Tuesday
13Feb2007
Military Recruitment Goals Exceeded
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 10:21PM "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq." -Sen. John Kerry, Democrat Massachusetts
Will these soldiers ever learn? The new recruitment numbers are out and U.S. military has met or exceeded its goals for January 2007, just as it did in 2006. (click picture below for Pentagon Channel report)
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/913879
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (16)
Exemplary social significance. Great insight Amy.
Hard to believe, but top of Yahoo News is this. I wonder what they were thinking of the ramifications for posting this up. Just think a main cause to go into Iran, stop their nuke program, and take out Al Qaeda’s Iraq idiot and free some more suppressed people. I heard not many people like this radical puppet Iranian leader, but the terrorist extremist crowd.
"Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled Iraq for Iran - Yahoo News"
"believed to be in Tehran"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html?hp&ex=1171515600&en=d763ab40cba3657d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Ssssshhhhhhh!!! Don't tell the liberals this....they think the troops don't support the President and want to mutiny.
Of course, Kerry probably thinks that this is an indication that the Department of Education needs more funding....geeesh
Elmer, what's your point? Since you didn't make one, I will.
Military recruitment is through the roof, and according to all credible accounts its because of patriotism, not criminals. The link you posted talks about (and I'm not sure how accurately; it IS the NYTimes, after all) a relaxation in standard toward recruitment of potential recruits with criminal backgrounds.
Let's be real here, Elmer. The military is not letting felons into its ranks. I personally know men who've committed petty crimes in their youth and have displayed total rehabilitation in their activities... so should the military not let a man join who 10 or 15 years ago committed wreckless endangerment by drag racing or who was arrested for shoplifting? The military requires verification from multiple sources that the person's current behavior is not condusive to the past misdemeanor.
If Democrats want ILLEGAL aliens and felons to be able to VOTE IN U.S. ELECTIONS, what's wrong with a rehabilitated guy with a misdemeanor in his background serving his country? Believe it or not, some of these soldiers serve as a way of making it up to their country. How about that.
My point is in the article:
"The data is crystal clear; our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards,” said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
Why would the military lower their standards if there is a recruitment rush due to patriotism?
From Mr. Fudd's paper:"the Army has employed a variety of tactics....."
"tactics," doesn't connote or lead the reader anywhere the paper might like them to be lead, does it?
Might it also be seen as, more people are requesting waivers?
Elmer, there are two main reasons why the military is "lowering standards". (by the way, the military greatly lowered physical training standards in the 90's as well)
1) Blandly is correct that more guys signing up are requesting waivers. I know soldiers who are good upstanding citizens who joined to serve their country (and even make amends to America for some of their past indiscretions) but need acquire a medical or "moral" waiver to join.
2) The Clinton administration proudly downsized "big government", actually, the MILITARY, to 10 Division, eliminating 200,000 jobs. We're in an effort to rebuild the military and increase the numbers.
Various military leaders have applauded current troops as being the greatest patriotic soldiers in a generation.
I'd also add that soldiers are representative of society and there will always be people with spotted backgrounds. If the same standard were applied to the Senate and Congress, there'd be a lot of dishonorably discharged politicians.
Lastly, I posted an opposing view of the military recruitment numbers to bring some balance to the discussion. There are two sides to every story. That you chose to include an misleading quote from a highly decorated military veteran and current US Senator indicates that you want to make a political point from these numbers. Your point is not taken.
Hi Amy,
Just a question. Where do the goal numbers come from? Are they lower or the same or higher than they have been since the war? I know I should be answering this myself and I don't expect you to do it for me. I just thought you might know quick off the top of your head. Please don't take time to research if you don't know...
Thanks,
Sharon
Yipeee!!
Btw, off the subject I rented a movie called "Flyboys" and it was excellent, one bad word from what I remember, and unfortunately the worst one anyone can use, but other than that, it was wonderful!
We sure have come a long way!
Actually, S, that's a great question. My understanding is that it comes from the numbers needed to support current troop numbers. Replenishment if you will. Now that the plan is to increase the size of the Army, the recruitment needs will have to increase as well.
So if 10,000 soldiers retire, EST or are discharged from the military, those 10,000 have to be replaced. As I understand it, that's how the recruitment numbers are determined.
Excellent discussion. Good to be back!
--Cobra
Welcome back, Cobra.
Thanks Amy. I always wondered about that. I can see that if more troops are sent, then the recriutment numbers have to go up as well. It will be interesting to see if they actually do.
Btw, as a Democrat, maybe I'm not in line with the rest of the party, but I wouldn't want illegal aliens or felons to vote. Committing that kind of crime causes you to lose some rights, and not being in this country legally speaks for itself.
I also think the point about the military 'relaxing' some of its standards ought to be considered. I agree with you, Amy, that if someone did something so many years ago (whatever the standard is) and can prove they have been abiding to the rules of law since, they should be given the chance.
I do think though it would be interesting to do a demographic study so to speak about the backgrounds of new recruits. How much did this 'relaxing' help? Did these new recruits who have past records join because of patriotic reasons or because they were having trouble getting employment and advancement in the civilian world and the military would give them a chance to start over with a level playing field, a combination of both? That kind of thing...it would make for a good research paper somewhere...
Thanks,
Sharon
This is a particularly touchy subject for me. I have a very difficult time at work, deciding who will go to Iraq, and who will not. It's made a bit easier by the fact that EVERY MARINE IN MY UNIT is jumping up and down on my desk, begging to go. Perhaps that has something to do with our Armed Forces making mission? Could that be called patriotism? The "tolerant" folks would probably label that as stupidity. I would invite them to investigate the educational background of my subordinates. Those same "tolerant" folks might be shamed into silence if they did. Pfft....
Excellent, Jarhead. Not only is it about patriotism (although it is; commanders are calling this the greatest generation in the military for that reason), but also they believe in the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's so sad that people who don't get it are willing to screw up the sacrifices of our military. You guys are WILLING to do it, go there, take the hits and make the sacrifices, and ignorant politicians and uninformed Americans want to protect the troops from themselves. Jerks!