Article

2005-08-26 Home Front: WoT

One of the most significant stories of the summer is getting almost no notice among the media elite. The Army is meeting its recruiting and retention goals for active-duty soldiers. Remarkably, units under the most pressure in Iraq are heavily oversubscribed for re-enlistment.

Though newspapers around the country carried wire service stories of the Pentagon's Aug. 10 announcement, there wasn't a peep from The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times on the subject.

Recruits in July totaled 109 percent of the Army's goal, the second straight month above target. In aggregate, the four services were 4 percent over (the Navy fell 1 percent short).

The Pentagon says the Army will still fall short for the fiscal year, and reserve components are still not signing up enough new members (though re-upping targets are being met by the National Guard units of the Army and Air Force). Still, the enlistments ought to prove that America's young men and women still believe in their country and its difficult mission in Iraq, despite all that Cindy Sheehan and her band of like-minded demonstrators can do.

The New York Post dug a little deeper than the bare-bones announcement. Every one of the Army's 10 combat divisions has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the fiscal year so far. The 1st Cavalry Division was at 136 percent; the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent. As author Ralph Peters noted, ``This is unprecedented in wartime.''

The troops are not doing this for the bonuses â only 60 percent get re-enlistment money, and the great bulk of those are $12,400 a year or less. They are not doing it for loot and booty, to impress the old crowd back home, or to learn a trade.

They are risking life and limb because they care passionately about the job. We wonder what we have done to deserve soldiers of such devotion. They deserve all the best we can give them, in equipment, sound policy and honor.

Posted by too true 2005-08-26 10:13|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Enlistment or reenlistments, its sort of a three card Monty. The real focus is on year end strength. Congress limits the number of personnel in the active component. For years its ceiling has been set at 482,000. Years after 9/11, Congress finally authorized an increase of 20,000 to 502,000 personnel for FY 2005 [1 October 2004 - 30 September 2005]. That means not only does the retention process have to make up the usual loses in personnel inventory as it has had to do for years, it now has to find 20,000. Now some of that, but not the bulk can be handled through retention - reenlistment. That is very important in the need for seasoned NCOs.

You just do not add 20,000 to the inventory. The entire force structure has to be in place to receive and 'slot' them. That means adequate trainers and facilities to handle the increased input. That means you have to have cadre of officers and NCOs to provide the command and control. That means you have the facilities and equipment to billet and train [advanced and sustainment]those additional personnel.

So the real question is what is the year end strength going to be. If the Army attains 492,000 which is 10k more than last year, but 10k less than authorization, is it really a problem or is it just another meaningless bitching point for the enemy...er left?

For a perspective, a full division has anywhere from 12K to 16K personnel. The last division the Army stood up was the 10th at Fort Drum. It took over two years to assemble and train enough personnel to just to send one reinforced battalion on overseas deployment. Can we already see the whining and finger pointing by those who have absolutely no knowledge of military personnel, force structure, and training?

Posted by Whaling Phomoting2583 2005-08-26 11:33|| 2005-08-26 11:33|| Front Page Top

#2 Excellent post, too true, and great comment, Whaling. Like almost everything else connected with Iraq or the GWoT, it's more complicated -- and not nearly as dire -- as the media and Beltway lightweights seem to actually believe.

Posted by Verlaine in Iraq 2005-08-26 14:10|| 2005-08-26 14:10|| Front Page Top

#3 Beltway Lightweights.... I love it! Verlaine trademark it - Beltway Lightweights™

Posted by Bobby 2005-08-26 22:12|| 2005-08-26 22:12|| Front Page Top

#4 WP-great blog. Enlistments and re-enlistments are two different things and need closer looks. The public that sees nothing but the MSM view is slow to enlist and draws lots of fire from the press and they view it as a soldier's distain for the war. This is far from the reality of being a soldier. MSM's cant be further from the truth here. Re-enlistments are up. This article is just a sample of the rates across the Army. what the MSMs do not say is that the soldiers see the reality of their efforts and are re-enlisting at amazing rates. They do this because they know they are doing the right thing...

Posted by 49 pan">49 pan 2005-08-26 22:44|| 2005-08-26 22:44|| Front Page Top

00:03 Dave
23:55 .com
23:44 Sobiesky
23:39 Oldspook
23:36 DMFD
23:35 Barbara Skolaut
23:22 Frank G
23:21 Alaska Paul
23:20 11A5S
23:19 Alaska Paul
23:17 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:12 Alaska Paul
23:12 Poison Reverse
23:09 Frank G
23:05 49 pan
23:05 GK
23:05 Bomb-a-rama
23:00 49 pan
22:55 Frank G
22:54 49 pan
22:51 49 pan
22:48 49 pan
22:44 49 pan