Journal editorial claimed military met recruitment goals because "troops believe in mission," ignored lower aptitude requirements for new soldiers
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal editorial asserted that the Army's achievement of exceeding its goal of recruiting or retaining 80,000 troops for fiscal 2006 demonstrates that "many troops believe in the mission." But the editorial omitted the fact that the Army exceeded its goal by "recruit[ing] more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year," according to an AP report.
An October 11 Wall Street Journal editorial (subscription required) ignored a primary reason for what the Journal described as the "impressive recruitment and retention for the armed forces" in fiscal 2006, which was recently announced by the Department of Defense (DoD). The Journal asserted that the recruitment numbers "speak to patriotism" and demonstrate that "many troops believe in the mission." While it stated that "[c]ritics of the Iraq war" will note that the "Army had raised recruits' maximum allowable age to 42 from 35" and that the military offered significant "cash bonuses" to reach recruitment goals, the editorial dismissed these "complaint[s]," writing that only "a tiny fraction -- maybe 500 -- of new soldiers" are over 35, and that "the military would be derelict to not offer competitive incentives to get the best young Americans." But the editorial omitted the fact that the Army "beat its goal of 80,000 recruits," by "recruit[ing] more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year," according to an October 10 Associated Press report.
On October 10, the DoD announced that it had exceeded its goal of 80,000 troops for Army recruitment and retention for fiscal 2006. As the Journal editorial noted, the DoD recruitment announcement was "in contrast to 2005, when the Army fell about 6,600 recruits short of its goal of 80,000." But while noting that the military raised its "maximum allowable age to 42 from 35" and that the military offers "cash bonuses" as a way to increase recruitment numbers, the editorial did not note that, according to the AP, 2,600 troops were added "under new lower aptitude standards" in which "3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels." By contrast, "in previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores." The AP added that the "limit" of recruits scoring below the aptitude levels "was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department." Reuters also reported that "[t]he Army accepted 2,650 recruits who scored in the lowest permissible category -- from the 10th to 30th percentile -- in a standardized aptitude test. The Army last year doubled the percentage of recruits it is willing to accept from this category." Because the Army recruited 80,635 soldiers in a year when its goal was 80,000, without the 2,600 troops who did not meet the previous standard, the Army once again would have failed to meet its recruitment goals.
From the October 10 AP article:
The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.
The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.
The Army recruited 80,635 soldiers, roughly 7,000 more than last year. Of those, about 70,000 were first-time recruits who had never served before.
According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.
The Army said all the recruits with low scores had received high school diplomas. In a written statement, the Army said good test scores do not necessarily equate to quality soldiers. Test-taking ability, the Army said, does not measure loyalty, duty, honor, integrity or courage.
From the October 11 Wall Street Journal editorial:
Critics of the Iraq war often slam the Bush Administration for sending unwitting American soldiers off to an unwinnable battle. The question is: On whose behalf are these concerned folks speaking?
Not the military, judging from the impressive recruitment and retention numbers for the armed forces just released by the Defense Department. The Pentagon announced yesterday that in fiscal 2006 the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all met or exceeded active-duty recruitment goals. More impressive, the number of active duty servicemen who re-enlisted exceeded the DoD's goals in every area. Looks like many troops believe in the mission enough to willingly return to a difficult battlefield.
As much as these numbers speak to patriotism, they also say something about the Defense Department's efforts to modernize its recruitment and retention program. This year's achievements are in contrast to 2005, when the Army fell about 6,600 recruits short of its goal of 80,000. Since then, services have added recruiters, revamped advertising and made a greater effort to reach out to the families of potential or acting servicemen, as spouses and relatives often help with decisions to enlist or re-enlist. The retention numbers are particularly important for the Pentagon because these experienced servicemen train the next generation.
Critics took an immediate swipe at the new numbers, arguing that the Army had raised recruits' maximum allowable age to 42 from 35. Yet it turns out a tiny fraction -- maybe 500 -- of new soldiers fall into that category.
The other standard complaint is that the military meets its goals because it offers cash bonuses. But these youngsters had a choice in FY 2006: The military's recruitment success took place in a period of strong economic growth that offered young people ever greater civilian job opportunities. Anyway, given how fierce the competition is for talent, the military would be derelict to not offer competitive incentives to get the best young Americans.
Many of those young people, despite the luxury of choice, have decided to ship off to boot camp and join the world's finest all-volunteer military force. It'd be nice if a few more politicians and pundits respected their decision.
90% of the soldiers in Iraq still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Who's lying to them? Are the recruiters still peddling that crap?
"Of course Saddam was behind 9/11, sign up now to defend your country against another 9/11"
That is what the Recruiters are spewing at our young people to join the army.
You're kidding right? Is that a real quote? I honestly can't tell... wouldn't be surprised at all. I do believe (have heard) the majority of troops in Iraq still believe that SH played a role in 9/11.
