The number of young people considering a military career has significantly increased for the first time in about five years, buoyed by more positive news out of Iraq.
Military officials predict interest will rise even further because of the worsening economy.
“We’d like to think now we’ve bottomed out here and (recruiting) now will continue increasing,” said Curtis Gilroy, a Pentagon personnel official. “A lot of that is because of the relatively good news out of Iraq.”
The percentage of young people who said they would probably join the military increased from 9% to 11% in the first half of this year, according to a Pentagon-sponsored survey. The poll questioned 3,304 young people ages 16 to 21.
Well, usually with downturns in the economy, descent paying and steady military jobs have a much greater appeal than they do when the economy is booming, and money can more easily be made in the private sector.
It also doesn’t hurt that out Commander-&-Chief-Elect isn’t a warmongering mush-mouth.
#3
BS. An inexperienced lightweight like our president-elect has a great deal of potential for getting us in hot water in Africa and other intractable hotspots.
I don’t know, #2. Lot’s of my fellow high school grads enlisted in one branch or another in the late ’70s and early ’80s when jobs were scarce. I recall more than a few people just out of college serving with me as well. IIRC, we generally considered President Reagan a “warmonger” (although certainly not a “mush-mouth”) and thought it likely we’d be in a shooting war at some point during our service. It turned out that several of my friends were shot at, although they were usually vague about where they were when it happened. In some places the Cold War wasn’t cold.
Re # 2
John Miller,
I am not sure I agree with you. Bush has been much too quick with the trigger for my taste. The mush mouth part has been overplayed by too many late night comedians. But I do think that the economy will be a more significant motivation for enlistments, especially after Barry takes office in January.
ICXC
John
Arrggghh,
Disregard my previous post. I just noticed the “elect” part in there.
Well, I don’t think Barry is a plus for recruitment. My son is planning on enlisting and going to Army OCS upon graduation from college (he’s a junior now) but he’s not at all enthusiastic about the social engineering and other silliness Mr. Obama’s administration will likely inflict on our military.
Military men and women……especially careerists……need to know that they will have a Commander in Chief who isn’t afraid to lead them into harm’s way if necessary. It also helps if their Commander in Chief has military experience, and has first-hand knowledge of their problems and their needs because he’s been there himself. President-elect Obama has neither of these attributes.
I agree that the economy is driving many recruits into the Armed Forces now, just as it always has. It did when I joined the Air Force in 1958 right out of college. The retention rate among enlisted personnel is up fairly substantially, and more officers are opting to stay longer. The saying “three hots and a cot” used to be heard quite often, even when I entered active duty, and I expect it to be heard more often, now that enlistments and reenlistments are economically-driven.
Military service does have much to offer…..particularly if one intends to make the best of it and take advantage of all that it has to offer…..regardless of the branch of service one chooses to enter. There is no stigma attached to serving one’s country as a career, and if I were given the chance, I’d do it again.
I think you can really have no idea just how Pres-elect Obama will act in “leading the military in harms way”. Everyone can only guess until the situation arises.
As for military experience being necessary, I submit…
Abraham Lincoln – 3 weeks in the IL state militia
Woodrow Wilson – none
FDR – none
The “military experience” I mentioned had to do with the needs, the wants, and the well-being of the troops. Obama needs to listen to THEM. But he especially needs to see to it that they are supported by eliminating the roadblocks in health care once they return from the war zones. The problem of insufficient funding for VA medical care is a case in point. It is a national scandal which I guarantee that most of you will never hear about. I am a Life Member of the DAV, and I see it and experience it constantly.
I spent a few years in uniform myself but I have spent far more years as a military wife. Nearly twenty-five years ago I married a lieutenant. As of last May, I am the mother of a lieutenant. I wrote some thoughts about this on Veterans Day.
