• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Army recruiting 2006

Steve

Well-known member
" Active Duty Recruiting Fiscal 2006. All services have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for fiscal 2006."
WASHINGTON — The Army is ending its best recruiting year since 1997 and expecting similar success in 2007, despite the weight of grim war news from Iraq, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said Thursday.

In an Associated Press interview, Harvey said the Army will enlist its 80,000th soldier on Friday, reaching its goal for the year with eight days to spare. That is a considerable turnaround from last year when the Army missed its target for the first time since 1999.

At the start of this recruiting year, which began Oct. 1, 2005, many questioned whether the Army would reach 80,000,

I did not question our Army, in Fact I predicted they would overcome the monthly short fall and exceed thier goals......
 

Steve

Well-known member
It was funny how they changed their recruiting goals when they couldn't meet them.

Care to back up that disagreeable lie

The Army goal for 2005 was 74 or 76 thousand......

they changed it to 80,000

it's liberal spin comments like that that make me want to call you names....

why would you put a comment that is spin at best and a lie?

the Army upped it's goals......to 80,000......fact


Last years was lower.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Army Meets Recruiting Goal - Or Does it Just Change The Game?

Fred Schoeneman asks why the NY Times has no headlines saying the Army has met its recruiting goal again? Well, the answer is simple. The Army has changed all the factors concerning recruiting to make this accomplishment meaningless and certainly it can not be used as a year over year comparison. The implication in Fred's sarcastic question is that nothing has changed and somehow everyone is supporting the war as they all are signing up for the Army now.

Well, the Army has lowered standards, changed the sign on bonuses, raised the maximum age people can join, provided huge bonuses for IRR soldiers to come on active duty, and also back end loaded the recruiting numbers. All of this combined has made the "goal" and year over year comparisons idiotic. One boss I had used to say, "If you lower your standards, you might just meet them".

Let's give an example. Let's assume I am the HR manager of a company and I require all employees to have a MBA, 5 years of experience and a CPA designation. As a HR manager, I am responsible for hiring 200 of these a year. As I set my budget and goals for next year, I look at last year. I realize, holy cripes, I only hired 100 of these people. How will I hit my target? I could work harder and hope that people will want to join. Or, I could do the following:

* No longer require MBAs
* Eliminate the requirement for a CPA designation, after all, a few accounting courses are fine.
* Allow new people with no experience to sign on.

Now, at the 3/4 way point of this new year, after installing all of this, I find I am ahead of my "goals". Wow, a big accomplishment? But wait, I also have done something else, I "back end" load my targets. So rather than recruiting 1/12 per month, I recruit 1/4 through the 8 month mark then I assume the rest will come at the end. In business we call this a "hockey stick" goal. So, I now have goals in front of me that have NEVER been met before and I hope that I get promoted and move on before this has to be met!

That is why you see no positive headlines on this. Everyone who has studied it knows it is a joke. We covered this with the war mongers before and they keep repeating the story and ignoring the details. I think they think that if they close their eyes, click their slippers and say the same thing many times, it might all of a sudden become true.

UPDATE: Jack Army addresses this issue as well.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Maybe you should site your source....

http://polybius.blogs.com/left_of_way/2006/06/army_meets_recr.html

a left wing peace blog.......now how about some facts.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If you are not connected with the military enough to know what has really happened, you shouldn't be talking about it. Believe what they say. Recruitment qualifications didn't change along with the goals. :shock: :shock:

The marines just stated that they are overextended in Iraq. They are generally an invasion only force but 20 k have been in Iraq on a permanent basis.

:roll: :shock: :shock:


I will have to say one thing: they smoothed it over pretty good.
 

sw

Well-known member
Econ you have no idea what you are talking about so go back to BS and give someone of your R_calf people on economics lesson from the left wing. I have an intimate knowledge of the Marines and what is going on. Have you ever been on base at MCSD? I have. I also have a bunch of Marines who tell me what is going on, talked to one of them two nights ago from Ft Sill, they have been put on hold for deployment. Your buddy Bill (as in CLINTON you moron), cut the funding for the armed forces so bad that the base at any one time is half full. They are trying to get it back up to being full with an entire volunteer force. I would love to take you down to see what the truth is but you do not care for the truth one ioda.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ:
If you are not connected with the military enough to know what has really happened, you shouldn't be talking about it.

connected to the military...hmmm....I'll let you know after I get back from Jacksonville, North Carolina in mid December....

I spent most of my adult life in the service.....I would fit the catagory your so concerned about.....No diploma.....ect.....didn't stop me from making the deans list in college......Many meritoriuos awards..Navy Achievement medals....and even a citation from the President of the United States....

Many just need a chance.....The US Military gave me one....

but enough about me...

The 2006 goal was to attain high retention....get more recruits....80,000 in fact......

they met thier goal......your critism shows your lack of respect and inability to accept that the Military can and will overcome tough goals....with you even going as far as to "quote" a far left peace blog, over facts......

I am very connected to the Military, always will be.....and if connection to the Military is criteria for debating recruitment goals,.. well again,... take your own advice......"you shouldn't be talking about it."
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill Clinton is NOT my buddy. That is not to say that he did some things that were smart and some not so smart. I am able to point out some of these things while most of you are stuck in this republican vs. democrat world where there is nothing in between and no crossover. I put dems and republicans in one category together---politicians. From that point you can break out their administrations and policies then critique them as it should be done. You would have all politicians be republicans or democrats. What was Mark Foley?

Steve, you may believe whatever you want to believe. The information comes from one source and you know what that is. Independent sources are important to learn the truth without it being twisted to whatever whoever controls it to be. If you don't realize that, you are really lost.

Steve, thank you for your service to our country. Just because you served, doesn't mean you get to run it or judge its proficiency by yourself, although I do listen to your viewpoint.

Right now our military can not keep up with the burdens put on them and maintain its readiness that is required. Top generals are saying as much. Iraq and the mission of nation building is taking its toll on our military capabilities and if you don't recognize that, there are serious problems.

But hey, Bush has miscalculated as much himself in Iraq and we have seen the consequences.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
sw said:
Econ you have no idea what you are talking about so go back to BS and give someone of your R_calf people on economics lesson from the left wing. I have an intimate knowledge of the Marines and what is going on. Have you ever been on base at MCSD? I have. I also have a bunch of Marines who tell me what is going on, talked to one of them two nights ago from Ft Sill, they have been put on hold for deployment. Your buddy Bill (as in CLINTON you moron), cut the funding for the armed forces so bad that the base at any one time is half full. They are trying to get it back up to being full with an entire volunteer force. I would love to take you down to see what the truth is but you do not care for the truth one ioda.

So you are saying that all of Bush's administration's problems are from Clinton? What happened to his term before the invasion? Couldn't he get it right before that?

You people want to blame everything on Clinton and liberals when the facts point otherwise. Either Bush was incompetent in the planning stage of the war or he wasn't. Facts seem to show he was and put our servicemen in harm's way unnecessarily. You can't blame all that on Clinton.

If you are going to blame everything on someone else instead of taking responsibility, you have no right to govern and try to get it right.

The people have spoken on this regard and you guys just don't get it. It is a good thing you aren't running things, they would be worse than they are now.
 

Latest posts

Top