Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm confused! Pentagon said it met it's recruiting goals this month but..

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:40 PM
Original message
I'm confused! Pentagon said it met it's recruiting goals this month but..
Edited on Wed Aug-10-05 02:41 PM by LynneSin
http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8BT22287.html

Army Recruiting Up, Meets July Targets

- - - - - - - - - - - -


By JOHN J. LUMPKIN Associated Press Writer

August 10,2005 | WASHINGTON -- The active-duty Army reached its recruiting target for the second straight month in July, but the summertime rebound may not be enough for the service to fulfill its annual goal, according to figures provided by a Pentagon spokesman Wednesday.

The Army National Guard, meanwhile, missed its recruiting goal again, recruiting only 4,712, 80 percent of its July goal of 5,920 new Guard members, spokesman Bryan Whitman said. The Guard has hit its target only once in the last 19 months.

The U.S. Army Reserve also fell short of its target, recruiting 2,131 new reservists, 82 percent of its goal of 2,585, Whitman said.

The Pentagon has blamed the recruiting shortfalls in part on an economy that's providing other opportunities to high school and college graduates. Opinion polls also show young people and parents are turning away from Army service because of the ongoing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.


<<<<more>>>>

Ok, so the Guard and the Reserve are both down but somehow we're 'On-Target'. Did the pentagon hire Arthur-Anderson to cook their books. I mean, it's well document that the targets were reduced since they were overwhelmingly missing their numbers

My favorite line has to be who they blame for the recruiting shortfalls. Hey idiots, this time it's NOT the economy - it's the fact that NO ONE wants a trip to Iraq!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. The target was drastically lowered
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadAsHellNewYorker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. thats what I thought happened n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. That's what I heard, too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well first off one has to remember
That recruitment goal have been reduced, not once but twice this year. I believe that they were lowered with the PR value in mind, that they can say that they are meeting their recruitment goals.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon is probably rigging the books. These folks come from a long line of experts in book cooking, so that they are doing so now with the enlistment numbers is in no way suprising.

The sad part about this is that by saying the numbers are met, they can continue to feed the sheeple that line about how everything is doing just fine, support is up etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Meanwhile they will continue to extend soldiers' tours of duty, call up those thirty and forty year old reservists, etc. etc. and continue fighting this illegal immoral war, when we should just get out, now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. Goal for the year is 80,000. They won't come close.
They lowered monthly goals (not sure why) but the annual goal of
80,000 is unchanged. Playing with the numbers will not help them meet the objective for the year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. Active Duty vs Reserve
They're saying the Army (full time regular) reached it's goal, but the Guard and Reserves did not.

Meeting the targets has also required a drastic lowering of standards and very questionable recruiting methods. This is probably going to show up in a different statistic - a larger number of boot camp rejects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. In other news: Majority of American students have 4.0 GPAs.
The new grading scale is:

A: 50-100
B: 40-49
C: 30-39
D: 20-29
F: 0-19
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Two additional conclusions to be garnered from the Pentagon's admission:
Edited on Wed Aug-10-05 03:10 PM by Supersedeas
1. When the Pentagon admits that the 'good' economy is the cause of lower recruiting numbers, aren't they also admitting that they prey upon those who are economically dependent (ie. the economy is terrible in the Carolinas, so lets focus our recruiting efforts there)?

2. When the Pentagon admits that part of the shortfall is due to the 'conflicts' in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't we feel some pride in the bravery of those recruits willing to serve in the face of such danger? (We have found some really brave youngsters in the Carolinas, so lets focus our recruiting efforts there.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC