It’s one day now until the inaugural of our 44th president, and for the New York Times in particular, all is well and every manner of thing is well: The right correct sort of people will very soon now be at the control levers of government, a truly historic event is about to take place that has at least the potential to heal a long suppurating wound and there will be many opportunities for busy bureaucrats who believe – really believe – in the power of government to reorder society in ways that more closely conform to their personal ideals.
Having had the opportunity over the course of the last few years to question the Times journalistic integrity (as opposed to its earnest advocacy), I had to engage in a moment’s introspection:
More Americans Joining Military as Jobs Dwindle
As the number of jobs across the nation dwindles, more Americans are joining the military, lured by a steady paycheck, benefits and training.
The last fiscal year was a banner one for the military, with all active-duty and reserve forces meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals for the first time since 2004, the year that violence in Iraq intensified drastically, Pentagon officials said.
Cynicism is natural when reading the Times on military recruitment: Despite gloomy predictions that the military in general (and the Army in particular) would fail to make recruiting numbers during the last several years the force has done generally well considering the increasing end-strength requirements of the ground forces, the booming economy during most of those years, and the non-trivial chance a potential recruit might face of facing active combat.
What actual numbers do we compare this good news to?
2003: “Another Banner Military Recruiting and Retention Year”
2004:
“All of the U.S. Military services, with the exception of the Army and Air National Guard met their recruiting and retention goals for Fiscal Year 2004 (which ended on September 30), according to Department of Defense (DOD) recruiting documents.
The Army enlisted 77,587 soldiers through September, besting the year’s goal by 587 soldiers.
2005: The Army fell 8% under annual goal, a shortage of 6600 soldiers.
2006: “All services have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for fiscal 2006.”
2007: “All of the active duty branches met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the fiscal year.”
2008: “All of the active duty and reserve branches met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the fiscal year.”
So, leaving aside the reserves and guardsmen, in only one year of the last six has any of the active services failed to make recruitment goals – the Army in 2005. The fact that the inactive force had problems meeting quota in 2004, 2005 and 2007 might have had something to do with very high employment over those years, but it might well have had more to do with the level of commitment reserve candidates bring to the table. It’s one thing to show up for drill one weekend a month with two weeks training in the summer, and another thing entirely sign up with every expectation of having to deploy for 15 months overseas. If you’re going to do that, why not join the active force, get full pay, better training and fight alongside others equally committed?
Why not help help the force exceed recruiting goals?
It’s only fair to acknowledge that this overall success didn’t come without a cost: A lot of money was thrown at recruiting and recruits, and Army standards were indeed lowered for numbers of recruits with high school degrees (79% vs a 90% goal) in FY2007, while 15% of that year’s quota required “moral” waivers. In 2008 recruiting standards have mostly trended positively:
20 percent of recruits joining the Army in fiscal 2008 required a waiver for medical or conduct reasons. The Army granted 372 waivers to allow recruits with felony convictions to enlist, although this number is down from 511 in fiscal 2007.
Also, only 83 percent of Army recruits in fy 2008 had high school diplomas. While this is below the DOD goal of 90 percent, it’s up from 79 percent in fiscal year 2007. All other active-duty and reserve services met or exceeded the 90 percent goal, except for the Army Reserve, which came in at 89 percent.
Overall, more than 92 percent of recruits enlisted in fy 2008 hold a high school diploma, contrasted with 75 percent of the general U.S. population in the same age range.
So, in the Army’s worst year for recruitment, their educational standards still exceeded those of the broader work force. That’s no surprise: The service is, after all, selective. But we were offered very few headlines making that point over the years. Instead we were treated to dire claims of impending calamity, perennially impending failures to make quota and the frenzied whipping up of draft scares. All of which were belied by the actual results achieved at the end of the day, as well a sturdy resistance to sacrificing the quality inherent to an all-volunteer force.
Faced with all this, I’m left with the conclusion that the media’s rhetoric is now being shaped more nearly to resemble the reality rather than inspire some emotional effect among the readership. After all, it makes intuitive sense that a worsening work environment helps military recruitment and retention. And speaking as an interested party, college is getting pretty damned expensive these days. Military service can help.
