Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

The Sunday Paper (Retention Edition)

parachute jump.jpg

Let's get real. In spite of the copious amounts of lipstick the services have been putting on the proverbial people pig, our military is facing a troubling manning crisis. And it's not about recruiting, necessarily (although those stats are taking a turn for the worse); the bigger problem is retention - keeping those who are already serving to keep serving.

Today's Washington Post has a couple of op-eds that frame the issue nicely. The first is by a young captain who has decided to get out of the Army. From what I've heard his story is representative of the feelings of most of the junior officers and staff NCOs service-wide. They're willing to do their part, but they also need time to catch their collective breath. The current operational tempo doesn't afford that, nor does there seem to be any plan in the works to make it so in the forseeable future.

So if these guys are leaving, who's going to man the force? Another op-ed speaks of casting a wider net. Here's an excerpt from Who Says the Elite Aren't Fit to Serve?:

The privileged of prior generations were more likely to consider military service a natural expression of their own privileged relationship to the state -- the least, you might say, that they could do in return for the opportunities the nation had granted them. Consider a young John F. Kennedy working connections to obtain a commission that his health would have denied him otherwise. How many from Harvard pull such strings today? To chalk this up to the ethos of a "simpler," less questioning time would be easy, but it would also be facile.

All else being equal, staffing the armed services with citizens from the broadest range of backgrounds is still the best course. Further, we are in a time, and a conflict, in which the unique demands placed upon the military make the need for innovative leadership acute. (My artillery battalion, for example, conducts foot patrols in Ramadi, performs base security, trains Iraqi police recruits, mans outposts in the desert, forms neighborhood councils, oversees reconstruction projects and . . . oh yes, shoots artillery.) How better to achieve this than to cast a wide net?

Admiral Mullen has addressed this retention issue, but are the services really doing enough to stymie it? After all, we might have a real threat to our national security emerge in the next few years. Wouldn't it be best to have a healthy military in place at that time?

-- Ward

Comments

Although many people have assumed that the inspiration for Second Life linden originated from Philip Rosedale's exposure to Neil Stephenson's novel Snow crash,

Posted by: Second Life linden at August 30, 2008 02:13 AM


So many schools strictly prohibit students go to the Internet bar. But these prescripts have not affected me to like the EVE and bought the eve online isk, I think whether or no I will all along play it.

Posted by: eve online isk at August 15, 2008 08:29 PM


Speak our story now, perhaps our story was very common, I met her in the last year, at that time we only said a few words, at that time she was buy the kamas now, we changed our telephone each other.

Posted by: kamas at August 15, 2008 08:24 PM


Cabal online game in my mind I can not forget it, from the open beta I beginning to play, at the beginning we all did not know how to play the game and did not know how to buy the cabal alz, so we only can do the tasks, although some days we were very busy, but we were very happy,

Posted by: cabal alz at August 15, 2008 08:20 PM


She created green forests and plains that engulfed the lands in the likeness of her youthful complexion. The cheap Shaiya gold sky and stars inherited their exquisiteness from the likeness of her eyes.

Posted by: cheap Shaiya gold at August 8, 2008 03:30 AM


Just as Logos began fulfilling his promise, Pathos re-emerged. This time he decided to pervert the earliest of Logos' cheap Knight gold creations, the very mountains upon which Logos had first felt the winds and touched the clouds. Pathos called up fire from deep within Carnac's core.

Posted by: Knight gold at August 8, 2008 03:29 AM



but I still buyhero money for let the game more interesting, and the game money is not expensive, if you wont to buy the cheap game gold you can buy online.

I have many friends, in the beginning. We play the game together, that is funny! Because my hard work and thehero online coins . No one is better than me. In the upgrading day

Posted by: http://www.herogold.net at August 5, 2008 12:21 AM


My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him

Posted by: Requiem gold at August 5, 2008 12:02 AM


In order to play the Requiem, I bought much Requiem Lant, it spend me much money.

