How long do you think the military can sustain this iraq thing w/o a draft?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How long do you think the military can sustain this iraq thing w/o a draft? (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:24:19 PM EDT

i was doing a little mathematics and as of today there are 1054 dead and 7532 wounded. of the 7532 wounded 4083 are mamed probably not to return to acton.

1054 + 4083 = 5137 troops gone in eighteen months. the metrics show a steady rise in the rate of casualties over the 18 months, so one can extend these numbers to figure by this time next year there will be about 10,000 total casualties with over 2,000 dead.

my question is how long do you think the military can sustain these numbers WITHOUT a draft?

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:24:48 PM EDT

[#1]

Indefinitely.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:25:41 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Indefinitely.

+1

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:26:21 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Indefinitely.

+1

+2

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:26:40 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Indefinitely.

+3

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:27:33 PM EDT

[#5]

67-91 years.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:27:34 PM EDT

[#6]

As long as we need to.

Retention and recruiting are both up, so replacing those lost is not a hard thing.

If those numbers start to fall, the simple solution is to increase pay and benifits to increase retention and recruiting. Not only is that solution cheaper than a draft, but it yields higher quality recruits.

There is no need for a draft. There will be no draft. The only ones screaming draft are the left, the same ones who have no basic understanding of how the military works anyway.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:27:40 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Indefinitely.

+4

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:28:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Given current recruitment status forever. Should there be a slight decline in recruitment, forever.

I imagine that if you extrapolated the numbers of enemies we have killed, you would see that the middle east would run out of people before they forced us into a draft situation.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:28:30 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Indefinitely.

i bow to you superior logic. that was a well thought-out response.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:29:54 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Indefinitely.

i bow to you superior logic. that was a well thought-out response.

See my above post, he is right. He just didn't feel like explaining it to ya.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:30:31 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Indefinitely.

i bow to you superior logic. that was a well thought-out response.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:30:42 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Indefinitely.

+1

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:30:47 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
i was doing a little mathematics and as of today there are 1054 dead and 7532 wounded. of the 7532 wounded 4083 are mamed probably not to return to acton.

1054 + 4083 = 5137 troops gone in eighteen months. the metrics show a steady rise in the rate of casualties over the 18 months, so one can extend these numbers to figure by this time next year there will be about 10,000 total casualties with over 2,000 dead.

my question is how long do you think the military can sustain these numbers WITHOUT a draft?

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

My question is where the hell did you get your math skills?
You are assuming that the numbers of insurgents are growing at the same rate as our casulty figures.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that our guys are killing a hell of a lot of their guys.
When do you suppose Sadr will start his draft?

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:31:55 PM EDT

[#14]

Dead and wounded is not the problem, the problem is keeping up the op tempo, and the problems with recruitment and retention. I don't think there will ever be a draft.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:35:14 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
The only ones screaming draft are the left, the same ones who have no basic understanding of how the military works anyway.

Funny, these are the same people that fought to get rid of the draft during the Vietnam War, so why the f'ck do they want it back. Red Ted Kennedy was in the Senate at that time.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:37:54 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The only ones screaming draft are the left, the same ones who have no basic understanding of how the military works anyway.

Funny, these are the same people that fought to get rid of the draft during the Vietnam War, so why the f'ck do they want it back. Red Ted Kennedy was in the Senate at that time.

Because its a scare tactic. The more they bring it up, even though it will not happen, the more they get the "soccer mom" who votes based on emotion rather than logic to vote for Kerry.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:38:09 PM EDT

[#17]

Legislation has been introduced:
S89 and HR163 - Universal National Service Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Some claim the draft could be reinstated as early as Spring 2005.

Sounds like they are trying to keep it hush until after elections.

Many editorial and commentary pages on web via search.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:38:42 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Funny, these are the same people that fought to get rid of the draft during the Vietnam War, so why the f'ck do they want it back. Red Ted Kennedy was in the Senate at that time.

