• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Army: Recruiting problems and tours

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
146
Points
710
Not unrelated subjects.  From William Arkin, Washington Post:

Hollow Army, Hollow Patriotism
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2008/01/our_new_hollow_army_comes_from.html

The United States has a national security crisis on its hands.

The Army once again missed its benchmarks for recruiting in 2007. And, as it struggles to fill the ranks in wartime, it's lowering the "quality" of recruits it will accept.

That sets our Armed Forces up for long-term problems on the battlefield. But it also speaks to a far greater question about our country's willingness to truly support our troops.

A new study from the National Priorities Project, a Massachusetts-based research organization, found that the percentage of recruits entering the Army with a high school diploma dropped to a new low in 2007 and was nearly 20 percentage points shy of the Army's goal. The study additionally found that average scores on the army qualification test are dropping.

The Army responds that "we're not putting anyone in the Army that we don't feel is qualified to serve as a soldier."

But its answer to the recruiting problem -- lowering standards, loosening age restrictions and increasing bonuses and other economic incentives -- can only be a short-term fix. Less qualified recruits are known to drop out more and reenlist less than soldiers with more education and higher aptitudes. They are less able to perform their missions. And they are less capable of surviving on the battlefields of an extremely complicated world.

Perhaps the end of the polarizing Bush administration, as well as an exit from Iraq, will encourage more qualified and motivated young people to join the military.

But I think the crisis goes beyond Iraq and Bush.

The National Priorities study underscored that lower and middle-income families are supplying the lion's share of recruits. Our military is increasingly less representative of our society. And I think one of the drivers behind that trend is that Americans are fundamentally uncomfortable with the tenor of the war against terrorism.

The flag waiving and the slogans and the eye-watering reverence for the troops is still on display. But the patriotism is mostly hollow. The country is clearly not behind the kinds of wars being waged to defeat terrorism. And increasing the size of the Army or throwing more money at the Pentagon is not going to address this fundamental problem.

I'm not sure about that last para.  Certainly most of the middle and upper classes (in Canada too) have not been volunteering for military careers for long time, if they ever did.  Just look at avoiding Vietnam through college, or the reserves.

As for tours:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004140449_webarmy23.html

The Army is considering a proposal to cut soldiers' battlefield tours from 15 months to 12 months beginning in August, in a sweeping effort to reduce the stress on a force battered by more than six years at war.

The proposal, recommended by U.S. Army Forces Command, is currently being reviewed by senior Army and Pentagon leaders, and would be contingent on the changing needs for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Our top priority is going to be meeting the combatant commanders' requirements, so there may be no decision until we get more clarity on that," Army Col. Edward Gibbons, chief of the plans division for Forces Command, said Wednesday. He said the goal was to meet those demands while still reducing soldiers' deployments and increasing their time at home between tours.

Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army, has been pushing to move back to one-year deployments, citing the heavy burden that the 15-month stays put on troops and their families. Just last week he hinted that the shorter tours could begin this summer.

But defense officials have been reluctant to talk much about the shift because it will depend heavily on what Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, recommends when he gives his assessment on the war to Congress in March or April.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the move to 15-month deployments about a year ago, as the Pentagon struggled to fight wars on two fronts.

Mark
Ottawa

 
Arkin is very anti-administration and slants his articles accordingly. The Army is making its recruiting quota so now he skews the story to the lack of "quality" recruits. In peacetime the Army was very selective. Now the Army will take a kid with a GED and some minor non-violent criminal offenses just as it was when I enlisted the draft era Army in early 1972. It is a lowering of standards from our peacetime standards but it also gives a kid a shot at turning his life around.The bonus money the Army is giving out has been a majorfactor in both retention as well as recruiting.Arkin and his ilk have tried for years to turn the public against the war without success.

With regard to tour lengths they were extended during the surge and now they will be returning to the standard Army tour of 12 months.No big deal. Also the Army will be standing up 6 new brigades which should help improve dwell time beginning in 09-10 time frame.
 
