine Commando a couple years back, with whom I went to high school and played hockey at weekends. I bought a round of beers. He laughed as he told me how he urinates in mailboxes at night while on leave, and threatens to beat up fast food restaurant staff when he's drunk.

Another soldier I spoke to while working as a barman (I served him his beer), said he regretted not being sent to Afghanistan because he "want to kill myself a ******". He then got sent to Iraq. He returned a happy man.

I'll be blunt, the ones I have known, are criminals.
UK troops?

UK troops?

Tac lives in the UK......

Interesting. I should have looked myself. I just didn't after Melkor exploded Eut's conspiracy theory of the evil liberal biased media.

Good work!.......

I've taken to viewing Eut's Bush promoting hackery as self evidently flawed lately. It's something I try to avoid doing as he does occaisionally say something that makes him sound human. Like he might be more of a grudginly honorable curmudgeon than a senile wingnut.

That's why my only response here was a joke pointing out that it doesn't make sense to complain that the media is silent on an issue that the Washington Post covers. It's particularly absurd when his conclusion is that there's some sort of anti-war/military bias in the "liberal" media.

If the papers weren't covered with headlines that read "Proof that Bush Lied Us Into War in Iraq!!!" when the Downing Street Minutes became public knowledge then it's fairly safe to assume that the media are pretty pro-war in this country. Which is not the same as pro-military, since most people find themselves at odds with those who like to see as many of them get arms and legs blown off as possible.

UK troops?
Yep. Interestingly, they described Americans ones as being more antisocial. I have no personal experience to confirm this, but I shudder to think.

When was the last time that you thanked a real live soldier for their service? Or bought them a meal or a drink? Or sent one a package?

Or are you one of those people who I saw standing outside of Walter Reed, holding up signs that accused the wounded soldiers of being baby killers, who in the same breath said they "supported the troops"?

Riiiiiiight, so...what does this have to do with an apparent bias in the media with respect to recruitement?

Absolutely nothing.

Maybe with your next post you can talk about Clinton's blowjob!

Yep. Interestingly, they described Americans ones as being more antisocial. I have no personal experience to confirm this, but I shudder to think.
I was enlisted in the infantry, and I didn't see this.

Most US infantrymen have several years of college (and a fair percentage have college degrees). This is in sharp contrast to most other enlisted soldiers. So the education level is fairly high for US infantry at the enlisted level.

Interestingly, when soldiers are selected for training such as sniper school, there is a deliberate attempt to weed out people who are antisocial or who exhibit questionable judgment in violent situations.

It's not the US Army you see in the movies. And the folks abusing prisoners at Abu Gharaib were not in the infantry.

I was enlisted in the infantry, and I didn't see this.

Most US infantrymen have several years of college (and a fair percentage have college degrees). This is in sharp contrast to most other enlisted soldiers. So the education level is fairly high for US infantry at the enlisted level.

Interestingly, when soldiers are selected for training such as sniper school, there is a deliberate attempt to weed out people who are antisocial or who exhibit questionable judgment in violent situations.

It's not the US Army you see in the movies. And the folks abusing prisoners at Abu Gharaib were not in the infantry.

Hmmm then what of the NeoNazis that were in the 101st( Or was it the 82nd)?

There are bad eggs everywhere. My father was in the infantry and he was a crap soldier.......

Yep. Interestingly, they described Americans ones as being more antisocial. I have no personal experience to confirm this, but I shudder to think.

certainly the testimony of these two gentlemen you described on their American counterparts is fair and accurate.

I'm glad they shined a light on the entire military body as really being deplorable scumbags. Thats going to save me a lot of time,money and energy
sending them phone cards, care packages and assiting their families while they're away.

Or should I go from my experience of the American soldiers I know, who are honest,harworking family men-pillars of society when they're home?

You're two shitbirds have the whole US military figured out, huh? And you "shudder to think".