Cennydd,
Thank you for your service to our country. I’m sorry that you’ve received bad care from the VA. My experience in military medicine was up and down, both on active duty and through the VA. The VA in Hampton, VA was pretty much a nightmare and yet the VA in Big Spring, TX is great. I had a horrible experience with the Navy Hospital in Charleston during peace time and yet Walter Reed in 1971-2 was good (except the food). I suspect that a lot of that has to do with the leadership of the particular facility. Again, thanks for your service to our country.
Thank you, DJH…..your words mean a lot!
DJH,
I read your post. Thank you for your words of grace to what might have been a rather condescending letter (if it was written in the same tone as her editorial, I suspect it was). I was a chaplain at Parris Island, SC – one of the two Marine ‘boot camps’ – in the early 90’s and one of the things that pleasantly surprised me was generally how much better my recruits were as people than their parents. I’m sure that your son is a fine young man, and I can only hope that her son spends time with your oldest, and Fr. Mike and others like them. But God Bless him, too, for choosing to serve.
Just a point of clarification for those reading. There are no Marine Chaplains; there are Navy Chaplains that serve with Marines – Fr. Mike being a great example.
Recruiting is much more complex then who’s the CInC and how the economy is going. After the Vietnam War, when there was no fighting and the economy was pretty bad – including wage and price freezes – recruiting was terrible. I suspect that the number one reason was the low morale in the forces at that time. Nobody wants to join an organization when their buddy, who is already in, says that it stinks.
Rather people want to give themselves to a cause and purpose and for people who are worth risking their life for. As my crusting old Major once told me, “Everybody wants to belong to an elite organization – the secret is finding those who are willing to work to keep it an elite organization.”
Another HUGE factor in recruiting is retention – if you keep a service member, that if four less recruits that you need in the first place. Retention and morale is currently very high. Here is a video of the single largest re-enlistment ceremony in Army history. It occurred this last July 4th in Baghdad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aAU1XE8MQk
If the U.S. brings its troops home under conditions that destroy morale, I suspect that you will see a subsequent drop in both retention and recruitment.
Sorry, typos: crusting = crusty; that if = that is; retention is = retention are.
Again for the typos.
I’m been teaching high school and college age students for a over 20 years and I’ve been associated with two military schools. Many students look to the military because they want structure in their lives and because the military offers training and promotions. Many young people want to be challenged and the military is always raising the bar for recruits.
#9
Lincoln’s ill advised sending of reinforcments to Ft. Sumpter precipitated the Confederate bombardment that sparked the War Between the States.
Woodrow Wilson’s leading the US into WWI was responsible for the Allied victory rather than a negotiated peace and thereby led to WWII.
FDR maneuvered the US into WWII and gave away the farm to the Soviets at Yalta.
Not good examples.
Evan, would you have preferred to let the Germans walk into Britain? What would you have done differently if you had been in Preident Wilson’s shoes? As for FDR, we would’ve eventually been drawn into the war anyway. Britain asked for our help, and we gave it to them. We were, after all, morally bound to to help. Read your history books. Naziism was a cancer which had to be stopped, and Roosevelt knew it. So did Congress.
And by the way: Take a good long look at Japan’s treatment of China in the 1930s. The Rape of Chungking, for example. And then tell me that Roosevelt was wrong!
I have no problem with advising today’s young men and women about the benefits of military service. I don’t hide things from them, either.
Brother Cennydd,
As I have posted several times in various threads over the years.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!!! YOU ARE AN AMERICAN HERO!!!
(Yes, I know that all caps is yelling, and that is intentional!!)
Chip Byers, Vice-Commander Sons of the American Legion, Detachment of Virginia
#19
Ref. WWI, the world would have been much better off if we hadn’t entered the war. The Allies and Central Powers would in all likelihood have fought themselves to a standstill and a negotiated peace would have resulted.
As for WWII, the Japanese conduct in China (before WWII actually) was terrible and the Rape of Nanking was a particularly heinous example. I would only argue that the cancer of Naziism was no worse than the cancer of Communism. We saved the world from the first, and in doing so condemned much of the world to 50 years of the second.