US Army struggles to coax recruits amid Iraq war

[J-10]

US Army struggles to coax recruits amid Iraq war
March 06, 2005, 15:45

Staff Sgt. Richard Guzman is on the front lines of one of the US Army's toughest battles in years, and he is not in Iraq. He is an Army recruiter trying to coax young men and women into volunteering to serve at a time when US ground forces are engaged in a bloody guerrilla war halfway around the world.

"To me, recruiting used to be easy. Right now, you really have to hunt for those ones who really want to do it (Army service)," said Guzman, who recruits in New York City's Harlem section. Nearly two years into an Iraq war that has left more than 1 500 US troops dead and another 11 200 wounded, recruiters like Guzman are having to work hard as the Army strives to sign up 80 000 recruits this year to replace soldiers leaving the service.

The Army in February, for the first time in nearly five years, failed to achieve its monthly recruiting goal. It is in danger of missing its annual recruiting target for the first time since 1999. Recruiting for the Army's reserve component - the National Guard and Army Reserve - is suffering even more as the Pentagon relies heavily on these part-time soldiers to maintain troop levels in Iraq. The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10% behind, and the Guard is 26% short.

The Marine Corps, the other service providing ground forces in Iraq, has its own difficulties. In January and February, the Marines missed their goal for signing up new recruits - the first such shortfall in nearly a decade - but remained a bit ahead of their target for shipping recruits into boot camp. Iraq marks the first protracted conflict for US forces since the end of the draft in 1973, which ushered in the era of the all-volunteer military.

If the military fails to attract enough recruits and America maintains a large commitment in Iraq, the nation may have to consider some form of conscription, said Cato Institute defense analyst Charles Pena. "This is getting dicey," said Pena.

Parents, aunts and uncles

Lt. Col. John Gillette, who commands the Army recruiting battalion in New York City, said young people and their families are asking questions about the war. "Instead of just talking specifically to the applicant, we're talking to the applicant's parents, and, in some cases, extended family - aunts, uncles - just to answer their questions and concerns as well," Gillette said.

Guzman said he reassures families that a recruit will get the normal nine weeks of basic training and further individual training and not just be shoved in a uniform and sent into combat. "They think that after two weeks in basic training, they will be deployed overseas," Guzman said. Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith said recruiters do everything they can to allay the apprehension of recruits and families. "But there are certain things that we just can't talk our way through or give a hard answer to, like, 'Will I be deployed?' That's just not something a recruiter can predict."

The improving economy and civilian job opportunities also are factors in recruiting, Smith said. Army Secretary Francis Harvey said the active-duty and reserve components have added 3 000 recruiters since last year and increased enlistment bonuses to try to lure new soldiers. "So we've got a challenge, but we're certainly not going to give up," Harvey told a congressional panel. Defence analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said there has been a migration of recruits away from the ground forces toward services less likely to be in harm's way in Iraq - the Navy and Air Force. "There's a bottom line to the recruiting debate. People don't want to die," Thompson said.

The problem is even more dire than it appears because the Army, through "stop-loss" orders, has forced thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to remain in uniform when their volunteer service commitment ends, thus keeping recruiting needs artificially low, Pena said. Some of these soldiers may remain in the Army involuntarily for up to 18 months beyond when they were scheduled to leave.

"The military can hold things together on a relatively short-term basis through some fairly extreme measures like 'stop-loss' and making much greater use of Reserve and Guard units to fill the requirements in Iraq," Pena said. "But you cannot do this indefinitely. At some point, you break the force. And the question is: how close are we to that breaking point?" - *******
http://www.sabcnews.com/world/the_middle_east/0,2172,99374,00.html

[PhillyMobster]

Hmph. I say this is good. Finally the little kids fresh out of highschool who thought they'd join the reserves, run off with all the benefits and never get deployed are getting a nice reality check. I don't want people in service with me if they aren't going to pull their weight when the bullets start flying.

"But there are certain things that we just can't talk our way through or give a hard answer to, like, 'Will I be deployed?' That's just not something a recruiter can predict."