I was being sarcastic but I do believe the recruiters lie to our young people.
According to a recent Zogby poll. I wasn't exaggerating. Now, you tell me, how could that many still believe what even Puddinhead admits isn't true, unless someone above them is deliberately lying to them?
"The Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at a hundred and forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfilled."
---1984, by George Orwell
We lowered the standards for the Commander and Chief of the military, so why not lower the standards for the military itself. One big dysfunctional family of underachievers and ne'er-do-wells.
We would not want some E-3 to out wit the chimp.
People are recruited in the military when the economy sucks! When the choice between taking a bullet in the streets, being harassed by the police and being condescended upon is stronger than the prospect of an Iraqi bullet. Perhaps if the Media showed the real aspects of war, we would not even be discussing this, because we would have to discuss the DRAFT!
For the poor, it is a paycheck. Just like it is to the boo hoo hooo he got his head cut off Halliburton contracts that seem to get more sympathy from the American masses than a serviceperson being shot. Oh yeah, because the pursuit of a big old dollar with a white face is more acceptable to our Victorian sensibilities than the pursuit of a dollar for survival from our faces of color who need the military to actually, you know, LIVE, SURVIVE, EAT, etc etc. Capitalism on a pedestal while survival/humanity takes a seat on the last rung.
For the paycheck to pay check types the opportunity to have an avenue to go through college proves to be statistically more reliable than a bomb or bullet.
For the thugs and passive aggressive trapped in “I must prove I am a man but do not want to spend time in jail for killing innocent Amish girls, or take my own life, because I love steroids, they see it as an opportunity to live out their video game fantasies. They hear of how there are recreational camps set up in Iraq, men shooting and raping at liberty because there will be a small chance that they will suffer the consequences. They can take out all of their Who-rah hostility on the OTHER because they were too weak and narrow minded to give the AMERICAN DREAM a chance, because their failure at the AMERICAN DREAM would wake them up to the fact that the AMERCAN DREAM is in fact a lie, an AMERICAN NIGHTMARE, yet a dream for the corporations who are raking in record breaking profits.
Believe in the Mission? HAH! Don’t even get me started!
Okay, you're a rich guy in your limo reading the WSJ. You read the editorial and say, "golly aren't those American boys just great." Bullsh*t. You're thinking the same think as was expressed above.
There are many reasons to volunteer, belief in the BushieCo "mission" (which I thought was accomplished) is waaaay down on the reasons list, if there at all.
Why don't we grow up and understand humanity for what it is.
cause moksha is a long way off with that attitude...not that I disagree with a word of it ;-)
It is not about me, or my handle, it is about the issue at hand. Keep up with the program, (RIF) reading is fundamental.
Typical Troll, attack the messenger and forget about the message.
count in the "retained" category troops who had to stay under "stop loss." And/or those who reenlisted for the sizeable bonuses rather than be forced to stay under stop loss?
Why didn't the W$J mention that some experienced soldiers are paid $100,000 and more to reenlist?
Bring back the draft. Only, this time, assign draft numbers according to income, starting at the top. Take Puddinhead George's daughters first, then work your way down through Congress, then take the children and grandchildren of the Billionaires who put Puddinhead in office.
Do this, and we'll be out of Iraq in two weeks.
I noticed they kept saying recruitment AND retention. Its a pretty powerful re up tool when they fly you to Germany and tell you. You ARE staying in and you ARE going back to Iraq, either we stopgap you and you get no bonus or you reup and we give you the bonus. Either way you ARE going back to Iraq, the only question is with or without the money.
Those who agree with Bush that "'we' have to fight 'them' there, or 'we'll' be fighting 'them' here" would surely welcome a military draft with open arms, wouldn't they?
...that indeed they would. But it would be the same old same old draft issues no doubt. The rich would get out of it, because, well, they're rich, and the middle class and poor would suffer because we wouldn't have the means to buy our way out.
And that's why we'll be in Iraq until either (A) Halliburton sucks all the profit they can out of it or (B) We throw the Repiglicans out of the majority and impeach Bush/Cheney.
Re: neglecting to say that the military accepted 2,600 enlistees at an aptitude below the previous standard, and in defense of the DODefense and their ebullient mouthpiece, the WSJ Editorial page: How much aptitude does it really take to be a target for roadside bombs and sniper fire? Of course it does take more bonus money to convince Americans to play that role, but by American standards money speaks louder than the 72 afterlife virgins that entice Islamic suicide bombers. I bet the forward-thinking Bush administration is banking on finding more who will go for the money than the Islamic radicals can find who will go for the virgins.
