Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military meets, exceeds recruiting goals
AP on Yahoo ^ | 12/12/06 | Pauline Jelinek - ap

Posted on 12/12/2006 2:28:38 PM PST by NormsRevenge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-129 last
To: corlorde
I know how extremely important I felt, when I knew the civilians stateside were actively engaged and interested in the mission...even if it was a mundane deployment. When I perceive things to be going, "not right" I feel we are doing a disservice, if people don't speak up.

You're exactly right, and anyone who's ever been deployed, even on a 'back burner' mission, knows that feeling. Troops do not suffer by stateside discussions on the merits and flaws of the mission they're on. It's comforting to know that you're risking your neck over something that people thought about before they sent you, and are still engaged in while you're there.

101 posted on 12/13/2006 6:59:54 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
We can further discuss your perceived role as military motivator at some future date.

Let me give you a situation that occurred in my son's unit that might belie your claim that the military is going downhill.

The unit he deployed with was a support unit with multiple people in it who were too old and too out of shape to be going into a war zone (some women). He was frustrated out of his teenaged mind at these people's apathy and weakness (and I was scared as a mother that these people might not be able to save him if he needed to be carried because he was wounded). They were still in the Reserves mostly likely to keep the income not ever thinking they would go to war.

As time has gone on since 9/11 and since Afghanistan and Iraq, those kinds of people are dropping out, and being replaced by younger, fitter recruits, including a few older ones who are in better condition.

I think that the reality is that today's military is far sharper and fitter than it was during the Clinton years.

There is a reason for the increased enlistments and reinlistments, and the anxiousness of those who have been in Iraq to go back (my son will go back as a very young staff sergeant.....he's only 22).

It's called patriotism. And it's not being falsely cheery to recognize that, nor is it being helpfully realististic to deny it.

102 posted on 12/13/2006 7:07:13 AM PST by ohioWfan (President Bush - courageously and honorably protecting us in dangerous times, . Praise the Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
If I did 40 pushups at age 18, I'd score a 57, which is three points shy of passing, whereas it would be a perfect score of 100 if I was 42.

You're looking at the wrong scale somewhere. I'm 39 and did 50 on the last APFT which gave me a score of 76-34 is passing. Maybe 42 year old females get a 100 score for 40 push ups, not males.

103 posted on 12/13/2006 7:20:38 AM PST by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: 91B

Good catch, my bad. I guess I did look at the female scores. That's what you get for trying to read charts before having coffee.


104 posted on 12/13/2006 7:27:18 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

Thanks for the morning laugh. I didn't need the /s tag to know it was a joke. My dh and his friends pass this stuff around all the time. There is another one out there comparing the services and what they drink. I'll have to find that one. Also, I once saw a hilarious medal chart, but I haven't been able to find that one again.


105 posted on 12/13/2006 7:48:51 AM PST by USMCWife6869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
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.

Pessimism that's manufactured by a constant drumbeat of media negativity. What else is the average person supposed to think, when faced with that everyday?

106 posted on 12/13/2006 7:52:26 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Covington agrees -- especially after being called "Grandpa" by his military peers. But he had the last laugh, receiving the highest fitness score of his entire company in basic training.

*snicker* Looks like Grandpa smoked em!

107 posted on 12/13/2006 7:59:06 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Let me give you a situation that occurred in my son's unit that might belie your claim that the military is going downhill.

I wouldn't quite say 'going downhill', but they are heading in the wrong direction. High standards and strict requirements are good things, but loosening them won't results in sudden disaster. It's just the wrong direction to be heading in the long run. I suppose it's just semantics, but I'm not really comfortable with your wording.

The unit he deployed with was a support unit with multiple people in it who were too old and too out of shape to be going into a war zone (some women). ... They were still in the Reserves mostly likely to keep the income not ever thinking they would go to war. As time has gone on since 9/11 and since Afghanistan and Iraq, those kinds of people are dropping out, and being replaced by younger, fitter recruits, including a few older ones who are in better condition.

I wasn't a reservist, and can't really say I know any current that well, but I imagine that going to war shook a lot of these types loose. I don't really see this as holding true for the Active Duty, but considering what a large percentage the Reserves makes up, it's definitely not a bad thing that this happened.

I think that the reality is that today's military is far sharper and fitter than it was during the Clinton years.

Hard to say, and I joined in the early Clinton years. In some ways yes, and others no. Most of the Clinton military was former Reagan military, and they weren't a very PC crew. Much of the Bush military is former Clinton military, and, well, it kinda shows. Military generations are like civilian generations, and some stereotypes about them are generally true.

At any rate, cut and paste this thread to your son and see what he thinks. He may disagree with me, but I doubt he'd think I'm a pacifist leafeater who's down on the military.

108 posted on 12/13/2006 8:01:20 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; Hydroshock; g'nad

Don't be so uptight! I thought it was funny, and I daresay any guy or gal in uniform would get a kick out of it too, especially a Marine!


109 posted on 12/13/2006 8:06:13 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Taking in recruits at such an age helps our numbers, but it hurts our strength. That's my concern.

