Odd news report about Army recruitment


PDA






engineer151515
January 18, 2006, 01:09 PM
Local am radio news reporter - probably just reading from a script - said something about US Army recruitment that just did not make sense to me. Thought I'd share it and see what the good folks at THR thought about it.

The report stated that Army recruitment goals for the upcoming months would be 8,000 to 10,000 new recruits. Army enlistment for the preceeding months was substantially lower than these numbers but the increase in recruitment was needed "because of the casualites in Iraq".


??????????????


Let me see. We've lost 2423 brave souls since Mar 03. 22% of those lost were through non-combat related incidents (accidents). And because of these losses, we now need 8,000 to 10,000 new recruits per month?

I realize people are not enlisting / re-enlisting because of the war but didn't this just sound like another barbed poke from our less-than-fair-and-balanced press?

I'll stop now. :)


source: http://icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx

Cause of Death Total Percentage
Hostile fire 1886 77.8%
Non-combat related 536 22.1%
Unknown 1 0.1%
Total 2423

If you enjoyed reading about "Odd news report about Army recruitment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
USMCRotrHed
January 18, 2006, 01:14 PM
I don't know about casualties or not, but wouldn't it make sense that more recruits would be available after high school and college graduation in May. This is a traditional time for new recruits to ship out to boot camp. It would make sense to have a higher goal in May and June than it would in November and December.

Just my 2 cents.

MechAg94
January 18, 2006, 01:16 PM
I guess it depends on total casualties not just deaths.

engineer151515
January 18, 2006, 01:20 PM
I guess it depends on total casualties not just deaths.


Perhaps. I had not considered that.


http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

18,630 Total U.S. Casualties
2,210 Dead 16,420 Wounded

merk
January 18, 2006, 01:26 PM
I don't know about casualties or not, but wouldn't it make sense that more recruits would be available after high school and college graduation in May. This is a traditional time for new recruits to ship out to boot camp. It would make sense to have a higher goal in May and June than it would in November and December.

Just my 2 cents.


They may be talking about people signing contracts in this month. Because if a high school age kid(like me) is graduating in May(again like me:D ) signs his contract now, theyll have him shipped off to bootcamp in June or July.

GTSteve03
January 18, 2006, 01:31 PM
18,630 Total U.S. Casualties
2,210 Dead 16,420 Wounded
Wow, we've had 8 times the number of wounded as KIA? I wonder if that's normal or a product of the new body armor saving a lot more lives than in the past?

I'm pretty sure they need to recruit a larger number than will actually make it into the service as some % will wash out in training.

merk
January 18, 2006, 01:38 PM
Congratulations!

Weve now surpassed the casualty rate of one(1) World War Two battle(sometimes more sometimes less) in close to three years of war. I think American Media needs a history lesson.

cuchulainn
January 18, 2006, 02:39 PM
Wow, we've had 8 times the number of wounded as KIA? I wonder if that's normal or a product of the new body armor saving a lot more lives than in the past?

I'm pretty sure they need to recruit a larger number than will actually make it into the service as some % will wash out in training.
FWIW -- http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html.

I suspect that medical advances are playing a part in the ratio also.

Malone LaVeigh
January 18, 2006, 02:53 PM
I realize people are not enlisting / re-enlisting because of the war but didn't this just sound like another barbed poke from our less-than-fair-and-balanced press?
And of course that is due to the casualty rate, which means the casualty rate indirectly causes the need for more recruits. I'm sure a lot more would enlist if they thought there was 0% chance of ending up a casualty.

edited to be a little less redundant

Langenator
January 18, 2006, 02:54 PM
Advances in battlefield medicine and casevac are mostly responsible for the historically low number of dead as compared to wounded.

Lobotomy Boy
January 18, 2006, 03:00 PM
I imagine that the military is losing an awful lot of people through attrition. Re-enlistment has to be taking a hit because of the war in Iraq.

scout26
January 18, 2006, 05:52 PM
Lobotomy Boy,

Please state your sources. Because what I have read and heard states that re-enlistment rates are far above goals.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm


http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/army_exceeds_re.php

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17216&only

http://www.dailyramble.com/?p=86

Heck even the "Washingate Pest" had it as a story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501697.html

MechAg94
January 18, 2006, 06:04 PM
I have heard reenlistment is real good several different times.