Posted by: Requiem Lant at August 5, 2008 12:01 AM


Finally I also said that the most important thing is to find themselves on the state mind, playing their own, the same as me that if happy I will spend Hellgate gold to buy many things. I hope everyone can play happy in the game.

Posted by: Hellgate gold at August 1, 2008 11:33 PM


rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 1, 2008 10:22 PM


nice too meet you

Posted by: ankara nakliyat at May 4, 2008 10:32 AM


nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 14, 2008 12:28 AM


That's just wrong. If that were true for the majority of enlistees there wouldn't be enticements. If you pay for a volunteer army, you have pay for it; if not, you have to draft them.

Posted by: N Anon... at March 19, 2008 06:06 PM


Point missed.

You don't join the military because it can do something for you. You join it because it's the right thing to do. The service doesn't need people who are looking out for their own interest. It needs people who are interested in the well-bring and safety of others. It isn't a resume bullet. It's a duty.

Posted by: Nanonymous at March 19, 2008 08:42 AM


Inadvertent? Finish reading before insulting:

"to attract elites, dangle a carrot that they might actually want" =/= inadvertent


Posted by: Hey: Nanonymous at March 18, 2008 03:03 PM


"I think the way to fight back would be to demonstrate how the armed services could help further a [prestigious, high-paid, obnoxious] Ivy track career. (Think media, consulting, investment banking, law school, grad school)"

And here he inadvertently puts his finger right on the heart of the problem: the way to attract expensively educated narcissists is tell them what's in it for them!

News flash: the Army doesn't really care that it's not getting you, because it regards you as decadently selfish. A post like this only furthers that conviction.

Posted by: Nanonymous at March 18, 2008 11:12 AM


To add on to mine and Asterik's comments, last fall we (army captains) were offered $20-$30k to sign on another 3 years. The only captains I know who got the CSRB were those who already planned on being lifers. Many captains can get a civilian job at least commensurate with their army pay if not more (which is why we're hard to retain). A $30k - 3 year bonus to someone who makes $60k a year is insulting - especially since new recruits can get up to $40k (twice their annual pay) just for walking in the door.

Posted by: TB at March 17, 2008 10:46 PM


It bothers me to say because I'm a veteran... but this country's support of the war on terror (and especially the guys fighting it) reminds me of going to the dentist. Only at the point of pain do most folks care about the dentist. The rest of the time... they could care less.

Most of the support for the troops is coming from folks who are serving, those who have served... or relatives/friends of the afore-mentioned. You ask an Ivy Leaguer or a Joe Six Pack who knows no one serving in the war on terror... about the war... you're likely to elicit a yawn. How many Americans have sent care packages to the troops in Iraq/Afghanistan? How many have visited veterans at a VA hospital? The United States of America, the greatest country in the history of mankind... and we still have veteran's groups begging for money. A god damn disgrace.

Posted by: Jim R. at March 17, 2008 08:29 PM


"For the troops but against the war" = "Against the troops" In a democracy, it is the responsibility of citizens & the Legislative Branch to question the decisions of the Executive Branch. If they decide that the Executive is wrong, then it is their responsibility to do what they can, within the law, to reverse the decision. The by product, in time of war, may be damage to troop morale. No one ever said that democracy is easy.
"Get ready for mercs to do our bidding if we are going to go to war and we will in the future more and more of the merc will be paid to do the dirt work". The mercenary companies are profitable because the services pay for the training. If you can't man the services, there won't be anyone for the PSCs to poach. They'll have to recruit from outside the USA. You can't expect foreign mercenaries to accept the same risks on behalf of the USA as US citizens, let alone service members.

Posted by: Hooded Swan at March 17, 2008 03:18 PM


We recently had a one star from the pentagon come talk to us (group of captains fresh back from our 2nd and 3rd tours). He said captain retention is statistically still at prewar levels (10-11% attrition) but the issue will be in the next year or two as the army tries to grow by 6 brigades and needs to cut that attrition rate to 5%, especially since they're having a hard enough time just keeping that 10%.