If you join a branch of the Military, you should always do so with the full knowledge that at any point you may be deployed. If you have any doubts on that count, you're looking at the wrong job.

Just my opinion.

[11F5S]

Hmph. I say this is good. Finally the little kids fresh out of highschool who thought they'd join the reserves, run off with all the benefits and never get deployed are getting a nice reality check. I don't want people in service with me if they aren't going to pull their weight when the bullets start flying.

"But there are certain things that we just can't talk our way through or give a hard answer to, like, 'Will I be deployed?' That's just not something a recruiter can predict."

If you join a branch of the Military, you should always do so with the full knowledge that at any point you may be deployed. If you have any doubts on that count, you're looking at the wrong job.

Just my opinion.


You haven't proven that you have what it takes yet.

How much is the opinion of a kid who hasn't even taken the ASVAB worth when it comes to the military?

Not much! That's just my opinion.

[PhillyMobster]

Hmph. I say this is good. Finally the little kids fresh out of highschool who thought they'd join the reserves, run off with all the benefits and never get deployed are getting a nice reality check. I don't want people in service with me if they aren't going to pull their weight when the bullets start flying.

"But there are certain things that we just can't talk our way through or give a hard answer to, like, 'Will I be deployed?' That's just not something a recruiter can predict."

If you join a branch of the Military, you should always do so with the full knowledge that at any point you may be deployed. If you have any doubts on that count, you're looking at the wrong job.

Just my opinion.



You haven't proven that you have what it takes yet.

How much is the opinion of a kid who hasn't even taken the ASVAB worth when it comes to the military?

Not much! That's just my opinion.

good point :oops:

[ArmedPacifist]

Hmph. I say this is good. Finally the little kids fresh out of highschool who thought they'd join the reserves, run off with all the benefits and never get deployed are getting a nice reality check. I don't want people in service with me if they aren't going to pull their weight when the bullets start flying.
.

Some of these "kids" (I put that in quotations because they are probably older than you) have no other choice.

If we had it your way and removed college benefits and even the enlistment bonus you wouldn't have very many people even with you when "the bullets start flying", let alone someone who didn't join the Army for the same reasons you did.

Good luck on your apptitude test kid.

[Jedburgh]

The active force met less than 50% of its recruiting goal for the first quarter of the FY. :(

[RGRBOX]

I just wonder why they only write these articles and do documentories on the recruiters in NY. You never see the ones who are working there butts of doing it in Dallas, or just plain smallville USA. I saw a doc about this same thing from...NY... and they were only finding black kids to send off...

[James]

I just wonder why they only write these articles and do documentories on the recruiters in NY. You never see the ones who are working there butts of doing it in Dallas, or just plain smallville USA. I saw a doc about this same thing from...NY... and they were only finding black kids to send off...

Here's an interesting link I posted in another thread. I thought I'd mention it here since you mention finding "black kids" to send off. It is a list of U.S. fatalities in Iraq based on ethnicity. More than 70% of the dead are white. Less than 11% are black.

http://icasualties.org/oif/ETHNICITY.aspx

[marktigger]

The only way forward for the US army is to apply an inteligence test for its troops and espically its officers. Get rid of its indoctrinated rigid chain of obedience and look at how armies like Britain train their Junior officers and ranks to think.
Listen to expert advice from countries who have carried out successful COIN ops like Britain . In Fact maybe its about time a BAMTT was sent to the USA to sort out your armed forces.

[FallenAngel]

The only way forward for the US army is to apply an inteligence test for its troops and espically its officers.

I don't know if you knew this but US military officers are generally considered some of the smartest people in the country (according to SAT tests and the like).

Curious question though: why is it only the Army having trouble meeting it's recruiting goals? I hear about how the USAF is 20,000+ over their legal limit, the US Navy isn't reporting a shortage of sailors and I don't think the USMC has missed a recruiting quota in the past decade. Any thoughts?

[el borracho]

The only way forward for the US army is to apply an inteligence test for its troops and espically its officers.

