The Message Behind Recruiting Meltdown

[KB]

The Message Behind Recruiting Meltdown

By Ralf W. Zimmermann

The light flickering at the end of the tunnel could well be the imminent military personnel train wreck that I've predicted since late 2003.

Despite all recent initiatives – including the "creative" juggling of statistical release dates and enlistment incentives promising potential recruits financial heaven on earth for a little time in the hell of Iraq's bubbling civil war, things haven't improved much for our desperate military recruiters. And it's not that they aren't trying.

I personally know quite a few of them – and they aren't sneaky used-car salesmen, as many in the news media are trying to paint them. Most are well meaning ex-warriors from the trenches who have been given a new mission, almost as critical as combat. It's to fill the ranks of the Army's fighting formations so they can sustain the breakneck speeds of endless deployments and service transformation.

Their rewards for meeting quota: maybe a medal and a few letters of commendation. Then off you go to a new assignment. The price for not making quota is dire: most likely a career-ending efficiency report and an unpleasant follow-on job. Remember Patton talking about shoveling crap in Louisiana?

The fact is that today's recruiters are given the proverbial mission impossible. To provide cover, the Pentagon geniuses have come up with new gimmicks. The latest is the all-new, 15-month enlistment.

After years of lengthy Basic Training, AIT and other follow-on schools, all of a sudden, 15 months are plenty to train quality tank crews, Bradley fighting vehicle crews and to certify troops for other complex military skills? What a change in attitude! Just a year ago, many flag-waving know-it-alls – most without one day in uniform – ripped into me for suggesting a two-year draft. Two years would never produce a quality soldier, they retorted. But all of a sudden, 15 months is the right number.

Give me a break! Stop- loss, 15-month recruiting and keeping substandard troops on active duty aren't going to win anything. If you aren't willing to talk national service, then face the facts on low recruitment. Quality volunteers know what they're getting into.

Unfortunately, our military leaders don't have many choices. Given the current political climate, mission demands, and career pressures to report success, they are often forced to push their people to the breaking point. They can no longer live by the values once promised to the troops and their families. These eternal values included providing the troops with the best training, equipment and support to win in battle at the lowest cost in human sacrifice, and affording sufficient time to rest between deployments to maintain a decent family life.

With Congress slowly degenerating into a self-serving cheerleading committee, hope for change can only come from the American people. And the people are finally emerging from their 9/11 daze, which had temporarily turned them into blind followers. Many Americans, among them scores of formerly gung-ho soccer moms, are finally realizing that the neocon warpath to reshape the entire Middle East isn't a task that they would like their own children to shoulder. They are rightfully concerned that our nation could ultimately end up quagmired and bankrupt.

That's not impossible – just remember Rome, Napoleon, Nazi Germany and others. All tried to create empires with the saber and the gun, taking on too many enemies at one time. Today, war is more than just beating the enemy militarily. You can still lose a war economically, socially and politically, if you don't pay attention. Killing terrorists doesn't require occupying entire regions.

To prevent a military meltdown, we must avoid additional military entanglements. Let's stabilize and finish what we've begun in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, that might include finding a feasible and rapid exit strategy for Iraq. Let the Iraqis figure out how to rule themselves. Might there be civil war and a possible ethnic breakup into three separate nations? Sure –but if that's what they ultimately want, more power to them.

We are seeing far too many young Americans in uniform who have begun to vote on our foreign policy by gradually rejecting our highly honorable military service – by "voting with their feet." This retired soldier is willing to bet that a more balanced and creative foreign policy could recruit more quality troops than any outrageous and bonus enlistment offer.

DefenseWatch Senior Military Correspondent Lt. Col. Ralf W. Zimmermann, USA (Ret.) is a decorated Desert Storm veteran and former tank battalion commander. His recent novel, "Brotherhood of Iron," deals with the German soldier in World War II. It is directly available from www.iUniverse.com and through most major book dealers. Zimm can be reached at r6zimm@earthlink.net or via his website at www.home.earthlink.net/~r6zimm. © 2005 LandserUSA. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

[WARPIG]

As much as it stings, good article to read.

As a recruiter, having someone from the outside seeing the truth and speaking it out loud is rare. Even painful truths are healing.
LTC Zimmerman hit the nail on the head.

[Praetorian 05]

Many Americans, among them scores of formerly gung-ho soccer moms, are finally realizing that the neocon warpath to reshape the entire Middle East isn't a task that they would like their own children to shoulder.

That's the problem today! Everyone wants someone else to do their dirty work. Everyone wants to live in a safe and peaceful country but they want someone else to do the killing and dying for their sorry asses.

It's easy to sit and watch the news and say "I support our Soldiers"; "But I won't let my son go into the Military, He's too smart for that."

