Army Recruiting Goals .... again ...

Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 10:28:17 AM)
We've had some discussions about "the recruiting problem" with soldiers into the US Army. Especially with the past recent election, some people have tried to make the argument that there was a "recruiting failure" and that failure was due to a general American public hatred of the war in Iraq. Here is an interesting article. I wonder how such people would explain it? Military Meets, Exceeds Recruiting Goals Extracts: The Navy and Air Force met their recruiting goals last month while the Army and Marine Corps exceeded theirs, the Defense Department announced. The Army, which is bearing the brunt of the work in Iraq, did the best. It signed up 6,485 new recruits in November compared with its target of 6,150 - meaning 105 percent of its goal. All the services turned in similar performances in October as well, meaning they so far are meeting their goals for the 2007 budget year that began Oct. 1. FirmKY

mnottertail -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 10:57:38 AM)
The explanation is quite simple the goals have been reduced for several years running........recruiting is a PR job. So this article is only a small sliver of the pie... They finally cut it to where they can boast success. The recruiting goals are not in any way connected to troop commitments anymore. the army has said it should really have another 50,000 on permanant basis making it around 1,050,000 force. that don't look likely to happen Ron (ex Army and Army Recruiter)

FirmhandKY -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 11:05:39 AM)
The recruiting goals are not in any way connected to troop commitments anymore. notter, you're really gonna have to source that one for me, cause I have a difficult time believing it. FirmKY

missturbation -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 11:20:22 AM)
I never trust statistics released by the military.

mnottertail -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 11:46:00 AM)
Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger - perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million - in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service. Officials insist the slump is not a crisis. Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the recruiting shortfall this year does not matter greatly - for now. "The bad news is that any shortfall shows how hard it would be to increase the Army's size by 50,000 or more as many of us think appropriate," O'Hanlon said. "We appear to have waited too long to try." This is off the military.com website... now another site that I am too lazy to look for explained that the Army is cutting too deeply into its Reserves and Guards for troops to feed the beast. The logical conclusion to declining goals to meet quota, the commitments at home and abroad that are 'part of the nut', and the other factors leads me to say the recruiting numbers are divorced from troop commitments. The conclusion is mine, I quote no higher authority than myself. You of course may reach a different conclusion KY. Ron

toservez -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 11:59:43 AM)
The real question with any goals is who set the goal and the reasons behind it? I doubt anyone in the decision making had any interest to not give a number they felt strongly they could achieve especially if they have had some trouble on record before. Ask anyone to set a goal for themselves where there is a reward or negative repercussions and see if they give you something that they are not extremely confident in reaching.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 12:15:41 PM)
toserv (and notter), Recruiting goals are based on total authorized end-strengths of the armed services and projected losses. Nothing more, nothing less. No political "games" to reach some artificial number and therefore be able to claim "success". notter, as an ex-recruiter, you should know this. As for your supposition that because some people say that the armed forces should be larger in order to fufil all the commitments that the civilian government has given it, that is an entirely separate issue. If the congress would authorized more accessions, then the recruiting goals would go up in order to fufil any new force authorizations. Unless and until such an increase in end-strengths is legal authorized, your argument is specious. You mention (and I'll take your word for it) that an additional 30k soldiers have already been authorized, and recruiters are currently trying to fill those slots. Successfully, apparently, according to the numbers in this report. So where is the shortfall you are claiming? Last year, the Army did have a slight problem in reaching 100%, for a couple of months as I recall, but so far this quarter, they are ahead of their projections. And that was my point. When there is a slight shortfall "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!". When there is a slight overage "Don't mean nuttin'". Twisted logic. FirmKY

mnottertail -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 1:15:45 PM)
Recruiting goals are based on total authorized end-strengths of the armed services and projected losses. Nothing more, nothing less. No political "games" to reach some artificial number and therefore be able to claim "success". notter, as an ex-recruiter, you should know this. as an ex-recruiter, I know this not to be true. so we differ in our opinions, won't be the first or last, but you and me, we'll get by, lol. I am not a sky is falling type, and I don't remember anyone who was.....but I don't keep up with things like I should. Ron

FirmhandKY -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 1:55:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail FirmKY: Recruiting goals are based on total authorized end-strengths of the armed services and projected losses. Nothing more, nothing less. No political "games" to reach some artificial number and therefore be able to claim "success". Ron: as an ex-recruiter, I know this not to be true. I'm open to correction. I'd be interested to know how I was mistaken. I was mistaken once, when I was 16 ... but all I got was a slap in the face that time. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail so we differ in our opinions, won't be the first or last, but you and me, we'll get by, lol. I am not a sky is falling type, and I don't remember anyone who was.....but I don't keep up with things like I should. Hey, Ron, not a problem with disagreement. I think we'll get along fine, too. I enjoy a good give and take that doesn't fall over into name-calling, and I've not seen you do that. But I really am interested in your viewpoint. FirmKY

