Army's Top Recruiter Says 2006 May Be Biggest Test

<<SNIP>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/nyregion/13recruit.html

Army's Top Recruiter Says 2006 May Be Biggest Test

By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: May 13, 2005

The Army's top recruiter, already struggling to meet his quotas this year, said yesterday that 2006 would be even harder, and perhaps the toughest year for recruiting since the all-volunteer force began in 1973.

Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, in a telephone interview, said the Army would most likely start its fiscal year this October with the smallest pool of recruits ready for boot camp in at least a decade. He said that by then, only 9.9 percent of the roughly 80,000 new active-duty soldiers the Army needs next year to replenish the ranks in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere were expected to be in the pipeline.

Normally, as the Army begins its recruiting year, it has a goal of having already-signed contracts with one in every three of the year's expected arrivals - a cushion that helps recruiters through the slow winter months. But this year, the Army started with one in five, and if General Rochelle's prediction is correct, next year will begin with only one in 10.

The general said that prospect was "not a bright picture" and blamed a variety of factors, from the war in Iraq, to an improving economy, to family members and friends of applicants who he said often dissuade recruits from joining.

<</SNIP>>

I hope not...

to help give people a REASON to WANT to sign up. So it SHOULD happen before October...tick tock tick tock tick tock

:nuke:
:tinfoilhat:

The fact that they are having problems finding enough recruits now says something: Young people are wising up fast and realizing that military service isn't a video game. They know that Iraq is a nightmare and they don't want to lose their lives there.

Not only do I think that another staged attack won't draw significantly more recruits, I think that it will backfire on the GOP/establishment big time.

You'll get a shitload of peaceniks on the left, and "America First" types on the right, all with the ultimate goal of not coming back home in a Hefty bag inside an aluminum "personnel transfer tube."

The politics may be different, but the goal is the same--I don't wanna die!!

Pat Buchanan is no doubt pleased....

I honestly do. Why would I want the military to have more warm bodies to continue to fuel this war, or more bodies for future imperialist conquests around the world?

Then there will have to be a national debate about the draft. I oppose the draft, but even a serious discussion of the issue could be the best medicine for the anti-war movement.

Beth J. Asch, a senior economist specializing in military personnel at the RAND Corporation, a military-financed research organization, described the general's prediction as "near disastrous."

She said the reduced pool of enlistees would force the Army's 7,500 recruiters, already struggling under intense pressure, to find applicants, verify that they are qualified and send them to boot camp in 30 days or fewer. In 2004, recruits typically waited 110 days to report to boot camp after signing up; as of March, that had dwindled to 50 days.

"It's comparable to having no savings account," Ms. Asch said. "They'll be living month to month."

that's where i thought she was going.

notice how she got that psych dig in there...

"It's comparable to having no savings account," Ms. Asch said. "They'll be living month to month."

3 hots and a cot, eh?


peace

miss SHIPPING GOAL. You cannot, you do not, you never, damn near, make it month to month across the board. The way they keep it going when times are reasonable is that some guy overships to cover someone else who dropped the ball. But now, there are no assets to be had.

It is getting drafty up in here!

can't catch them.

and some other general, yesterday said "we all know from our 'experts' and vast knowledge & experience that insurgencies can last years... even up to 9 years" :faint:

now, whadda we gonna do dubya?!?


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

You can't blame the recruiters. Many of them were "selected" for recruiting duty. Some have volunteered after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fucking Army hasn't changed.

should start a campaign to get their people in line and enlist their kids and grandkids. hey, and maybe even volunteer to go themselves.

every single time i mention to a bushie that whoever voted for him should have their kids enlist i get either stony silence or an uneasy laugh.

And some of them are VOLUNTEERING to RETURN TO IRAQ to GET OUT OF THE DUTY!!! Can you imagine??? Talk about a conscience--I'd rather risk it myself than send someone off to die? What a conundrum!!

It used to be SO good, too, not so long ago. The military was a profession, now it is a repository for the poor, the desperate, the unable to learn and follow directions, and those with "issues." From a military management perspective, it's a powder keg.

BUSH BLAMES CLINTON,

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html

DOES WORSE HIMSELF,

"...only 9.9 percent of the roughly 80,000 new active-duty soldiers the Army needs next year to replenish the ranks in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere were expected to be in the pipeline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/nyregion/13recruit.html

ABSOLUTELY NO NATION-BUILDING:

"Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price.

And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.

I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation-building mission.

I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/11/politics/main240442.shtml

AND THEN FLIP-FLOPS:

Iraq...Afghanistan...

BUSH LIES THEN:

“Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report 'Not ready for duty, sir.' This administration had its moment. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.”

http://www.2000gop.com/convention/speech/speechbush.html

CHENEY LIES THEN:

“Military readiness has reached its lowest level in modern times, and the Clinton-Gore administration has done very little to reverse that decline.”

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Military_0704,00.html

US MILITARY CORRECTS BUSH & CHENEY LIES THEN:

The U.S. Army said Friday that Bush was wrong when he said in his speech Thursday night to the Republican National Convention that two of the Army's 10 divisions were not ready to fight.

Maj. Thomas Collins, an Army spokesman, told CNN: "All 10 Army divisions are combat-ready, fully able to meet their war-fighting mission."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/04/gwbush.military/

BECOMES TRUE BUT FAR WORSE BECAUSE OF BUSH:

Four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation with relatively few ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday.

Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/12/06/official_divisions_not_ready_for_battle?mode=PF

Biggest test my ass, they fail the recruitment test every month. Even the dumbest of the dumb know whats in store for them if they join up. The Iraq war hasn't even started yet.

this war is really bad!!!