I love my only son more than life; but if he comes up to me one day and says "Dad I want to join the Military", I will do all I can to insure that he gets what he wants.

I was told by my Mother years after I was in the Army of what my Dad said when I was about 12 and wanted a dirtbike. (He was concerned of me getting hurt on a motorcycle like most parents.) "Well, we can do all we can to keep him safe and healthy, but one day after he's older he could be drafted into the Military and die in some foreign country; what would we have acomplished then?"

I got my Dirtbike and I did join the Army 7 years later. When I became a Dad, I remembered that story. My Son has had dirtbikes and Dunebuggys since he was old enough to want one. He also knows how to properly use all types of firearms. We have a great life together but if he feels it necessary to do his part in the protecting of our freedoms, I will proudly sit at home praying and sweating bullets until he returns. Because I know the only way we can continue to enjoy living in the USA is to be willing to do our part in it's defense. I am not the first Dad to feel this way and hopefully not the last.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This is an interesting topic.

We have an all volunteer military. We have a free press that for the most part leans to the left, and human nature being what it is - good news is not reported on while bad news (blood/destruction) leads the evening broadcast. When the economy is good - as it is now - with no shortage of good paying jobs - prospective recruits have many options other than the military. My question is - is it even possible for a Western nation to wage a real war - with real casualties - under these conditions?

Prior to Vietnam, war coverage was highly censored - even going so far as the government opening and censoring personal letters to and from the front (Bush 41 had this additional duty aboard his aircraft carrier in the South Pacific in WWII). Now it appears to me that the media is just as powerful an adversary as any enemy we fight - since coverage can be spun to erode support - and recruitment - for any long-term conflict.

The enemy obviously knows this - and this is why they have very shrewdly capitalized on our new media culture by videotaping attacks, by keeping up the pressure on "abuses" at military prisons etc. I have to say that in all honesty - I don't think that it's really possible to wage war the way we are accustomed to. The military is too vulnerable to erosion of support at home and competition from the private sector.

[WARPIG]

Those parents that "support the troops" as long as it is someone elses' sons and daughters are part of my daily battle. I am also a parent. I am also a 3rd gen. US Army NCO. I can relate to what parents and their kids are going through when it comes to service.
It doesn't matter that since 2001 we have lost an average of 3000 soldiers annually: compared to 35,000 to 40,000 people killed in the US in car accidents. In the US 5,000 pedestrians are killed by cars every year! You would think that logic would make parents take the car keys away from their kids and lock them in their homes. Nope, because the media reports any and every death in war yet ignores the thousands of deaths outside our doors.
How powerful is the media? Automobiles are a bigger killer of Americans than terrorists are. It is safer for me to go to Iraq, where there are people who are trying to kill me, than to drive to the local Walmart to pick up a gallon of milk. Yet, as America's window to the world around us comes with Tivo and 300 channels; parents will protect thier kids from Service rather than the greater danger of apathy.

[Clarsachier]

Gentlemen, I think it's a bit more than the 'fault' of the media. After all, 'the media' includes FOX news. :)

For instance, during WW2 the public was well of horrendous casualties taken by allied troops. Yet still, voluntary enlistment was much higher than for this war.

Enlistment was also a lot higher just after 9/11. The 'enlistment problem' is simply a result of the (miss)handling or total invalidity of the Iraq war.

But I fully agree that Bush/Iraqi war supporters not sending their own children to the war represent the worse kind of hypocrasy.

[11F5S]

Those parents that "support the troops" as long as it is someone elses' sons and daughters are part of my daily battle. I am also a parent. I am also a 3rd gen. US Army NCO. I can relate to what parents and their kids are going through when it comes to service.
It doesn't matter that since 2001 we have lost an average of 3000 soldiers annually: compared to 35,000 to 40,000 people killed in the US in car accidents. In the US 5,000 pedestrians are killed by cars every year! You would think that logic would make parents take the car keys away from their kids and lock them in their homes. Nope, because the media reports any and every death in war yet ignores the thousands of deaths outside our doors.
How powerful is the media? Automobiles are a bigger killer of Americans than terrorists are. It is safer for me to go to Iraq, where there are people who are trying to kill me, than to drive to the local Walmart to pick up a gallon of milk. Yet, as America's window to the world around us comes with Tivo and 300 channels; parents will protect thier kids from Service rather than the greater danger of apathy.

I think your statistical reasoning is skewed. Recruiting pressure may be a contributing factor for your view.

I don't know where you get your news from, but everywhere I go the newsmedia reports the deaths (homicides, traffic and other accidents, suicides, etc, etc.) of people in the local area and often times out of the area.

Many people today don't believe that the war in Iraq is about what the current admistratrion led them to believe and even fewer think it was or is about defending the USA.

We are in the information age and it's about time the boys in Washington wake up and realize that they can't feed bull**** to the public and get away with it.

