Soldiers reenlisting in droves

[fintstone]

Looks like the only folks that are not reenlisting in droves are Guard and Reserves who really never intended such a large time-deployed obligation. It is obviously not due to the disillusionment with the war against terrorism, or with our leadership as many liberals would imply. Clearly the troops that are in the midst of this recognize the value of their efforts/contribution.

Fayetteville (NC) Observer
March 23, 2005

Fort Bragg Soldiers Keep Re-Enlisting

By Kevin Maurer, Staff Writer

Fort Bragg soldiers are re-enlisting in droves as the Army struggles to meets its recruiting goals.

Fort Bragg units have been at the heart of troop deployments for the war on terrorism. The 18th Airborne Corps' headquarters and several Fort Bragg-based units deployed to Iraq in the past several months for a one-year tour. The 82nd has two battalions in Baghdad and is preparing to send one of its brigades to Afghanistan in the spring for a year.

Despite a three-year period that has had thousands of paratroopers from Fort Bragg deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the 18th Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Division are exceeding their re-enlistment goals.

''We exceeded our (2004) mission, and we are already on glide path for this year," said Sgt. Maj. Marissa Capel. She is the noncommissioned officer in charge of retention on Fort Bragg.

The 18th Airborne Corps has units based all over the eastern United States and is made up of the 82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division, 3rd Infantry Division and the 10th Mountain Division, as well as several other combat and support units.

According to data provided by the Army, the corps exceeded its fiscal 2004 retention goals by slightly more than 900 soldiers and is meeting its goals for the first quarter of 2005. The 82nd met its re-enlistment goals for fiscal 2004 by more than 100 soldiers and is on pace to meet its 2005 goals. The division is 14 enlistments short of meeting its second-quarter goals, officials said.

''The 82nd sells itself," said Master Sgt. Jerry Johnson, the 82nd Airborne Division retention operations noncommissioned officer. ''It's a unique situation. These guys are double volunteers, and they are not afraid of commitment."

Paratroopers must volunteer to join the Army and to join the airborne.

For the first time since 2000, the Army failed to meet its national recruiting goal this year. Since the start of the 2005 fiscal year on Oct. 1, the Army is about 6 percent behind its goal.

Recruiting for the Army Reserve and National Guard has also sagged. On Monday, the Army raised the maximum age for new recruits by five years to 39. The three-year experiment will add about 22 million people to the pool of those eligible to serve. About 60 million people are eligible now.

Officials say an improving economy and concern about the war in Iraq are factors in the decline.

Despite lower recruiting numbers, Fort Bragg units have not lowered standards to retain more soldiers.

''Our nation can't afford for us to lower standards just to keep a few extra bodies," Johnson said.

Capel concedes, though, that poor recruiting forces the Army to work harder to keep soldiers.

''If they don't make it, we have to make up the difference," she said. ''It is very important for us to keep soldiers we already have because of their experience and knowledge."

Incentives

The Army is offering large bonuses and other incentives to keep soldiers in the service. The average bonus is between $10,000 and $15,000. Johnson said the bonuses help, but most soldiers stay because they want to remain in the Army.

Capel said deployments often have a negative effect on retention, but soldiers are still staying in for financial stability and because of the corps' strong leadership.

Deployments help retention in the 82nd, Johnson said, because the soldiers are using their training.

The 82nd sent paratroopers to help secure the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. Being a part of history is a big selling point.

''Short of finding a cure for cancer, they can have no bigger impact on the world," Johnson said.

[Aurel]

That looks like another good propaganda article from planet Finstone. If reenlistment was so high, why would the army have raised the limit age to 39 ?

I liked the last sentence: "Short of finding a cure for cancer..." Well, precisely, I would rather see my tax money used to find a cure for cancer than wasted in stupid wars. Because cancer has killled several of my familly members. Terrorism has not, and never will.

Aurel

[rcecale]

Aurel,

If you really bothered to read what was written here, rather than seemingly dismissing it out of hand, you would have seen that Fint HAS address your point about raising the enlistment age to 39.