AP: Soldiers' deployments to go back to 1 year

WASHINGTON (AP)  -- The Bush administration plans to announce next week that U.S. soldiers' combat tours will be reduced from 15 months to 12 months
in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning later this summer, The Associated Press has learned. The decision is expected to get final, formal approval in the days ahead. It
comes as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, prepares to deliver a progress report to Congress next week on the improved security situation there.
He is also expected to make recommendations for future troop levels.

A senior administration official said Friday that plans are to deploy soldiers for 12 months and then give them 12 months rest time at home. Exactly which units would
be affected is not clear. The official spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the decision to extend
deployments from 12 to 15 months last year, because that was the only way the Army could provide enough troops for the Bush-ordered military buildup aimed at
quelling the violence in Baghdad.

Gates; Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff; and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have since said that they wanted to go back to 12-month
tours as soon as possible. Casey has pushed shorter deployments to reduce the strain on troops battered by long and repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that
goal has been hindered by the security demands in Iraq.

Officials have been tightlipped in recent days about the move to reduce the tours. Gates said Friday that he expected a decision by President Bush "fairly soon" on the
Army's proposal. But he also cautioned that cutting troops' time on the battlefront will impose limits on what the military can do in the future. "So I think the bottom line
is, we're all still looking at that. But I think we'll have a better idea of what we think we can do, what we ought to do, in the fairly near future," Gates said.

What the future holds for troops in Iraq will become clearer when Petraeus goes before congressional committees Tuesday. Petraeus is expected to lay out his proposal
for a pause in troop cuts after July, when the last of the five additional brigades ordered to Iraq last year have come home. And he will probably tell lawmakers how
many more troops could be withdrawn this year, as long as conditions in Iraq remained stable. His presentation will include Iraq war statistics reflecting the reduction
in violence over the past seven months, but it will also note the latest spike in fighting in Basra, as Iraqi security forces took on Shiite militias, and the attacks that
stretched out into Baghdad.

Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, are expected to tout political advancements by the Iraqis, although they will note that much more needs to be
done. Officials said Friday that the Army proposal to reduce tours is on track. Top military leaders made it clear to Bush in a closed-door meeting late last month that
they are worried about the war's growing strain on troops and their families.

There are now 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including 18 combat brigades, down from a peak of 20 brigades for much of the past year. By the end of July, military
leaders have said those numbers would fall to 140,000 troops, including 15 combat brigades. Casey has said he could reduce combat tours if the demands on the Army
were cut back to a total of 15 brigades in the war zone. At the end of July, there would be 13 in Iraq, along with two Marine units, and two Army brigades in Afghanistan.

In a related move Friday, Democrats signaled that they don't see much hope in ending the Iraq war this year so long as Bush insists that U.S. troops remain committed
there in large numbers. Still, party leaders wrote to Bush on Friday to tell him it's not too late to change course and plead with him not to leave the war for the next
president to handle. "We are deeply concerned that you and the congressional Republican leadership are intent on staying the current course throughout your
administration and then handing the Iraq war off to future presidents," the Democrats wrote.

Others said they hope to see continued efforts to force troop withdrawals, but they acknowledged that they were unlikely to succeed. "I expect most of our troops to still
be there" come the end of the year, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "Until there's either a big enough majority in the
Senate or a change in the president's [approach], I don't see a significant improvement situation improvement in Iraq," Levin said.

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, predicted that the situation in Iraq will grow considerably worse by September "because the administration
seems to have no political game plan."

Since Democrats lack a veto-proof majority, they have repeatedly failed to force Bush to accept any anti-war legislation, including one measure supported by many
Republicans that would have required that troops spend more time at home between combat tours.


Link
 
Maybe they should let homosexual's join and open up the combat arms to females.
 
Flawed Design said:
Maybe they should let homosexual's join and open up the combat arms to females.

Or they might consider loosening up their residency requirements as a lot of other militaries have. It seems that just about every other English speaking military except the Canadian and American allow overseas applicants.
 
If our schools did their job we would have a larger manpower pool. I forgot the number but the number of people fit enough and can pass the entrance exam is a fraction of the total available pool. At least we havent had to recruit  McNamara's 100,000.

http://members.aol.com/vetschoice/100-1.htm
 
Back
Top