I could see your point if we were talking about the Army of WWII, or even Vietnam, which relied on sheer numbers of men in the field of battle. It seems today that wars are not fought the same way, so that young strapping fellow needed before, in large numbers, is not as necessary, anymore. We need young recruits, to be sure, we always will, but we also need folks with good skills in other areas who will not be on the ground, but may be directing the fighting based on intelligence, or who are directing communications, etc. Not all recruits will be doing hand to hand combat, some will be doing other important jobs as the needs arise.

110 posted on 12/13/2006 8:23:56 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
We wouldn't be discussing this topic at all, if this generation was pulling it's weight, since we're calling on the generation before us for help.

No one's forcing those 'older' folks to join. It's a volunteer service, so how is the military "calling on the generation before us"? Sounds to me like they're simply accepting some volunteers who happen to be older than the average new recruit. I'm sure the military is happy to have some mature folks who can assume positions of leadership, if not on the field, then off of it.

111 posted on 12/13/2006 8:30:34 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

I just read it to my dh, a Marine, over the phone, and he got a huge laugh out of it. He and his buddies email stuff like that to each other all the time.

He especially liked the 24 hour uniform thing for the Army, because the Guard units train on our base, and we are constantly laughing at the fact that they never, EVER take the cammies (I know, BDUs) off. Marines aren't allowed to wear theirs out and about off base, so we can't figure out the joy in sitting at the bar in Applebee's or wandering aimlessly through Target in your cammies. My dh can't wait to get his off at then end of the day.


112 posted on 12/13/2006 9:44:10 AM PST by USMCWife6869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; tobyhill; Hydroshock
Don't be so uptight! I thought it was funny, and I daresay any guy or gal in uniform would get a kick out of it too, especially a Marine!

yup... I put this up on the bulkhead at work a while back...

113 posted on 12/13/2006 10:47:34 AM PST by g'nad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: kristinn; Steel Wolf

I dunno, I've been hearing rumors that the ASFAB(VAB?) grades have been lowered, minor convictions being overlooked and that recruiters are coaching people in avoiding popping posititive in the drug test. That, combined with raising the maximum age to enlist is allowing the Army to maintain their numbers.


114 posted on 12/13/2006 11:37:39 AM PST by jjm2111 (http://www.purveryors-of-truth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111

If you've served, have you seen any of what you're suggesting? If you haven't seen evidence of it, do you have any idea from where are these rumors coming?


115 posted on 12/13/2006 1:01:13 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Number one, I doubt that anyone seriously thinks of you as pacifist, Steel. :) And anyone can also see from your posts that you have the best interest of the military at heart.

Secondly, it occurred to me while I was 'out' that the Reservist situation may well be different than the active duty situation, and the only contact I have or know anything about since I am not military myself is through my son (though it's a very real possibility that he will decide to go career military after he's got his degree).... and whatever I can get my hands on to read.

It's definitely good that certain people have been shaken loose from the Reserves and Guard. I believe, though I don't have stats to back it up, that both have become more fit for the fight, as it were, in the past five years.

I'm not sure how you completely reverse the mess that Clinton made by the end of his eight years (and my son definitely agrees that it still needs a lot of work.....as do both his parents), but the one thing I know now is that the young men and women signing up now do so with love of country and desire to serve and protect at the top of their list of goals in being there. And they are proud of their Commander in Chief, whom they know has their best interests at heart.

This is the finest military in the history of the world, and though progress still needs to be made, I don't like discussion of those issues to reflect negatively on those who have CHOSEN to sacrifice their freedom for ours.

116 posted on 12/13/2006 1:04:33 PM PST by ohioWfan (President Bush - courageously and honorably protecting us in dangerous times, . Praise the Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; Steel Wolf

The level that I'm at I really can't say. The people I serve with really form a bell curve. The reserve unit I'm in tends toward the more intelligent, hard working and dedicated person because of the nature of the unit.

The rumours I hear are from people I know in the service. I take them with a grain of salt to some degree, but not entirely.

I have experienced some of Steel Wolf's concerns about older folks in the service. When I was deployed to Kuwait, there were guys in my unit in their 50s (and some pushing 60). Injuries, illness requiring SIQ, etc. were much higher amongst the older Sailors then the ones in their twenties. Sailors in their 20s bounced right back whereas some of the older ones had some significant problems.


117 posted on 12/13/2006 1:25:40 PM PST by jjm2111 (http://www.purveryors-of-truth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111

I would expect some of that in the reserves. These folks have likely been in a long time, and were caught there when war broke out. I suspect there will be much less of the single mom, or folks looking for college funding, Reservists in the near future, simply because they now understand the seriesness of their being there. I'd expect those who are volunteering to serve at this point would not have the same problems as you saw.


118 posted on 12/13/2006 1:52:31 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Amazingly, you still run into the "Whaddaya mean we have to go fight? I signed up for the college money." even now. My unit has been deployed 4 times since 9/11 and they still send us single moms, etc.

