October recruiting numbers
The military met or exceeded nearly all of its recruiting goals for the month of October. See the breakdown here. In addition, retention rates of current military are still historically high.
I'm guessing tomorrow's New York Times won't have a banner headline above the fold announcing this. It would contradict the story line that the war is becoming more unpopular and unsustainable. Can't have that.
I'm guessing tomorrow's New York Times won't have a banner headline above the fold announcing this. It would contradict the story line that the war is becoming more unpopular and unsustainable. Can't have that.
posted by hurtleg at 9:25 AM
5 Comments:
Lowering your targets by a third (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001954.html) in order to align your goals with your performance is a killer idea! Could we do the same retroactively to my high school transcripts, which would put me in the honor society for all four years, and probably have gotten me a fat academic scholarship?
its called outcome based educatin, and its a liberal idea
I listened to an interesting report last night on the NPR show THE WORLD (http://theworld.org) on recruitment. They began by speaking with Arlene Inouye with The Coalition Against Militarism of Our Schools, who came off as a shrill, misinformed moron. Then they spoke with Bill Carr with the Department of Defense, who was calm, clear, and eloquent. Frankly his argument carried the day: since we Americans have chosen to have an all-volunteer army, we must accept the costs of that. Contrary to the Coalition's vague, uncorroboroated contentions of the military swooping in and brainwashing little kids into being stormtroopers, JROTC programs are wildly popular and usually have waitlists.
I absolutely support our Defense department's "right" to recruit, and to recruit those individuals best suited for military service (ie, young people). Banning or discouraging recruitment is counterproductive and counterintuitive (unless that shrill Coalition chick favors compulsory service).
That being said, I don't see why "Military Meets Recruiting Goals" should be an above-the-fold headline; moreover, I don't see how its absence constitutes some left-wing, anti-war bias. "Administration Sets, Meets Goals In Iraq" would be a welcome banner.
Someone recently pointed out, and I agree: if Bush would spend even half the effort explaining to America what is going on in Iraq that he spent explaining his lame social security privatization plan, there would be less erosion of support for our little adventure over there.
I think $70,000 is also a historically high re-enlistment bonus, though I can't say for sure.
The enlistment bonuses are mainly a reflection of the strength of the overall economy. The military did not meet recruiting goals in the late 90's because the civilian job market was so hot.
I'm sure there is some factor of a danger premium, but past history has always tracked closely between recruitment and the economy.
Post a Comment
<< Home