The people Mr. Fintstone's article is referring to are the ACTIVE DUTY guys. NOT the Guard or Reserves (The ones who's max age had been raised.)

Oh, and you must have some connections "on the inside" if you can so boldly make such a claim as yours. And I paraphrase, "Terrorism has not, and never will"...kill your family members.

Maybe that's what the real issue is. Not that I would wish this for you and for anyone else, but I wonder if you would really feel the way you do if you HAD lost someone to a terrorist act. (Heaven forbid something like that ever happen.)

Randy

[Aurel]

Randy, I am just curious: How many members of your familly have you lost from terrorism, and how many from cancer ?

Aurel

[rcecale]

Zero and zero.

I'm just one who realizes that while I'm not able to do much in the fight for cancer except to throw money at it, there is much more that I have done to fight terrorism.

Randy

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

bulls**t...

try talking to a serviceman at this time about how they are being blackmailed to re-enlist...

I know a enlisted guy who was recalled to active duty after being discharged for 10 years.

[rcecale]

Was that aimed at me, Jared?

Randy

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by rcecale
Was that aimed at me, Jared?

Randy

No sir.

I was referring to the content of the article.

I would never insult a US serviceman, especially a Marine. I'm well aware of the sacrifice you guys make to preserve my freedom and I will respect you forever. My grandfathers on both sides were both servicemen, both in the U.S. Army and in the Royal Dutch Marines both were in combat as well.

I'm saying that it's bull**** that we have to fight a war to protect buisness interests.

[Aurel]

Randy, I sincerely respect what you have done. But my point is that cancer affects much more people, directly, than terrorism. Yet, much more ressources are dedicated to fight terrorism than cancer. It does not make sense to me. The risk of dying from cancer is statistically far greater than being affected by any type of terrorist act. One man out of two, and one woman out of three, will develop some form of cancer during their life. Should not the ressources be proportional to the risk of death if the goal is to save lives ?

Aurel

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by Aurel
Randy, I sincerely respect what you have done. But my point is that cancer affects much more people, directly, than terrorism. Yet, much more ressources are dedicated to fight terrorism than cancer. It does not make sense to me. The risk of dying from cancer is statistically far greater than being affected by any type of terrorist act. One man out of two, and one woman out of three, will develop some form of cancer during their life. Should not the ressources be proportional to the risk of death if the goal is to save lives ?

Aurel

Here's an interesting fact, we spend four times more money on snack foods a year than NASA's yearly budget....

[CamB]

The article downplays the re-enlistment bonus with an anecdotal statement about soldiers re-enlisting because they want to stay.

Master Sgt Johnson (whose job it is to make the army sound like a good place to re-enlist to) might be right, but forgive me for my scepticism!

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by CamB
The article downplays the re-enlistment bonus with an anecdotal statement about soldiers re-enlisting because they want to stay.

As a guy who just signed a contract with the Navy for $100K (over 4 years), I can tell you straight faced that it isn't for the money.

Let me put this in perspective for you. On the one hand, we have the tangible benefits:
-Sub pay, sea pay, and the "nuke bonus," all of which comes to about $100K annual salary -- and that's for a department head, substantially responsible for one third of the submarine.
-Medical and dental benefits, as piped through a communist bureaucracy.
-Uniform, good for picking up ditzy chicks and WestPac Widows.

On the other hand, we have the costs:
-There is no such thing as "overtime." We're all salaried slave labor.
-We go underway on submarines -- months on end spent in complete isolation. Contact from family is the occasional "e-mail" (the technology isn't quite like what you're used to), food degrades rapidly after the first 2 weeks -- nothing is fresh anymore, and water supplies are limited, as we produce all of our own.
-Even when in port, we can be standing duty (spending the night on the boat, sleeping perhaps as much as 4 hours, all added together) as often as one day in every three -- and this is common.
On days when we're not on duty, 12-14 hour workdays are not uncommon.
-This life is obviously hard on families. Divorce rates among submariners are substantially higher (no figures off the top of my head, sorry) than among the general population. Children say things like "Mommy, who is that man you're sleeping with now?" when Daddy comes home.
-I could go on. The human cost of operating a submarine is fantastic.

