How low can Army recruiters go?

[Merideth]

that's absolutely true, alaska. its as close to actually serving yourself, when you're married to a sailor or soldier.

and at least i had the desire to serve, but phycially limitations prevented me from doing so (probably for the best anyway).

pawn, did you ever even think about serving?

[googoo3]

Ok I did a 2 year army service since it's mandatory here...

I personally didn't find my place in the army (for personal & professional reasons), but I've seen people really developing themselves in it. First of all the army gives you an option to study some sort of a professional work and insures you work, in the military of course, for a few years. Unlike in civilian life where when you study in professional schools or universities and then it's harder (and sometimes impossible) to find that first job in the field to give you the basic experience.
Again, it's a win and lose situation... at times there are wars & you risk your life. But for some people it seems worth the chance and for some it's their patriotic duty... even when the representative government doesn't corresponds with your own political views.

I personally did get some education in a specific field, but this field has no interest for me in civilian life and I just waived the proposition to become an officer.

Here at the age of 16-17 you get served to go through all kind of evaluations: physical, mental & intelligence. The score you gets opens you different options… People that get really low profiles in these 3 criterions don't get drafted, but lets just say to not get drafted because of their intelligence profile, it means you are somewhat mentally challenged.

There are so many jobs in the army, the issue is that once it is based on voluntary drafting, people have professional demands, so it makes it harder to draft everyone. I personally think that people should get evaluated at first but not get a specific promise to some professions. First go through the basic training everyone goes through, work in whatever field the army puts you in, they will decide what fits you more through your profile, and then lets say after a year or two, give you an option either to pursuit a certin profession (and if needed and your profile fits the demends, you will get in ), or to continue in your current job and third but not last finish your army service. I think this way you get to keep in the long run the most motivated ones around.

[pawn]

that's absolutely true, alaska. its as close to actually serving yourself, when you're married to a sailor or soldier.

and at least i had the desire to serve, but phycially limitations prevented me from doing so (probably for the best anyway).

pawn, did you ever even think about serving?

i never consider joining the military, had my sights set on going to college

[Jean Pool]

but you could go after college, not necessarily an even or.

[Merideth]

storm went to college before joining, and i had intended to do that as well. many join the military in order to be able to afford college, many go while serving. they aren't mutually exclusive and pawn, you make it sound like you are somehow better because you chose college over military service.

[pawn]

storm went to college before joining, and i had intended to do that as well. many join the military in order to be able to afford college, many go while serving. they aren't mutually exclusive and pawn, you make it sound like you are somehow better because you chose college over military service.

agreed, college and military are not mutually exclusive. many do join to afford college, i chose to work part time and take student loans. i paid my own way through college.

i don't believe i made any comment about being better because i went college, that is an assumption on your part.

[Merideth]

my apologies... it was the perception i got from your post.

and i get that impression again here, with your "i paid my own way" comment.

[redrock]

hey if i paid my own way thru college i would be proud also...........i think you just have a complex of some kind merideth........lol

[pawn]

hey if i paid my own way thru college i would be proud also...........i think you just have a complex of some kind merideth........lol

i agree j/k

i paid my own way, as opposed to somebody who's mom and dad put them through college. the military offers people an excellent opportunity to learn, grow, and excel. i think they also support personnel who decide to go to college afterwards with financial incentive, kudos!

i didn't consider the military as an option (for me, a personal choice), i wanted to go directly to college and then put my education to use in the world of work.

*** walks on eggshells, quietly outta the thread to avoid provoking merideth***

[Devlin]

well if you think about it, on a hypothetical level...those who invest in the MGIB, which is mandatory for new recruits. Pay for their own college. The incentives added on, are tuition assistance. which is 750 a class for three classes per fiscal year..(oct to oct) And for those who qualify for the college fund, have a high enough score on their ASVAB...which can't be used till after they get out of service..so its kinda like a scholorship for the "smarter" individuals who apply.

[storm]

So I am reluctant to enter this thread but oh what the hell.

First of all the current status of Army is not according to some as bad as during the 90's

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1- ... 469688.php

"Pentagon data going back 10 years shows that service losses last year are still below overall levels in the mid-90s, when the Defense Department struggled with both retention and recruiting."

