GIs marching away from re-enlistment

[zimv20]

link (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/america_at_war/article/0,1299,DRMN_2116_2961385,00.html)


War may have some Fort Carson troops leaving the ranks

By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
June 14, 2004

COLORADO SPRINGS - Army re-enlistments have dropped suddenly and dramatically at Fort Carson and several other posts where combat units have recently returned from Iraq.

The surprising decline within the past 2 1/2 months has jolted recruiters and military analysts and provoked questions about the war's effect on the Army's recruiting ability.

Since Fort Carson units began coming home in April, post recruiters have met only 57 percent of their quota for re-enlisting first-term soldiers for a second hitch, according to an Army report.

More disturbing, recruiters say, is they're re-enlisting only 46 percent of the quota for "mid-career" noncommissioned officers. These are the young sergeants with four to 10 years of experience who are the backbone of the Army - its skilled soldiers, mentors and future senior NCOs.

"That's a lot lower than where we want to be, especially on mid-careers," said Master Sgt. Scott Leeling, a Fort Carson recruiter.

"But I don't see this as being a trend," he said. "Last quarter, we were unbelievably successful. I look to see a dramatic increase in the next 30 to 45 days."

Fort Carson is just about meeting quotas for re-enlistments of smaller numbers of older career soldiers - those serving 10 or more years.

Quotas are set quarterly by the Army for each installation. The numbers reflect the current quarter, which ends June 30. The Army as a whole is close to its year-to-date goal, the Pentagon said.

Fort Carson's re-enlistments could be lagging because some soldiers are still on 30-day leave after Iraq deployment and might sign up when they return to duty, Leeling suggested.

But others familiar with the Army think the numbers could signal growing discontent. Iraq may be exposing some vulnerabilities of an undersized, overstretched Army.

"It sounds to me like the Army is voting with its feet," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va., think tank.

Married soldiers, who now make up half of the Army, are growing weary of repeated, yearlong deployments away from their families, Pike and others believe.

"We've gone from an unmarried Army to a married Army. These guys have come back from Iraq now, but you tell them they're going back within a year, and the wives are raising hell," said Dennis McCormack, a retired helicopter pilot who served in Vietnam and Desert Storm.

Fort Carson isn't alone with sharp re-enlistment drops during the past 90 days. According to Army figures:

• At Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82nd Airborne Division, recruiters have met 65 percent of their goal of first-termers and 80 percent of the goal for mid-career soldiers.

• At Fort Riley, Kan., whose 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division remains deployed in Iraq, re-enlistments are off sharply. Recruiters have signed only 50 percent of its quota for first-term re-enlistees, and 57 percent for mid-career soldiers.

• Across the Army's massive III Corps, which includes Fort Hood's 4th Infantry and 1st Cavalry divisions as well as Fort Carson's combat units, only 51 percent of first-termers and 54 percent of the mid-career soldiers are signing up.

At Fort Stewart, Ga., where the 3rd Infantry Division returned from Iraq, the Army used cash bonus incentives to re-enlist 95 percent of its first-term quota and reach 100 percent of its mid-career goal.

(more)

[Neserk]

Hopefully this means I'm wrong and these military people are thinking for themselves and realizing that this is not a war to be in and are refusing to go back :D :D :D

[blackfox]

Why is this? Why wouldn't one re-enlist to fight an increasingly unpopular war, where one was often given inadequate/inappropriate training and supplies, poor compensation, a hostile and hot environment with the possibility of being scapegoated for orders sanctioned by higher up on the command chain? Oh yeah, you might be stuck out there indefinitely, possibly with a family to support stateside...and if/when you come back, you might be treated like the returning soldiers were in Vietnam...what's not to like?

[Voltron]

I'd say that story was full of crap.

Army divisions that fought the past 12 months in Iraq have met virtually every re-enlistment goal, a sign that the all-volunteer force remains strong under the stress of frequent deployments and hazardous duty.

The Pentagon has been closely monitoring the re-up rate for five Army divisions that fought in Iraq for about a year. Some officials feared the time away from home and the gritty duty would prompt a large soldier exodus. After all, the war on terrorism is unchartered territory. The 30-year-old volunteer Army has never been this busy in combat.

But numbers compiled this week for the first half of fiscal 2004 show that those five combat units met, or nearly met, all retention targets for enlisted soldiers — the privates, corporals and sergeants who total 416,000 of the Army's 490,000 active force.
"This tends to rebut armchair critics who said the sky is falling and the vultures are circling and the Army is gong to lose all its troops," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "This is not true. The soldiers get it."