I take great offense. Being a member of the service does not necessarily make you poor or desperate. Not that there is anything wrong with the former and I wish better for than the later for my fellow citizens. Most have an honest desire to serve their country in a meaningful way (although I will say Iraq is about as far from meaningful as you can get given the standard of leadership in this country). Nor as someone infered are all those that do not fall under this blanket busy being murders and rapists. It is a fair to say that our military service is not in the shape it should be and I blame this on this country's leadership.
The draft should be instituted without exception or exemption and stop-gap stopped. Stop-gap is a disaster from a military stand point and simply pin point focuses misery so that it has taken quite a while for a strong anti-war sentiment to come together in the country -- thus saving whose fates are politically tied to public opinion.
That being said the lowering of aptitude requirements is and will continue to be a horrendous military debacle. One person here said something to the effect of, "...how smart do you have to be to be a bombing target...". Being willing to be a target at any price or salary in any service may not be aq "matter of intelligence" it certainly is one of loyalty to ones fellow citizens. However, improving ones' percentages, and by extension those who you serve with, from becoming a causality is definitely a matter of intelligence of a very practical sort. There are reasons the aptitude requirements were set. And lowering them to have boots on the ground will make sure you are a good bombing target and soon a body in the ground. I admonish everyone (myself included) to keep their opinions on the reasons for the mission and the administration separate from the soldiers, even those who got in under the lowered standards. Or else it will take much longer to save soldier and civilian from this fiasco as its defenders will hide behind national security and the military and the "liberal hate of the military".
I listed what the military is for, for the people I listed. If you, or anyone you know, do not fall in those categories so be it. Here is the fact, I was in the military, I am a veteran, honorable discharge, Desert Storm, Bosnia, and all that jazz. The military as a whole is a systematic failure. All that serve your country rah rah is post WWII propaganda, illusion. No one in power gives a flying fig about the military. The military is just a means to their wants. I remember the crappy equipment, the old equipment, the negative budget, the shoddy service, the you are in the military and this is the best you are going to get attitude,
I remember how out of fifty something supposedly equal traits on an evaluation would be manipulate to promote good old boys and yes people, always, always, without fail slapping POC and women in the face regardless of how great they were. Therefore, you can sing the praise all you want, but you join the military or send your children to the military and they will be abused, neglected, misused, and perhaps murdered for corporations not for some illusion of American virtue. That is a crock.
How much are military doctors paid? Hmmm, nowhere near their civilian counterparts, and it shows through the average age of death of a military retiree, it shows through undetected cancers, it shows through most military members not be treated with anything but Motrin, unless they were seriously ill. It shows by the attitude that the guy with the stump is faking, he could hobble if he wanted to.
How much are military lawyers paid? Same O-3 and up paid, never really touching the law, never those good old I going to help you out at all cost A Few Good Men type lawyers, no just wills and NJP and occasionally juicy criminal case. How much do equipment operations. Yeomen, air traffic controllers are paid compared to their civilian count parts. Oh depends on the promotion, but by the way, regardless of how good they are, if the amount of advancement is close, you are out. What do the officers tell the enlisted; suck it up, while they go home at noon. Whatever. The U.S. military is almost a sweatshop.
First Sergeant, what do I do this handle to this control lever failed off? “Well put it on back order and just pray we do not need to move that piece of equipment in the next four years.”
As a veteran of the armed forces myself (Bosnia & Kosovo) I have to say that while it's stretching the point a bit, Moksha is only stretching it a VERY little bit. Most of the enlisted I worked with and for were shameless self-promoters and incompetent drunks and lechers who couldn't hold down a job in the private sector for two weeks; but in the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil, CYA-at-all-costs military, they're an E-7. The officers were either of the "man I wish I'd just taken out that student loan" ROTC types who phoned in their jobs until they could get the hell out or the "whatever it takes to make rank" academy grads or mustangs who will step on anyone's neck that they have to in order to make their promotion. This story about the flag-waving, America-loving, patriotic kid who signs up because he loves his country is NOT a myth, but it is far outweighed by those who join because they couldn't find or couldn't hold down a job, those who are running from the law, the emotionally or mentally disturbed and the sociapthic muderous.
Well, at least they lowered the aptitude test so a lot of you can now qualify, or attempt to qualify. Some state they were in the military but no one knows for sure, as all they do is cut down every aspect of their time in service of their families. No one said it would be a playground, so maybe the causes of your military misfortunes were brought on by only you.
Strange, I don't recall crappy equipment, being abused, neglected(?), or being misused. Sometimes chow wasn't especially apetizing, with exception to the green, dehydrated eggs eaten cold in Vietnam. If you got room, clothes, board, and a paycheck for being a goof-off, then you beat the system.
Someone mentioned doctors and the shoddy care they observed during their supposed military time. Grow up! And remember John Murtha has been in charge of military and defense appropriations for many, many years.. If he didn't spend so much of his time getting benny's for his constituants in w. Pennsylvania, and spent more time doing his job, then maybe you might have had less crappy equipment.