SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (178198)12/19/2005 12:42:06 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Recruiting is down."

How short are the boots on the ground military from being where they really should be? I know they've reduced their recruiting goals at least twice.



To: unclewest who wrote (178198)12/19/2005 12:50:02 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
US lowers standards in army numbers crisis

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday June 4, 2005
The Guardian

The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was "a matter of great concern" in an army at war. It told officers: "We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3,000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations."

Article continues
Officially, the memo, reported in the Wall Street Journal and posted on Slate.com, ordered battalion commanders to refer cases of problem soldiers up to brigade level. Military experts warned that the move would make it more difficult to remove poor soldiers and would lower quality in the ranks.

A military spokesman told the Guardian yesterday: "It was merely a question of an additional set of eyes looking at an issue before we release potential recruits."

The Wall Street Journal quoted a battalion commander as saying: "It is the guys on weight control ... school no-shows, drug users, etc, who eat up my time and cause my hair to grey prematurely ... Often they have more than one of these issues simultaneously."

Asked what the new policy meant, John Pike from the thinktank Globalsecurity.org said: "It means there is a war on. They need all the soldiers they can get. But it is a dilemma. You need good soldiers more in wartime than peacetime."

The latest controversy comes amid a growing recruitment and retention crisis in the US military. Last month the army announced that it was 6,659 soldiers short of its recruitment targets for the year so far. On Wednesday, the department of defence withheld the latest figures, a move seen by most commentators as heralding more bad news.

The military's target is 80,000 new recruits this year, but the army only managed 73% of its target in February, 68% in March and 57% in April, forcing the expansion of a pilot programme offering 15-month active duty enlistments, rather than the usual four years.

The crisis has even led to fears - despite repeated denials by President George Bush - of a return to the draft system that conscripted 1.8 million Americans during the Vietnam war.

Major General Michael Rochelle, the head of army recruitment, said this was the "toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer army", with the war raising concern among potential recruits and their families.

"Recruiters have been given greater leeway," said Mr Pike. "By doing things to increase quantity you are also doing things to decrease quality, but they have made the judgment that that is the way to go."

One recruiting standard that was about to be lowered was a rule governing tattoos in the navy and marines. "If you have excessively prominent and vulgar tattoos they will not take you right now, but that is about to change," he said.

A commander quoted in the Wall Street Journal linked the growing attrition rate among new recruits to a slipping of standards by recruiters, who were under pressure to meet their monthly quotas.

An army spokeswoman said: "We are doing our best to decrease attrition level, but we have not and will not lower our standards for recruiting and retaining soldiers."

Yet in March 17.4% of all new army recruits failed to complete training, while another 7.3% did not finish the first three years with their unit.

Last month it emerged that one recruiter gave advice on how to cheat a mandatory drug test to a potential would-be soldier who said he had a drug problem.

In another incident in Texas, a recruiter threatened a 20-year-old man with arrest if he did not turn up to an interview. As a result all military recruiters stopped work for one day to attend retraining classes on acceptable practices.




To: unclewest who wrote (178198)12/19/2005 3:25:01 PM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
How are you doing Uncle?

I thought about you last week when I visited one of the guys I was in basic training with. He was a ranger in Vietnam, (nicknamed the "Hulk") came home, got in a bad auto wreck and ended up in a wheelchair with pretty good use of one arm and poor use of the other.

He was a big, athletic, in-your-face guy. You'll know what I mean. The first time I laid eyes on him I measured him and wondered how tough he really was. The second time I saw him we had words and I invited him to step between a couple of buildings with me. We ended up in the same company at Ft. Lewis for basic training. I was a platoon leader in the first platoon and he was in the second. My DI protected me because I ran the platoon pretty well but he was on his own and with his tough attitude and resistance to authority he was always in it with the DIs. The only thing that saved him was his size and that crazy streak that made the DIs a little more cautious than they would have been if he'd been more civilized. Before we finished up he became the platoon leader for the second platoon and things went better for him.

