Noted In Passing
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Army has made its recruiting goal for thirteen months in a row. One would expect those who proclaimed the volunteer Army a failure might be a little chastened but that would be too much to expect.
The success the Army has shown should be a source of pride. It has been anything but in the quarters that eternally denigrate the volunteer military and oppose the war in Iraq. When this year closes the Army will have met accession goals, manned a force engaged in combat, retained an unprecedented number of seasoned troops and maintained the quality marks for education, aptitude, and behavior set by the Defense Department during peacetime.
No small accomplishment.
A tip of the hat to the recruiters of all services out there every day, living the “hero to zero” life and putting young men and women into uniform in the face of organized educrat opposition, a roaring economy, and in spite of a war. And a huge hat tip to those young men and women who have chosen service to country in the face of many other safer opportunities.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | A farewell to arms. — Comments (45) »
Noted In Passing 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
reading articles before quoting them.
You say:
The notion that the Army has been meeting its recruitment goals doesn't seem quite accurate in the light of research. It was missing its goals 9 months ago.
However, if you had read the article you cited you would have read:
"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.
So for the last four months of last year the Army met its goal and when you add that to the nine months covered in this report you have 13 months.
No conspiracy. No mistake. Just a failure to read.
And this statement then become obvious bullhockey
It may be meeting them by downgrading the goals, or accepting people usually not acceptable, by adjusting the age limit upwards or other means.
Though you may very well see the goals dropped in the next few months because the reenlistments have the Army above its authorized strength for the fiscal year and they need Congressional approval to increase their manpower ceiling or they have to bring on fewer new troops.
And you do realize that 389 is not a big percentage of 80,000, right?
stalls at 13 months straight."
to what the average joe of the street thinks about out military, as well as what our military is engaged in.
not sure what others think, but this seems to be the most tense time internationally that I have ever seen. with countries around the globe stepping up and saying "enough"!, at any moment things could explode into major , major conflicts. Conflicts that rely on allies....
It's a good sign...at least to me, that we take this seriously, and We don't run.
A classic Kossack rant (in their recommended diaries)
I'm not going to put up with blatant dishonesty.
First, you quoted the article to prove that the 13 months making recruiting goals was wrong. Instead, the article established what the Army and DoD have said which is that goals have been met for 13 months.
Second, the quote "But there are compelling reasons to think that Army recruiters are heading into a second consecutive year of recruiting shortfalls" has been proven wrong by the 9 months since that article was written.
So unless you are saying we knew more about recruiting for FY2006 in September 2005 than we do today your reliance on this quote is just nonsensical.
The only one quoting things out of context is you. My post is based in hard facts. Yours is based in a 9 month old article that you never bothered to read.
Your opposing opinion, in this case, was the direct result of shoddy research, an inability to read, and making stuff up.
YOU'RE not going to put up with...
Read ALL the sources. I cited a whole Google page. My post was categorically NOT based on ONE nine-month old article.
To recap: The Army was having trouble meeting its goals. It was looking like they were going to continue to have trouble. Their "in the bank" recruit level was at its lowest since quite a long time, so there was nothing to draw on to make up the shortfall. This was the situation nine months ago.
Now nine months we have another set of sources that says Woohoo The Army has been meeting its goals for the last thirteeen months, while another set of sources either disputes that claim or questions how it may have been accomplished, for example, by raising the age limit by 7 years over the last six-seven months, by downgrading the goals, etc.
Meanwhile, on the homefront, local recruiters are having trouble. Speculation is that Bush's booming economy removes the biggest reason people join up.
Not bothering to read, or an inability to read is not MY problem. Go ahead, Read all the sources, even the ones that don't agree with you. Gather some hard facts.
For the third time, I say there is enough out there that anyone can find support for whatever position they choose to take.
My position: It's not as great as some (like at Redstate) would say, and it's not as dismal as others (like at dKos) would say.
the size of it
I am not going to put up with it.
