PDA

View Full Version : US Army Struggles For Recruits.



Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 09:13 AM
U.S. Army struggles for recruits amid Iraq war

Sunday, March 6, 2005 Posted: 11:53 AM EST (1653 GMT)
U.S. Army recruits in San Antonio, Texas, preparing to be sworn in on February 16.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Staff Sgt. Richard Guzman is on the front lines of one of the U.S. Army's toughest battles in years, and he's not in Iraq.

He's an Army recruiter trying to coax young men and women into volunteering to serve at a time when U.S. ground forces are engaged in a war halfway around the world.

"To me, recruiting used to be easy. Right now, you really have to hunt for those ones who really want to" serve, said Guzman, who recruits in New York City's Harlem section.

Nearly two years into an Iraq war that has left more than 1,500 U.S. troops dead and another 11,200 wounded, recruiters like Guzman are having to work hard as the Army strives to sign up 80,000 recruits this year to replace soldiers leaving the service.

The Army in February, for the first time in nearly five years, failed to achieve its monthly recruiting goal. It is in danger of missing its annual recruiting target for the first time since 1999.

Recruiting for the Army's reserve component -- the National Guard and Army Reserve -- is suffering even more as the Pentagon relies heavily on these part-time soldiers to maintain troop levels in Iraq. The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10 percent behind, and the Guard is 26 percent short.

The Marine Corps, the other service providing ground forces in Iraq, has its own difficulties.

In January and February, the Marines missed their goal for signing up new recruits -- the first such shortfall in nearly a decade -- but remained a bit ahead of their target for shipping recruits into basic training.

Iraq marks the first protracted conflict for U.S. forces since the end of the draft in 1973, which ushered in the era of the all-volunteer military.

If the military fails to attract enough recruits and America maintains a large commitment in Iraq, the nation may have to consider some form of conscription, said Cato Institute defense analyst Charles Pena. "This is getting dicey," said Pena.

Lt. Col. John Gillette, who commands the Army recruiting battalion in New York City, said young people and their families are asking questions about the war.

"Instead of just talking specifically to the applicant, we're talking to the applicant's parents, and, in some cases, extended family -- aunts, uncles -- just to answer their questions and concerns as well," Gillette said.

Guzman said he reassures families that a recruit will get the normal nine weeks of basic training and further individual training and not just be shoved in a uniform and sent into combat. "They think that after two weeks in basic training, they will be deployed overseas," Guzman said.

Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith said recruiters do everything they can to allay the apprehension of recruits and families. "But there are certain things that we just can't talk our way through or give a hard answer to, like, 'Will I be deployed?' That's just not something a recruiter can predict."

The improving economy and civilian job opportunities also are factors in recruiting, Smith said.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey said the active-duty and reserve components have added 3,000 recruiters since last year and increased enlistment bonuses to try to lure new soldiers.

"So we've got a challenge, but we're certainly not going to give up," Harvey told a congressional panel.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said there has been a migration of recruits away from the ground forces toward services less likely to be in harm's way in Iraq -- the Navy and Air Force.

"There's a bottom line to the recruiting debate. People don't want to die," Thompson said.

The problem is even more dire than it appears because the Army, through "stop-loss" orders, has forced thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to remain in uniform when their volunteer service commitment ends, thus keeping recruiting needs artificially low, Pena said.

Some of these soldiers may remain in the Army involuntarily for up to 18 months beyond when they were scheduled to leave.

"The military can hold things together on a relatively short-term basis through some fairly extreme measures like 'stop-loss' and making much greater use of Reserve and Guard units to fill the requirements in Iraq," Pena said.

"But you cannot do this indefinitely. At some point, you break the force. And the question is: how close are we to that breaking point?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Story Tools

www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/06/military.recruiting.reut/index.html

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 09:30 AM
C'mon LOU! You should join, you're only 24 years old and talk a big "conservative" game. Hell, you might even impress a girl enough to sleep with you for once...well maybe.

LoungeMachine
03-07-2005, 09:33 AM
And again I'd like any Neocon in here to explain something to me.

Why do we send "National Guard" troops over there? Aren't they supposed to Guard our Nation? Especially in this time of increased "Homeland Security"

They keep saying another attack is "inevitable", including Porter Goss, so why not have the National Guard Troops HERE ???

LoungeMachine
03-07-2005, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
C'mon LOU! You should join, you're only 24 years old and talk a big "conservative" game. Hell, you might even impress a girl enough to sleep with you for once...well maybe.

Remember Lou......

Don't Ask Don't Tell

FORD
03-07-2005, 09:37 AM
Where's all the little FAUX brainwashed 17 year olds who like to pretend they know what they're talking about?

Uncle Chimp wants YOU!

BigBadBrian
03-07-2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Where's all the little FAUX brainwashed 17 year olds who like to pretend they know what they're talking about?

Uncle Chimp wants YOU!

Maybe you'd have to ask the 17 year olds on this board that, FORD.

FORD
03-07-2005, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Maybe you'd have to ask the 17 year olds on this board that, FORD.

