| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Army to Offer Recruits Short Enlistment Option |
| 2005-05-14 |
| The Army will allow recruits to sign up for 15 months of active-duty service, rather than the typical four-year enlistment, as it struggles to lure new soldiers amid the Iraq war, a general said yesterday. Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, U.S. Army Recruiting Command head, also said this was "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer Army," with the war causing concern among potential recruits and with civilian job prospects. Rochelle said the Army this week expanded nationwide a pilot program in place since October 2003 in 10 cities offering recruits the option of a 15-month active-duty enlistment. The Army said some young people might want to serve the country but do not want to dedicate the amount of time required by the normal four-year active-duty enlistment. They will be offered the option of serving 15 months on active duty after completing their training, and then two years in the part-time Army Reserve or National Guard. The soldier then would spend nearly seven years in the Individual Ready Reserve, which requires no training and until recently was rarely mobilized, or would serve in a program such as the Peace Corps. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #5 Recruitment is tied to the economy, not the war. The high retention figures reflect that. So, should we scuttle the economy? However the catch is that while its only 15 months of active up front, they are still on the hook for a total of eigth years. By the number of reserve call ups, a good chance to do more active time than you might think. |
| Posted by: Elmilet Thavirong9735 2005-05-14 13:05 |
| #4 Take a closer look."They will be offered the option of serving 15 months on active duty after completing their training". Basic trainig:7.8 weeks for the Army(Marine Corps is a solid 90 days)+3-4 months AIT(advanced infantry training}.5 or 6 months of training+15 months on the line=21 months.After troops return from combat they have to spend about 3 months on duty to unwind(not sure if that's the right word)from the combat mind set and help in dealing with DSS.Total time on active duty 24 months,15 months in combat is a loooong time. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-05-14 09:37 |
| #3 Could be, TW. Part of the problem is self-imposed: we don't want to dilute our standards for recruits, especially given the sophistication of battle technology now. But that means that a fair number of potential enlistees don't make the cut. My own take? Let women serve in more combat-related positions if/where they are really able to do the job. Which means push back on the jCongresscritters who want to block that from happening. Also: recruiters report that an obstacle to enlisting black males is the Mom Factor, i.e. a political dislike of Bush &/or just wanting baby boy home. We need to counter that with more effort towards a pro-service atmosphere here at home. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-05-14 07:54 |
| #2 I've read here at Rantburg that a significant number of troops who've spent time in Iraq or Afghanistan are re-upping because they feel the work they're doing is important. Could the Army be offering this short enlistment option as a way to put more people in the way of this seduction? Even if they aren't thinking in those terms, what are the odds that will be the result? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-14 07:47 |
| #1 Dude, even the Soviets didn't shorten deployments THIS bad. (Theirs was two years.) Me smells a bad idea, and the Army incorrectly attributes (I think) the problem to time ... |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-05-14 01:01 |