about a year ago, there was lots of talk in the media, and on these boards, about a serious lack of manpower in the military. . This was supposed to become a big issue.
Some cites denied that there was a problem.
Some cites claimed that there was a problem, but that the army was “improving” the data;such as boasting about higher than usual re-up rates for the elite units (not mentioning the non-elite units). Or using stop-loss orders to retain men in uniform after their original term of service ended so they didn’t appear to be losing manpower.
But during the past year, I havent seen much talk about this topic, which logically should be getting more and more serious, as the original soldiers in Iraq finish their tours.
So I have 2 questions:
1-- what are the numbers? How serious is the shortage of manpower?( Anecdotal evidence may be as relevant as official-but-“improved” statistics)
2- if the shortage continues, how will it affect the ability of the army to stay in Iraq?
(let’s not get too entangled with the political issues or Bush-bashing–I’m interested in the actual physical problem–are there enough soldiers to keep the army functioning in Iraq, and will lack of recruits force a change in policy sooner than the politicos intended?
I’m kind of curious myself. I don’t see how there could be anything but a shortage of recruits these days…you’re all but guaranteed a stay in Iraq which may or may not run much longer than you signed up for. The stop loss thing was a bad call IMO, though it may have been the only option.
But what about those soldiers who have completed their military obligation but the military will not let them out? And what about those who ended their active duty status, but still come under their obligation status who are being called back to active duty? IIRC, some call this the hidden draft.
The military will not ‘not let them out’. Per the contract (which I signed when I enlisted, and everyone else signs also), the military can involuntary extend you up to one year past your EAD (end of active duty). Also, when you enlist (both in the Delayed Entry Program and to active duty), you enlist for EIGHT years. There is nothing hidden about that, and they (both military and civilian personnel at the processing station) stress this OVER and OVER. With this, they can be called back at anytime.
This is not the hidden draft. It is written in your enlistment contract and when you raise your right hand (as a civilian) you do say for EIGHT years. It is better than reinstating the military draft, that is, using military members who already volunteered and are already trained.
Now, to the thread. I have a friend who is currently in the recruiting field in the Army. They will probably find a way to meet their goals, but not without lowering the quality of recruits. They raised the recruiting age to 42! In comparison the Marines cut off is 28 years old and up to 32 if you are in TOP physical shape (although a sly recruiter could make someone appear to be in TOP physical shape). The Army also are now allowing more recruits with GED’s and also raised the amount of recruits without even a GED (called Tier IV). One more way of getting more kids in, allowing more CAT IV’s in (people who basically failed the ASVAB test for enlistment.
So, when you lower your standards, it makes it easier to achieve your numbers.
With all due respect to your friend, perhaps it wouldn’t be too much trouble to ask for a cite or two on these claims? Specifically, what was the previous permissible number of CatIV’s, and what is it now? What was the previous Army top age permitted, and when was it raised to 42?
Although this article discusses the annual Army goals on target to being met, and the monthly goals for the Air Force, Navy and Marines being met, does this include the National Guard and reserve components?
*Chu said he is not disturbed by the increase in the number of “category 4” personnel joining the Army. These recruits score in the lowest category of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery of tests.
The Army recruits no more than 4 percent of its force from this category, meeting the DoD benchmark, explained Doug Smith, public affairs officer for U.S. Army Recruiting Command. For many years, the Army had a self-imposed 2-percent limit, he said, but raised it to 4 percent in 2005.*
Probably not. They split the things up into about 1,500 different catagories, and then don’t publish summaries or yearly trends on a single site. You’d think national security was at stake or sumpin.
To put these age numbers in perspective, during WWII, the maximum draft age was 38. (I have no idea what age enlistment was allowed.) During the draft that ended in the 70s (and thus during the VietNam “police action”), the draft age limit was 26. Anyone who had ever accepted a deferment was liable till age 35, but in practice the army did not want people over 26 and they were not drafted. I had a deferment that lasted till I was about 25 years, 4 months, but afte 8 months passed and I was not drafted, I was home free.
According to this column from yesterday (the guy usually gets his facts right, whatever his opinion) the Army went from 500 Cat IV recruits two years ago to 2,900 last year to 3,200 this year.
And according to USA Today the previous top age for enlistment was 35 in 2005, raised to 40 earlier this year, and to 42 in June.
I’ve not heard it called a “hidden” draft but I have heard it referred to as a “backdoor” draft. Either way, it means that part of the fighting force is made up of people who are there because if they weren’t they’d be in jail.
There was an article in the paper very recently about a 41 year old grandmother who recently joined the Army under the new age limits. Insert your own punch line here.
I could probably get them, I am not sure when I will see him again, though.
As far as the permissible amount of Cat IV’s, I do not have the Army statistics in front of me, but I know the Marine Corps allowed 2% Cat (Category) IV’s, but generally kept that number lower.
The previous Army top age permitted was 34 (by memory alone). It was recently raised to 42 (there was an article about a 41 year old Grandmom that is in basic training now, on foxnews).
I am sure there are a million cites out there and statistics, etc. that can be found. If you really need them, I will provide them if this thread is still on my mind tomorrow morning!
Yet when I posted in this thread (with a link to a matrix since removed on military.com), I said this more than two years ago, “The table matrix on the page is interesting. We are at full mobilization, with only retirees, standby reserve and the general population (draft?) remaining for our limited engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seems kinda strange that a country of almost 300 million has effectively exhausted its military support system.”
So we are fighting limited wars using a defense matrix set up for total war. Houston, I think we have a problem.
What about the guys who have done their 8 years and are ready to get out? More to the point, what about the ones who have done their 20 years, are due to retire, and have been retained for another 2, 3, or even 4 years?
Yeah, the pentagon made their 2006 goal. Wonder whether they would have made it if they couldn’t stop-loss those who had completed their full contracts and had to fill those slots with recruits? By doing this, essentially they’re exploiting people who joined before Iraq, making use of a spirit of volunteerism built under more competent administrations.