The Army also met its recruiting goal of 73,800 inductees last fiscal year, and 34,000 for the first six months of this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.
"Soldiers are extremely resilient," said Col. Elton Manske, chief of the enlisted division at Army headquarters in the Pentagon. "There is absolutely no sign of a 'hollow Army.' Soldiers are continuing to re-enlist at least at historic rates."

The term "hollow Army" came into vogue in the post-Vietnam War 1970s to describe a force that lacked sufficient soldiers to adequately fill combat units.

Officials attribute the soldiers' recent votes of confidence to love of job, patriotism and cash. The Army in December created a new, $68 million pot that paid soldiers up to $10,000 to re-enlist and stay in their current unit for 12 months.

Col. Manske said word of the coming bonus caused some soldiers to delay hitching up until January, causing first-quarter targets to be missed. The Army overall now stands at 99 percent of re-enlistment goals and expects to exceed 100 percent by year's end on Sept. 30, he said.
"Bonuses had a significant effect," he said.

A nervous Army headquarters is expressing sighs of relief. In-country surveys showed morale was low among many soldiers, as they spent months in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq fighting a murderous insurgency of Ba'athists and foreign fighters. Nearly 600 service members have been killed since the war began March 19, 2003. Some lawmakers said the country needed to reinstate mandatory conscription — the draft — to find enough soldiers.

But as of Wednesday, when the first half of fiscal 2004 ended, all but one of the five divisions met goals to retain three critical category soldiers — first term, midterm and careerist. Army-wide last year, a goal of 51,000 re-enlistments was exceeded.

The 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., a unit of 15,000 that saw 36 members killed in Iraq, missed first quarter targets, but made up ground the past three months and is now on its way to meet year-end goals, Army officials said.

The storied 82nd has been as busy as any military unit, sending brigades to both Afghanistan and Iraq to fight the Taliban, al Qaeda terrorists and pro-Saddam insurgents in the extremely volatile town of Fallujah.

"The division has been very stressed," its commander, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., told reporters in Baghdad last month. "The one thing, I think, that helps cope ... is that we get predictability in our troops' schedule. That's what they need to know is when the time is they'll be deployed."

The goal the last three months was to re-sign 422 first-termers, and the division signed up 463, while the target of 140 midcareer paratroopers was exceeded by 26.

"We have soldiers in the 82nd who are kind of unique," said Master Sgt. Pam Smith, a division spokeswoman. "They are two-time volunteers. They volunteer to come into the military, and they volunteer to go airborne. These are special soldiers because they enjoy what they do. You have to be special to want to jump out of airplanes."

Sgt. Smith said the division missed first-quarter targets during October to December largely because some soldiers waited to deploy before signing up to capitalize on tax-free bonuses overseas.

The division achieved 2003 goals by retaining 120 percent of the retention targets. Its six-month rate now stands at 92 percent.

Four other Army divisions played large roles in subduing Iraq:
•The 101st Airborne, which sent helicopter-borne soldiers to Baghdad's eastern flank and then patrolled northern Iraq, has achieved 107 percent of its retention mark.
•The 4th Infantry Division arrived in Iraq after Baghdad fell April 9. It was assigned the toughest-to-tame corridor, from Baghdad to Tikrit, as soldiers took down scores of cells of pro-Saddam insurgents and led the operation to capture Saddam himself Dec. 13. New numbers showed it achieved 117 percent of its retention goals.
•The 3rd Infantry division led the three-week charge from Kuwait to Baghdad, then battled insurgents in the Iraqi capital before turning the job over to the 1st Armored Division from Germany.
•The 1st Armored Division is now vacating Baghdad after mounting months of counterinsurgency operations to break up more than 20 pro-Saddam cells. The division reports it met 120 percent of its re-enlistment goals the past six months.

"All of our indications right now make us guardedly optimistic we will in fact achieve all of our retention objectives," said Col. Manske. "We are in somewhat unchartered territory here as these deployments continue. We're looking at new and different ways to try to predict soldier behavior."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040401-115508-9161r.htm

[Taft]

Voltron, I'd say you are full of crap.

The article you linked to is dated the first of April (look in the URL, as the Wash. Times doesn't date their article text). The article Zim linked to is dated June 14, 2004.

Your article is two months old. Also these words may have jumped out at you from Zim's article:

"re-enlistments have dropped suddenly and dramatically"

"surprising decline within the past 2 1/2 months"

Your claim of shenanigans has been rebuffed. :p

Taft

[Voltron]

Voltron, I'd say you are full of crap.