They don't want a draft, they want to be able to accuse the right of wanting one, so they came up with a couple of screwball bills, got them shitcanned, and now use every chance the get to get a "gonna be a draft" sound byte in the air, knowing that it will be automatically assumed to be a Republican plan.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:40:23 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Legislation has been introduced:
S89 and HR163 - Universal National Service Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Some claim the draft could be reinstated as early as Spring 2005.

Sounds like they are trying to keep it hush until after elections.

Many editorial and commentary pages on web via search.

Do some homework and quit beliving fowarded emails....

That bill was proposed by democrats, has no chance of passing, and never did. See my above post.

Its a scare tactic, pure and simple.... I see you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

BTW, Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:40:23 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Indefinitely.

Read my mind.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:40:25 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Legislation has been introduced:
S89 and HR163 - Universal National Service Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Some claim the draft could be reinstated as early as Spring 2005.

Sounds like they are trying to keep it hush until after elections.

Many editorial and commentary pages on web via search.

Did you actually read who introduced this bill? Please do.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:41:44 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Legislation has been introduced:
S89 and HR163 - Universal National Service Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Some claim the draft could be reinstated as early as Spring 2005.

Sounds like they are trying to keep it hush until after elections.

Many editorial and commentary pages on web via search.

Please go and check the status of these bills and report the date of the last action taken on either of them, while you are at it why don't you look into the sponsors of the bills. This crap was introduced as ammunition for agitators, and thanks to internet gunslingers who are a bit to quick on the the paln has worked out better than the idiots who thought it up could have ever hoped for.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:44:01 PM EDT

[#23]

Hard to say. Stop gap measure like extended deployments, extended contracts, deploying reserves and national guard, and recalling ready reserves cause long term harm. Every involunatarily extended deployement results in more people opting out rather than re-enlisting.

I think they could probubly keep troops there 10 years max, before the military turns into a burned out shell filled with petty crooks and drug addicts who never should have been accepted.

If they bump to pay WAY up, offer 2-year enlistments, and limit deployments to only 6-months of that two year enlistment, they may be able to recruit enough people.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:45:32 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Retention and recruiting are both up, so replacing those lost is not a hard thing.

We must be reading different news sources. From what i have read only the Navy is meeting its recruiting goals. People are leaving the army in droves.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:47:44 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Retention and recruiting are both up, so replacing those lost is not a hard thing.

We must be reading different news sources. From what i have read only the Navy is meeting its recruiting goals. People are leaving the army in droves.

Yes, he's reading the accurate sources.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:49:08 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
As long as we need to.

Retention and recruiting are both up, so replacing those lost is not a hard thing.

If those numbers start to fall, the simple solution is to increase pay and benifits to increase retention and recruiting. Not only is that solution cheaper than a draft, but it yields higher quality recruits.

There is no need for a draft. There will be no draft. The only ones screaming draft are the left, the same ones who have no basic understanding of how the military works anyway.

please explain to me how retention replaces 6,000 per year. retention to me means that the military retains someone they already have. that is like saying you profit by a dollar, simply because you didnt lose a dollar you already had -- makes no sense.

if you need, lets say, 50,000 troops and you loose 6,000 and retain ALL the rest, dont you still need 5,000 NEW recruits?

Given current recruitment status forever. Should there be a slight decline in recruitment, forever.

I imagine that if you extrapolated the numbers of enemies we have killed, you would see that the middle east would run out of people before they forced us into a draft situation.

could you, or someone else, point me to some current recruiting stats. i searched the net and couldnt find any current numbers.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:49:17 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Retention and recruiting are both up, so replacing those lost is not a hard thing.

We must be reading different news sources. From what i have read only the Navy is meeting its recruiting goals. People are leaving the army in droves.

We must also be reading different news stories. According to KA3B only the National Guard is having trouble recruiting (since combat is a certanty why NOT go regular for two or three years) and the AF and Navy are laying people off...