But the larger point seems to be that with the impending exchange of political power in Washington, the MSM no longer feels compelled to shade the truth ways antagonistic to the new commander-in-chief during war time. Maybe they’ll feel freer to just report the facts with rational analysis and let an informed readership make up their own minds.
I guess that’s a good thing.
Lex: regarding Reserve and Nat’l Guard shortfalls in certain years, also don’t forget that a substantial number of the enlistments we count on each year come from recruitment of Prior Service Active Duty. so, if Active Duty does particularly well in re-enlistments versus ETSs in a given year, Reserve / Nat’l Guard tends to take a downtick that year and next.
Except the force levels are still too small for the level of commitment expected of it. A 547,000 man Army is simply not big enough to maintain a large occupation force in Iraq, a planned surge in Afghanistan, and the remaining static commitments in Korea, Japan and elsewhere.
Furthermore the numbers are only what tell part of the story. To judge if the military is truly healthy OPTEMPO of current forces needs to be looked at and the quality of the individuals that are recruited. (And how many women were recruited instead of men-vs how many men the military needs to recruit.)
Think of it this way: “In Wall Street terms, if a publicly traded company low-balls on their annual revenue growth goal their stock will still take a beating even if that goal is met. In this instance it is not shareholders that are aggrieved, but over-deployed troops instead.”
That’s why I remain in favor of a program of national service that would be a requirement for young men. ( And only young men………).
I guess this rains on the parade that is Charlie Rangel.
Regarding college expenses,
I have to go on record as being quite opposed to spending tax payer’s money on college grants, assistance, etc. It is NOT the governments responsibility to provide for higher education. It ought be, and by rights, must be, a market-driven free enterprise, unencumbered by ties to the taxpayer.
I look at places such as Boston College, or Harvard, and what I consider to be obscenely-rich universities, all slurping at the public trough for federal funds to subsidize their students, while their massive financial and property holdings go untaxed, and unused.
Boston could balance it’s budget in one single year if Boston College and Harvard both paid the fair-market property taxes on the land they own.
There is no right to higher education. It should be freely available, as any commodity, to those who can afford it, but public monies should not be involved. Let the colleges provide the support for the students. If they truly want a specific student to attend, then the college should find the resources to make it happen. As it stands, our entire system of higher education is broken and should be razed completely and rebuilt.
Other’s mileage may, of course, vary.
Besides the recruiting numbers, watch the retention numbers.
I suspect that there will be an exodus from the ranks as military personnel make the decision that they would rather not serve the Obamanation.
I respect their right to do so, and hope that the new Commander in Chief proves himself worthy of the sacrifices of those he commands.
Interesting times.
Skippy, put your mandatory national service people in the Navy – the Army doesn’t need or want them.
I’m always amazed at how people -who rightly point out that the military has improved its leadership skills-are afraid of a draft. The low state of readiness in the 70′s was not caused by the draft, it was caused by neglect of the services.
1) I probably would not have been able to go to college without the GI Bill (o.k., o.k., it was a factor in my deciding to go into the service).
2) Our Nation providing college financial help for those that have served seems to me to be a good thing on many levels. I would say that only those that have served can be Citizens, though I suppose that would be a bit too “Heinleinien”.
3) Never bought the argument that volunteers are “better” than draftees. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics -people are going to believe what they want to believe on this topic.
Skippy, I’m not afraid of the draft, we just don’t need it. If you want some kind of mandatory national service, there’s plenty of opportunities outside the military. With all due respect, I have a little concern about Naval officers deciding that the Army needs the draft to solve a problem it doesn’t have. I’m sure you would be perfectly happy with say, my battalion commander determining what standards the Navy should use for its staffing. I’m sure she would be happy to correct all the Navy’s issues..
The Army Reserves are happily hiring – we’re still 10k or so short.