The article you linked to is dated the first of April (look in the URL, as the Wash. Times doesn't date their article text). The article Zim linked to is dated June 14, 2004.

Your article is two months old. Also these words may have jumped out at you from Zim's article:

"re-enlistments have dropped suddenly and dramatically"

"surprising decline within the past 2 1/2 months"

Your claim of shenanigans has been rebuffed. :p

Taft
what also jumped out at me from that article is

The Army said that despite the recent downturn, enough soldiers re-enlisted through May to make 98 percent of its year-to-date retention goal, 56,100 re-enlistments.

And new enlistments nationwide aren't a problem, the Army said. It was on track to meet its goal of 77,000 new recruits this year, with 48,939 on May 26.

[Taft]

what also jumped out at me from that article is

That is true. But your first post was a shameless lie. The article CLEARLY is not full of crap and has validity. YOUR article is out of date and does not reflect current conditions.

Taft

[Voltron]

That is true. But your first post was a shameless lie. The article CLEARLY is not full of crap and has validity. YOUR article is out of date and does not reflect current conditions.

Taft
I assumed because it came off the top of the search list that it was a recent article. Its amazing how perfect you expect everybody to be. So I didn't see the date located in the link, Big freaken deal mr. Perfect. Odds are enlistment will still be up come next quarter especially considering that the Army according to article above has already met 98% of their goal for the entire year. Correction 99%, durn I'm proved imperfect again.

Col. Manske said word of the coming bonus caused some soldiers to delay hitching up until January, causing first-quarter targets to be missed. The Army overall now stands at 99 percent of re-enlistment goals and expects to exceed 100 percent by year's end on Sept. 30, he said.
"Bonuses had a significant effect," he said.

[Taft]

I assumed because it came off the top of the search list that it was a recent article. Its amazing how perfect you expect everybody to be. So I didn't see the date located in the link, Big freaken deal mr. Perfect. Odds are enlistment will still be up come next quarter especially considering that the Army according to article above has already met 98% of their goal for the entire year. Correction 99%, durn I'm proved imperfect again.

I'm sorry that I expect the people I discuss political issues with to check their sources and verify information they post. Actually, no. I'm not sorry. You can't be bothered to check your "facts"? Don't show up to the conversation.

I don't know where you get this idea that it is perfectly acceptable to spew information which you aren't sure is correct. It isn't OK. It irreparably harms the conversation and quality of debate. How can we have a decent conversation if I can't trust the information coming from the other posters?

Taft

[davecuse]

Conversations somehow always seem to get testy when Voltron/Sly Hunter is involved. I find myself often reading comments from people wondering what planet he is discussing, it appears to be a trend. Note: I may need a team of fact checkers to confirm this.

[Voltron]

I'm sorry that I expect the people I discuss political issues with to check their sources and verify information they post. Actually, no. I'm not sorry. You can't be bothered to check your "facts"? Don't show up to the conversation.

I don't know where you get this idea that it is perfectly acceptable to spew information which you aren't sure is correct. It isn't OK. It irreparably harms the conversation and quality of debate. How can we have a decent conversation if I can't trust the information coming from the other posters?

Taft
I don't have hours to go around searching for such links.
I do have a valid opinion and as much right as you do to voice it.

[Neserk]

I don't have hours to go around searching for such links.
I do have a valid opinion and as much right as you do to voice it.

I agree. It was a mistake and it has been overreacted to. Calm down people. From what I can tell Voltron is as nice of a person as anyone else here. Just because he is often on the otherside of the issues doesn't mean you have to jump down his throat when he makes a boo-boo.

[Neserk]

Conversations somehow always seem to get testy when Voltron/Sly Hunter is involved.

1/2 the time we'd all just be agreeing with each other w/o him. So that explains why :p

[blue&whiteman]

yay! I don't have to see what Neserk types any longer. hooray for ignore lists!

[Taft]

I agree. It was a mistake and it has been overreacted to. Calm down people. From what I can tell Voltron is as nice of a person as anyone else here. Just because he is often on the otherside of the issues doesn't mean you have to jump down his throat when he makes a boo-boo.

OK, maybe I overreated a little.

Still though, if you don't take the time to check the stuff you are posted out, you shouldn't come into a thread and say, "I'd say that article is full of crap." Maybe if it weren't said in such a cocky, "I'm right and you are wrong" way, I wouldn't overreact so much.

Whatever.