I don't know if you knew this but US military officers are generally considered some of the smartest people in the country (according to SAT tests and the like).

Curious question though: why is it only the Army having trouble meeting it's recruiting goals? I hear about how the USAF is 20,000+ over their legal limit, the US Navy isn't reporting a shortage of sailors and I don't think the USMC has missed a recruiting quota in the past decade. Any thoughts?

IMHO it's because the other branches represent unique aspects of the military. People join the Air Force because they want to work around aircraft, people join the Navy cause they want to go to sea, people join the USMC to share in the rich heritage and pride. People don't join the Army to sit in foxholes and eat MRE's. A lot of the younger kids that I know say they joined cause they thought they could get those lucrative Ranger and SF billets...but met with reality shortly after joining.

Not to knock anyone serving in the Army, but from my Air Force perspective it seems like the Army really scrapes the bottom of the barrel when they find some of these people to recruit. A lot of them have been the stereotypical "small-town kids with no way out." Kinda sad.

[11F5S]

Curious question though: why is it only the Army having trouble meeting it's recruiting goals? I hear about how the USAF is 20,000+ over their legal limit, the US Navy isn't reporting a shortage of sailors and I don't think the USMC has missed a recruiting quota in the past decade. Any thoughts?

It appears you didn't read the original post.


US Army struggles to coax recruits amid Iraq war
March 06, 2005, 15:45

Staff Sgt. Richard Guzman is on the front lines of one of the US Army's toughest battles in years, and he is not in Iraq. He is an Army recruiter trying to coax young men and women into volunteering to serve at a time when US ground forces are engaged in a bloody guerrilla war halfway around the world.

"To me, recruiting used to be easy. Right now, you really have to hunt for those ones who really want to do it (Army service)," said Guzman, who recruits in New York City's Harlem section. Nearly two years into an Iraq war that has left more than 1 500 US troops dead and another 11 200 wounded, recruiters like Guzman are having to work hard as the Army strives to sign up 80 000 recruits this year to replace soldiers leaving the service.

The Army in February, for the first time in nearly five years, failed to achieve its monthly recruiting goal. It is in danger of missing its annual recruiting target for the first time since 1999. Recruiting for the Army's reserve component - the National Guard and Army Reserve - is suffering even more as the Pentagon relies heavily on these part-time soldiers to maintain troop levels in Iraq. The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10% behind, and the Guard is 26% short.

The Marine Corps, the other service providing ground forces in Iraq, has its own difficulties. In January and February, the Marines missed their goal for signing up new recruits - the first such shortfall in nearly a decade - but remained a bit ahead of their target for shipping recruits into boot camp. Iraq marks the first protracted conflict for US forces since the end of the draft in 1973, which ushered in the era of the all-volunteer military.

If the military fails to attract enough recruits and America maintains a large commitment in Iraq, the nation may have to consider some form of conscription, said Cato Institute defense analyst Charles Pena. "This is getting dicey," said Pena.

Parents, aunts and uncles

Lt. Col. John Gillette, who commands the Army recruiting battalion in New York City, said young people and their families are asking questions about the war. "Instead of just talking specifically to the applicant, we're talking to the applicant's parents, and, in some cases, extended family - aunts, uncles - just to answer their questions and concerns as well," Gillette said.

Guzman said he reassures families that a recruit will get the normal nine weeks of basic training and further individual training and not just be shoved in a uniform and sent into combat. "They think that after two weeks in basic training, they will be deployed overseas," Guzman said. Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith said recruiters do everything they can to allay the apprehension of recruits and families. "But there are certain things that we just can't talk our way through or give a hard answer to, like, 'Will I be deployed?' That's just not something a recruiter can predict."

The improving economy and civilian job opportunities also are factors in recruiting, Smith said. Army Secretary Francis Harvey said the active-duty and reserve components have added 3 000 recruiters since last year and increased enlistment bonuses to try to lure new soldiers. "So we've got a challenge, but we're certainly not going to give up," Harvey told a congressional panel. Defence analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said there has been a migration of recruits away from the ground forces toward services less likely to be in harm's way in Iraq - the Navy and Air Force. "There's a bottom line to the recruiting debate. People don't want to die," Thompson said.