Posted by: TB at March 17, 2008 12:17 AM


Considering I'm nearing the end of my IRR, I might have some perspective. Let's see what your soldier, sailor, and airman deal with today:

- Op tempo. Reduced equipment numbers means higher op tempos. It's not like the missions go away, and if they did, we'd need less staff, so they won't. Higher op tempos means less time at home, whether your job has anything to do with the war or not. Less time at home means you come back to find your wife/girlfriend found better alternatives. Show me an SRB that can counter that. You need to keep your troops well trained but you also need to give them a chance to remember what they're giving up so much for.

- Public image. The military continues to get demonized by the press and civilian leadership. How would you feel if your senator called you a cold-blooded murderer? After dealing with ridiculous ROE's against people with no concept of Geneva Conventions, our troops come back to Winter Soldier II. If there's one situation that calls for good old-fashioned WWII-style propaganda, this is it. And we need to publicly shame public figures (elected and otherwise) that slander our fighting men. "For the troops but against the war" = "Against the troops". And we need to get rid of the stigma that military service is low-class, even for Harvard Law grads that accepted commisions.

- Pay and benefits. Military pay is -nothing- like civilian pay. And the higher-tech fields are increasingly competing for students with college degrees even for the enlisted ranks. Look, the moment I put on my civvy's I got a 40% raise. And I work far less hours. You cannot boost SRB's enough to counter that. Benefits like retirement pay are never seen by the average grunt and do him no good. And there is no greater recommendation against nationalized health care than what the military gets.

- Mission definition. Since the end of the Cold War, large portions of the military have no defined mission. Even in the Army there are plenty of people who will never see Iraq or Afghanistan. For the Air Force and Navy it's even more severe. But the op-tempo can't drop, because the tax dollars might dry up. Re-enlistments for Iraq veterans are through the roof because they can look themselves in the mirror and say they've made the world safer. The sailor who's spent 300 days away from port this year steaming in circles keeping the decks waxed can't.

- The Peter Principle. Several other posters mentioned that the guys we're luring with retention bonuses are the guys we don't really want to keep. This is very, very real. When the guys worth a damn get out, the guys not worth a damn get put in charge. Sure, war may sort this out, but maybe 25% of our military is at war right now, so 75% is still being run by imbeciles whose one redeeming characteristic is that they continue to sign on the dotted line. What do you think the first-enlistment soldier thinks when he figures that out?

As long as the powers that be think they can keep the best, brightest and most dedicated guys by boosting re-enlistment bonuses, we will continue to hemorrhage talent to private security and the civilian world. Guys will bust their ass and sign on till forever if they genuinely feel they're defending freedom and liberty. And if they're not, we need to figure out something better for them to be doing, or we don't need that many of them in the first place.

Posted by: Asterix at March 16, 2008 10:37 PM


>How about raising taxes, starting a draft,
>converting civilian production to war
>production, etc, as occurred in WWII when the
>USA had a far more consequential and important
>fight on its hands?

All of which are political impossibilities at this moment. Even if Genghis Khan was President, he could not move the country as it is now into a war footing. President Bush has received only marginal support for the many GWOT initiatives taken during his administration and a frank look at what has happened since 2001 is impressive by any means.

Back to retention, I'm a LT in the Guard and the same concerns swirl around my situation as well, although since I am not Active I do not deploy as much. But if I was on the Active Army deployment tempo, I could not last long before family and finances dictated my resignation. But I also consider it an honor to serve, and honor in the service of one's country being a concept that I doubt many members of academia closely identify with. I know that from my college days...

