Military Recruiting Issues - A Possible Fix?

What is your answer?

from JoeUser Forums

          Update : Thanks to Michelle Malkin and OutsideTheBeltway for the links. 

          The military has a problem. The problem is that the incentives being offered for military service are too low for the venture to be considered a business and the standards that the military holds their soldiers to are far too low for the venture to be considered as a function of elitism. The perceived level of danger involved with military service is much higher than it has been since Vietnam and so the military is having problems attracting enough new recruits.

            Even if the standards are raised it may not be enough to fix the problem. As an example I offer the U.S. Marine Corps. For a very long time the Marines have had no trouble meeting their recruitment goals. This is partly due to the small size of the Corps in comparison to the Army but the main reason young people join the Marine Corps is that the Corps is renowned for it’s high standards, quality leadership, and elite esprit de corps. The pay and bonuses are basically the same across all of the military services (minor differences yes but D.W.L!). The reward for joining the Marine Corps is being a Marine. Yet the Corps is also having recruitment problems for the first time in almost a decade.

            The Army is falling short of its’ recruiting goals as well and more importantly it has broken the Reserves. The damage to manning levels takes about 4 years to echo through the whole force structure but the first tremors are starting to wash up on the Army’s verdant shores. The nation needs a solution and a draft is not it (a topic for another time). Raise standards? Increase pay and benefits? I would say both.

            The main problem with elevated standards is that there is a limited quantity of the population that would wish to meet those standards and even fewer who would be able to do so. The end result would be a drastically smaller force who constituent parts are much more potent than the current model of more = better. This force would certainly still be devastating in conventional warfare and freakishly potent in small unit actions but would be totally unable to perform the duties required of an occupation Army. The only way to accomplish both missions is to push the reward levels up high enough to make service in the military one of the most highly compensated and coveted jobs in the country. Could we have a military the size we have now with both high standards and high pay? Not likely from either a fiscal or statistical standpoint but I don’t think we would need one.

            Frankly speaking the reason we need such a large force right now boils down to poor intelligence gathering. The nation’s HUMINT system is dilapidated and the entire intelligence community is hamstrung by ridiculous restriction like Jamie Gorelick’s wall. Furthermore SIGINT efforts are constricted due to a combination of antiquated collection theories (based on Cold War strategies but sans the Cold War chokepoints) and outlandish estimations of collection capabilities.

            If the intelligence picture of Iraq had been more complete the former regime elements who jumpstarted the insurgency would have been captured or killed within days or weeks of the fall of Baghdad largely obviating the need for extensive occupation forces. More extensive intelligence would also result in a smoother occupation by zeroing in on insurgents before they can carry an attack plan to fruition. Success against asymmetrical forces depends more heavily on intelligence indications by an order of magnitude than conventional warfare operations do.

This is a very tall order I know but it is vital to the future success of the nation. Only a combination of reforms can turn this ship around before it bottoms out on a Hollow Force sandbar with disastrous consequences.

            Site Meter

6,254 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
lots of naivete but let's just say that the US is going to implement the draft soon enough. But first there has to be another major attack on the US before that can be allowed to happen. To get the drones in line. Something like a chemical attack on US troops in Iraq, blamed on Syria but more likely Iran. Or maybe Israel will attack Iran and some event against Israel will mobilize the US to help out it's ally. Something of that nature. Possibly the so-called threat of North Korea, because we all know NK would kick America's ass in a conventional confrontation. There would have to be some serious threat having to do with North Korea for the US to inplement the draft. So to see a renewed draft I think it'll be either: unconventional attack on the US forces in Iraq (to be blamed on Iran or Syria), a 'terrorist' attack on the US on US soil, Or Israel being involved in "defensive" actions against Iran or Syria. The possibility for NK's nuclear capabilities is a possible reason to implement the draft in the US.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
God I love your rambles....
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The nation needs a solution and a draft is not it (a topic for another time).


Reiki obviously missed the whole point of this article.

Grey - good points all. Not sure how we can fix it, but I've been hearing horror stories about Guard and Reserve units being stretched to the breaking point. Guys are doing their time, but hanging up the boots at the completion of their tours, and not even beginning to think of re-enlistment. So, our active duty recruiting is not getting the job done, and our Guard and Reserve units are rapidly becoming emaciated. Not a good scenario. At least you provide a possible solution. I think a lot of people get caught in the rut of "how do we increase recruiting and retention?".
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

God I love your rambles....

Makes Mikey Moore look rational at times, and that aint easy!

As to your question, I think it will settle down soon.  The polarization of electorate and the surging job market have done a lot to cut into the recruitment.  Once Iraq is down to a simmer, and The Main US forces are again on stand down, recruitment will pick up.

If not, raising wages is not a bad idea!  After all, they are competing with private industry for these 'freckle faced' men and women.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
lots of naivete but let's just say that the US is going to implement the draft soon enough.


