When it has suited their interests, opponents of the war have tried to make a big deal out of Army--and only Army, the other services have consistently done well--recruiting figures. Here is a site with some of the most important numbers for the last few years. (Here is another site--the Reserves numbers do not match up. I don't know why, but the discrepancy does not change the general performance trends.)
The fiscal year (October to September) 2005 was not a good year for Army recruiting. However, it was not a bad year either. The Army recruited about as well as it had the previous two or three years. The slight drops in recruiting from the year before look worse because the goals were higher.
For fiscal year 2006, the Army has kept the higher goal of recruiting 80,000 active duty troops and has met or exceeded that number to date. Apparently the use of more recruiters has been key. Also, they have raised the age limit for reserve troops from 35 to 40, which has brought in folks with specialized experience and boosted the numbers.
Retention continues to meet or exceed goals.
Them's the facts--as best I can tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
WARNING: ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ALERT!!!
I was in a long line at the post office the other day, and the guy in front of me had just returned from Iraq. he was wearing fatigues with a "recruiter" patch on it and I asked him about numbers. What he said to me (he was, by the way, a great, great guy, and because the lines were movong slower than death -- I think the people in fron of us were mailing children to New Mexico -- we got to talk for quite a while) was that he thinks that in places like texas and traditional strongholds, numbers are holding steady, but in places where people are inclined to join the military strictly for training and other opportunity, the politics of it have led to depressed numbers. Again, totally anecdotal and based on his impressions, but this makes sense intuitively, if nothing else.
dcat
Post a Comment