Skippy/
Pretty much agree with you ecept for one proviso–today’s draftees would be qualitatively different than the previously. The draft force cohort we sent to Vietnam 64 thru 68 was, by any standard of measurement one wishes to use–IQ, SAT scores, service aptitude tests, etc–the most educated, mentally capable force in the history of our nation, top to bottom, enlisted up to JCS.
Unfortunately our educational system has deteriorated to such an extent (mainly thanks to PC and “progressive” “educators” like William Ayers that have turned schools into indoctrination camps–SAT scores have been in free-fall since 1963 as one example) that any draft force would have far, far less potential for absorbing highly technical tng than prior–x-box gener- ation notwithstanding.
Also to be considered are the discipline problems that would ensue. To say that the ‘tude today’s generation “cops to” regarding authority figures and discipline is, shall we say, slightly rather more different than in 1962–the year I graduated from HS–is a gross understatement.
‘Course, the threat of the draft might motivate some in HS to get better grades–but the trade off might be riots on college campuses. In case you hadn’t noticed they ain’t exactly hot-beds of patriotic fire-brands–and it ain’t the left-wing guest speakers who are shouted down at campus forums…
[...] in tough times… As always, I stopped by Neptunus Lex to check out the latest news on culture and the Navy. As always, he brings some interesting [...]
I just don’t think there is any need for a draft. And I’m pretty sure damn near every politician that wants to get reelected agrees with me (Rangel knows it won’t pass).
As to whether draftees would serve well and honorably, sure they would. They wouldn’t be happy about it, but they’d do it.
But the problem with a modern draft versus near universal conscription a la WWII, is that you don’t need all that many people. And so that gives the draft boards a great deal of discretion as to who gets drafted. And we end up seeing things like college deferments and other ways of avoiding compulsory service. This tends to mean that a great deal of potential for graft or even just “back-scratching” exists whereby those of privilege can easily avoid compulsory service, while those who haven’t got connections suddenly find themselves wearing green.
The problem isn’t what the Army does with who it gets, but rather with who the nation would choose to send to the Army.
Pogue,
It’s funny you should mention letting Army officers drive navy manpower decisions. That just happened to the community I just left. It seems that after our reorganization the personnel numbers were put under a microscope and some dork at the Echelon II level asked the question, “hey, why are you manning your detachments based on a 3 section duty roster when the army in Iraq gets by with 2 section duty rosters?” It proved a poser for the non-ops N1 from the community who was there representing us and she had no answer to give.
Now anybody who isn’t an idiot knows that to man a combat unit that engages 24/7 in operations at anything less than 3 section is profoundly stupid and yet here we are, already broke before we deploy because some idiot decided that we were like army units and therefore more small dets could be manned/created if we made them smaller. So, if someone gets sick, or pregnant or goes on leave, the already overstressed det breaks down. Lord help it if it takes casualties.
Lex,
As a parent am feeling same re: college expenses. Imagine my relief when the Son&Heir got the call last week from his Marine “O” recruiter telling him he’s been accepted for ROTC scholarship. Look for the confirming mail anyday now. Hoo-rah!
Now to hear back from school(s) on his list.
AW1 Tim,
Amen. Hillsdale makes your case?
Skippy, the problems of the 70s was not caused by the draft. The draft was ended before I got to the fleet in ’72. The 70s were caused by leftists playing with the military culture in the 50s and 60s leading to breakdown of the long established relationship between the Officer and NCO corps. The NCO corps was almost destroyed. My father, who was in the AF saw the writing on the wall and got out in ’71. The Army suffered the most, with the AF close behind. Navy and Marines suffered the least, but it still was good.
Much of the disciplinary trouble in the Army, indeed, all of the services, was McNamara and fellow his whiz kids monkeying with enlistment standards. They thought it was very unfair to keep the class 4 types from dying for their country, so they allowed almost unrestricted induction of class 4 recruits. They were most of the disciplinary problems. That they were mostly minorities was a bad fact the civil rights pimps used to beat the military when they were over represented at Article 15 (NJP, Mast, Office Hours, for the Naval/Marine types) proceedings.