[BlackRain]

What military meltdown?

The US armed forces met their quotas on recruitment last year (2004).

The US armed forces all met their quotas as of May 2005 except for the US Army. It was not mentioned that the US Army and USMC had increased the size of their forces and needed additional recruits.


For the first eight months of the budget year, which ends Sept. 30, the active Army had 83% of the recruits it expected.

The USMC has met that goal for the first 5 months of 2005 as has the USAF, USN, and Coast Guard.

Liberals want to play up this story on the military recruitment woes to scare voters into believing there will be a military draft.


The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force all met or exceeded their May recruiting goals, but the Army fell short by 25 percent. During May, the Army had hoped to recruit 6,700 new members but missed by mark by 1,661 recruits. The Navy enlisted 1,947 members in May; the Marine Corps, 1,904; and the Air Force, 1,049.

On the reserve component front, the Air Force Reserve surpassed its recruiting goal for the seventh consecutive month, enlisting 682 recruits. The Army Reserve met 82 percent of its May recruitment goal, enlisting 2,269 soldiers. The Naval Reserve brought aboard 1,074 sailors, reaching 94 percent of its May goal; and the Marine Corps Reserve met 88 percent of its recruiting goal, recruiting 955 Marines.

[Werewolf01]

What military meltdown?

The US armed forces met their quotas on recruitment last year (2004).

The US armed forces all met their quotas as of May 2005 except for the US Army. It was not mentioned that the US Army and USMC had increased the size of their forces and needed additional recruits.


For the first eight months of the budget year, which ends Sept. 30, the active Army had 83% of the recruits it expected.

The USMC has met that goal for the first 5 months of 2005 as has the USAF, USN, and Coast Guard.

Liberals want to play up this story on the military recruitment woes to scare voters into believing there will be a military draft.


The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force all met or exceeded their May recruiting goals, but the Army fell short by 25 percent. During May, the Army had hoped to recruit 6,700 new members but missed by mark by 1,661 recruits. The Navy enlisted 1,947 members in May; the Marine Corps, 1,904; and the Air Force, 1,049.

On the reserve component front, the Air Force Reserve surpassed its recruiting goal for the seventh consecutive month, enlisting 682 recruits. The Army Reserve met 82 percent of its May recruitment goal, enlisting 2,269 soldiers. The Naval Reserve brought aboard 1,074 sailors, reaching 94 percent of its May goal; and the Marine Corps Reserve met 88 percent of its recruiting goal, recruiting 955 Marines.

I hope there is a draft. It will end these little BS wars or crush the political power of the NEOCONs, or better yet, both. ;)

[Clarsachier]

[quote=BlackRain]What military meltdown?

I hope there is a draft. It will end these little BS wars or crush the political power of the NEOCONs, or better yet, both. ;)


I don't hope for a draft but yeah, it would terminate the neocon cult. And all it will take is a another 'hot' spot.

[WARPIG]

Those parents that "support the troops" as long as it is someone elses' sons and daughters are part of my daily battle. I am also a parent. I am also a 3rd gen. US Army NCO. I can relate to what parents and their kids are going through when it comes to service.
It doesn't matter that since 2001 we have lost an average of 3000 soldiers annually: compared to 35,000 to 40,000 people killed in the US in car accidents. In the US 5,000 pedestrians are killed by cars every year! You would think that logic would make parents take the car keys away from their kids and lock them in their homes. Nope, because the media reports any and every death in war yet ignores the thousands of deaths outside our doors.
How powerful is the media? Automobiles are a bigger killer of Americans than terrorists are. It is safer for me to go to Iraq, where there are people who are trying to kill me, than to drive to the local Walmart to pick up a gallon of milk. Yet, as America's window to the world around us comes with Tivo and 300 channels; parents will protect thier kids from Service rather than the greater danger of apathy.

I think your statistical reasoning is skewed. Recruiting pressure may be a contributing factor for your view.

I don't know where you get your news from, but everywhere I go the newsmedia reports the deaths (homicides, traffic and other accidents, suicides, etc, etc.) of people in the local area and often times out of the area.
Many people today don't believe that the war in Iraq is about what the current admistratrion led them to believe and even fewer think it was or is about defending the USA.
We are in the information age and it's about time the boys in Washington wake up and realize that they can't feed bull**** to the public and get away with it.

My reasoning may be skewed or biased by my job, but rather than getting my view of things from the NEWS, I have first hand knowledge. I get news from the same place everyone else does, I just don't lean on it for the truth. If I had listed local death stats between automobiles and the war, maybe that could be similar.. but statistics don't come from the damn news, they come from coroner reports and casualty reports from the appropriate sources.