The problem is even more dire than it appears because the Army, through "stop-loss" orders, has forced thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to remain in uniform when their volunteer service commitment ends, thus keeping recruiting needs artificially low, Pena said. Some of these soldiers may remain in the Army involuntarily for up to 18 months beyond when they were scheduled to leave.

"The military can hold things together on a relatively short-term basis through some fairly extreme measures like 'stop-loss' and making much greater use of Reserve and Guard units to fill the requirements in Iraq," Pena said. "But you cannot do this indefinitely. At some point, you break the force. And the question is: how close are we to that breaking point?" - *******


U.S. Marines, Amid Iraq War, Miss Recruiting Goals

Wed Mar 2, 5:06 PM ET

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (*******) - The Marine Corps for the second straight month in February missed its goal for signing up new recruits, the Marines said on Wednesday, in another sign of the Iraq (news - web sites) war's effect on military recruiting.

"It is a challenging recruiting environment right now," said Maj. David Griesmer, spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command.

For the first time in more than a decade, the Marines in January fell short of their monthly goal for new recruits signing enlistment contracts to begin serving within a year. The Marines missed their monthly goal again in February by more than 6 percent, Griesmer said.

In February, Marines signed up 2,772 of a target of 2,964 (93.5 percent). Some of them will join a total force of 177,000.

But Griesmer noted that in both months, the Marines reached their goals for new recruits actually entering boot camp. So a higher percentage of those who promised to enlist followed through and entered the Corps.

In year-to-date figures for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, the Marines were 1 percent behind their goal for signing up new recruits and 2 percent ahead in shipping new recruits into boot camp.

The recruiting shortfalls come as Marines play an integral role in military operations in Iraq, which have caused a steady stream of combat deaths. Marines have performed some of the most dangerous and grueling tasks in the guerrilla war, for example spearheading the November offensive in Fallujah.

Pentagon (news - web sites) leaders also have expressed concern about recruiting for the active-duty Army and the Army Reserve and National Guard.

In describing the recruiting challenge faced by the Marines, Griesmer mentioned the Iraq war and said recruiters are having to work hard to sell the idea of military service to potential recruits and their parents.

Griesmer said other factors also are playing a role, including a strengthening economy and the growing number of young Americans entering college. He also said the Marines plan to add 275 recruiters over the next three years.

Gen. Michael Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, told reporters last week he was optimistic about reaching recruiting goals for the current fiscal year.

"What the recruiters are telling us is that they have to spend more time with the parents. And regardless of whether the individual American is 17 or 18 or 19, parents have influence -- rightly so -- on the decisions that these young men and young women are going to make," Hagee said.

"And they're saying, 'It's not, maybe, a bad idea to join the Marine Corps, but why don't you consider it a year from now or two years from now? Let's think about this.' So the recruiters are having to work much harder out there right now."

The Marines also are offering new reenlistment bonuses to help convince troops who are completing their volunteer service commitment to sign up for another tour of duty.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20050302/ts_nm/iraq_usa_recruiting_dc

[RGRBOX]

I just wonder why they only write these articles and do documentories on the recruiters in NY. You never see the ones who are working there butts of doing it in Dallas, or just plain smallville USA. I saw a doc about this same thing from...NY... and they were only finding black kids to send off...

Here's an interesting link I posted in another thread. I thought I'd mention it here since you mention finding "black kids" to send off. It is a list of U.S. fatalities in Iraq based on ethnicity. More than 70% of the dead are white. Less than 11% are black.

http://icasualties.org/oif/ETHNICITY.aspx

This would be understandable, becaue most of your Infantry and Combat Arms MOS's are white, while the Support Troops are usually black. On this doc, I saw they were sending all of the Black Recruits to the support jobs. Does anyone know why this may be?