Hmmm then what of the NeoNazis that were in the 101st( Or was it the 82nd)?

There are bad eggs everywhere. My father was in the infantry and he was a crap soldier.......

There may be a few bad eggs, but they are by no means a majority.

You're two shitbirds have the whole US military figured out, huh? And you "shudder to think".
Men are men, whether they are British or Americans or whatever. The fact that the British military harbours criminal scum, implies that every other military in the world does, the US included. I haven't met them all, but they are out there, damaging our reputations. Wrap yourself in the flag and deny it if you like.

Or are you one of those people who I saw standing outside of Walter Reed, holding up signs that accused the wounded soldiers of being baby killers, who in the same breath said they "supported the troops"?I am one of those... sue me.

actually I don't have a Clue where Walter Reed is...
But NO.. I do not think Soldiers killing brown-skins are making me any favor...
Also I think they are making me look bad... whenever they do shit like AbuGhrail..

Support the Troops.. Bring them home for Christmas.

When was the last time that you thanked a real live soldier for their service? Or bought them a meal or a drink? Or sent one a package?I did buy a meal for a Vietnam Vet.. he had his hat out asking for quarters..

But I did not do it because I felt he made me a favor killing Vietnamese people..
I did it because I felt very sorry for him... he was a walking human waste

and my charities are none of your business anyways.

I did buy a meal for a Vietnam Vet.. he had his hat out asking for quarters..

But I did not do it because I felt he made me a favor killing Vietnamese people..
I did it because I very felf sorry for him... he was a walking human waste

and my charities are none of your bussines anyways.
Unlike the previous poster, we already know that you don't claim to care about the military - so the questions don't really apply to you, do they?

Unlike the previous poster, we already know that you don't claim to care about the military - so the questions don't really apply to you, do they?I wish all of the Military makes it back alive.. and healthy.. from both sides.. But Santa said "no can do"

I wish all of the Military makes it back alive.. and healthy.. from both sides.. But Santa said "no can do"
For someone who has gloated on this forum when US troops were blown up, or gloating and hoping that they were taken hostage, you're not very believable in that area.

Face it - you hate the US military and everyone in it and you're an anti-Semite.

You would be much more believeable and consistent if you would just openly admit it.

For someone who has gloated on this forum when US troops were blown up, or gloating and hoping that they were taken hostage, you're not very believable in that area.When doing a serious accusation like that.. You should -at the very least- have the decency to use the Quote Function.

if you want to be Believable...Use the Quote function... But I guess you cant.. Can you?

When doing a serious accusation like that.. You should -at the very least- have the decency to use the Quote Function.

if you want to be Believable...Use the Quote function... But I guess you cant.. Can you?


It's rather hard to do with you Ocean, because within a few minutes of your posts of such nature, you edit them - in some cases, you've edited them completely out.

I've caught you at several times before. And you're not going to find many people on this forum who don't believe you hate Jews, considering many of the posts you've made about "Jew-lovers".

I've caught you at several times before. And you're not going to find many people on this forum who don't believe you hate Jews, considering many of the posts you've made about "Jew-lovers".I do not hate Jews.. If you do not believe it.. I do not care..

I hate 9-11.. and I do think It is (in part) due to my Tax money being spend to opress and kill Palestineans.

Men are men, whether they are British or Americans or whatever. The fact that the British military harbours criminal scum, implies that every other military in the world does, the US included. I haven't met them all, but they are out there, damaging our reputations. Wrap yourself in the flag and deny it if you like.


I'm surprised at such a moronic statement, compounded by yet another and topped off with "Wrap yourself in a flag and deny it".

These absurd assumptions seem to make a lot of people feel more comfortable with themselves.

More like your friend that pisses in mailboxes implies that you harbor criminal scum. Or it only applies to their military affiliation and not association woth you?

It's rather hard to do with you Ocean....Look Sierra.. I do realize...debating against me is a pain in the ass..

and I got to give you credit for trying...