I still think that you will have reservists who will sign up for the wrong reasons, no matter what. The other problem in the reserves (at least in the Navy Reserves) is people trying to scam out of being deployed.


119 posted on 12/13/2006 2:10:08 PM PST by jjm2111 (http://www.purveryors-of-truth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: antiunion person

Thank you! For your service and for encouraging those who have signed up! The military families are in a class of patriots - which the left know noting about! (see my webpage) Their only interest is hide and retreat! Not Protect and rescue!

re: "I dislike and distrust any politician that doesn't WANT a victory..."

I'm in agreement with you - the Dems and the media sure are disgusting and treasonous to say the least!


120 posted on 12/13/2006 7:07:32 PM PST by Anita1 ((In support of the troops, but opposed to the war means - you don't believe in what they are doing!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Thanks for clarifying your intent and my name ain't Francis. It's good to hear that your intent wasn't to bash our troops, maybe a little note to indicate that would help, but I've been around a couple years and long enough to hear the scum bag trolls that do.

You seriously need to check your meter.
121 posted on 12/14/2006 1:10:48 AM PST by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny; Ron2
"Six years is way too long to continue to place any blame on the Clinton administration"

I was booted out of the Navy Reserve during the CLintoon years despite having Surface Warfare quals and 8 years active duty. If we can blame the Stalin purges in the 1920s and 30s for the Russian problems in WWII, I think Clintoon can take some heat for screwing with the US military (he balanced the budget with DoD cuts alone (and the dot com tax revenue boom).
122 posted on 12/14/2006 4:29:51 AM PST by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: razzle
It's not that Clinton doesn't deserve blame for what he did. Bush Sr's original cuts were pretty deep, and Clinton took it deeper still.

So, six years later or sixty, he'll be responsible for what he did in the 90s. That has no bearing on the fact that our current Administration has kept the size of Clinton's downsized military, which everyone seems to agree is too small, and then vastly increased our global committmets. We've had six years to fix the problem, and have done practically nothing to do so. Blaming Clinton now is a little like buying a car that needed an oil change, and then not changing the oil for five years, while blaming the seller for screwing you.

While he irresponsibly handed us a small military from a relatively peaceful decade, what does it say about the current Administration to be more than halfway through a decade filled with war, and STILL haven't built the military back up?

123 posted on 12/14/2006 4:37:10 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111

The rumors you hear are absolutely correct, but grossly understated.
What is being covered up and waivered is truly frightening. The recruiters put guidance counselors in positions that are inexcusable. The whole game is to bring a clearly unqualified applicant to the MEPS on Mission Day and hope a guidance counselor doesn't notice. Once the counselors signature is on the contract...guess who gets the blame?


124 posted on 12/14/2006 5:10:32 AM PST by carolw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

My meter is just fine and when someone is going to crack jokes about our military who just recently signed up I will ask for clarification and indicate to them they need a notation to let others know that it is an innocent joke with no bashing intended. I have seen trolls come up on FR that does nothing but bash our troops and our President.


125 posted on 12/14/2006 6:39:04 AM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I'll be one of those enlisting early next year : )


126 posted on 12/14/2006 8:07:29 AM PST by MinstrelBoy (If you're a Republican today, you're a hero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USMCWife6869
so we can't figure out the joy in sitting at the bar in Applebee's or wandering aimlessly through Target in your cammies.

Because people come up to them and thank them for their service (and buy them drinks).

127 posted on 12/14/2006 2:07:55 PM PST by Valpal1 (Big Media is like Barney Fife with a gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

This is a military town, so sadly, no one really looks twice at the uniforms. We have Yuma Proving Grounds and MCAS Yuma here and there is some kind of Naval Station in El Centro.

And people always know my dh is a Marine, even if he isn't in uniform because of the haircut, so he wouldn't need to wander around in his cammies LOL.


128 posted on 12/14/2006 2:19:09 PM PST by USMCWife6869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: MrNatural
..The max initial recruitment age has been raised to what, 65? ... Don't get my hopes up like that ..

Not quite.

Army raises enlistment age

FORT KNOX, Ky. (Army News Service, June 22, 2006) – The Army has raised the enlistment age to 42, made possible under provisions of the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act.

The Army raised the active-duty age limit to 40 in January as an interim step while it worked out the additional medical screening requirements for recruits ages 40 to 42. Before January, an applicant could not have reached his or her 35th birthday. The Army Reserve age limit was raised from 35 to 40 in March 2005.

Raising the maximum age for Army enlistment expands the recruiting pool, provides motivated individuals an opportunity to serve and strengthens the readiness of Army units. More than 1,000 men and women over age 35 have already enlisted since the Army and Army Reserve raised their age limits to age 40.

*more*

There is, however another route that gets pretty close to 65:

United States Code, TITLE 32, § 313.
Appointments and enlistments: age limitations


(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

129 posted on 12/15/2006 10:35:53 AM PST by archy (I am General Tso. This is my Chief of Staff, Colonel Sanders....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-129 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson