• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
I wonder why they're having a problem recruiting and retaining troops? What ever will Bush do for troops now?

Someone close the door. I feel a draft.

Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment

By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: December 17, 2004

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - In the latest signs of strains on the military from the war in Iraq, the Army National Guard announced on Thursday that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the last two months and would offer new incentives, including enlistment bonuses of up to $15,000.

In addition, the head of the National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, said on Thursday that he needed $20 billion to replace arms and equipment destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan or left there for other Army and Air Guard units to use, so that returning reservists will have enough equipment to deal with emergencies at home.

The sharp decline in recruiting is significant because National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers now make up nearly 40 percent of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, and are a vital source for filling the ranks, particularly those who perform essential support tasks, like truck drivers and military police.

General Blum said the main reason for the Army National Guard's recruiting shortfall was a sharp reduction in the number of recruits joining the Guard and Reserve when they leave active duty. In peacetime the commitment means maintaining their ties to the military with a weekend of service a month and two weeks in the summer.

Over the last 30 years, General Blum said, the Guard has counted on these soldiers with prior military service for about half of its recruits. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, many of these soldiers have been hesitant to join the Guard because of the increasing likelihood that America's citizen-soldiers will be activated and sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for up to 12 months. Indeed, many of the active-duty soldiers the Army would like to enlist in the Reserves have recently fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and some have no inclination to do so again.

In an effort to halt the slide, the Army National Guard this week approved recruiting incentives that triple the enlistment bonuses to $15,000 for soldiers with prior military experience who sign up for six years (tax-free if soldiers enlist overseas), Guard officials said. Bonuses for new enlistees will increased to $10,000 from $6,000.

The Guard has already said it intends to increase the number of recruiters to 4,100 from 2,700 over the next three months, the first large increase since 1989.

"We're in a more difficult recruiting environment, period," General Blum told reporters in disclosing the new figures and the new incentives. "There's no question that when you have a sustained ground combat operation going that the Guard's participating in, that makes recruiting more difficult."

There are 42,000 Army National Guard soldiers serving in Iraq and Kuwait, and 8,200 serving in Afghanistan. Since Sept. 11, General Blum said, there have been about 100,000 Army National Guard troops activated for duty at home or abroad at any given time.

General Blum's remarks come just a few days after the chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, told The Dallas Morning News that the Army Reserve recruiting was in a "precipitous decline" that if unchecked could inspire renewed debate over the draft. General Helmly told the newspaper that he personally opposed reviving the draft.

For the first two months of the fiscal year 2005, which started Oct. 1, the Army Reserve has also stumbled, falling 315 recruits short of its goal of 3,170 soldiers, a drop of 10 percent.

In November, the Guard recruited 2,902 enlistees, about 26 percent below its target of 3,925 recruits. In October and November combined, the Guard recruited 5,448 enlistees, nearly 30 percent below its goal of 7,600. At full strength, the Guard has 350,000 soldiers.

In the 2004 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, the Guard missed its overall recruiting target of 56,000 soldiers by more than 5,000, the first time it had missed its yearly goal since 1994. The active-duty branches of the armed services all met their recruiting goals last year.

As a result, General Blum said, the Guard has lowered its reliance on recruits with military experience to just 35 percent of its overall total and will seek a much larger pool of recruits with no military experience.

"We are correcting, frankly, some of our recruiting themes and slogans to reflect a reality of today," he said. "We're not talking about one weekend a month and two weeks a year and college tuition. We're talking about service to the nation."

General Blum expressed confidence that the nearly $300 million in recruiting bonuses in this year's budget and the increase in the number of recruiters would propel the Guard to meet its yearly goal but said that probably would not happen until August or so. "I think we'll recover," he said.

Some military personnel specialists offered a much more pessimistic forecast and said the lower recruiting numbers were the harbingers of tougher times to come.

"I don't think this is an aberration," said David R. Segal, a military sociologist who directs the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "I think we're going to see significant shortfalls in recruitment, and I think we're to begin to see retention problems. We're also going to see increasing concerns at the state level about how the Guard will man itself and perform its state missions."

