Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal

So you have committed servicemen who are dedicated to their tasks. Good for you. What spin are you waiting for exactly?

 

Well this is an obvios victory for GWB just as failure to reach targets was an obvious failure.

Just kidding.

Anyway, george, there was a sudden drop in recruitment in January. As if some incentive was lost or some calendar item was passed. What could that have been? Is there something inherent about January that makes it a bad month?

 

So the military offering "unprecedented cash bonuses" has nothing to do with it? The bit about "renewed sense of patriotism in fighting terrorism" strikes me as a little hyperbolic.

 

Yup, throwing serious cash at kids in their early 20s has nothing to do with retention....nothing at all.

By the way, I wonder how much the Army lowered its goal before this reporting period, like they did last month with the recruiting goals.

 

I'm sure there are some who feel that way, but the Army obviously felt it was necessary to throw "unprecendented" cash bonuses at people to get them to stay.

 

Show me a 6% increase without the extra cash, and I'll be impressed.

And by the way, is this an indication of how bad things are right now - that the only thing the Army can brag about is retention rates and (doctored) recruiting numbers? How sad is that?

 

The US military is quite effective at conditioning its troops to believe that they are fighting a war to a) Defend our way of life anb b) defend their spouses and children, and c) protect their units.

Everyone who was in the military recognizes this as accurate. This is what you are programmed to believe. You are the military, you protect your buddy, you protect your family, you protect your country.

When you are in a life-or-death situation with a group of colleagues, and you depend on them and they depend on you, chances are you'll sign up again, especially if there are no jobs at home, and you'll get a few thousand in cash to keep the wife and kids off of welfare checks for just a few months more.

Nobody is going to sign up, or put their life on the line for the truth, which is "Hey guys, you're in Iraq to settle an old score with Saddam, who tried to kill my daddy, and to score some of those big contracts for Halliburton, and finally, because we need the oil so when (if) you get home, you can buy a large SUV."

This mindless drivel about country and family and helping people who deserve to be free is just another smokescreen to hide the fact that Iraq was no threat to us, our way of life, or our Dorito-eating children.

I am glad there are people in the military who re-enlist, and I am glad they are willing to protect America. But to think that Iraq has anything to do with protecting America is a pipe dream soldiers tell themselves to avoid the really big question, which is... 'should I die for a smirking Yalie's family vendetta?"

 

No spin necessary!

"The biggest thing is that soldiers believe in what they are doing," Head said.

What George Bush has said all along!

 

Plus, the increase only makes up for a third of the projected troop deficit. Yeah, it's good news for the Army, but more in the "1 out of 3 ain't so bad" or "it could've been a lot worse" kinda way.

It's hard not to be bothered by the lowered standards for what constitutes "good news", but we've come to accept that lowering the bar to manufacture success is the right wing M.O. these days.

 

No, I am saying that it is human nature to believe that which is convenient. It is better for morale of the individual and the collective to continue talking about giving freedom to the Iraqis and America is the best, most free country in the world and we've never lost a war and our sh!t smells like roses.

But just like there are no atheists in a foxhole, I'd be willing to bet that everyone wearing boots in Iraq has questioned, just for a moment, what the hell we're doing over there.

I find that the really quiet ones, and those who yell the loudest about how great everything -- those are the ones who've really thought about it. The quiet ones haven't decided, and the loud ones are trying to convince themselves.

 

Sounds pretty good for the army. Good news is always good, even if its partial good news.

I would like to know more about historically, what % of troops re-enlist - are we seeing a higher % re-enlist? All I saw in your blurb was that the military exceeded their target. If they set their target really low (as compared to previous years) - then is the same % of soldiers re-enlisting progress - or just maintaining the status quo?

It is somewhat unsurprising either way though. there are many reasons to re-enlist, such as

1) fear of coming home without good prospects of employment

2) soldiers stationed with units that have not yet been sent to fight - presumably have a decent chance of re-enlisting, staying with their unit, and not seeing combat (especially with a shorter-term re-enlistment?). As opposed to new soldiers, who might presumably have a better chance of replacing someone in a warzone - which is generally the thought of potential new recruits these days.

3) scare tactics. Friends of mine posted stateside were told - 're-enlist, and we'll make sure you'll keep guarding base xxx for the next year/6 months. Don't re-enlist, and, well, get some extra suntan lotion and desert fatigues.'

4) stop-loss. Is that still going on? Cuz saying yes or no to re-enlistment does not matter a whole lot, if you don't get a ticket home either way. So re-enlist on more favorable terms and extra cash, cuz you'll be in uniform either way, right?

But any news that does not reduce the effectiveness of our military is good news, even if its not worth throwing a party over.

 

That whole thing is spin....

 

BushCo spins so much that they have no idea what direction they're going.

I would love to see the stats on the number that were forced to re-enlist by being denied exit.

 

Re: BushCo spins so much that they have no idea what direction they're going.

I think he's referring to those whose enlistments were "extended" without consent.

 

Re: BushCo spins so much that they have no idea what direction they're going.

The point still stands. It doesn't matter if it's a re-enlistment or an extension of a current enlistment, it's still a unilateral move for force retention. If these numbers are included as part of the overall retention goal, it's a sham.

 

Because the re-enlistment rate was mediocre when it wasn't bad, until they upped the cash incentives big-time.


edit: does anyone else find it funny that george and Mel have now shared an avatar?