KenDckey -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 5:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I never trust statistics released by the military. OK Whose stats would you believe? The military is the only one that knows how many people it recruits. If you ask anyone else they got their stats from the military. It's like me telling you how many people ATT hired. I have no clue but for me to answer you I would have to ask them.

popeye1250 -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 6:52:34 PM)
I wonder how the U.S. Coast Guard did? They have people in Iraq too.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 7:14:02 PM)
Wonder if it's more to do with trying to get an education and medical care than a desire to go and shoot someone or concern about being shot in the middle East? Talking to co workers with Children in the US forces / national guard most of the motive is there inability to afford college education and medical cover which drives them to choose the military. There is deffinately a greater reverence for the military here than in most other countries I visit. Perhaps the US military budget should be viewed in a similar manner to the welfare budget in some other countries.

ncprincess -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/14/2006 7:29:01 PM)
I wonder if they get points for pre-recruiting teens. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the military...my son is in JROTC at his school and I'm very proud of my lil corporal, but, I do wish the recruiters would remember he's only a 15 yr old kid and stop trying to sell him on the "glorious" military life.

mgdartist -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 1:41:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncprincess I wonder if they get points for pre-recruiting teens. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the military...my son is in JROTC at his school and I'm very proud of my lil corporal, but, I do wish the recruiters would remember he's only a 15 yr old kid and stop trying to sell him on the "glorious" military life. lol "Glorious military life"...that what theyre sellin' him on? Even the most gung-ho, semper fi, jarhead lifers know the truth of general military gloriousness lies in always remembering what makes most recruits, grunts, and non-com's tick: "A bitchin soldier is a happy soldier"

FangsNfeet -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 4:45:30 AM)
The only reason why the "Recruiting Problem" ever came up in the first place was to cause fear in americans about the draft. If you can fool enough people to belive that the military is doing poorly and that Bush would reinstate the draft, then the majority will vote Democrat. I'm willing to bet that even if the Army came short by one soldier, the media would post the head line in big letters "Army fails to recruit expected numbers." Fear is the medias biggest alli in getting ratings and trying to change the world rather than report what is happening.

ncprincess -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 4:54:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mgdartist quote: ORIGINAL: ncprincess I wonder if they get points for pre-recruiting teens. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the military...my son is in JROTC at his school and I'm very proud of my lil corporal, but, I do wish the recruiters would remember he's only a 15 yr old kid and stop trying to sell him on the "glorious" military life. lol "Glorious military life"...that what theyre sellin' him on? Even the most gung-ho, semper fi, jarhead lifers know the truth of general military gloriousness lies in always remembering what makes most recruits, grunts, and non-com's tick: "A bitchin soldier is a happy soldier" quotes from the lil corporal...."I would get to travel to exotic places...They will give me ALOT of money to join" oh, and my all time fave...."I don't need your permission to sign up for the National Guard once I turn 17". I butt heads enough with my lil corporal/future Dom (trust me, he's showing the signs lol) let alone to have a recruiter telling him he doesn't have to gain my permission to do something once he hits 17.

spankmepink11 -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 5:34:00 AM)
Edited because i need to hush.

sub4hire -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 6:20:42 AM)
If you had read the rest of the article. Or done a little bit of research on the military website...there are articles after articles explaining why they met their quotas. Because they now allow those with positive drug tests in. Because those who don't exactly score very high on the asvab are now allowed in. I believe they even allow those with no diplomas from high school in at this point. For the person who asked about the Coast Guard...their numbers are also up. Though the military has reached an entire low point in society..one that had not been breached before and that is why their numbers are up.

KatyLied -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 7:14:18 AM)
quote: Because they now allow those with positive drug tests in. Because those who don't exactly score very high on the asvab are now allowed in. I believe they even allow those with no diplomas from high school in at this poi That makes sense. I knew the increase wasn't from tons of parents encouraging their kids to enlist in a time of war.

sub4hire -> RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... (12/15/2006 7:20:42 AM)
The thread a few weeks back or amybe a month at this point where Kerry bashed the troups. I posted all of the links from the military in that thread. As well as numerous newspaper articles on the same topic. I'd search, but why?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125