Having said that, I would certainly buy universal military training. One of the problems with our politics is we have had a tendency to have the intellectual upper crust doing the thinking, and the lower crust doing the fighting. It’s no surprise that same upper crust tends to be cowards and leftists.
At the founding every able bodied adult male was expected to be enrolled in the militia. Add no exemptions, basic training and AIT to that would be an excellent idea and one whose time has definitely come, alas, long ago. It would go a long way to reducing a lot of the uncivilized behavior we see in the left. The war mongers would have a harder time rushing us into a war as well when the self annointed elite realized their little johnny may come back minus some of his precious body parts.
If you don’t think it would work, take a hard look at Switzerland. The country reeks of guns. You see them on the street – full auto assault weapons, and they are kept in the home. Crime is practically non-existent, and it is peaceful. Next door Germany is becoming a left-wing cesspool by comparison.
I’m shocked that I agree with Skippy here. Truly shocked. But, he’s right, and I’ll give the devil his due.
great, people in favor of national service
Heinlein rolls over in his grave.
No doubt the military suffers when used to apply a politician’s notion of “social justice”, but it’s never been that the “least among us pay the greatest burden” – that’s a silly myth where actual combat casualties are concerned (equally “syndromes” aside). I enlisted w/ draftees and I couldn’t tell the difference in many cases. We should all study Newman’s “The Grammar of Assent” and then get back together…(-*
Laughing again at universal military conscription. Let us posit that each recruit should receive basic marksmanship training. We can’t afford it for 500,000 so just how does one afford it for 70 million people? You get to shoot one 9mm, one M16 round, one 7.62 round, one 50 cal ball and one Mk 19 grenade, toss a grenade and one 12 gauge round and voila, you are une soldat. Welcome to the ISAF you overtrained little soldat.
One interesting side note, in Starship Troopers if you volunteered they had to find a place for you. If citizenship, the right to vote, is to fall only upon those who’ve served then that service cannot be denied. That’s not going to fill the ranks with able-bodied folks, I’m afraid.
Likewise, a draft fills slots but generally with those who’ve not seen their academic careers going great. Given the tech in today’s military, we need a fairly smart infantry, and don’t need idiots in CIC. There’s always the cooks, ‘cept with an inept one it’s pretty easy to put the entire division on sick leave with the salmon mousse. There’s a limited number of billets for strong of back and weak of mind…
Do you want some 19 year-old goth poet-wannabee from Boston standing watch next to you with a rifle? He may have the education, but has he the motivation? Even more, does he consider himself too much an individual to accept the chain of command, to recognize his place in the chain, to realize that if he fails the unit fails?
There’s a lot of smart folks out there. Not all of them are compatible with military service. There’s a lot of folks who can’t pass the PT test who’d like to serve, a lot of simpletons who could find a real home in the service if their tasks were simple and well-defined.
Just saying there’s more to filling a billet than having a warm body assigned to it, and if we were to make other rights conditional upon service we’d have to accept certain consequences to the readiness and ability of our armed forces.
Not certain we want to go there, unintended consequences being evident mostly in hindsight.
– Max
Kinda right, kinda wrong. Heritage Foundation did an interesting study that showed:
That said, I would point you to an interesting book, AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service — and How It Hurts Our Country. I loved the book, and there are some fascinating observations in the WaPo review on the linked page. I would, again, point to my son’s experience. He graduated from one of the top HS in the DFW area — upper middle class, college prep focused. But over the last four years, no one has gone straight from that HS to the Marines. The expectation is that you would go to college.
One of the authors of the above book is Frank Schaeffer (son of the evangelical titan, Francis Schaeffer). When his son announced, from the graduation stage at his prestigious Boston private school, that his post graduation plan was to enlist in the Marines, (paraphrasing from memory here), there was an audible gasp from the audience. Calls to the headmaster next week about how could the school “fail”? Evidence? One of their grads entered the Marines!