[Praetorian 05]

MARK.TIGGER Posted:
The only way forward for the US army is to apply an inteligence test for its troops and espically its officers. Get rid of its indoctrinated rigid chain of obedience and look at how armies like Britain train their Junior officers and ranks to think.
Listen to expert advice from countries who have carried out successful COIN ops like Britain . In Fact maybe its about time a BAMTT was sent to the USA to sort out your armed forces.

The US Military does and has had an intelligence (2 Ls) test for it's troops and officers; the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). This test is definitive in determining a persons ability to work in specific jobs. It is also used by many High Schools for career counseling.
As for your comment on indoctrinated obedience; you have no idea what you are talking about. The Army is extremely geared toward initiative of it's individual soldiers, and trains accordingly.
The US Army is very big on education. The Army has a very high percentage of "Grunts" with at least some college.
Another thing that you obviously don't know is; The US was the first major power to device and utilize an ALL Volunteer Military Recruitment. Your Beloved Britain, as well as many other nations, have sent it's entourage to observe how the US has been so successful. The US has been doing this for over Twenty Five years and has only a few years in which it had a difficult time achieving it's goals! Not bad business for any type of organization, especially one that is selling such an entangible product.

[RGRBOX]

MARK.TIGGER Posted:
The only way forward for the US army is to apply an inteligence test for its troops and espically its officers. Get rid of its indoctrinated rigid chain of obedience and look at how armies like Britain train their Junior officers and ranks to think.
Listen to expert advice from countries who have carried out successful COIN ops like Britain . In Fact maybe its about time a BAMTT was sent to the USA to sort out your armed forces.

The US Military does and has had an intelligence (2 Ls) test for it's troops and officers; the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). This test is definitive indetermining a person ability to work in specific jobs. It is also used by many High Schools for career counseling.
As for your comment on indoctrinated obedience; you have no idea what you are talking about. The Army is extremely geared toward initiative of it's individuals soldiers, and trains accordingly.
The US Army is very big on education. The Army has a very high percentage of Grunts with at least some college.
Another thing that you obviously don't know is; The US was the first major power to device and utilize an ALL Volunteer Military Recruitment. Your Beloved Britain, as well as many other nations, have sent it's entourage to observe how the US has been so successful. The US has been doing this for over Twenty Five years and has only a few years in which it had a difficult time acheiving it's goals! Not bad business for any type of organization, especially one that is selling such an entangible product.

When I was in the military in the 80's and 90's. Any soldier wanting to progress had to go back to school. You had to have at least a two year degree to advance past E-7. When I finished the Army, after ten years..I started University in my Sophomore year. I'm not sure if it is still possible to get into the Army with out at least a GED. But I know some guys who got the GED when they join, in the 80's. We had several guys who were working on their Masters Degree in my Unit. And the SOC was giving free Masters Degree Programs to guys in SF, PhyOps and other MOS's. When my wife got her Masters in International Relations at Ft. Bragg, most of her class was guys from 1st SFOD-D. Education is so important in the Army, that most units even bring in Schools with professors to give different courses while the unit was in baffacks... I went to classes for 3 months at a time for 2-4 hours a day... Plus all of the Army schools are worth College credits...

[askDNA]

I'm pretty sure I've read that the Navy and Air Force are shrinking in size, so that would explain why it's not hard to find recruits.

[mattmayhem]

If only they let Canadians in...(without green cards)

[11F5S]

MARK.TIGGER Posted:
The only way forward for the US army is to apply an inteligence test for its troops and espically its officers. Get rid of its indoctrinated rigid chain of obedience and look at how armies like Britain train their Junior officers and ranks to think.
Listen to expert advice from countries who have carried out successful COIN ops like Britain . In Fact maybe its about time a BAMTT was sent to the USA to sort out your armed forces.

The US Military does and has had an intelligence (2 Ls) test for it's troops and officers; the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB).

The ASVAB is NOT an intelligenge test. It is as it's name indicates an apptitude test. IQ tests are of little to no value to the military.