Posted by: Smith at March 16, 2008 07:11 PM


I recently graduated from Columbia University where the armed services are almost universally reviled. Most of the derision was framed around the armed services as being racist or homophobic. The pressure came from the administration and faculty as much as student activists... Recruiters were chased off campus by gay rights protesters, professors assigned papers on why the armed services are racist...

I think the way to fight back would be to demonstrate how the armed services could help further a [prestigious, high-paid, obnoxious] Ivy track career. (Think media, consulting, investment banking, law school, grad school)

Why not have case studies of investment banks hiring graduates who have survived under the pressure of combat; how the GI Bill can pay for law school, or give vital research experience for wannabe PhD students. How McKinsey prefers analysts with military background?

Recruiting seems to be directed to non-college students, to attract elites, dangle a carrot that they might actually want

Posted by: Ivy Grad at March 16, 2008 05:18 PM


The real question is who gives a damn, everytime these brave men and women are overseas, they see the same old thing, why are we spending so much money, can we do better good questions? Then if there injured or need help forget it who need you, if you had a decent job, with benefits you wouldn;t need our help, oh by the way thanks for helping me and my son and daughter, i'll send them to college so you can defend me and mind. Come on lets get real does anybody really care what the soldier do or die no in this country we care more about footballs stars and baseball stars then we do about people who put there lifes on the line, and are treated like crap when they get back. I'm sorry but look out the future holds more blackwaters not less, pay to do dirt work instead of serve, that the future. Get ready for mercs to do our bidding if we are going to go to war and we will in the future more and more of the merc will be paid to do the dirt work

Posted by: Charles Spiegelman at March 16, 2008 05:06 PM


Um, maybe there are recruitment problems because fewer young Americans see the war in Iraq as being something worthy of risking their lives for?

Despite all the talk of how this is the "battle of our generation" (so to speak), the Bush administration clearly doesn't believe their own rhetoric given their refusal to make meaningful investment decisions in the war. How about raising taxes, starting a draft, converting civilian production to war production, etc, as occurred in WWII when the USA had a far more consequential and important fight on its hands?

Posted by: Adam at March 16, 2008 04:14 PM


Wow - So you found one Army captain who is getting out. He says 1 for the good of his family and 2 has some frustrations (don't we all). Well good for him.

But then I'm expected to believe that this is a fair example of the retention situation; without being given any facts or statistics. But of course I can trust the media; it's not like they have an agenda or want us to loose the war or anything. What's their moto - 'Fake but accurate' Yeah that about sums it up.

Just remember that all services making 100% and more in their recruiting goals (while increasing their goals); that's just because they are recruiting poor dum uneducated saps who don't realize there is a war on. Because I mean it's not like people like that (people like me) would join knowing there is a war on, an enemy to be defeated and that hard sacrifice blood sweat and tears are required: I mean no one would want to sacrifice for the good of others.

So when you find some news (that means facts) let me know. Last I checked war was hell and leadership and management difficulties were not news either. Problems yes. But Americans have never let problems defeat them or keep them from defending freedom.

Semper Fidelis

Posted by: Hannibal at March 16, 2008 03:42 PM


Ward, you raise a very tough issue. But you come at this with a particular bias towards "retention." But as we move along, retention can not be the only strategy. As you rightly say, we must cast a wider net. How do we do this? First, look at how you are dealing with the vets. Stop screwing with them! I mean right up to this very minute! The young people are watching and rightly so. Is this a new idea? My answer comes from a relatively modern source, if you consider President George Washington in 1789, relatively modern.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their Nation."

I believe this covers a very large group of potential recruits, like all of them. It does cover events like 9/11. It covers the "significant other people" in the potential recruit's life and their concerns for the potential recruit's life after the military.

The last thing, in "casting a wider net", President Bush needs to understand a few things or apply them. Every time he does something questionable or uses "executive privilege" to refuse to answer questions he is setting an example. He is giving them reasons to say, NO, to the recruitors.