Let me tell you a little secret.. I have more respect for you than what you imagine..

And I do have more respect for the forum veterans.. like you.. than for the newly created puppets.. that try to bait us into a Mod warning..

So in case I do not have chance to post in the Holidays...

http://christianfellowshipministry.org/Sermon%20Notes/2004%20Sermons/Merry%20Christmas.gif
Merry Christmas Sierra.

Well, I feel compelled to point out that the Army usually does meet its quotas, so it may actually be news when it doesn't. Reporters aren't paid to report the normal state of things: this is the same reason why we dont see CNN camera crews on the runway when a plane takes off safely.
I don't think you can really contrast those two things as you've put them.

A better way to compare would be if in 2003 planes started crashing on take off at an alarming rate, and after 2 years of fiery crashes on a daily basis, the planes started taking off normally again.

The new agencies would certainly report that the planes were once again managing to take off without blowing up, especially if it was a major talking point of a major political party, used to hurt another political party.

You can't just compare planes taking off safely to recruiting goals, unless you put them both in the same context.

Look Sierra.. I do realize...debating against me is a pain in the ass..

and I got to give you credit for trying...

Let me tell you a little secret.. I have more respect for you than what you imagine..

And I do have more respect for the forum veterans.. like you.. than for the newly created puppets.. that try to bait us into a Mod warning..

So in case I do not have chance to post in the Holidays...

http://christianfellowshipministry.org/Sermon%20Notes/2004%20Sermons/Merry%20Christmas.gif
Merry Christmas Sierra.


Here's your quote:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8737348&postcount=158

And in case you try to edit it out, here it is:

A Jew-Lover starts a lets-hate-muslims thread...

what-else is new???

Here's your quote:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8737348&postcount=158

And in case you try to edit it out, here it is:I dont see any reason whatsoever to edit that post...

Why... Why should I?

I dont see any reason whatsoever to edit that post...

Why... Why should I?
You've edited many others when called on it.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to edit that post...

Why... Why should I?furthermore if... IF that post breaks any rules... I will accept a Mod decision... in a previous life a Mod had TGed me and mentioned that it would be a good idea to delete some controversial post(about Bush)... and I did delete.

In my opinion.. contesting Mods is a waste of time... My time and their time.

You've edited many others when called on it.If a mod "calls".. of course I will do it...

I dont have to see Mirth's eye to click the delete function...

I think the reason it's so hard to call someone when they speak ill of Jews is that people who hate Jews use the same word for them as people who don't. Jew.

Call someone a Jew lover, and it doesn't sound as bad as if you were to call someone a N***er lover. However, the meaning seems quite obvious.

Call someone a Jew lover, and it doesn't sound as bad as if you were to call someone a N***er lover. However, the meaning seems quite obvious.the Word "******" is absolutely an insult...
The word Jew is absolutely Not.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/******

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jew

the Word "******" is absolutely an insult...
The word Jew is absolutely Not.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/******

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jew
That's my point. That's why you can say "Jew lover" and it doesn't sound so bad, even though your intentions are as obvious as can be.

That's my point. That's why you can say "Jew lover" and it doesn't sound so bad, even though your intentions are as obvious as can be.If I am allowed to say Christian Lover... or Muslim Lover...

Forum should treat all religions on equal footing... dont you think?

If I am allowed to say Christian Lover... or Muslim Lover...

Forum should treat all religions on equal footing... dont you think?
I think you know what I am saying. Calling someone a Jew lover is most often done by people who hate Jews. I'm not saying it is banned speech, and as far as this forum goes, I suppose it's up to whoever runs it.

All I'm saying is that it shows alot about your character and beliefs.

I believe it's blatantly obvious. I don't really need to explain it, I'm sure. It's obvious to anyone who reads it.

All I'm saying is that it shows alot about your character and beliefs.Oh!

I have absolutely no problem with that.
My name is OceanDrive, nice to meet you.
Character? yes I have that.