The Guard's woes do not end with recruiting. General Blum said the Army National Guard needed $20 billion over the next three years to buy additional radios, trucks, aircraft, engineering equipment and other materiel that have been wrecked or left behind in Iraq or Afghanistan..

"Otherwise, the Guard will be broken and not ready for the next time it's needed, either here at home or for war," General Blum said.

A spokesman for the Florida National Guard, Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, said Guard units in the state, which mobilized some 5,000 troops to deal with the three hurricanes in August and September, were already experiencing some shortages.

"It could hinder us to some degree," Colonel Tittle said. "But we adapt and make do. We'll accomplish the mission."

 

Pandaren

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,029
0
0
I'm sure there are a lot of folks who don't want to be sent into a dubious military venture (1) that wasn't justified in the first place and (2) that has no foreseeable end.

In wars like WWII people signed up in droves to fight against those who wronged us. After 9-11 people signed up to fight Al Queda. But I don't think people want to sign up to fight in a prolonged war of aggression that has no foreseeable end.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Something the times left out...


linkage

The number of annual military desertions is down to the lowest level since before 2001, according to the Pentagon.


The Army said the number of new deserters in 2004 ? 2,376 ? was just half the number of those who deserted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. That number was 4,597.

The numbers of deserters has dropped annually since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The fiscal year 2004 total number of Army deserters is the lowest since before 1998, according to Army data.

As I recall there was an article a few months ago reporting that part of the recruiting problem was that regular army were re-enlisting, rather quitting the army and joing the reserve.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Something the times left out...


linkage

The number of annual military desertions is down to the lowest level since before 2001, according to the Pentagon.


The Army said the number of new deserters in 2004 ? 2,376 ? was just half the number of those who deserted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. That number was 4,597.

The numbers of deserters has dropped annually since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The fiscal year 2004 total number of Army deserters is the lowest since before 1998, according to Army data.

As I recall there was an article a few months ago reporting that part of the recruiting problem was that regular army were re-enlisting, rather quitting the army and joing the reserve.

Good that more people who choose to enlist are fulfilling their obligation ( unlike our current president ;) ), but the Times article focuses on the shrinking Guard enlistment. I realize lowering attrition boosts numbers. But Guard enlistment has been trending downward, and by all indications it will continue to do so for the near future (my guess -- as long as we're occupying Iraq). Gains through lower desertion rates won't supplant lower enlistment figures. Bonuses might help a little. A few thousand dollars is nice, but it isn't worth dying for over a pack of Bush lies, IMO.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Maybe they'll make the Guard like the Mafia- once you're in, you're in for life... won't have to worry about enlistments beyond attrition by death or disability, but it would lead to a lot of really old guys in the Guard...

Besides that, anybody with experience who's willing to do duty in a war zone makes a helluva lot more as "private security", mercenaries by another name...
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
It's not surprising as most who joined the National Guard prior to the War did so for the Bennies, not to fight in some sh!thole like Iraq. Not wanting to go to Iraq isn't a unpatriotic attitude, it's good common sense.

Regarding Charrison's statement about desertions being lower, it's good to know that even those who signed up for the Bennie's and not to fight are at least sticking to their commitment.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It's not surprising as most who joined the National Guard prior to the War did so for the Bennies, not to fight in some sh!thole like Iraq. Not wanting to go to Iraq isn't a unpatriotic attitude, it's good common sense.

Regarding Charrison's statement about desertions being lower, it's good to know that even those who signed up for the Bennie's and not to fight are at least sticking to their commitment.

Exactly, i don't know why everybody who thinks anybody who joins the military, SHOULD be doing it for blood and glory. Does a garbage man do his job because he loves it, wants to keep the city clean? No, he probably does it because the opportunity was opened to him.

That said, if you're in it, you do have to serve what you signed up for, but lets not berate them just because they don't want to go to war in Iraq or believe it's not right.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The local Guard here in Louisiana is recruiting like Mad. They are so desperate.

They have never seen people shy away like this before.

Why am I not surprised the Hypocritical RRR FLL doesn't encourage to send their offspring into service.

Not to worry, they'll find ways to "Draft" all of the non desirables in the Country without having to send their Pulpit Puppets.
 