Alex45ACP
January 18, 2006, 06:16 PM
I have heard reenlistment is real good several different times.

It's certainly better than getting stop-lossed.

Old Dog
January 18, 2006, 06:19 PM
Totally aside from the issue of reenlistment bonuses (for enlisted) and continuation bonuses (for officers), which for many are substantial, the fact remains that for those who plan a career in the military, at least one deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan or a deployment in direct support of these operations, is generally considered necessary to ensure one remains competitive for promotion with one's peers. The deployment/combat awards and fitreps tickets must be punched. Hence, you will see personnel actually staying in for the career opportunities the war presents. I note though, that most of those who've been to Iraq do not want to go back, while many who've not been, although they really may not want to go, accept the reality that they must, and therefore voluntarily put themselves in position to deploy to the combat zone.

longhorngunman
January 18, 2006, 08:25 PM
Most I've talked to feel they are doing what needs to be done and though hard they feel they must accomplish their mission. Their is no doubt that the increased signing bonuses, etc do help the re-enlistment. BTW in the years before the WOT the US military lost more servicemembers on a yearly basis to training, accidents, etc than the yearly loss of life in Iraq.

Lobotomy Boy
January 18, 2006, 10:13 PM
I was just guessing, based on anecdotal personal experiences. Everyone I know in the military is either in the Air Force or the National Guard. The air force folks are pretty happy with their lot, generally, but not the NG folks I know, and some are planning on getting out ASAP.

beerslurpy
January 19, 2006, 01:37 AM
A good chunk of our 20,000+ "wounded" would have been counted amongst the dead in an earlier war. Soldiers with brain or eye damage or missing limbs must be replaced as surely as the dead ones.

The insurgency doesnt just score points from killing. They get closer to victory if:
-they kill a soldier
-they wound a soldier and permanently remove them from action
-they damage expensive equipment which must be replaced
-they cause people to choose against reenlisting, who must then be replaced
-they retain or gain support from the local populace, which multiplies their effectiveness via logistics and intelligence gathering
-they cause the american public to perceive that the occupation is pointless and futile

The occupation draws nearer to completion when:
-active insurgents are killed
-active insurgents are discouraged from remaining active
-civilians are discouraged from joining the insurgency and denied motivations for the same
-occupation supported government institutions are turned to isntead of insurrectionist supported institutions

Possible outcomes:
1) At some point the insurgents will sap our ability to replace men and equipment, and we will no longer be able to effectively counter the insurgents. Their perceived legitimacy and strength will increase in the local population. They will then multiply in numbers and strength as our shortages of manpower and equipment become even more acute, further worsening the problem. The American public perceives the obvious at this point and we withdraw.
2) At some point, the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks will diminish to the point that they can no longer present themselves as an alternative to the occupation and removal of active insurgents will cause their numbers to permanently shrink, further impacting their ability to recruit and conduct operations. The occupation supported institutions become widely accepted by the local popupation and insurgent activities can be controlled by iraqi municipal police.

Hawkmoon
January 19, 2006, 09:14 PM
From Scout26's USA Today link
Re-enlistment bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $150,000, depending on the type of job and length of re-enlistment. The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.

...

The bright re-enlistment picture won't fully compensate for the recruiting problems, Head said, because the Army needs new troops to fill its lower ranks and has limits on how many senior soldiers it can keep.

As someone else noted, it beats stop loss. If they're going to make you stay in, you might as well collect the money. But it sort of sounds like the people getting the most money and doing the most reenlisting aren't the basic "cannon fodder" ... the boots on the ground, as it were.

And don't let anyone tell you the troops are happy. I have a young friend who was overjoyed just a few months ago when her year-long deployment to the sand box ended and her unit was rotated back to Texas. I learned last week that she's being sent back over for another round. IIRC, she has been home less than four months!

That ain't right.

KriegHund
January 19, 2006, 09:23 PM
Wounded. There have been far more wounded than killed.

Frackin IED's :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

Mark in California
January 19, 2006, 10:22 PM
The increase may be needed to replace those who were under the Stop Loss Orders. Or, maybe they are going to increase the miltary and work towards standing up new units.

If you enjoyed reading about "Odd news report about Army recruitment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!