Reality Bites

by Cliopatria

Commenters here have sharply disputed my not-very-controversial contention that the U.S. Army was facing serious recruiting shortages. The recruiting year ends today, and here's the end of the story:

"The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest — in absolute number as well as in percentage terms — since 1979, according to Army records.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.

The active Army fell short for the year by half a division. Hard to argue with that, but I'm sure someone will.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Dale B. Light - 10/4/2005

You are right, John. The canard that the military is made up only of the poor and minorities is a holdover from Vietnam-era antiwar rhetoric. The charge might have had some validity then, but it no longer does.

Dale B. Light - 10/4/2005

The real problem is with Special Forces. It takes a long time to train them and, once trained, it is hard to hold on to them because there are such lucrative employment opportunities in the private sector. The new concept army relies very heavily on special forces and cannot function effectively without them. This, not a general shortfall, is the real crisis facing today's military.

Barry DeCicco - 10/3/2005

What was the original recruiting goal for the year? ISTR in various blogs that the target was revised downwards, as the year progressed.

John H. Lederer - 10/2/2005

This was contrary to what I thought I knew about recruiting:

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2005/10/data-shows-military-recruits-highly.html

If it holds up it presents a much different picture than "common knowledge". A published report, presumably with more detail is due soon.

Chris Bray - 10/2/2005

No trial -- straight to the execution. Sounds about right.

Adam Kotsko - 10/1/2005

I retract my previous comment. You should not be tried for treason.

Adam Kotsko - 10/1/2005

I can't believe the unmitigated gall of someone who would report facts about the government that are unfavorable, even if they are made publicly available by the government itself.

If it were up to me, you'd be tried and executed for treason for posting this!

Chris Bray - 10/1/2005

Well, here's hoping -- we will have spent a few months together at Camp Shelby. The formal training has been pretty bad, but it does seem like pieces of the battalion are coming together. Personally, I'd be willing to do more cohering if someone would let me drink a beer once in a while.

John H. Lederer - 10/1/2005

I parse it with a great deal of sympathy.

How long will you be training together before deployment? Will you be functioning as a coherent battalion when you get there or will you be split up?

Chris Bray - 10/1/2005

Let me put it this way: I'm training for deployment overseas in an infantry battalion that is patched together from other units and the IRR. We have MPs, mechanics, medics, and technicians assigned as infantrymen, and signal corps officers running infantry platoons. Less than half of the battalion is actually organic to the battalion. How many ways can you parse that?

John H. Lederer - 9/30/2005

Is the higher than expected retention rate of troops whose enlistments are expiring holding up?

If so, what is the offset?

Is the yearly shortfall merely a reflection of this spring's shortfall or have there been continuing recruitment shortfalls?