That's exactly what I'm doing. Those dumbass little shitheads are quick to post illiterate asinine comments about "liberals" or whatever in their defense of BCE/PNAC's illegal wars and insane policies. So let 'em put their money where their big stupid mouths are.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by FORD
That's exactly what I'm doing. Those dumbass little shitheads are quick to post illiterate asinine comments about "liberals" or whatever in their defense of BCE/PNAC's illegal wars and insane policies. So let 'em put their money where their big stupid mouths are.

Lou has the mentality of a 17-year-old!

McCarrens
03-07-2005, 11:39 AM
Ford has the mentality of a delusional psychopath.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by McCarrens
Ford has the mentality of a delusional psychopath.

Hardly. Exactly how old are you McCarrens?

FORD
03-07-2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by McCarrens
Ford has the mentality of a delusional psychopath.

Practicing for the upcoming BCE Kristol-nacht, are you?

McCarrens
03-07-2005, 12:57 PM
While I would certainly not call myself old I will admit I am getting closer everyday. I'm almost 30. And how does my saying that Ford's delusional (which he proves here everyday) make me sound immature?

You're the one saying Lou is child-like in his thinking.

McCarrens
03-07-2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Practicing for the upcoming BCE Kristol-nacht, are you?

If I was praticing for anything Bush-related, why would it have anything to do with you?

No one knows anything about you. Typing hackneyed theories on a message board makes them neither true nor their author important.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by McCarrens
While I would certainly not call myself old I will admit I am getting closer everyday. I'm almost 30. And how does my saying that Ford's delusional (which he proves here everyday) make me sound immature?

You're the one saying Lou is child-like in his thinking.

No, I was just wondering if you were of military age for the draft. Looks like you'll miss it you lucky bastard! But you're still young enough to enlist. I'm sure they'll take you on a waiver.

And I think I have LOOOO pegged! You can review his last 10 posts and then get back to me on how mature he is, in every single one, he is either putting someone down or fucking whining like menstrating school girl after her first period. And frankly any little 24-year-old pussy that claims to be a conservative patriot, and puts "liberal" people down for not sharing his views, better march his ass down to the recruiting station, or stay far away from me.

FORD
03-07-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, I was just wondering if you were of military age for the draft. Looks like you'll miss it you lucky bastard! But you're still young enough to enlist. I'm sure they'll take you on a waiver.

I wouldn't count him out just yet. The BCE has been "back door drafting" Vets in their 60's and 70's! If they finally do an open draft, they'll probably raise the limit to 35. About that time McCarrens will suddenly convert to a Canadian peace activist ;)

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by FORD
I wouldn't count him out just yet. The BCE has been "back door drafting" Vets in their 60's and 70's! If they finally do an open draft, they'll probably raise the limit to 35. About that time McCarrens will suddenly convert to a Canadian peace activist ;)

I think I read in the gay Finland Shithole thread that their military service age is up to 60 years! Really, the Army has drafted people into their 40's during WWII.

Warham
03-07-2005, 05:00 PM
Yeah, I've seen alot of 70 year old vets on the frontline in Iraq.

:rolleyes:

There's not going to be any kind of draft. Remember, it wasn't Bush's idea for a draft returning, but the well-known Democrat Rangel's. The Democrats have always been the party of the draft, even now.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, I've seen alot of 70 year old vets on the frontline in Iraq.

:rolleyes:

There's not going to be any kind of draft. Remember, it wasn't Bush's idea for a draft returning, but the well-known Democrat Rangel's. The Democrats have always been the party of the draft, even now.


Maybe we'll just involuntarily indefinitely extend the troops we have now forever.

I'll agree they'll try everything humanly possible to avoid the draft, because it would be the end for the President and Republican control of anything for quite a while.

And Rangel's Bill was nothing but bi-partisan political grandstanding. Firstly by Rangel, then by the Congress in order to reassure us that there will be no draft! But the credibility gap in this Administration is pretty large. A significant deployment continuing for a long period of time will inevitably lead to some form of compulsory military service. But I think we'd need a big terrorist attack first, or maybe a war with North Korea or Iran would be the catalyst.

Warham
03-07-2005, 05:37 PM
It really doesn't have anything to do with the draft, but maybe it does. Somebody from the government said it would take 73 years at the current rate for us to acrue the casualties we had during the Vietnam War. Just a number for you to wrap your mind around.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Warham
It really doesn't have anything to do with the draft, but maybe it does. Somebody from the government said it would take 73 years at the current rate for us to acrue the casualties we had during the Vietnam War. Just a number for you to wrap your mind around.

Funny, but we are already have difficulty dealing with the casualties, 11,200 I believe, many featuring amputees. We have a higher survival rate than Vietnam largely due to better body armor and more small armored vehicles, improved medical care, and the fact we aren't fighting large scale land battles against the North Vietnamese Army featuring armor or artillery duels.

Maybe if we decide to "kick some Iranian ass," who knows. But one thing is clear, neither the Iranians, not Syrians, will roll over like the Iraqi conventional forces did. But if you noticed, the fact is that the rate of casualties is actually increasing at an ever more alarming rate.