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:49:32 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Indefinitely.

i bow to you superior logic. that was a well thought-out response.

It was very well thought out. Your question, however, was not. The casualties went up in a certain period and then down again. They aren't increasing geometrically and your assumptions are incorrect.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:50:35 PM EDT

[#29]

All I have seen seems to indicate that for the most part recruiting and retention goals are being met. Some NG and USAR units are seeing some very high loss rates after deployments, especially those who were deployed back to back, but most of them are on target as well.

Here at FLW the BT barracks are overcrowded.
usmilitary.about.com/b/a/099326.htm

First link I found on google, too lazy to dig for more.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:52:28 PM EDT

[#30]

Oddball, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about AGAIN.

Do you realize that in our past wars we had DAYS where we lost as many men as we have lost in nearly two YEARS in Iraq?

To talk about "high casualties" and "Iraq" in the same sentence is stupidity...

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:55:09 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Oddball, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about AGAIN.

Do you realize that in our past wars we had DAYS where we lost as many men as we have lost in nearly two YEARS in Iraq?

To talk about "high casualties" and "Iraq" in the same sentence is stupidity...

Very true we lost as many in the just the rehearsal for Operation Overlord as we have in going on 2 years of war.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:56:06 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Indefinitely.

i bow to you superior logic. that was a well thought-out response.

It was very well thought out. Your question, however, was not. The casualties went up in a certain period and then down again. They aren't increasing geometrically and your assumptions are incorrect.

you do not even know what you are talking about. read the stats BEFORE you type.

you must have failed statistics class.

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:57:27 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Indefinitely.

i bow to you superior logic. that was a well thought-out response.

+1

Posted: 9/30/2004 3:57:27 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
As long as we need to.

Retention and recruiting are both up, so replacing those lost is not a hard thing.

If those numbers start to fall, the simple solution is to increase pay and benifits to increase retention and recruiting. Not only is that solution cheaper than a draft, but it yields higher quality recruits.

There is no need for a draft. There will be no draft. The only ones screaming draft are the left, the same ones who have no basic understanding of how the military works anyway.

please explain to me how retention replaces 6,000 per year. retention to me means that the military retains someone they already have. that is like saying you profit by a dollar, simply because you didnt lose a dollar you already had -- makes no sense.

if you need, lets say, 50,000 troops and you loose 6,000 and retain ALL the rest, dont you still need 5,000 NEW recruits?

You seem to be having selective reading problems. I said RECRUITING AND RETENTION. You see, those two go hand in hand. The more soldiers you retain, the fewer you have to replace. Therefore, more of your recruiting effort and the recruits it yields can go to replacing the ones you have lost.

It's that simple.

If you have 50 employees and 3 get killed, you need three, If you have 50 and three get killed and five quit, then you need to find 8. So retention helps you meet your recruiting goals by keeping the numbers you need to replace down.

Did I make it simple enough for you?

Given current recruitment status forever. Should there be a slight decline in recruitment, forever.

I imagine that if you extrapolated the numbers of enemies we have killed, you would see that the middle east would run out of people before they forced us into a draft situation.

could you, or someone else, point me to some current recruiting stats. i searched the net and couldnt find any current numbers.

Google is your friend. I found an article in 30 seconds and posted it.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:01:53 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Oddball, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about AGAIN.

Do you realize that in our past wars we had DAYS where we lost as many men as we have lost in nearly two YEARS in Iraq?

To talk about "high casualties" and "Iraq" in the same sentence is stupidity...

high casualties with respect to how many are in uniform is the point .....and how many were in uniform at that time, hmmmmm?

pretty easy to sustain 6,000 casualties when the numbers of troops in theater are in the 500,000 to 1,000,000+

so i would have to say that it is you who show your raging ignorance

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:02:43 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Legislation has been introduced:
S89 and HR163 - Universal National Service Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Some claim the draft could be reinstated as early as Spring 2005.

Sounds like they are trying to keep it hush until after elections.