Oh please......more 'inside' information that you mysteriously have, right? Gimme a break.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
There isn't a problem right now with recruiting. It's very hard right now to join the U.S. military. You have to be a high school graduate, no criminal offenses (or even arrests for some services), you have to have perfect credit and be in nearly perfect physical condition. If you've EVER been on psy meds, even in your childhood, you are inelegible to enlist. Far more people are turned away than are allowed to enlist in the military.

Obviously, there wouldn't be a problem with assession numbers if the military branches would allow more waivers for people to join who've been arrested for a drunken college prank, or have athsma, or have collections on their credit report, or were put on ridalin when they were kids, or had broken a (fully healed) limb with pins or screws in it, or elected to see a shrink for a few weeks after their mom committed suicide. All of these are disqualifying factors for military service.

The military's "problem" is the near perfection standards they demand for enlistment. While, on the one hand, this results in a military comprised of "near perfect" individuals, how "perfect" does one have to be perform some of the more grueling, simple jobs? The military makes no allowances currently for the more mentally or physically demanding jobs vs. the less mentally or physically demanding jobs.

The military's "problem", therefore; would be easily solved by simply lightening up a bit on the enlistment standards and allowing more waivers to be granted on a carefully thorough, one-by-one basis. I personally know too many good men and women who want to serve but are not allowed to for what I think are B.S. reasons. Just my 2 cents.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
No not inside information although it's true I know a lot more about the realities on the ground in Iraq than most of you here. But how else can the US continue with its wars if not by a draft? Pack your bags guys and gals, the empire awaits you.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
No not inside information although it's true I know a lot more about the realities on the ground in Iraq than most of you here. But how else can the US continue with its wars if not by a draft? Pack your bags guys and gals, the empire awaits you.


Talk is cheap. I doubt very seriously, based upon your posts, you know anything about Iraq other than what Mikey Moore tells you to believe.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
What kills me is, I'd go back in (or better yet, never have been retired!) in a second!! I know my condition prevents it, but I wonder if there is still a lot of restrictions stuck on "prior service" folks who want to get back in?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a reply to Boggin' Airman, and my take on the situation. There are plenty of people out there in america more than able to meet the standards set by the military for entry and retention in the armed services. The problem is with compensation and public perception. I don't want to hijack Grey's thread, but I talked about this a few articles ago on my blog. When people see what is required of the military versus what they get in return in the way of compensation, they can see it is a losing game for anyone but the most dedicated. If we can return the nations perception of the military to it being an honorable profession, and increase the pay and benefits to make it a competitive career field, meeting recruiting goals wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, every time the need to increase the force occurs, the people who sign the checks start thinking about lowering the entry standards rather than increasing benefits. What that gets you isn't a fix to your problem, it gets you a larger, lower quality force. The few higher quality soldiers have all their time eaten up taking care of the lower quality soldiers, when they could be doing other, more important work. Lowering the standards is not the answer. The answer lies in accepting the fact that if you want a high quality force, you have to have high quality people, and they have to be well paid for their troubles, and recognized for their excellence.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
also, Reiki, have you been to Iraq? How about Korea? I have, and so I find the things you say difficult to understand. Tell us about your experinces in either place, and we'll see who knows what.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

I know a lot more about the realities on the ground in Iraq than most of you here.

Reiki - Both Wanderer and I are in Iraq right now.

you have to have perfect credit and be in nearly perfect physical condition. If you've EVER been on psy meds, even in your childhood, you are inelegible to enlist.

I was a physical wreck, was arrested, have seen a psychologist, have terrible credit, and am enlisted while holding a TS/SCI clearance (this requires a TON more in the way of a background check than enlistment alone). A good size chunk of the clearance holders take psych meds and still hold both their jobs and their clearances. The standards for enlistment are very very low and don't need to go lower but higher instead.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Intel is important; but when you are dealing with cornered rats, you must kill them. I think that overconcern with 'collteral damage' is a major problem. Vis., FALLUJAH. The first time, our troops were muzzled just as they were about to win, with disastrous consequences. The second time (after too many US military deaths), they apprently had greater leeway -- and did the job!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Several points:

1. Not EVERYONE in the Armed Forces needs to be top-notch perfect. And to be honest, there are a LOT of people who could benefit from the discipline of the military experience.

So here's an idea: a VERY tough and thorough examination of each and every recruit, AND every re-enlistee. High scores yield bonuses, promotions, attendence at special schools, etc: MAKE the Military even more of a meritocracy than it currently is.

