Army Recruiting Best Since 1997

Great post!

Missed ya' for some reason, welcome back.

Wayne

 

Galatian

There are alot of men and women giving their lives for their country . . . which of those do you believe did not meet the standard as well as you did?

Personally, I salute each and every one.

 

I don't think what Galation said was a dig against the men and women in uniform, he simply stated the military lowerd it's standards to meet its recruitment goals. It happens during every war. My brother went to vietnam with flat feet. So what, he served well and did his job but he was still contrary to normal army standards.

 

I guess, some people, if they can't deal with the argument, just attack those who make arguments they can't handle.

It might be that those substandard recruits for which waivers were necessary turned out to be very good soldiers. But the Army has now learned that many of them didn't do well. Waivers were granted for drug dealers, gang members, and other criminals. And some have since committed crimes.

As the Army says, waivers are necessary for those who do not meet standards. Those who meet standards do not need waivers. The Army is accepting substandard recruits because there is a need, and there are not enough qualified people willing to join.

Of course those who suggested that I denigrated anyone's patriotism in this simply made it up. It probably felt good for them at the time, but I don't doubt that they now wish they hadn't lied about it.

 

Anr the wheel goes round, and round , and round.

 

The Army sets the standards. They can lower them or raise them as the need arises. They have at times been much lower than they are now. As pointed out in another thread, in WWII, only 45% of US troops had a HS diploma and many were virtually illiterate.
When people commit crimes in the service they are kicked out, or sent to Leavenworth. That's how it goes.

 

This is not new at all, and has been an on-going problem for CID and ATF going back at least 10 years. LINK

I remember hearing about gang activity when I was posted to Ft Bliss in the early 80's. Not a good thing, but maybe unavoidable.

 

Indeed. That's not what's at issue. The fact that they are waivering more and more substandard recruits is a de facto lowering of standards. The waivers are expressly to allow in recruits who are not up to standard.

The fact that the military is failing to attract qualified recruits is troubling.

This is they same problem that caused Bush to implement "stop loss" orders, preventing troops from leaving service at the contracted time. They don't want to serve under Bush.

There has been a gang problem in the military since there have been gangs. Bush has exacerbated the problem by permitting more waivers for gang members who have committed serious crimes.

 

I either read or heard somewhere that gangs are joining the military to get the urban warfare training. This is a skill they can use when they get back to the "hood". Where I appreciate their willingness as american's to make the ultimate sacrifice, I would hate to think we are teaching them to leave IED's on the side of the road.

 

But the Army is making its quota, even if they have to take criminals and drug dealers to do it. That's great news! Try to keep perspective on this. WFTH-I

 

Yes, and the broader perspective is that the Army has always had to lower it's standards during wartime.

Before WWII you had to know someone who could pull some strings in order to enlist. After the war had been on for a little while, they were taking anybody who could carry a rifle.

When the Korean war broke out, the Army called up unwilling WWII vets who had already served.

 

The Army investigators say different:

"Under Air National Guard rules, the dealer had committed a "major offense" that would bar him from military service. Air National Guard recruits, like other members of the military, cannot have drug convictions on their record. But on Feb. 2, 2005, the applicant who had been arrested in the mini-mall was admitted into the Delaware Air National Guard. How? Through the use of a little-known, but increasingly important, escape clause known as a waiver. Waivers, which are generally approved at the Pentagon, allow recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards.

The story of that unnamed Air National Guard recruit (whose name is blacked out in his statement) is based on documents obtained by Salon under the Freedom of Information Act. "
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/

Here's a hint, carpro; never lie about things that are in the same thread in which you post the lie.

You get mean and dishonest when you're rattled.

 

Salon.com is your source. what is their source. they are as about as reliable as Michael Moore. And every conspiracy theorist out there.

 

The United States Air Force Inspector General. They got this from the Air Force, by Freedom of Information Act.

Speaking of paranoid, you'll be telling me the Air Force is conspiring to bring down Bush, now?

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

I am paranoid . . . are you trying to get President Bush elected President again?

Three terms were eliminated after FDR . . . and I don't want to see it come back . . . IMHO.

 

Regardless of any Salon.com expose,,

Look at what the recruiters have to work with. According to the department of Justice, there are currently over 25,000 gangs in the US, an estimated 750,000 gang members, and the numbers have been increasing for the last two decades. It should not be at all surprising that some of those people will find their way into the military.

Retention –

From 2003 - 2005, re-enlistment rates were at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army.

The Army reached its fiscal 2006 retention goal one month early Aug. 31.

And currently, two out of three Soldiers eligible to reenlist do so.

 

I suppose I have to wonder, if they're doing such a great job at recruiting, then why do we see these types of news articles?
U.S. Army extends 4,000 tours of duty in Iraq

We have seen these types of articles many times over the last few years. They don't seem to have enough people to do what needs to be done.

If we don't have enough people in the Army to do the job that needs to be done, are they really meeting their goals? Are the goals realistic?

Jamie