Many editorial and commentary pages on web via search.

Another low-post &^%$&$# that doesn't know, or pretends not to know, that the cited legislation was put forward in both houses of Congress on the same day, by two of the most Liberal pieces of shit serving there, AND cosigned by 7+ other Democratic Black Caucus members, ALL of who are rabidly against the current Administration. They did this SPECIFICALLY so that shills like you could use it in your fear-mongering.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:07:29 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oddball, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about AGAIN.

Do you realize that in our past wars we had DAYS where we lost as many men as we have lost in nearly two YEARS in Iraq?

To talk about "high casualties" and "Iraq" in the same sentence is stupidity...

high casualties with respect to how many are in uniform is the point .....and how many were in uniform at that time, hmmmmm?

pretty easy to sustain 6,000 casualties when the numbers of troops in theater are in the 500,000 to 1,000,000+

so i would have to say that it is you who show your raging ignorance

Just WHAT do you think the current size of the US Army is?

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:09:09 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
You seem to be having selective reading problems. I said RECRUITING AND RETENTION. You see, those two go hand in hand. The more soldiers you retain, the fewer you have to replace. Therefore, more of your recruiting effort and the recruits it yields can go to replacing the ones you have lost.

It's that simple.

If you have 50 employees and 3 get killed, you need three, If you have 50 and three get killed and five quit, then you need to find 8. So retention helps you meet your recruiting goals by keeping the numbers you need to replace down.

Did I make it simple enough for you?

actually no, because you seem to miss the whole point.

the three that quit aside how do you replace the 5?

so, if your numbers keep dwindling how does retention OFFSET casualties?

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:09:23 PM EDT

[#39]

reinstate the draft everyone should serve 2
do a lot for discipline in the young generation and give them an appreciation for what they got
plus make more gun lovers..

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:10:39 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Legislation has been introduced:
S89 and HR163 - Universal National Service Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Some claim the draft could be reinstated as early as Spring 2005.

Sounds like they are trying to keep it hush until after elections.

Many editorial and commentary pages on web via search.

Some say the moon is made of cheese.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:11:29 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I think they could probubly keep troops there 10 years max, before the military turns into a burned out shell filled with petty crooks and drug addicts who never should have been accepted.

Aren't we cute. Don't folks like you EVER couch the issue in terms that are NOT entirely based on a <b>Vietnam</b>-centric (mis)understanding of modern US military history?

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:14:35 PM EDT

[#42]

Military Numbers Are Rising
Virginian-Pilot
April 14, 2004

Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

The services believe a combination of patriotism and the economy is driving people to the military and keeping them there.

"The war is not only not having a negative effect, but it is helping to reinforce the number of people who want to join," said Cmdr. John Kirby, a spokesman for the Navy's Bureau of Personnel.

Even the Army National Guard, which has had 150,000 citizen soldiers mobilized for up to a year, has seen retention rates "going through the roof," said Guard spokesman Maj. Robert Howell.

"Mass exodus has not been the case in the Army National Guard," said Howell, deputy chief of the Strength Maintenance Division at the National Guard Bureau in Washington.

The Guard was prepared to lose up to 18 percent of units returning from lengthy deployments, but it has averaged just 16.6 percent, with some as low as 12.6 percent, Howell said.

The Guard fully expects to again reach its recruiting goal of 56,000 members this year, to maintain its total strength of 350,000.

The Guard's goal for first-term re-enlistments , for those with less than six years of service, had been 65 percent this fiscal year but has rocketed to 141 percent - which indicates that additional members re-enlisted early, usually to take advantage of bonuses.

The goal for second- and third-term enlistments, or those considered "career" soldiers, was set at 85 percent in the Guard but has come in at 136 percent, Howell said.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all met or exceeded their year-end recruiting goals for fiscal year 2003, which ended Sept. 30. The figures continued to climb in the first half of fiscal year 2004, which was reached March 31.