To recap: The Army was having trouble meeting its goals. It was looking like they were going to continue to have trouble. Their "in the bank" recruit level was at its lowest since quite a long time, so there was nothing to draw on to make up the shortfall. This was the situation nine months ago.
No. Nine months ago the Army had failed to meet their FY05 goals but had met their goals for the last quarter, that being 4 months.
The "recruit bank" is irrelevant as the goals are accessions, not contracts. Different things entirely but you don't know and don't care so I won't bore you with details.
Now nine months we have another set of sources that says Woohoo The Army has been meeting its goals for the last thirteeen months, while another set of sources either disputes that claim or questions how it may have been accomplished, for example, by raising the age limit by 7 years over the last six-seven months, by downgrading the goals, etc.>
No we don't. We have zero sources saying that the Army hasn't met their goals because those sources would be counterfactual given the actual recruiting data. We also know that the age limit added less that 400 recruits to the tally.
Not bothering to read, or an inability to read is not MY problem. Go ahead, Read all the sources, even the ones that don't agree with you. Gather some hard facts.
Exactly. If you had done so we wouldn't be having this conversation based on your using a statement made in a Sept 05 article as proof of what is happening today. We wouldn't be discussing "sources" which are factually inaccurate. And you might still be posting here.
your words would be the talking point of the day.
i often post in snarky faux-moonbat voice, especially when given a chance to highlight the absurdity of their ever-shifting rationales for why everything this President does is EVIL!!!
is a great idea. If you'll notice, the article disputed in the next paragraph the quote of the very person whose quote you copied. "But there are compelling reasons to think that Army recruiters are heading into a second consecutive year of recruiting shortfalls."
Note too that this article was from Sept of 2005. Quoting out of context is bad form.
All of the sources taken togther lead to a conclusion that things are not so rosy. Quoting out of context to bolster one's preferred view doesn't work in the long run. As I said people of opposing opinions can find emough in these articles to support either view.
I will add that our local recruiters are having a terrible time. but of course that is merely anecdotal.
and quite honestly, was in the mood to light someone up.
all good
It's because we've been letting in skinheads, high school dropouts, and 65-year-olds. Duh!!!
If you read the New York Times. I guess good news isn't fit to print.
the different email address also?
We do frown on sockpuppeting.
I ask which of your two accounts do you want to keep?
I addressed this ridiculous meme earlier in the year.
Fact is that well over 50% of the 17-21 year old cohort is ineligible to enlist if the standards of peacetime are adhered to... which they are. And even at a 4% take of TSC IV recruits we are better off than we were prior to 1989 when the take was 6%.
The Army has relaxed its standards to meet these numbers. I hope it doesn't significantly degrade the quality of our military. . .
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/11/MNG03JT3ER1.
DTL
The racist hate groups stuff is bogus though. . .
But what to make of all these sources.
It seems to me that theArmy Times is a credible source. From the article dated last summer, "Recruitment is a challenge right now," Snyder said. so last summer they asked to raise the enlistment age.
This summer they did raise the enlistment age. From Military.com, "For the second time in six months, the Army is raising the maximum enlistment age for new recruits, this time from 40 to 42, recruiting officials announced Wednesday...Only the Army, which has been struggling with recruiting in the face of ongoing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, decided to take advantage of the extension, with the age increase applying to the active Army, the Army Reserve and National Guard...The active Army has gained a total of 389 individuals older than age 35 since the age limit was lifted, while the Army Reserve has gained 696 soldiers over the age of 35, Bobick said."
The notion that the Army has been meeting its recruitment goals doesn't seem quite accurate in the light of research. It was missing its goals 9 months ago. It may be meeting them by downgrading the goals, or accepting people usually not acceptable, by adjusting the age limit upwards or other means. The MSM is mixed. If you want to believe that the Army is doing just fine, thank you, you can find sources to support you. If you want to believe that the Army is in terrible condition, you can find supporting sources for that, too.