2. Pay/ Benefits/ Etc.: Make ALL Military special allowances tax-free. Make the first, say, 50K of Military income tax-free. And as for Combat Pay, make it pay: one month of combat time/ 2 months of combat zone time equals a year of ZERO TAX LIABILITY for the soldier after he/she gets out. And for those in the "zone", if fired on, even once, the month counts as combat time. Extra years off of tax liability for combat decorations. And, if God forbid, a soldier dies **in the line of duty** for ANY reason, his/her spouse and dependents not only get the usual benefits, but ten years of no tax liability: for the dependents, the no-tax starts at age 21.

After all, our soldiers risk their lives for our country, even die for it. That's more of a debt than any tax liability. . .

3. Intel: where do I start ? The massive, politically-correct intel bureaucracies ? The near TOTAL reliance on overhead imagery and SIGINT, rather than the far-more man-power intensive and slower HUMINT. . . a topic for another day
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
My brother is currently an active-duty Army Recruiter (in charge of his own Recruiting Station in south Texas). I have a pretty good idea of what they are up against.

Also, when I enlisted in 1990, my criminal record included a DWI, and three other misdemeanor arrests. My credit? So bad that I couldn't qualify to take out a loan on a stick of gum. Health? Yeah, I was pretty healthy...even with my reconstructed ACL (replerte with pins and screws).

My brother (now a 1SG) is color blind, and had a much more checkered criminal past than I did.

So, you don't really know what you're talking about as far as "needing more waivers". What I would recommend you do is head down to your nearest Army Recruiting Station and talk to a recruiter...go ahead...you know it's the right thing to do. You'll be surprised that a lot of the excuses you've been using to avoid serving are bunk.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not a military vet, but it seems to me that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I believe that the military is too top heavy with officers who are just marking time and really do not contribute to a better military. In my opinion, it is similar to the Education bureaucracy which has too many administrators and not enough teachers in the classroom. By adding layers of adm officers to the decision making process, it just makes it inefficient and thus slows down vital decision making. The body armour and up armouring of vehicles is a case in point. I read just today about the bungling that was responsible for our troops not being properly equipped. If my reasoning is incorect, please let me know.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's an idea that would help recruit motivated people. It wouldn't help with the Marines or Army per se, but would create an infantry/special ops force to put into nasty spots and take some pressure off the regular forces and the reserves. How about an American Foreign Legion, with part of the reward for successfully completing two 5-year terms of service being US citizenship? I think an appeal something like this would get as many top-notch recruits as the US could handle training.

Dreaming of America?
Learn English, learn teamwork and leadership, make friends who will be friends for the rest of your life, learn to parachute out of airplanes, to field dress a wound, to fight, drive, build, and succeed at anything you do. Meet the highest standards of honor and brotherhood. Travel the world, save innocents from tyrrany, destroy terrorists, pirates, thugs, and murderers, triumph in the cause of freedom and justice, and after ten years of honorable service earn citizenship in the United States of America.
Dare to Triumph over Tyrrany
The American Foreign Legion

Why not steal a page from the French playbook? The FFL is the most effective guerilla and combat force that the French have. Something like it could be effective for the USA too. Plus it would be a great way to recruit people who speak other languages like natives for all sorts of military intelligence duties.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's not forget Congress authorized an increase of around 24,000 more personnel in the Army from last fiscal year. That is nearly nearly two full divisions. While the military was pretty much holding their own with the existing force structure, the addition of that many new billets to fill just this short time in the fiscal/counting year makes a paper 'crisis' that can get people all excited. Think Chicken Little. Before you go running off with 'solutions' make sure its not just another paper problem for which a solution is in place that will solve it over time, just not right now, this moment, immediately.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it will take a multi-pronged approach.

For intelligence, there is a need for both more hardware and for more HUMINT assets. And HUMINT needs to include both U.S. citizens and foreign agents - with a clear understanding that the foreigners may not be the most savory people. People forget that intelligence-gathering has never been a neat or clean business. But it takes money, both to recruit more people and to recruit a better quality of agent. Not to mention the costs of hardware.

Also on the intelligence side, there is a desperate need to push exploitation out to the users. The current approach is designed to wring the most information out of a trickle of information, particularly overheads. The new systems coming on line can provide more information than the current exploitation architechure can handle.

As far as force structure, more cash gets you better people. Fixing the system to push decision-making down to a lower level keeps better people. Take a look at the procurement system, and you see a horde of folks spending 2/3rds of their time and effort doing budget drills or filling out paperwork deigned to minimize "waste". If we could focus on buying the best hardware for the troops, we could get stuff out more quickly, at a lower cost, and with less people in the process.

Better funding also helps in other ways. Like getting people out of maintenance-hungry 20-year-old tanks, 30-year-old airplanes, and 40-year-old ships. The hardware is old, worn out, and held together with more spit, sweat, and baling wire than anybody is willing to admit.