The Army is at 100.1 percent of its "active duty mission," said spokesman Douglas Smith, reviewing numbers current as of March 29. Smith said 34,593 soldiers had been enlisted for the active Army and 8,331 for the Reserves. The Army has been ahead of its goal every year since 2000 and every month this year, Smith said.

The Navy is meeting all recruiting and retention goals and has cut the number of new recruits this year to the lowest target in 30 years.

Instead of bringing 41,200 new recruits into the service this fiscal year, the Navy will cut it off at 40,450, said Lt. Bill Davis with the Navy Personnel Command in Millington, Tenn.

"Thus far, through March, we've recruited 15,636, but this is normally our slow period," Davis said. "Things kick up in the summer with high school graduates. Where we've been getting 2,000 a month, we'll jump to 4,000 a month in the summer."

Navy re-enlistment rates are at an all time high, with 62.3 percent of first-term sailors signing up for additional service. That compares with a targeted goal of 56 percent. The rate has grown each year since 2000, when 48.2 percent of the first-term sailors re-enlisted.

For those with six to 10 years of service, the Navy re-enlisted 74.1 percent; its goal had been 70 percent. For those with 10 to 14 years of service, 88.7 percent re-enlisted so far this year; the goal was 85 percent.

The last time the Navy missed its recruiting goal was in 1998, Davis said.

In the Air Force, new recruit contracts are coming in at 104.2 percent of goal in fiscal year 2003 and reached 102.6 percent of goal through March.

The Air Force is retaining 67 percent of its first-term enlisted members, 75 percent of its second term, and 98 percent of its career enlisted .

Like the Army, the Marine Corps has been in the thick of combat in Iraq, yet the Marines have exceeded their monthly recruiting goal every month for the past 106 consecutive months, or for nearly nine consecutive years.

From October to December 2003 - the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 - the Marines recruited 9,201 potential members, surpassing their goal of 8,729.

Even the Coast Guard, which has grown by more than 10 percent to 40,000 since the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is keeping its members .

The Coast Guard has lost 7 percent to 8 percent of its force through attrition each year. In 2001 the rate was 7.65 percent; in 2002 it was 7.9 percent, said Chief Petty Officer Paul Rhynarb, at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington.

But in 2003 the rate fell to just 2.68 percent, Rhynarb said.

Chief Petty Officer John Hoesli, who heads the Coast Guard's recruiting station in Chesapeake, responsible for recruiting from Williamsburg to Cape Hatteras, has never seen recruiting so good. His office has been the most productive in the past four years and was named the best throughout the Coast Guard in 2001.

"Whether it's patriotism, or defending the nation by keeping the fight here and keeping terrorism out of here that draws people, I don't know," Hoesli said. He suspects those are some of the reasons, along with an economy that is sending more people into the service .

While the Coast Guard aims its sights mainly at the 18- to 20- year-old recruit, Hoesli said he is seeing older, more experienced candidates in their mid- to late-20s, many with college degrees.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:16:35 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Retention and recruiting are both up, so replacing those lost is not a hard thing.

We must be reading different news sources. From what i have read only the Navy is meeting its recruiting goals. People are leaving the army in droves.

Your are. The Air Force is fine, the regular Army is fine, and according to the SSGt at the Marine recruiting office in Santa Clarita that I talked to yesterday, THEY are fine. It is the Army Guard / Reservists with already established civilian lives that cannot sustain the financial or seperation from their families hit that year-long deployments entail. That, and a few pussies that signed up strictly to suckle the FedGov teat and bleat now that the bill is due.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:16:42 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Legislation has been introduced:
S89 and HR163 - Universal National Service Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Some claim the draft could be reinstated as early as Spring 2005.

Sounds like they are trying to keep it hush until after elections.

Many editorial and commentary pages on web via search.
Another low-post &^%$&$# that doesn't know, or pretends not to know, that the cited legislation was put forward in both houses of Congress on the same day, by two of the most Liberal pieces of shit serving there, AND cosigned by 7+ other Democratic Black Caucus members, ALL of who are rabidly against the current Administration. They did this SPECIFICALLY so that shills like you could use it in your fear-mongering.