This source also goes into detail articulating Devlin's point that the Amry (and likely other branches) is discriminating against fat people by requiring them to stay in shape or get out.

BTW the problem in the 90's was probably the same challenge Devlin is facing today. To quote of few political pundits "It's the economy s_____".

In all government service type jobs when the economy improves some portion of prospective applicants choose other fields. The same has been true with teachers, policemen, and every other government field.

As for the reduction in standards, even your source indicates that the total increase might be a 1.9%.

I also found it curious that there was no mention of lowering standards for the other branches.

When I searched I also noticed several articles about increasing incentive packages.

Pawn at the end of the day, this is not about Iraq this is about supply and demand. Currently supply is low because the economy is good. We the tax payers have to decide if we want to pay more for "better" soldiers or lower the standards.

It is a simply butter versus guns arguement.

[storm]

Our military is lead by civilians (prior military perhaps but always civilians). This was done on purpose by our Founding Fathers.

Merideth had a knee jerk reaction but she meant is that isn't it interesting that people generally are quick to criticize what they know little about.

Of course all legal citizens of this country should comment on some aspects of the military as they are paying for the military. Some aspects of military life as in many fields are simply beyond the comprehension of those who were not first hand observers.

The life of a spouse married into the military is probably one of the hardest jobs. Much harder than the actual member since the spouse spends a lot of time alone if the member dies then he/she does not have to carry on with the duties of raising children etc.

Pawn it is your right perhaps your duty granted by our Founding Fathers to comment on the military. Those of us who have been, are in, or will be in the serivce of this country only ask you make sure facts are right. It is our right to ask this small thing from you in exchange for our service.

[storm]

Ok before I start let me state for the record I served with women in the military and I found them to be capable soldiers (in my case sailors) and a benefit to the units I served in. One of my closest friends was and continues to be in the Navy and has served in Bahrain during this current conflict.

Ok now after reading the Navy times article, I noticed one thing that was curious.

"But in recent years, some categories reached 10-year highs. Pregnancy and parenthood, for example, have steadily increased as a reason for personnel losses, especially in the Army; where last year 4,238 soldiers were discharged from the Army for pregnancy and parenthood, up from 2,862 in 2002 and 2,565 in 1996. This reflects what military officials say is a baby boom, especially at bases with high deployments."

This faster pace of attrition was interesting to me and I wanted to find a non-political answer as to why the Army is experiencing a faster than expected attrition.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0309/dailyUpdate.html
This article talked about the declining image of the US Army basically thought of as the branch of last resort. The article also mentioned the less reported rate of reenlistment of units in Afghanistan and Iraq higher than expected.

The one factor that stood out in the Navy Times article was pregnancy.

So I started searching for a percentage % of women in the US Army as opposed to the rest of the branches.

These are 2 sources found
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/200 ... rriors.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/15/military.gender/

Now I am know some of the best fighting units on the planet have been composed of women including the Israelis.

But the reality is the fighting capability of a pregnant female and a male are not the same. Today, more women than ever are serving with distinction in more and more combat roles perhaps as much as 15% of the military. These women are typically between the ages of 18 and 35, the exact ages most women want to have children.

Now I am not saying women should not serve or that they be required to promise to not get pregnant or even to only sign short enlistment contracts.

But adding more women to our military may decrease the percentage of troops from a given unit ready at a given moment for combat and therefore may require an increase in the number of troops needed overall in addition to the number of troops leaving the service due to pregnancy.

So if this true, then why are all branches not reporting the same difficulties in recruitment and retention.

One answer may be simply the image of the military as noted above. But it may also be differences in the missions of each branch. The Army is comprised mainly of infantry whereas the Navy and Air Force have a huge diversity in jobs available many of which are not so demanding as hiking with a 50 pound back pack carrying an M16. What about the Marines well the Marines have a much smaller percentage (6% versus 15%) so small that the women may be able to be in combat roles but many may have chosen non-combat roles.

Now I am going to go buy a really big shield to hide behind because I have just called for fire on my position and I can feel the slings and arrows.

[pawn]

for your sake, i hope your comments are well received by Merideth. i get the feeling that those who anger her pay dearly j/k?

[storm]

I keep a cot in my shed for emergencies such as this.