[Werewolf01]

I am a red blooded American, and I love my country (note I did not state "I love my government."), but in light of the problems we have been having in retention, over-extention etc., I have to wonder why our enemies have not bpthered to attack us? After about 30 seconds of pondering the issue, I came to this conclusion: regardless of our problems, they are scared sh*tless of the US military. Otherwise, why not attack now? This thread regarding manpower made me consider this. Sorry if I am too far OT.

[scm77]

If only they let Canadians in...(without green cards)

x2 :lol:

[RGRBOX]

I am a red blooded American, and I love my country (note I did not state "I love my government."), but in light of the problems we have been having in retention, over-extention etc., I have to wonder why our enemies have not bpthered to attack us? After about 30 seconds of pondering the issue, I came to this conclusion: regardless of our problems, they are scared sh*tless of the US military. Otherwise, why not attack now? This thread regarding manpower made me consider this. Sorry if I am too far OT.

Of course they're scared ****less of the US Military.. There isn't a country out there that isn't... The sword behind the politics is what worries the rest into doing the US bidding...

[ElHombre]

...I have to wonder why our enemies have not bothered to attack us? After about 30 seconds of pondering the issue, I came to this conclusion: regardless of our problems, they are scared sh*tless of the US military. Otherwise, why not attack now?

beacuse any guerilla left understands that shooting at the US military stands a good chance of getting killed. that's basic guerilla tactics. colonial riflemen did the same sort of thing during our revolutionary war.

they're going after easier targets like iraqi police and guard recruits. if they think they can kill an american without getting killed, they'll try. :(

[Sayeret]

The only way forward for the US army is to apply an inteligence test for its troops and espically its officers.

I don't know if you knew this but US military officers are generally considered some of the smartest people in the country (according to SAT tests and the like).

Curious question though: why is it only the Army having trouble meeting it's recruiting goals? I hear about how the USAF is 20,000+ over their legal limit, the US Navy isn't reporting a shortage of sailors and I don't think the USMC has missed a recruiting quota in the past decade. Any thoughts?

IMHO it's because the other branches represent unique aspects of the military. People join the Air Force because they want to work around aircraft, people join the Navy cause they want to go to sea, people join the USMC to share in the rich heritage and pride. People don't join the Army to sit in foxholes and eat MRE's. A lot of the younger kids that I know say they joined cause they thought they could get those lucrative Ranger and SF billets...but met with reality shortly after joining.

Not to knock anyone serving in the Army, but from my Air Force perspective it seems like the Army really scrapes the bottom of the barrel when they find some of these people to recruit. A lot of them have been the stereotypical "small-town kids with no way out." Kinda sad.

Although I see your reasoning I see your reasoning I would be careful though how much you stereotype the services. Your generalization seems to apply more for combat jobs and maintenance jobs than the other roles. If someone was looking for an intelligence job for example in the military I would suggest the Army over the Marines just because the Army has a bigger intelligence focus than the Marines. Are people in Army intelligence any less smart or successful than people in the Air Force, Navy, or Marines?

[PhillyMobster]

Hmph. I say this is good. Finally the little kids fresh out of highschool who thought they'd join the reserves, run off with all the benefits and never get deployed are getting a nice reality check. I don't want people in service with me if they aren't going to pull their weight when the bullets start flying.
.

Some of these "kids" (I put that in quotations because they are probably older than you) have no other choice.

If we had it your way and removed college benefits and even the enlistment bonus you wouldn't have very many people even with you when "the bullets start flying", let alone someone who didn't join the Army for the same reasons you did.

Good luck on your apptitude test kid.

Ok, you're right. I was hoping this thread would drop off the face of the earth the moment I hit 'submit', but it hasn't and I think an apology is in order.

I am not in the position to make that judgement. I still think my point is legitimate--I don't think people should join any military organization unless they are willing to accept the possible consequences of their decision, but as you have pointed out, I'm not even in the military yet, and therefore I am not qualified to judge. Sorry if I offended anyone, my post was stupid and rash, and I should be bashed over the head for it. :bash: Ow.

[Erik2a4]

If only they let Canadians in...(without green cards)

I had two Canadian citizens in my platoon while deployed to Iraq. We also had one Brit, one Brazilian, one Christian Lebanese and several Latin American citizens in the company.