Yes, I know the bill was introduced in Jan03 by the Dems, and is now bouncing in the never-land of committees. Do I believe it could ever pass?.. HELL NO, as long as we keep republican control of congress and senate.

My intent was not to incite "fear mongering", only to emphasize the importance of our votes this fall.
I apologize to All for not clearly stating "my" opinion on the matter.

I fully agree with Garand_Shooter on Recruitment/Retention.

Lighten Up.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:17:51 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oddball, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about AGAIN.

Do you realize that in our past wars we had DAYS where we lost as many men as we have lost in nearly two YEARS in Iraq?

To talk about "high casualties" and "Iraq" in the same sentence is stupidity...

high casualties with respect to how many are in uniform is the point .....and how many were in uniform at that time, hmmmmm?

pretty easy to sustain 6,000 casualties when the numbers of troops in theater are in the 500,000 to 1,000,000+

so i would have to say that it is you who show your raging ignorance

From June 6 to Novemeber 14, 1944 we lost 29,000 troops, and thats just the Army and just Europe.

Any way you crinch the numbers, per captita either in theater or in service, this confilct has a lower casulty rate of any extended conflict in our history.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:21:05 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Dead and wounded is not the problem, the problem is keeping up the op tempo, and the problems with recruitment and retention. I don't think there will ever be a draft.

Well written.

Furthermore, a draft would produce bad soldiers and decrease op-temp, etc.

Congress won't let the Pentagon raise more formations. That is the problem hitting the Reserves and NG. If anything, time to raise a few more combat formations.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:21:49 PM EDT

[#47]

Army Meets Most Of 2004 Goals
Associated Press
September 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - Overcoming the recruiting turnoff of a mounting U.S. casualty toll in Iraq, the Army met most of its enlistment goals for the 2004 recruiting year, officials said Wednesday.

It expects a harder time reaching its goals in 2005, however, in part because it begins the recruiting cycle with a smaller-then-usual pool of "delayed entry" recruits - people who enlist but wait until the following year to report for duty. Many who signed up in 2004 and might otherwise have delayed their entry until 2005 were instead shipped off to boot camp this year.

The opposite was the case a year ago at this time; the pool of recruits who signed up in 2003 but put off their reporting date until 2004 was considerably larger than normal, officials said. The Army was able to use that pool to fill nearly half its 2004 enlistee requirement.

The active-duty Army exceeded its recruiting target of 77,000 soldiers by 587, and the Army Reserve exceeded its goal of 21,200 by 78, according to Doug Smith, spokesman for Army Recruiting Command. The Army's recruiting year ended on Monday; the other services finish theirs on Friday.

The only sector of the Army that fell short was the National Guard. Its final figures will not be calculated until Friday, but the Guard's chief, Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, said last week that he would fall about 5,000 enlistees short of the Guard's recruiting target of 56,000.

It was the first time in 10 years that the National Guard missed its target.

Blum said he intended to add recruiters and focus the marketing effort more on youngsters in high school and college, since fewer people are moving from active duty to the Guard.

The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force all met or exceeded their 2004 recruiting targets, although the Navy and Air Force had less ambitious goals because their services are actually shrinking in size. The Army is the only one of the major services that is expanding its ranks.

The services that are suffering worst in Iraq are the Army and the Marine Corps, and officials have said they worry that the toll of lengthy deployments and hard combat could hurt recruiting.

The Pentagon reported Wednesday that the number of U.S. troops killed in action in Iraq since the invasion began in March 2003 stands at 800; another 253 died of non-combat causes. The number of U.S. military deaths has increased in each of the last four months.

While the Army is facing a tough recruiting situation near year, the Marines appear to be doing better. They already have signed up 52 percent of next year's recruiting class through their delayed entry program, according to Maj. Dave Griesmer, spokesman for Marine Corps Recruiting Command.

