Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Recruiting Woes

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
 
DaveT Donating Member (447 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 11:34 AM
Original message
Recruiting Woes
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 11:36 AM by DaveT

Army recruiting up for June but still down for year

Army recruiters enlisted 6,157 new soldiers this month, 507 more than its goal, Army officials said Wednesday.

The June surplus breaks a string of four straight months in which the Army missed it goals by wide margins.

Through June 27, the Army had recruited 47,121 new soldiers in 2005. That's more than 7,800 below the number it needed to be on track to meet its goal for the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

The Army's success in June can be partly attributed to modest expectations. The June 2005 goal was more than 1,000 recruits lower than the June 2004 goal.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-army-recruiting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA







Pentagon Announces "Great Leap Forward"
Five Years of Improved Recruiting Planned


Some Question Maoist Reference

by Simeon Rice
August 24, 2005



Washington, DC.

Plagued by a spate of unfavorable news coming out of Iraq, the Pentagon today took the initiative on sustaining America's policy of maintaining an all volunteer military, even as the country occupies two hostile land masses on the Asian Continent. Colonel Douglas MacArthur IV unveiled the "Great Leap Forward" at a press conference in Washington today, an ambitious plan for maintaining the ideals of an all-volunteer army in a time when insufficient numbers of individuals volunteer for military service.

The goal of the program is to bring more volunteers into the military by modfiying the definition of "volunteer."

"We feel that most Americans really believe in the ideal of a volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps -- and we want to bring that patriotic spirit to bear on the problem of getting actual volunteers," MacArthur stated. "So we now have the OK from the Treasury Department to offer a tax credit of $100,000 to any individual who can persuade a person of military age to sign the enlistment contract." These binding agreements have become controversial in recent years as GIs discover that the time commitment in them can be extended unilaterally by the military, obliging men and women to return to Iraq for multiple tours of duty.

"This is a market-based solution to the problem of a tight military labor market, " MacArthur explained. Under the plan, the national enthusiasm for our Struggle Against Violent Extremism (SAVE) will be augmented by the incentive to get somebody else to go fight in it. Patriotic Americans will thus be able to buy huge amounts of alcohol and escort professionals to have a Signing Up Party that gives the young recruits "the time of their life."

MacArthur demonstrated a rare candor among military spokesmen as he said, "Let's face it. We're in this Struggle together. But some people aren't doing their part. We are prepared to look the other way as the tax beneficiaries might have to use more than just persuasion to bring in the recruits."

One company is already up and running to take advantage of the new tax provision. Sam "Sugarbear" Staley of Skip-Trace 4U, a Detroit bail bondsman and contract investigator who specializes in catching fugatives who jump bail, said, "This is great. The client will realize 100K in straight up tax credit -- all he has to do is produce fresh meat.

"Problem for the rich guy is, like, what does he know about delivering fresh meat? So the only way he can get the tax relief is to share the wealth a little, 10K maybe for overhead and research; picking the right targets, kids in trouble, kids with no hope, perfect for the army, right? So we spend some money finding the kid, then we spend maybe $500 partying with him, buttering him up, making his mom happy, whatever.

"Then we deliver the goods to the recruiting office and make the kid sign. The beauty part is, by privatizing the recruitment process, we can do all the shit the uniformed suckers would like to do, but can't due to all the red tape and shit."

Civil Libertarians are wary of the new plan. Harrison Wimpsley of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) promised litigation if Staley or any other bondsmen-turned-privatized recruiter violates the civil rights of any recruit. "The Thirteenth Amendment Prohibits involuntary servitude," Wimpsley said, "and we will waste no time filing papers in protest of anybody who gets kidnapped into the Army."

Academic reaction was also mixed. Harvard historian Wendell Snoozer pointed out that we went to war with Great Britain in 1812 in part due to the "impressment" of Americans into the English Navy. But NYU Radiology Professor Horst Juckman countered this by reminding that we lost that war.

Another problem area for the Pentagon is the strange choice of "Great Leap Forward" as the name for the program, an echo from the Mao Era in the People's Republic of China. It represented a colossal failure of governmentally imposed social change, mandated by the Communist Party from 1958-60.

MacArthur conceded that the reference would be controversial, but defended the choice as being both punchy and evocative. "Look," he said, "we're not trying to kid anybody. There's a kind of totalitarian backbeat to the idea of paying people to drag other people off to war. So why deny it? China is a great country today, maybe our toughest competitior on the planet.

"Who says we can't learn something about national unity from the greatest national unifier of the 20th Century?"




Query -- which one is satire?

We meet the goal for volunteers by lowering the goal!

or

We meet the goal for volunteers by expanding the definition of "volunteer!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Qanisqineq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. When I saw that the army met their goal for July
I thought-- no wonder, they lowered their goal for that purpose alone. Doesn't look good when they say they didn't meet their goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveT Donating Member (447 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Reality
to the current faction in control of America is a problem to be solved rather than an objective truth to ascertain.

Infinite power flows from seizing the power to say what's what.

So ketchup is a vegetable, the chaos of Afghanistan and Iraq is freedom on the march and Cindy Sheehan is an attention whore.


I knew a shrink once who said that the cure for solipsism is a punch in the nose. Wise person indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wonder how many will washout during boot
I hear they're very lax on the standards to enlist people, so it's probably a high washout percentage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Another factor to consider is ...
that June & July is the end of the school year. Some people sign up in advance and delay going in until after school lets out. Other kids are looking for a direction, a job or some GI bill money for college. It's the best time of the year for recruiters. If they can't meet their recruitment goals for June & July then you can bet they won't meet their goals the rest of the year.
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, 05:42 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