My current company commander originally enlisted in the US Army as a Colombian citizen.

I do not know about Green Cards or such, however, it is possible.

11F5S, your posts are always insightful and entertaining...especially when you eloquently tell someone to the STFU.

[Ichhabe]

If I'd been a bit younger I'd been over in a heartbeat. :D

[scm77]

If only they let Canadians in...(without green cards)

I had two Canadian citizens in my platoon while deployed to Iraq. We also had one Brit, one Brazilian, one Christian Lebanese and several Latin American citizens in the company.

My current company commander originally enlisted in the US Army as a Colombian citizen.

I do not know about Green Cards or such, however, it is possible.


Yeah it's possible, Canadian citizens (and other foreign citizens) are allowed to serve, but they must have a green card, which is are not easy to get.

[marktigger]

if the US army uses inteligence tests then why are your officers and junior soldiers are as thick as pigsh*t. Not through choice but because the command system doesn't allow them to use any inteligence they have Worked alongside both army and marines and found the marines to be the more inteligent and would think more creativley. I actually felt sorry for my US peers as they were not allowed to exercise any inititive or command and had to ask higher authority for permission to make the simpilest decisions. As for NCO's why have them when they aren't even allowed to put up tents unspupervised.

[DPGLAW]

I think it is good that they are asking questions and I dont think, as some on here said, that it means they think they wont have to be deployed or that they wont "pull their weight when the bullets start flying" (just because they are asking questions about the amount of training and deployment) I would want to know first how much training I would get before being deployed. I would not want to go through basic and be thrown right into combat, I dont think that would make even a semblence of an effective soldier, AIT and further unit training is required for an effective soldier. I think if you were to just send them right off after basic, than you would have an ineffective soldier and if that were being done I would not blame the soldier for not joining the fight as without the proper training they arent a complete soldier. If they arent properly trained than in my humble opinion they shouldnt be fighting. Soldiers enlisting now should get the same amount, actually more because our Army has learned new lessons in this war since the beginning, than soldiers who started the war off. Just my .02 cents

[el borracho]

if the US army uses inteligence tests then why are your officers and junior soldiers are as thick as pigsh*t. Not through choice but because the command system doesn't allow them to use any inteligence they have Worked alongside both army and marines and found the marines to be the more inteligent and would think more creativley. I actually felt sorry for my US peers as they were not allowed to exercise any inititive or command and had to ask higher authority for permission to make the simpilest decisions. As for NCO's why have them when they aren't even allowed to put up tents unspupervised.

From what I've seen, that's totally true. The Army doctrine totally discourages initiative and personal decision making. It's like they're imbedded with an inferiority complex from basic training onwards...this might serve the purpose in wartime- and unwavering adherence to orders, but in peacetime it is actually a hinderance. This is why that there is so much useless and unchecked red-tape in the Army...everyone is too afraid to question authority, or really doesn't understand anyway else but to follow it. It's kinda sad actually...another strange thing is how the Army seems to earn rank quickly, but the equivalent grades in other services seem much more competent. An Army E4 could be directly out of basic...but a Marine E4 leads a squad in combat. Same with NCO's. Most Army junior NCOs are still pimply faced and always have to ask the SFC for an answer. Maybe earning rank quickly boosts morale, but actually stalls progress as a whole.

[Ichhabe]

if the US army uses inteligence tests then why are your officers and junior soldiers are as thick as pigsh*t. Not through choice but because the command system doesn't allow them to use any inteligence they have Worked alongside both army and marines and found the marines to be the more inteligent and would think more creativley. I actually felt sorry for my US peers as they were not allowed to exercise any inititive or command and had to ask higher authority for permission to make the simpilest decisions. As for NCO's why have them when they aren't even allowed to put up tents unspupervised.

Totally agree on that. Have nothing but the deepest respect for US. Marines-officers.

But, I must admit that also the Army's officers impressed me very much, SPECIALLY those from the Engineers. Loved to work with them.