"Many people today" are also educated by the TV and live their lives through it. But apparently it is easier to believe the Television while assuming the "boys in Washinton" are feeding us bull****. How is it that when I regurgitate some public statistics about deaths in America, my opinion is skewed while you seem to accurately speak the opinion of many people and most people have been led to believe?

[Werewolf01]

Those parents that "support the troops" as long as it is someone elses' sons and daughters are part of my daily battle. I am also a parent. I am also a 3rd gen. US Army NCO. I can relate to what parents and their kids are going through when it comes to service.
It doesn't matter that since 2001 we have lost an average of 3000 soldiers annually: compared to 35,000 to 40,000 people killed in the US in car accidents. In the US 5,000 pedestrians are killed by cars every year! You would think that logic would make parents take the car keys away from their kids and lock them in their homes. Nope, because the media reports any and every death in war yet ignores the thousands of deaths outside our doors.
How powerful is the media? Automobiles are a bigger killer of Americans than terrorists are. It is safer for me to go to Iraq, where there are people who are trying to kill me, than to drive to the local Walmart to pick up a gallon of milk. Yet, as America's window to the world around us comes with Tivo and 300 channels; parents will protect thier kids from Service rather than the greater danger of apathy.

I think your statistical reasoning is skewed. Recruiting pressure may be a contributing factor for your view.

I don't know where you get your news from, but everywhere I go the newsmedia reports the deaths (homicides, traffic and other accidents, suicides, etc, etc.) of people in the local area and often times out of the area.
Many people today don't believe that the war in Iraq is about what the current admistratrion led them to believe and even fewer think it was or is about defending the USA.
We are in the information age and it's about time the boys in Washington wake up and realize that they can't feed bull**** to the public and get away with it.

My reasoning may be skewed or biased by my job, but rather than getting my view of things from the NEWS, I have first hand knowledge. I get news from the same place everyone else does, I just don't lean on it for the truth. If I had listed local death stats between automobiles and the war, maybe that could be similar.. but statistics don't come from the damn news, they come from coroner reports and casualty reports from the appropriate sources.

"Many people today" are also educated by the TV and live their lives through it. But apparently it is easier to believe the Television while assuming the "boys in Washinton" are feeding us bull****. How is it that when I regurgitate some public statistics about deaths in America, my opinion is skewed while you seem to accurately speak the opinion of many people and most people have been led to believe?

Dear Piggy:

I do have a TV, but I don't get reception. I watch a movie once in a while on DVD. I understand the position you are in. My old man was 00R for the last 24 years of his career. You are doing your job, and I am aware of how tough it is, especially on the family from and AD POV.
I don't live in front of my TV (obviously). I am an academic at heart, but that does not mean I believe all of the leftist drivel that spews from Sociolgy departments like pus from a festering boil. That being said, there are many people who do not believe in this war, but still support the troops who are forced to fight it. I am one of those.
I do not believe that we were justified in invading Iraq. I do think the Afghanistan action made sense and was crucial to the future security of the civilized world. If I had a child of age to enlist, I wouldn't want them to unless they fully beleived in the righteousness of the cause they wanted to serve.. I realize that odds are they would return in one piece (at least physically). I fully realize that driving is dangerous; so is getting out of bed in the morning. The differences between war and driving are very obvious however, so I must agree that the comparison, in this case, does not amke sense. Swimming pools and dogs are dangerous too. I don't think they are valid comparisons either. The question, in the end, is do you believe in what you are doing?
If a parent believes that the action in Iraq is justifiable and the correct thing to do, AND their child WANTS to enlist, then by all means, they should support that decision. However, parents shouldn't be criticized for cautioning their children against enlsiting if they do not believe in the war; such action is only rational.

[pistol]

Now it appears to me that the media is just as powerful an adversary as any enemy we fight - since coverage can be spun to erode support - and recruitment - for any long-term conflict.


Ah yes, freedom of the press is now the enemy! Help America stay free! Bring back the Office of Censorship!



The military is too vulnerable to erosion of support at home and competition from the private sector.

The military is vulnerable, but that is not the fault of the press. Our military was sent to fight an elective war with almost no international support and no plan to win the peace. Now we are bogged down in a game of cat and mouse with insurgents and, despite George Bush's delusional Rose Garden optmism, there is no end in sight. Americans believe in having an all volunteer force, and we have to trust our leaders to guide our country in such a manner that we do not wreck the institutions that keep us safe.

Thi war is unpopular because nothing going on there affects average Americans. How do you get kids to sign up and go risk their life for a war they don't really care about? How do you convince Joe American that going thousands of miles from home to get shot at in the desert is better than going to junior college or working at McDonalds? How do you convince Joe and Jane Neocon to encourage their kids to join up? The answer isn't to force the press to pretend Iraq is all daisy picking and moon-lit walks on the beach.

[Rumsfailed]

pistol, why do you hate Murka? ;)