I think this tends to become self-reinforcing. If you don’t know anyone who ever served, then it is harder to see yourself in the service — on both ends of the economic spectrum. On one end, it is further reinforced by snobbery. Military service equals failure. On the other end, the myths perpetuated by charlatans such as Charlie Rangel, and many in the media, portray the military as a machine to feed minorities into a meat grinder. The Heritage Foundation stats bear this out — the military is a middle class population — before, during, and after service.
Although the comments – all good ones – are all over the map, one prediction that I will make on the recruiting issue – that the actual numbers of mil. personnel will begin a steady drop, primarily among mid-grade… several I have talked with over the last few months have already stated that they will exit before the new Washington administration has the chance to utterly ruin all branches of the services.
Have also heard the same as to the reason that the FBI is having a massive, nationwide recruiting drive using the media… because the remaining mid to high-level career men – at least the ones with principles – feel that the environment in the coming years will be hostile, and many fear that their Agency will be increasingly used against any US citizens who incur the ire of the Obamanoids. So they are bailing. The appointment of Erik Waco Holder was the final blow for some of them
Just my two cents’ worth… or my nineteen bucks worth, when adjusted into post-bailout Obamabucks.
Scott, read again,
“intellectual upper crust doing the thinking, and the lower crust doing the fighting.”
Note the lack of “intellectual” in the second phrase. The wealthy are definitely underrepresented in the services. It has always been thus. Going back to the war of northern aggression one can make a comparison between Harvard and the University of Virginia. About 2500 left UVA to serve, and die, in the Confederate Army. It was about half that for Harvard. The south is still overrepresented in the services, and it isn’t the wealthy uppercrust that goes either.
I doubt Heinlein would be rolling in his grave at universal military training. He didn’t like the draft, but he wasn’t all that loud in his opposition to it. Starship Troopers was his story in reaction to conscription (1959 when the draft was going quite strong, and with little opposition -Elvis went when called up, without a word of complaint in public).
I would be all for limiting the franchise to veterans of the military. People like McGovern would certainly be in the minority.
Max, remember what happened to the screw up that rebelled in “troopers.” they flogged him and kicked him out. Should they not have? Seems to me that would increse the motivation, nicht wahr? Pour encourager les autres, and all that.
I agree on the “thinking” part, but really disagree on the “fighting” part. Like I said, kinda right, kinda wrong. It is middle class kids that are doing the fighting, not the lower class. Heck, look at McCain’s son — as upper crust as they come. Marine rifleman.
Why shouldn’t the middle class represent the majority of military enlisted recruits (and officer corps, as well) ? They represent the majority of the country’s population, after all.
Most middle-class kids are encouraged to go to college, but many find that the cost of a good school prohibitive. West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs are full scholarship schools, as are the ROTC programs nationwide.
With the change in the economy, many HS (and College) graduates will find that the employment opportunities they thought were waiting for them are gone.
I had a similar “rude-awakening” when I joined in 1981, but the reason I told everyone that I joined was that I thought I would get to fight the Iranians!
Quartermaster/
RE: The South being overrepresented in the services. Reminds me of an old Army drill Sgt. who was once quoted as saying: “They’re only three kinds of people in this man’s Army–Southern Whites, Southern Blacks–and all the rest.” LOL.
Quartermaster-
I’m pretty sure Heinlein was at least somewhat vocal about his opposition to the draft given:
“I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain! ” -Guest of Honor Speech at the 29th World Science Fiction Convention, Seattle, WA (1961)
Virgil — interesting discussion. If you go to that Heritage study I referenced, the regional stats reveal much when you look at recruiting rates against % of the population. NE and the mid Atlantic states? .75 recruit/population ratio. Every other region is right at 1.0. So, who is making up the slack for the NE elite? West South Central and Mountain states — 1.34 and 1.11.
So the correct statement for Charlie Rangel is that Texas kids are fighting and dying instead of those in Massachusetts.
Lat $.02- I hate the conversation about a draft affecting the greatest All Volunteer Force in our military history..for simple, incorrect and shortsided emotional pinheaded arguments.
How about we just draft gays? LOL. Would that make you happy Skippy?
b2