While I don't have personal experience from Marines or soldiers, I'm sure a similar analysis can be done for them. Those of us who keep doing this aren't here for the money. The old quote goes like "If you enjoy the job, the money is plenty. If you hate the job, there's no way they could pay you enough."

Dan

[Moneyguy1]

Three squares a day, housing and medical benefits.

Would work for me, considering the "downsizing" in good paying jobs in the private sector....

[fintstone]

It is not just the money for most. Although my Reserve position is relatively cushy and safe, It actually costs me money to be in the Reserve. I give up one day of retirement pay each day for each day I pull reserve duty...so I loose about 65% off the top.... and then it costs me for transportation, food, and a place to stay where my duty is....which is significantly more than the remaining 35%. As far as benefits...I have already earned and receive them all anyways.
Few servicemen get the special pays that a sub guy like Dan does....Pilots and Doctors do quite well...but the Services must compete with the market in those areas. For most, it is ordinary wages for extraordinary sacrifice.

[rcecale]

Aurel,

Now it's MY turn to be curious. Be honest now.....how much money have you given towards cancer research?

I sincerely hope you don't "detect" a sarcastic tone in my question. I'm being serious.

Randy

[gaijindabe]

I have read there is a lot of "cross-reinlistment" where sailors or airmen are encouraged to join the Army.

[Aurel]

Originally posted by rcecale
Aurel,

Now it's MY turn to be curious. Be honest now.....how much money have you given towards cancer research?

I sincerely hope you don't "detect" a sarcastic tone in my question. I'm being serious.

Randy

Randy,

First of all, I should not have to give any money to cancer research, because it is a priority that should be sufficiently funded by the government. How do you explain that more ressources are dedicated to killing research (eg weaponry) than to healing research ?

Secondly, it is not just cancer research that needs money, it is also end of life care, prevention, etc...

This year I gave $25 for research, $250 to a mother with three kids who recently lost their dad, in a fund for their education.
Also, at the recent funeral of my uncle, we refused all flowers and asked for donations to be directed to the hospital that took care of him in his last days.

Aurel

[widebody911]

Between the backdoor draft and bribes, they might be able to keep some people in, but it's getting harder to sign up fresh cannon fodder; missed their goal by 27%.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/23/national/w111557S06.DTL

BTW, did you know that one of the provisions of GWB's "no child left behind' act was a stipulation that high schools must turn over kid's contact information to military recruiters?

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg112.html

SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.

(a) POLICY-

(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.

Resistance is futile... Prepare to be assimilated... Freedom is on the march...

[kach22i]

Originally posted by widebody911
BTW, did you know that one of the provisions of GWB's "no child left behind' act was a stipulation that high schools must turn over kid's contact information to military recruiters?

I sure do, posted this several times................they even set up recruiting tables in the lunch room and other places on school grounds.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Aurel
Randy,

First of all, I should not have to give any money to cancer research, because it is a priority that should be sufficiently funded by the government. How do you explain that more ressources are dedicated to killing research (eg weaponry) than to healing research ?

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. If you're implying that the research of cancer should be funded 100% by the government, I would say you are most definitely wrong. If you're not implying that, please excuse my interpretation.

To rely solely on the government to fund this 100% is basically socialism, period. Funding of research like this is, and should be, a capitalist action. the race to the cure (as well as the cure for AIDS and any other diseases) should be conducted by private corporations. I have no problem with the government subsidizing this, but to completely shoulder the task would be preposterous. Where is the incentive?

But, since this is way off the topic of this thread, I'll stop with this. You may call weapons research "killing research", but the flip side of that is the amount of lives that can be "saved" by such research. forinstance, the death toll of WWII is suspected to have been much higher, had we not used the atomic bomb. sure, lives were lost, and that is tragic. But many more would have probably been lost, had we not used it.

We now return you to the previously posted topic.

Randy