Beowulf

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2001
1,446
0
71
Man I wouldnt join the Guard sure you get some good pay but 1 month and 1 week a year of training is not enough especially when you are going to be in war. I would rather join active duty anyday plus chances of actually going to war isn't even that great.My friend joined the Army Airbourne (173th brigade based in Italy) before 9/11 and he hasn't seen anything till next month when he goes to Afghanistan for a year before going to Ranger school. Of course my little brother joined the Marines along with 10 friends and some are in Iraq others are in Okinawa,Japan.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
If this war drags out, they will need to start a draft again. This time they need to leave no outs for the chickenhawks.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
What's the point of national guard if you are gonna get sent to Iraq anyways. Why not join the army?
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
duh, if you desert in the middle of desert, you die! and most of our ppl our in the desert now. so in a way they've been... deserted. heteronyms as the red states call em
 

tec699

Banned
Dec 19, 2002
6,440
0
0
yOU'D Have to be nuts to fight for America. I would never fight for this country. Gimmie gimmie it all America is my motto. Haahaha.. to the poor no money sukers that would enlist while I'm enjoying my self in America.
 

Snoop

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,424
0
76
Originally posted by: tec699
yOU'D Have to be nuts to fight for America. I would never fight for this country. Gimmie gimmie it all America is my motto. Haahaha.. to the poor no money sukers that would enlist while I'm enjoying my self in America.
One question and this is not meant as a flame, but is this the sentiment of the majority of the liberals on this board? Irregardless of the situation, this country is not personally worth fighting for?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Snoop
Originally posted by: tec699
yOU'D Have to be nuts to fight for America. I would never fight for this country. Gimmie gimmie it all America is my motto. Haahaha.. to the poor no money sukers that would enlist while I'm enjoying my self in America.
One question and this is not meant as a flame, but is this the sentiment of the majority of the liberals on this board? Irregardless of the situation, this country is not personally worth fighting for?



Thats what they beleive.
 

tec699

Banned
Dec 19, 2002
6,440
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Snoop
Originally posted by: tec699
yOU'D Have to be nuts to fight for America. I would never fight for this country. Gimmie gimmie it all America is my motto. Haahaha.. to the poor no money sukers that would enlist while I'm enjoying my self in America.
One question and this is not meant as a flame, but is this the sentiment of the majority of the liberals on this board? Irregardless of the situation, this country is not personally worth fighting for?



Thats what they beleive.


I'd fight for this country in a hearbeat. I'm just not going to do it in Iraq.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
}_{( I"/p
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The local Guard here in Louisiana is recruiting like Mad. They are so desperate.

They have never seen people shy away like this before.

Why am I not surprised the Hypocritical RRR FLL doesn't encourage to send their offspring into service.

Not to worry, they'll find ways to "Draft" all of the non desirables in the Country without having to send their Pulpit Puppets.

Bush Administrations Non-Desirables: Blacks, Hispanics, the poor, Asians, Catholics (despite their alleged vote), any person with a last name that ends with a vowel, students from "liberal" colleges... they'll be the first to be drafted.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
i blame the media, they keep reporting all the bad things happening over there, they should stop doing that.

instead of reporting: 1,300+ Soldiers lost in Iraq

it should be: 144,000 Undead American Soliders in Iraq
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
i blame the media, they keep reporting all the bad things happening over there, they should stop doing that.

instead of reporting: 1,300+ Soldiers lost in Iraq

it should be: 144,000 Undead American Soliders in Iraq

Now this is funny stuff :D
 

Snoop

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,424
0
76
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Snoop
Originally posted by: tec699
yOU'D Have to be nuts to fight for America. I would never fight for this country. Gimmie gimmie it all America is my motto. Haahaha.. to the poor no money sukers that would enlist while I'm enjoying my self in America.
One question and this is not meant as a flame, but is this the sentiment of the majority of the liberals on this board? Irregardless of the situation, this country is not personally worth fighting for?



Thats what they beleive.


I'd fight for this country in a hearbeat. I'm just not going to do it in Iraq.

But we can assume you are still "Haahaha"'ing at the "poor suckers" fighting in Iraq and elsewhere?
Can it be drawn from this post, and the copasetic response from the left-wingers on this forum, that tec?s rational is typical of liberals?



 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Nice shot, Snoop, trying to tar all liberals with tha nasty little tarbrush...

