Meanwhile, those people who get their information about the military and about Iraq secondhand, from the media, are not willing to sign up.

I think this is a big issue. I've seen folks insist that it doesn't need to be addressed because we can throw money at the new recruits and all the bad PR in the world won't matter. Maybe so. But I do think it's a fairly big factor.

One thing to note, (a military blogger...Lee, I believe...shared this with me) is that the enlistments are at a high for recent years, and the reason we're missing the mark is because the Army's desired size has grown. This means we are asking for far more troops to enlist than in the past, and there is where we fall short...we are falling short compared to our goals, but not compared to recent history.

Still means we're not where we need to be, but it's a little better than it seems at first glance.

What it tells me is that the people who have the best, personal, first-hand information on what it's like to be a soldier, and what it's like in Iraq, are quite willing to sign up for more of the same.

See, i get a different impression from it. The reason my husband is re-upping his enlistment is because he's got 13 years in and would be stupid to get out now and lose his pension. That's the way it is with a lot of guys who are around the 9/10 year mark. They figure they're halfway through, so they may as well stay and get a nice pension check every month, plus medical benefits for the rest of their lives.

In addition, some people get some pretty awesome re-enlistment bonuses, up to $30,000 in a lump sum. That helps....

The thing is Tex "if" you remember, the numbers lee gave us say this is "dead" wrong! The army is "over" their goals and enlistments are up NOT down. The army is not missing it's mark at all. The are projecting that they will meet or exceed their recruitment goals for the year! Here they are but not lee's these are from the DOD:



Accessions
Goal
Percent
Army Accessions Goal Percentage
6,157 5,650 109
Navy 4,566 4,529 101

Marine Corps 4,156 4,051 103

Air Force 2,400 2,370 101



Link

drmiler: It's PUBLISHED FACT that the enlistments are not meeting the goals. In fact, goals have been lowered and STILL not met.

It's not as bad as it looks (because enlistment is still strong, it's just that the goals are far higher than the norm), but they are still...as of right now...coming up short.

drmiler: It's PUBLISHED FACT that the enlistments are not meeting the goals. In fact, goals have been lowered and STILL not met.

Actually NO it's NOT a "published" fact, as can be seen by the figures at the link provided. They are NOT coming up short! That is unless you're calling the DOD a bunch of liars.

Link

Thanks for adding that piece to the puzzle, dharma. I'll adjust my knee-jerk reactions accordingly Clearly, not all the re-enlisters are doing it just for the good deeds.

From an article I wrote June 10th:

While the May recruitment numbers were not available until today, according to a cnn article, the Army fell about 25% short of its recruitment goal (6,700, lowered from an original target of 11,050).

Army Times (must be a subscriber to access the linked article, my apologies), reports that "eight months into the fiscal year, the Army has enlisted 40,964 soldiers out of a year-to-date goal of 49,285, a shortfall of 17 percent." Army Times also confirms May's 25% shortfall.

I generally get my information on recruitment numbers from Army Times. Guess where THEY get their numbers? THE DOD.

What you are referring to is the numbers for the month of June. What I am referring to is the numbers for the past few months, which have been consistently problematic.

I agree, the most recently released numbers are encouraging. But the Army has a big challenge before them if they want to catch up with the goals they've set for the fiscal year.

See, i get a different impression from it. The reason my husband is re-upping his enlistment is because he's got 13 years in and would be stupid to get out now and lose his pension.

Your right here, I myself will re-up one last time to reach my active 20 years. I would be an idiot to walk away after 18 years of service, war or not.

But you must account for the fact that those over six years will always re-up in the same percentages weather it is either 2000 or 2005. Where the percentages will change the most is in the numbers of first time reenlistments. (i.e. those with 3-6 years) That is where the over all percentages have raised. So the differences between the past reenlistments and the record present numbers are in the first reenlistments.

Bonuses are good and the pay is much better then say the 1990s. But I must agree with Stutefish and say that if things were as bad as the media says, and not as us soldiers know, then you could not pay enough to keep soldiers after their first enlistments.

Thanks Texas for the plug. You are right the Army has set the Goal higher by 3,000 soldiers for 2005 over 2004 and will most likely raise the goal again to reach the Congressional mandated expansion of the Army by 50,000 soldiers. Here is the link to my earlier post:Link

Stutefish I will remove my link if you wish.

The question remains... If we our troops are stuck in such a hellatious "quagmire", why are those who have experienced the most reenlisting in such high numbers?

Where the percentages will change the most is in the numbers of first time reenlistments. (i.e. those with 3-6 years) That is where the over all percentages have raised.

This is very true.