-Grumpy

Posted by: Grumpy at March 16, 2008 02:37 PM


I just look at the stories, and I see the same stories being pushed time and time again. Eventually I just stop believing.

Military Recruiting 2007: Army Misses Benchmarks by Greater Margin ...
It is clear to see that the Military recruitment statistics closely .... The long-term implications of recruiting problems today could be significant. ...
www.nationalpriorities.org/militaryrecruiting2007 - 70k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

… . They are brave. But this war won't wash.: Military...
$2.95 - Chicago Sun-Times - NewsBank - Jan 22, 2006
"This recruiting problem is not just an Army problem, this is America's problem ... to the nation by turning its collective back on joining the US military. ...
All 6 related - Related web pages

Military.com
Apr 1, 2005 ... Analysts have been predicting military recruiting problems since the start of the Iraq war. Defense experts say the conflicts there and in ...

US Army Challenged to Meet Recruitment Goals
NPR - Jun 10, 2005
And what would obviously solve the Army's recruitment problem right now would be to reduce the force ... And, Mr. Adams, thank you very much for joining us.
All 2 related - Related web pages

Army May Face Recruiting Problem
ABC News - Oct 1, 2004
Things have been quieter at US Army recruiting stations. ... "There are reasons to think that substantial recruiting and retention problems could develop. ...
US Army lowers recruit standards - Deseret News - NewsBank ($2.95)
www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_recruit_040105,00.html - 42k -

Posted by: joe at March 16, 2008 02:34 PM


yeah the numbers look great to bad we (the army) pad those like a mental patients room. this April will be the first major exodus of CPTs as it is the first time most of the ROTC commissioned officers can leave. Watch next year for the mass resignations of Westpoint and 5 year flight program commissioned officers. This year the only 2004 year group (mine in fact) officers who could leave are the very small number of OCS and non scholarship ROTC, and they left in large numbers. Enlisted retention may look good but from first hand experience I can say that the ones we are keeping with 20-30 thousand dollar bonuses are not the ones we want to keep in most cases. Discipline is poor among the younger soldiers and will keep getting worst. Oh and Joe let me know when you start getting the "new" privates in their mid to late 30's they are really useful in combat as door kickers. We are in trouble and if you want to believe the numbers thats fine but those of us who live in a place called reality are getting crushed under the weight of poorly trained low quality recruits.

Posted by: chris at March 16, 2008 02:12 PM


Even if the facts don't support the story, push the story


FY 2008 Recruiting
Componant Accessions Goal Percent
Army
18,829 18,600 101
Navy
10,067 10,067 100
Marine Corps
11,113 10,225 109
Air Force
8,280 8,224 101
Army National Guard 21,113 18,400 115
Army Reserve
12,814 12,577 102
Navy Reserve
3,446 3,346 103
Marine Corps Reserve
2,747 2,747 100
Air National Guard
2,831 2,485 120
Air Force Reserve 2,369 2,365 100

07 Recruiting Statistics
Componant Accessions Goal Percent
Army
80,407 80,000 101
Navy
37,361 37,000 101
Marine Corps
35,603 35,576 100
Air Force
27,801 27,801 100
Army National Guard 66,652 70,000 95
Army Reserve
35,734 35,505 101
Navy Reserve
10,627 10,602 100
Marine Corps Reserve
7,959 7,256 110
Air National Guard
9,975 10,690 93
Air Force Reserve 7,110 6,834 104

06 Recruiting Statistics
Componant Accessions Goal Percent
Army
80,635
80,000 101
Navy
36,679
36,656 100
Marine Corps
32,337 32,301 100
Air Force
30,889
30,750 100
Army National Guard 69,042 70,000 99
Army Reserve
34,379 36,032 95
Navy Reserve
9,722 11,180 87
Marine Corps Reserve
8,056 8,024 100
Air National Guard
9,138 9,380
97
Air Force Reserve 6,989 6,607 106

Posted by: Joe at March 16, 2008 01:42 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.