I mean the Iraqi insurgents number about 20-30,000 hard core regulars. They've actually managed to inflict a fair amount of casualties.

Warham
03-07-2005, 07:11 PM
I would never go into Iran or Syria without bombing it into oblivion first.

I'm for tactical air strikes before sending any troops in.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I would never go into Iran or Syria without bombing it into oblivion first.

I'm for tactical air strikes before sending any troops in.

Bomb them all you want, but be prepared for casualties that are more like Vietnam than the Gulf Wars. After all, as the Iranians noted, we trained their Air Force in the 70's. They were on to our recon tactics all along, unlike the Iraqis, they didn't turn on their radars.

The possibility exists that they could even sink an aircraft carrier with those fancy Chinese made Sunburn missiles.

Warham
03-07-2005, 07:36 PM
I'm not going to get excited. We aren't going to attack them any time soon. I'd rather spend the money secretly and help fund a revolution in their own country than attack them outright. They don't have the brutal regime in place that Saddam did where he would kill his own relatives if they talked or moved the wrong way.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I'm not going to get excited. We aren't going to attack them any time soon. I'd rather spend the money secretly and help fund a revolution in their own country than attack them outright. They don't have the brutal regime in place that Saddam did where he would kill his own relatives if they talked or moved the wrong way.

They are brutal enough and very efficient. The Iranian secret police killed an Iranian born Canadian journalist while she was under interrogation.

Change in Iran must come from within, the United States can't just turn on the tap of money and expect change. But it is possible, the Iranian youth is disaffected with their theocratic government.

Nitro Express
03-10-2005, 04:21 AM
After Sept. 11 people were biting at the bit to join the military. People were pissed and wanted revenge. If people believed the war in Iraq really had something to do with making the United States safer, the military would not be in the dilema it's now in. Nobody is sighning up because they are still wondering where the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are.

Soldiers sadly are pawns in someone elses big game and frankly, many don't like the game plan or how the soldiers over there are being treated.

Thank God, it's not like Vietnam where the soldiers are the bad guys. I'm glad to see most Americans appreciate what our troops do. With that being said, our military, it's equipment and troops are resources that we need to manage with care. I can't for the life of me see what we are accomplishing in Iraq. As soon as we leave, the puppet govt. will fall. We've been in fucking Korea for a half century doing that same shit. All I can say is what a fucking mess.

If the war was black and white with clear objectives and enemies, good Americans would sign up to kick some ass. Maybe what we are seeing is America's youth don't want to risk dying for someone's attempted oil grab. Why didn't we invade N. Korea? No oil is there.

Cathedral
03-10-2005, 05:10 AM
I would love to get a chance to live my squashed dream and serve my country.
I had dreams of being in the 3rd Armored Division cause that is what my Dad did when i was a baby.
I used to dress up in his clothes and salute myself in the mirror....

You guys don't know how much it crushed me to be told they wouldn't take me. I felt like a defective piece of shit.
At 18, i was ready to go, and i still would because i have friends over there and i'd be proud to join them.

I do know one thing though, It would have been the best thing for me and i'd have made a career out of it.
The service made men out of a couple of my friends, one of which has been there since '84.
He is in Special Forces and one mean mother, but used to be a nerdy stoner...

I have nothing but respect for anyone who has worn a uniform for this country, i have always been envious of our soldiers.

kentuckyklira
03-10-2005, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by Warham
It really doesn't have anything to do with the draft, but maybe it does. Somebody from the government said it would take 73 years at the current rate for us to acrue the casualties we had during the Vietnam War. Just a number for you to wrap your mind around. Population

Iraq: 22.7 million

Vietnam: 78.8 million

Iraqi resistance: not openly supported by any foreign nation or entity

Vietcong: plenty of support from other communist countries

Considering things in perspective has its merits!

Warham
03-10-2005, 06:54 AM
Iraqi resistance is supported plenty by other countries, whether they stick their head out or not.

kentuckyklira
03-10-2005, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Iraqi resistance is supported plenty by other countries, whether they stick their head out or not. Which part of my post says that isnīt so?

Warham
03-10-2005, 07:29 AM
You said openly supported, but I want to make sure it was 'they ARE being supported, whether openly or not'.

Nickdfresh
03-10-2005, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Iraqi resistance is supported plenty by other countries, whether they stick their head out or not.

No, not really. The Syrians do lend some support, but frankly what they do does not take a lot of money. Most of it is bankrolled by Saddam's account. But the Syrians also have limited control of their border area. And frankly, it's in their interest to have an on-going insurgency tying down US troops. Kentuckyklira brought up a good point about Vietnam.

When Siagon fell, it was a Soviet made PT-76 amphibious tank, or a T-55, that crushed the front gate of the Presidential palace, not the romantic "revolutionary" VC/NLF fighters with AK's. They were pretty much decimated by the US or betrayed by the North Vietnamese at that point. The NVA received the best modern weapons from the USSR/Chinese.