There aren't any actual left-wingers on this forum, just people whose position was considered moderate prior to a lot of self destructive rightwing crap becoming quite so fashionable, so Chic...

I feel badly for our young men and women in Iraq. They signed up to defend their country, maybe do a little humanitarian peacekeeping, not to serve as tools of imperialist delusion...

Those whose enlistments and tours have been stretched out are particularly unlucky, and their numbers will obviously grow as more and more potential enlistees recognize the folly inherent in current Foreign Policy...

But I'm sure that all the young "Conservatives" on this board and elsewhere will be more than happy to drop whatever else they're doing to fill the gap, go hang their lives on the line in Iraq- Right?

Or will they follow in Dubya's and Cheney's footsteps, cheer from the sidelines?

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Snoop
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Snoop
Originally posted by: tec699
yOU'D Have to be nuts to fight for America. I would never fight for this country. Gimmie gimmie it all America is my motto. Haahaha.. to the poor no money sukers that would enlist while I'm enjoying my self in America.
One question and this is not meant as a flame, but is this the sentiment of the majority of the liberals on this board? Irregardless of the situation, this country is not personally worth fighting for?



Thats what they beleive.


I'd fight for this country in a hearbeat. I'm just not going to do it in Iraq.

But we can assume you are still "Haahaha"'ing at the "poor suckers" fighting in Iraq and elsewhere?
Can it be drawn from this post, and the copasetic response from the left-wingers on this forum, that tec?s rational is typical of liberals?

[L=Can we suppose that you will mourn on the day this man dies?]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4108039.stm[/]

Since he supported America and our goals in SA, and we know Conservatives are for that, will you and everyone wear a black arm band for this man? Some may not maybe?

I think many will be glad to see his passing.

This conservative vs. liberal crap is ridiculous. Indeed many object to this Iraq war, but suprise! Some are fairly conservative.

If political ideology rules someones thinking rather than the other way around, do I hope they do us all a favor and don't take on a position of power.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
Well, I'm here to tell you right now, as an Army Reservist, that the National Guard structure never made sense to me in the first place. First off, they're the "national" guard, yet they have all the heavy armor and combat equipment. That never made sense to me this day and age. What, are they going to defend against, a full on armor based invasion at our coastlines? We're the superior air and naval power in the world, so it will be hard for someone to assault our shores with equipment for the "national guard" to defend against. The combat arms equipment (tanks, artillery, etc.) should be part of the Army Reserve, not the National Guard. You don't need an Abrams to recue flood victims after all.

Second, the National Guard tends to have the older, more experienced soldiers in it. I don't know why, but all of my dealings with National Guard soldiers had many Vietnam veterans and Gulf War veterans filling their ranks. That is experience best kept stateside, dealing with national disaster relief and training the Active Duty and Reserve Army soldiers for trapesing around the globe fighting the war on terror.

Lastly, they tend to get the oldest, hand me down equipment. I remember our unit borrowed some M-16s from a local National Guard unit and they were literally Vietnam era M16-A1s with full auto and the triangular hand guards on them. They were in such disrepair that most of them weren't even fieldable for the firing range. So why then would we deploy these soldiers with this equipment? Those weapons would serve well quelling a riot as a show of force, but would fail miserably on the battlefield in Iraq.

I guess the root of my analysis is that the National Guard soldiers are fleeing because they never really expected to be in Iraq or away from home for 18 months (the current standard for National Guard rotation, 6 months stateside preparation, 1 year in country). I can't say I disagree with them. The commericals have always shown them in hurricane relief or flood roles, never in the heat of combat. That's not to say they shouldn't expect to ever be in combat, but they should be the last line of defense on a global scale and the first to be called upon in a national disaster. Of late, it's been exactly the opposite.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: Snoop
Originally posted by: tec699
yOU'D Have to be nuts to fight for America. I would never fight for this country. Gimmie gimmie it all America is my motto. Haahaha.. to the poor no money sukers that would enlist while I'm enjoying my self in America.
One question and this is not meant as a flame, but is this the sentiment of the majority of the liberals on this board? Irregardless of the situation, this country is not personally worth fighting for?

We'll fight for the defense of the country. Iraq isn't for the defense of the country