Each of the major services recruits tens of thousands each year, even if they are not increasing their overall size, because thousands quit or retire. The Army faced a particularly difficult recruiting challenge this year because it needed extra people for a reorganization of its combat forces, even while keeping more than 100,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Each of the Army's 10 divisions is expanding from three brigades to four, so the Army needs about 30,000 more soldiers. It is using a variety of management devices to accomplish that, including invoking "stop loss" authority to prevent some soldiers from leaving the service when their enlistments expire. It also recruited 5,000 more this year than originally planned.

Smith, the Army Recruiting Command spokesman, said the Army normally gets 25 percent to 35 percent of each year's recruits from the delayed entry pool, but it is beginning the 2005 recruiting cycle with only 18.4 percent of the 80,000 recruits it estimates it will need in 2005.

"The situation isn't dire," Smith said, noting that in 2001 the active duty Army had a similarly depleted store of recruits at the start of the recruiting cycle and still met its goal of 75,800 enlistees.

"We'll have to work harder throughout the year, that's the answer," he said.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:21:55 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oddball, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about AGAIN.

Do you realize that in our past wars we had DAYS where we lost as many men as we have lost in nearly two YEARS in Iraq?

To talk about "high casualties" and "Iraq" in the same sentence is stupidity...

high casualties with respect to how many are in uniform is the point .....and how many were in uniform at that time, hmmmmm?

pretty easy to sustain 6,000 casualties when the numbers of troops in theater are in the 500,000 to 1,000,000+

so i would have to say that it is you who show your raging ignorance

Just WHAT do you think the current size of the US Army is?

currently 1.4 mil active and 1 mil reserve total.

wwII in 1945 the army alone was in excess of 8 mil.

6,000 lost from 2.4 mil is a far greater loss in numbers than 6,000 from the 8 million.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:22:55 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
please explain to me how retention replaces 6,000 per year. retention to me means that the military retains someone they already have. that is like saying you profit by a dollar, simply because you didnt lose a dollar you already had -- makes no sense.

if you need, lets say, 50,000 troops and you loose 6,000 and retain ALL the rest, dont you still need 5,000 NEW recruits?

Easy. Retention does not mean what you've mistaken it for.
'Retention' means that existing military members choose to RE-enlist when their obligation is fulfilled. Thus, the 44,000 'rest' in your example RE-join, removing the need for 44,000 fresh recruits on the front end.
When both the first-time enlistment rates are at decades high levels AND the re-enlistment levels are higher than they've been in past decades, that shoots the shit out of any manufactured 'Draft' crisis.

Another factoid - The Navy is offerring something like 30,000 early discharges, because their manpower needs are overfilled.

Posted: 9/30/2004 4:23:25 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You seem to be having selective reading problems. I said RECRUITING AND RETENTION. You see, those two go hand in hand. The more soldiers you retain, the fewer you have to replace. Therefore, more of your recruiting effort and the recruits it yields can go to replacing the ones you have lost.

It's that simple.

If you have 50 employees and 3 get killed, you need three, If you have 50 and three get killed and five quit, then you need to find 8. So retention helps you meet your recruiting goals by keeping the numbers you need to replace down.

Did I make it simple enough for you?

actually no, because you seem to miss the whole point.

the three that quit aside how do you replace the 5?

so, if your numbers keep dwindling how does retention OFFSET casualties?

You replace your losses with recruiting. Just like you replace thsoe you don't retain.

However, high retention rates make recruiting to replace those 5 easier, because it means you don't have to replace soldiers that leave the service. It is easier to recruit 50,000 a year than 70,000, so every soldier you retain is a new one you don't have to recruit a replacement for.

Hell, we had bad retention years during the Clinton years where we were short of our retention goals by well over 10k.... and we replaced them by recruiting too.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How long do you think the military can sustain this iraq thing w/o a draft? (Page 1 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us