He looked me up after he got home from Vietnam, before he got in the wreck, and then I didn't see him for almost 30 years. After his wreck he started teaching at a high school for kids who didn't do well in the regular high schools. He taught shop and the kids loved him.

It turns out we have a mutual friend and I heard about him, called him up and went to see him.

He was a rough, fight first-talk later, "kill em if you find em" guy. He's never been touchy-feely and he's still tough. When I saw him there was no whining, no bitterness, no regrets, just a regular guy getting by on his own.

If I'd had to bet I'd have bet he'd be supportive of the Bush policy in Iraq. I'd have lost.

He has no sympathy for terrorists or the Iraqis who're killing our troops in Iraq but he's convinced that the whole Iraqi mess is a huge mistake and that we need to get out. He sees some strong parallels to Vietnam.

I wonder what the numbers are for the 5% of Vietnam veterans who actually saw combat. What are the guys you keep up with from your personal service experience (not from the right wing groups you're a part of) saying about the Iraq war and whether we should dig in our heels and never accept less than total "victory" or not?

There has to be some split of opinion. Have you seen any articles? Have you formed any impressions? Ed



To: unclewest who wrote (178198)12/19/2005 4:54:56 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Its Recruitment Goals Pressing, the Army Will Ease Some Standards
NY Times ^ | October 1, 2004 | ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - To help meet its recruiting goals at a time when its forces are strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has lowered some requirements for recruits.

The changes are among the clearest signs yet of the military's growing problems in recruiting and retaining soldiers. They mean that many hundreds of recruits who would have been rejected in the past could be enlisted this year.

Army officials characterize the changes as modest and well within quality standards mandated by the Pentagon and Congress. But they amount to the first relaxation in Army recruiting standards since 1998, when a strong economy was hurting military recruiting.

Army officials said Thursday that for the recruiting year that started this week, at least 90 percent of new recruits must be high school graduates, compared with 92 percent last year. And up to 2 percent of recruits will be enlisted even if they scored in the lowest acceptable range on a service aptitude test, compared with 1.5 percent last year.

Given the total of 101,200 incoming soldiers whom the Army and the Army Reserve say they need to send to basic training this year, the changes mean that as many as 2,000 or so recruits who would have previously been rejected could be enlisted.

"In difficult recruiting environments, it is inevitable that either quality standards or recruiting resources be subject to adjustment," said Richard I. Stark Jr., a retired Army colonel who is a military personnel specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here. "The Army has been forced to adjust to both."

The Army's decision to loosen standards comes amid calls for the House Armed Services Committee to investigate accusations by Iraq war veterans at Fort Carson, Colo., and other Army bases that, nearing the end of their enlistments, they are being pressured to choose between re-enlisting and being sent back to Iraq with another unit. Army officials have denied using any such approach to encourage re-enlistment.

In another sign of strains within the Army, more than 35 percent of nearly 3,900 former soldiers mobilized for yearlong assignments in a little-used wartime program have resisted their call-up, seeking delays or exemptions. Some of the former soldiers, members of the Individual Ready Reserve, may face criminal charges for failing to report, Army officials said.

Taken together, these issues have energized a bipartisan effort in Congress to increase the size of the Army by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers, have helped to spur calls by Senator John Kerry to enlarge the Army by 40,000 troops and have prompted many lawmakers to warn of a tough challenge for recruiters.

"Recruiting for the United States Army is going to be a major challenge in the days ahead," Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said this week. "You are wearing them out."

Officials said Thursday that the Army met most of its goals for the 2004 recruiting year, which ended on Monday. The active-duty Army exceeded its recruiting target of 77,000 soldiers by 587, and the Army Reserve exceeded its goal of 21,200 by 78, according to Douglas Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command, at Fort Knox, Ky. But the Army National Guard missed its recruiting target of 56,000 soldiers by 5,000, the first shortfall by the Guard since 1994.

