Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

kenimpzoom

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
4,807
They play the story like the army cant get anyone to join. Ummm, they got 73,000 people to sign up during a freakin war. I say thats a job well done.<br /><br />Point is, they only fell short of a "goal". :rolleyes: <br /><br />Ken<br /><br />******************************<br /><br />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. <br /><br />ADVERTISEMENT<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />Officials insist the slump is not a crisis.<br /><br />Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the recruiting shortfall this year does not matter greatly — for now.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />But there are compelling reasons to think that Army recruiters are heading into a second consecutive year of recruiting shortfalls.<br /><br />The outlook is dimmed by several key factors, including:<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />As it stands, the Army faces a tough challenge for the foreseeable future. <br /><br />"The future looks even grimmer. Recruiting is going to get harder and harder," Moskos said.
 

oddjob

Commander
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,723
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

Hi Ken, I saw the headline on yahoo but I didnt read it. Based on experience with the media and democratic leaders, and their wacko hate for GW (a leader )I surmised that based on the numbers of recruitment of previous (pre war)years that it would be reasonable that numbers would be less during this(war )time.<br /><br />
Point is, they only fell short of a "goal". <br /><br />Ken<br />
Same thing with tax cuts. Dems call it a cut if what THEY project is needed for future and existing social plans ( along with their pork ) within a budget. <br />If we do the math and say no you dont get as much you want, only what you need then they cry "Cuts for the rich!"<br /><br />With todays media, you read the message in the headline most of the time.
 

mattttt25

Commander
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
2,661
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

ken, not everything you read is the liberal media trying to twist facts. try not to read political agenda into this, and take it at face value- a news worthy issue.<br /><br />this is big news, and important to the army. the other services are experiencing the same issue, just at a lower rate. recruitment goals are based on projected retirements, separations, and force requirements. when they miss by a large percentage, it needs to be addressed, or at least analyzed. in real life, it means that plattoon is deployed with 125 men, when they should be at 140. it means the ship gets underway with guys standing 6 and 6 from the start.<br /><br />it also throws the career progressions out of wack and causes gaps- not necessarily not enough men, but not enough with certain training or experience. for example, when this class of recruits reaches the 15-18 year mark, the army will be light in senior enlisted, unless they can curb the normal attrition rates.<br /><br />we experienced this at the naval academy as well. applications when out the roof after 9/11- reaching about 16,000 applicants for only 1300 admits. last year, the applications dropped to approx 12,000, the lowest in several years. not a big deal, right? yes, it is- the navy just lost 4,000 possible admits, and some of those kids may be the best qualified for the job.<br /><br />like the article stated, this is not an emergency at this point. but something the services need to watch and address. they need to plan for this blip in the recruitment window, and step up their plans for future recruitment.
 

kenimpzoom

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
4,807
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

My point was that the article blew the short fall way out of proportion by using a lot of negative wording.<br /><br />They were 7000 short, not 50,000 short.<br /><br />Ken
 

oddjob

Commander
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,723
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

ken, not everything you read is the liberal media trying to twist facts. try not to read political agenda into this, and take it at face value- a news worthy issue.<br />
It was listed as a TOP STORY on yahoo...news worthy yes , but not front page....
 

alden135

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,770
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

Just imagine the trouble the services would be in if they stopped over-using the reserves and guard. The tightwads in Congress will never appropriate what's really needed to maintain what we need for a/d forces.
 

kenimpzoom

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
4,807
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

Hows this for a headline. <br /><br />"Despite difficult war, Army meets 91% of recruitment goal." Sounds a lot better doesn't it.<br /><br />Their negativity is what I call media bias.<br /><br />Ken
 

alden135

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,770
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

Originally posted by KenImpZoom:<br /> <br /><br />Their negativity is what I call media bias.<br /><br />Ken
Isn't mediabias one word? :D
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

You can spin anything anyway you want. A headline writer's job (Usually different from the reporter) is to grab people's attention and get them to read the story.<br /><br />Heck, even Rush Limbaugh could spin the deaths of almost 1000 New Orleans residents as a good thing, or Bill Bennet could suggest aborting all black babies as a method to reduce crime.<br /><br />I don't think it a good thing for the press to automatically take the administration's bias. Get the basic facts right, and I, the reader, can decide how to interpret it. And use any relevant headline you want.
 

don flowers

Seaman
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
52
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

Hay, here's a novel idea. Give me the facts only, just the facts and let me decide. I don't need spin from anyone. That's what the media should do. Not encourage me to read something because of the spin they put on it, so it could be said that anything other than the facts are really the writers opinion, or spin. If I want to read about "the boy with two heads, or what the space aliens are doing I will read the I******. You know inquiring (duh) minds want to know. Sorry about that if I offended anyone. I understand papers need to sell inorder to survive, but there has to be a limit to the spin. Don
 

JasonJ

Rear Admiral
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
4,163
Re: Stupid Media (Army Recruitment)

The shorter enlistment thing didn't work that well before, I don't see it working again. When I went in back in 87, they still had 1 year enlistments. My initial enlistment was for 4 years. The soldiers who enlisted for 1 year walked into their duty assignment already with short timers syndrome. Besides, it takes at least a year for a soldier to become proficient at his job once he is assigned to his permanent duty station. 1 year enlistments were bad, 2 year enlistments were not much better. There was a reason they went to longer enlistments, to create good soldiers. Anything less just created bags of meat that filled uniforms.<br /><br />My nephew wanted to join the Marines, and when Iraq happened, he backed way off. Like most people who join, he wanted to join for the college money and the experience, but felt he was better off just staying at the not-so-great job he is at now. He wanted my opinion, and I simply told him that when you choose to join the military, you do it knowing you are putting your life on the line. <br /><br />It is naive to think that everyone who joins is doing it for patriotism or because they believe in the war. Most people join because of monetary reasons, either because that is all they can do, or they want the college money. Those people still do a good job, and are still defending freedom and all that, but in the end it all has to do with economics. <br /><br />I joined for financial reasons, but I enjoyed the job, and developed patriotism through the job, and have no regrets. Most soldiers develop patriotism while in, they don't all come into it pre-patriotized. I can also tell you that our men over in Iraq are not sitting there saying "Thank God we are here". In reality most are saying "We signed on the dotted line, we are doing as we are told". That is the reality, a good career soldier does his job, period. Yeah, anything good that is happening over there makes them feel good about their mission, but they still want to come home.<br /><br />If they want more people to join, they need to appeal to what people want and need. Competative pay and benefits, training that will be useful in the civilian world, those will bring recruitment up. I also think that it will be low as long as the war is going on, not because people necessarily do not believe in the war, but because most people do not want to be injured or die. That is just a simple fact of life. Mark my words, when things calm down, recruitment will once again climb. That or another 9/11 will bring 'em in...
 
Top