Taft

[zimv20]

OK, maybe I overreated a little.

i don't think so.

sly probably has no idea why he's on so many people's ignore lists. i seriously doubt if your telling him informed him, as he's demonstrated a devastating lack of critical thinking and the ability to hear only what he wants to hear.

i put people on my ignore list when i think they have nothing to contribute. and i don't think calling out such people is out of line. at all.

[davecuse]

i don't think so.

sly probably has no idea why he's on so many people's ignore lists. i seriously doubt if your telling him informed him, as he's demonstrated a devastating lack of critical thinking and the ability to hear only what he wants to hear.

i put people on my ignore list when i think they have nothing to contribute. and i don't think calling out such people is out of line. at all.

Well stated, I have yet to add anyone to my ignore list. Although I think you may have just shown me the light...

Edit: Addition number 1 has been made, I'm in a better mood already.

[zimv20]

Edit: Addition number 1 has been made, I'm in a better mood already.
you will dream the carefree dreams of innocent children

[Neserk]

OK, maybe I overreated a little.

Still though, if you don't take the time to check the stuff you are posted out, you shouldn't come into a thread and say, "I'd say that article is full of crap." Maybe if it weren't said in such a cocky, "I'm right and you are wrong" way, I wouldn't overreact so much.

Taft

You forgot to add "and because he is on the other side"

No doubt if he agreed with you you'd put up with the cockiness... still... I think *everyone* needs to step back and be a bit kinder...

[Taft]

You forgot to add "and because he is on the other side"

No doubt if he agreed with you you'd put up with the cockiness... still... I think *everyone* needs to step back and be a bit kinder...

Alas, 'tis true. I, like many others, have a habit of ignoring the people making rabid attacks from a position similar to my own.

Thing is, a watchdog can only do so much watching. And of course the things I am most likely to get up in arms about come from people who stand in stark opposition to my views. People care more about issues which effect them personally. I will say, though, that ignorant cockiness pisses me off no matter which direction it comes from. I'm just more likely to notice it in those with whom I disagree.

So I guess you are right that if everyone were a little nicer, we wouldn't have this problem. Good luck getting everyone to play nice!

Taft

[Neserk]

Good luck getting everyone to play nice!

Taft

HA! I have problems getting children to do that let alone a bunch of males with egos ;)

[mactastic]

You forgot to add "and because he is on the other side"

I've let a few people from my own side have it before for inappropriate comments. Sometimes they get really testy about it, but most times they can accept criticism from their own side.

[Leo Hubbard]

As of late July, the Army had re-enlisted 45,256 soldiers of the 56,100 it needs to meet its target this fiscal year, which ends in September. Short of an awful last two months, Army officials say they'll make their goal.

"In a way we're plagued by anecdotes where one soldier in a thousand is interviewed and complains that he can't wait to get out of the Army, so that means everybody must want out of the Army," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "That becomes the truth, but it isn't. We don't have any problem with retention."

"I joined the Army to run around in the woods, blow things up and bite the heads off snakes," said Master Sgt. Jerry Johnson, who leads retention efforts in the 82nd Airborne Division.

"When I'm guarding something on post, when I'm doing book work or practicing map-reading, that's not exciting," he said. "That's not what I joined for. When I'm in a combat situation, I'm doing what I signed up to do."

Hilferty said the Army is losing 5.5 percent of its lieutenants and captains a year, significantly fewer than four years ago.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/breaking_news/9407606.htm

[winwintoo]

The surprising decline within the past 2 1/2 months has jolted recruiters and military analysts and provoked questions about the war's effect on the Army's recruiting ability.


surprising :eek: :eek: :eek:

Only in America would someone find it surprising that a soldier returning from the battlefield in a war that should not have been fought in the first place wouldn't immediately re-enlist so he could go again.

m

[Neserk]

bite heads off snakes :eek:

My facetious monitor isn't working today so if I miss sarcasm well then you'll have to tell me.

[LethalWolfe]

1. Holy-thread resurection Batman.

2. Neserk,
I don't think the Master Sgt. was being sarcastic, or literal, just colorful.


Lethal

[Leo Hubbard]

bite heads off snakes :eek:

My facetious monitor isn't working today so if I miss sarcasm well then you'll have to tell me.
I remember what it was like in the Army. It was always a treat to catch a snake, especially when we could only use dagger or sword on them, and cook em up for lunch. Nice treat when all you have been eating is MRE's. FYI your not allowed to use bullets on snakes because it could cause a problem with fake and unnecessary alerts.