Finally, I do like the idea of an American Foreign Legion. Maybe an enlistment of 6 years - and pay substantially lower than U.S. troops. Manpower costs BIG money, and if we can recruit a Foreign Legion with lower pay scales (but with U.S. citizenship, or at least a Green Card, guaranteed with an Honorable Discharge), we can field a good number of troops reasonably quickly.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I suggest we stop calling it "Jamie Gorelicks wall". It's George Bush's wall. Bozo has been President for four years now. No excuses. He is a disaster, the only reason he looks good is because the Armed Forces have saved his ass in Iraq. Bush has not secured the borders, he's too busy taking bribes from the construction and agri-business folks. This is treason. Bush must go!

As for recruitment, what about the Marines arrested for doing thier job? You know who I am talking about. That hurts recruitment more than anything. The Armys biggest problem is the Army, ditto Marines, etc. A lot of officers need to be ejected, but have not been. ANOTHER REASON TO GET RID OF BUSH.

Xiaoding
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Get rid of anonymous blog snipers first!!!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know a lot more about the realities on the ground in Iraq than most of you here


Because you've been there? Because you've served in the military and had/have a security clearance and are therfore privy to details that no-one else has? I think that the answer to all of the above is going to be 'no', and that your 'info' is basically propagandist bullshit flavored with a little Mikey Moore.
Walk the walk; then you can talk the talk.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

How about an American Foreign Legion, with part of the reward for successfully completing two 5-year terms of service being US citizenship?

Actually the U.S. Army already does accept foreign citizens and citizenship is easily attainable in a single term already. The problem lies with other natins not being too keen on the Army recruiting on their soil and even further, foreign nations often have compulsory service requirements of their own that must be fulfilled before anyone is allowed to leave the borders of the country. (see South Korea)

ParaTed - The anonymous folks are here from a couple of external sites that linked to this post. Michelle Malkin and Outsidethebeltway to be precise.

 

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
As an Air Force MSgt (1981-present) I see the solution to recruiting and retention problems as being a matrix of systematic changes addressing compensation, discipline (proper discipline breeds esprit de corps), manning shift to high OPSTEMPO jobs, and the biggie:
A Reagan-style buildup of the active force, including acceptance that a PERMANENT force is required and the drawdown was a horrid mistake.
When we fixed the hollow force, it was done by accepting that we needed massive, globally deployable force projection. The Guard and Reserve were a way to save cadre during lean years, but a permanent force of appropriate size would slash deployment durations and improve retention. Gutting the military after 1991 (peace dividend my arse!) under the guise of "transformation" scrapped a magnificent Cold War-sized force that would have served us far more effectively in global deterrence than the small one that is bogged in Iraq.
Besides building up the Active forces, I'd expand on a program pioneered by the Air Force Reserve. It allows airment to fully retire and collect their vested pay at 20 (or more) years of service, then re-enlist in the Reserve.This allows the active force to have the turnover it needs, and offers a way to fill the Reserve with experienced troops who want to settle down in one place even if subject to deployment. many G.I.s can live with PCS moves if they are not also doing wartime deployments. Given that war deployments are the norm, filling some Guard and Reserve billets with retirees is a great fit. The ages fit Guard and Reserve demographics.
The experience levels are high and the retirees are used to current ops and doctrine.
many "over 20 YOS" types would happliy serve until 30 or more years if we wouldn't be PCSed away from home.
This would also offer a way to retain talent currentlly being harvested by contractors.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
As an Air Force MSgt (1981-present) I see the solution to recruiting and retention problems as being a matrix of systematic changes addressing compensation, discipline (proper discipline breeds esprit de corps), manning shift to high OPSTEMPO jobs, and the biggie:
A Reagan-style buildup of the active force, including acceptance that a PERMANENT force is required and the drawdown was a horrid mistake.
When we fixed the hollow force, it was done by accepting that we needed massive, globally deployable force projection. The Guard and Reserve were a way to save cadre during lean years, but a permanent force of appropriate size would slash deployment durations and improve retention. Gutting the military after 1991 (peace dividend my arse!) under the guise of "transformation" scrapped a magnificent Cold War-sized force that would have served us far more effectively in global deterrence than the small one that is bogged in Iraq.
Besides building up the Active forces, I'd expand on a program pioneered by the Air Force Reserve. It allows airment to fully retire and collect their vested pay at 20 (or more) years of service, then re-enlist in the Reserve.This allows the active force to have the turnover it needs, and offers a way to fill the Reserve with experienced troops who want to settle down in one place even if subject to deployment. many G.I.s can live with PCS moves if they are not also doing wartime deployments. Given that war deployments are the norm, filling some Guard and Reserve billets with retirees is a great fit. The ages fit Guard and Reserve demographics.
The experience levels are high and the retirees are used to current ops and doctrine.
many "over 20 YOS" types would happliy serve until 30 or more years if we wouldn't be PCSed away from home.
This would also offer a way to retain talent currentlly being harvested by contractors.