One main reason the Army has changed its quality standards is that it is entering the new 12-month recruiting cycle from one of its worst starting points in a decade.

Typically, the Army wants to enter each recruiting cycle with a cushion of incoming volunteers whose entry has been deferred from the previous year - about 35 percent of its overall goal for the year. But several weeks ago the Army projected that it would reach only 25 percent, and officials said Thursday that the cushion was actually only 18 percent.

The Army is adopting a range of incentives including bonuses, educational benefits and choice base assignments to help meet its recruiting and retention goals, as it typically has during years when it starts with so few recruits already identified. In addition, it is bringing on 1,000 new recruiters.

But aides to two Colorado lawmakers, Representatives Diana DeGette, a Democrat, and Joel Hefley, a Republican, said their offices had received calls from several soldiers at Fort Carson, as well as Fort Riley, Kan., and Fort Lewis, Wash., complaining of pressure to re-enlist with the alternative being deployment to Iraq.

One sergeant at Fort Carson, who served nearly a year in Iraq with the Fourth Infantry Division's Third Brigade and whose enlistment is to end in February 2006, said Thursday that he would take his chances on being reassigned rather than re-enlist.

"I can understand we're in a war, and extraordinary things happen in war, but the Army is moving the goal posts on me," the sergeant said in a telephone interview, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A spokesman for Fort Carson, Lt. Col. Dave Johnson, said a new Army program to create more stable units whose members will stay together for three years required troops whose enlistments end before December 2007 to re-enlist, extend their current enlistments a bit or take no action and possibly be assigned to another unit.

But Colonel Johnson said the Army was looking closely at each soldier's record and was not using the threat of Iraq deployment to increase re-enlistments. "We're not strong-arming anyone," he said.



To: unclewest who wrote (178198)12/19/2005 4:55:58 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
How Far Will Army Recruiters Go?
May 2, 2005(CBS)

Seventeen-year-old high school journalist and honor student David McSwane is just what Army recruiters are looking for, but he suspected they might be lowering their standards, reports Rick Sallinger of CBS News Denver affiliate KCNC.

"I wanted to see how far the army would go during a war to get one more soldier," McSwane said.

So he showed up at a Golden Colorado recruiting office saying he was a dropout.

No problem, the recruiter said — and told McSwane in a phone call he recorded — to create a fake diploma from a non-existent school.

"It can be like Faith Hill Baptist School or something — whatever you choose," the recruiter said.

So McSwane went on-line, got a phony grade transcript and a diploma with the name of the school the recruiter suggested and turned it in.

"I was shocked. I'm sitting there looking at a poster that says 'Integrity, Honor, Respect,' and he is telling me to lie," McSwane said.

Then the high school senior told the recruiter:

"I have a problem with drugs. I can't kick the habit — just marijuana."

The recruiter suggested purchasing a detoxification kit.

"The two times I had the guys use it — it's worked both times. We didn't have to worry about anything," the recruiter said.

McSwane had a friend take a video as another recruiter, Sgt. Tim Pickel, took him to buy the so-called detox kit.

Sallinger confronted Sgt. Pickel with a phone conversation David McSwane said he had before they went to the store.

On tape:

Sgt Pickel: "When you said about the one problem that you had...what does it consist of?"

McSwane: "Marijuana."

Pickel: "Oh. OK. So nothing major?"

McSwane: "Yeah he said he would take me down to get that stuff. I mean I have no idea what it is so you would have to show me. Is that a problem?"

Pickel: "No, not at all."

Sgt. Pickel quickly referred us to his superiors.

Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Brodeur who heads Army recruiting for the Colorado region did not defend the recruiters.

"Let me tell you something sir. I'm a soldier and have been a soldier for 20 years," Broderu said. "This violates trust, it violates integrity, it violates honor, and it violates duty."

The two soldiers involved have already been suspended from recruiting duties. They could face anything from a letter of reprimand to a court martial if they are not cleared by the investigation.