Skip to comments.Military meets, exceeds recruiting goals
Posted on 12/12/2006 2:28:38 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Though Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, the Pentagon said Tuesday it is having success enlisting new troops. The Navy and Air Force met their recruiting goals last month while the Army and Marine Corps exceeded theirs, the Defense Department announced.
The Army, which is bearing the brunt of the work in Iraq, did the best. It signed up 6,485 new recruits in November compared with its target of 6,150 meaning 105 percent of its goal.
All the services turned in similar performances in October as well, meaning they so far are meeting their goals for the 2007 budget year that began Oct. 1.
"The services are starting off well," said Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman.
The progress in recruiting comes as U.S. pessimism over the Iraq campaign mounts, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll. Some 63 percent of Americans said they don't expect a stable, democratic government to be established in Iraq, up from 54 percent who felt that way in June.
Dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an all-time high of 71 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos survey this month. A bipartisan commission last week released its recommendations for a new course and the president held a series of meetings this week to hear from his advisers.
According to figures released Tuesday by the Pentagon, the Navy signed up 2,887 recruits last month, or 100 percent of its goal; Marines signed up 2,095, or 104 percent of its 2,012 target and the Air Force signed up all 1,877 it was seeking.
The Army also met its goal in the 2006 budget year after missing its target in fiscal year 2005 for the first time since 1999. It added recruiters and offered recruits bonuses to help attract more to the service.
The Army has been recruiting about 80,000 people a year, setting differing monthly goals depending on the time of the year.
Though the active services are doing well, recruiting has lagged for the Army Reserve and Navy Reserve, officials said.
The Army Reserve last month signed up 1,888, or just 79 percent of its 2,376 goal and the Navy Reserve signed up 687 recruits, or just 91 percent of its 755 goal.
On the Net:
Defense Department http://www.defenselink.mil
Wonder if this has any economic reasons for happening, as in the economy is not really doing as well as some reporting.
Best Holiday Wishes and a Merry Christmas to all those who serve and will soon serve their nation proudly and in a time of war.
How about guys and gals just want to defend their country. Is that so hard to imagine anymore? Wow.
I am very proud of these young men and women.
This is remarkable considering the negative
mantra of the media.
Young? The max initial recruitment age has been raised to what, 65? Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but standards are losening so we can have positive headlines like this. Let's not kid ourselves here.
No, I do not believe so. The first sentence in the story posits that Americans are growing pessimistic. I believe the average American knows we have a job to do in Iraq and it is the cowardly left leaning writers of opinions disguised as news that are attempting to thwart the job that must be done.
I work in an aspect of the entertainment industry. Our sales are up this year. There appears to be a growth in disposable income and demand for non essential entertainment products. I say the economy is therefore doing well.
Jesus, I am SICK of stupid writing.
Meeting and exceeding are different. One may meet on the way to exceeding, and if one exceeds, by definition one has met.
To write that something "meets and exceeds" is redundant and moronic.
I guess discussing ideas/thoughts are not allowed on this thread. Sorry, I thought otherwise...carry on...
"Though Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq"
"Though Liberal & Democrat Americans that we select for all of our biased polls are increasingly pessmistic about the aftermath of the war in Iraq"
There, that's better
I think they should double the requirements until we get to the point that, if need be, we can withstand a major conflict. Too many people left the military during the Clinton Admin. I feel a major conflict is in the making and we best be prepared for it.
Not that this is justification from a grammatical sense, but a lot of Army writing uses dual concepts like this, when talking about killing and capturing terrorist X, or meeting and exceeding a standard. It's like you state the minimum and the optimal in the same breath, even if it's contradictory in a literal sense.
The more I try and explain it the lamer it sounds, but take my word on it, it's a very Army form of expression.
I enlisted a few years after the Vietnam War ended. I was a pampered princess from an upper-middle class family. I had a full academic scholarship to Luther College in Iowa. I didn't have to join; I wanted to see the World! Then I ended up loving it so much and I was good at it, so I stayed for twenty years.
I enlisted during the Carter years of no jobs, no gasoline and 18% interest rates! These kids want to serve, just as I did. And God Bless Them!
Economics rarely play into someone's decision to join up, no matter what the MSM tries to tell us. :)
If I can find my link to data that shows who enlists, I'll post it. I had a hard drive crash a while ago and lost some really good stuff. :(
I'm guessing that it does have something to do with the economy, however, I'm still humbled and proud that the Marines and the Army are meeting and exceeding their recruiting goals. We've lost at least 47 Americans in the first 12 days of December in Iraq, but the volunteers keep coming. I'm impressed.
Sad that there are so many people who didn't study hard and now have to go to Iraq. (/sarcasm)
Someone should send this to Rangel and tell him to stick up his...
Six years is way too long to continue to place any blame on the Clinton administration.
Your explanation is perfect, and thanks!
As for the practice, it's lame indeed. "Killing and capturing" in particular would seem to be mutually exclusive.