PDA

View Full Version : Army misses recruiting goal again, raises worry



LiberalNation
07-09-2007, 07:28 PM
For right now this seem like a big to do over nothing to me. Missing the goal for just 2 month isn't that big of deal if you've made them with room to spare the other 6.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070709/us_nm/usa_army_recruiting_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, strained by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, missed its recruiting goal for the second straight month in June, indicating a trend that some defense officials on Monday called worrying.

The Army will announce the monthly data on Tuesday. Army spokesmen would not discuss the specific figures.

But some defense officials said the Army significantly missed its June goal of 8,400 recruits. One official placed the shortfall at about 15 percent, a major gap for a typically strong month when recruiters normally find more willing young people fresh from high school graduation.

"We are fighting a war on two fronts," one Pentagon official said. "Parental support has declined. That's a big factor."

Another defense official called the numbers "concerning."

The Army had boasted strong recruiting numbers despite ongoing wars and rising casualty rates. But Pentagon polling data months ago started to show support for recruitment easing among parents and other people the military calls "influencers."

In May, the active-duty Army missed its recruiting goal for the first time this year. It signed up 5,101 new recruits, short of its goal of 5,500 for that month.

Still, Army spokesmen then said the Army was confident it would meet its fiscal 2007 goal of 80,000 new soldiers.

The Army is still exceeding its goals for the year, despite June's miss, defense officials said.

But if recruiting figures continue to decline at current rates, the gains notched earlier this year could disappear by next month, leaving the largest branch of the U.S. military at risk of missing its annual goals.

darin
07-09-2007, 07:46 PM
(sigh). "Defense officials" = Flunkies who just wanna feel like their opinion matters :)

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 08:15 PM
(sigh). "Defense officials" = Flunkies who just wanna feel like their opinion matters :)

They may have to do increased signing bonuses again.

darin
07-09-2007, 09:25 PM
Or just let things work out. :)

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 09:30 PM
Or just let things work out. :)

I dunno, they did the signing bonuses before and it worked really well.

Trigg
07-09-2007, 10:10 PM
"The Army is still exceeding its goals for the year, despite June's miss, defense officials said"

With this said farther down the article, why don't we just wait and see. Instead of jumping the gun half way through the year.

glockmail
07-09-2007, 10:13 PM
"The Army is still exceeding its goals for the year, despite June's miss, defense officials said"

With this said farther down the article, why don't we just wait and see. Instead of jumping the gun half way through the year.


Whouda thunk the editors, who write the headlines, would spin it in such a way to be negative of the US miliary?

nevadamedic
07-10-2007, 01:49 AM
Whouda thunk the editors, who write the headlines, would spin it in such a way to be negative of the US miliary?

They don't care about accuracy or our troops, they just care about a story.

darin
07-10-2007, 04:11 AM
...and a story to make our country look bad.

glockmail
07-10-2007, 08:53 AM
This story was repeated in my local rag this morning and was abbreviated to the point where the line "The Army is still exceeding its goals for the year, despite June's miss, defense officials said" was eliminated alltogether.

Monkeybone
07-10-2007, 02:56 PM
that is why they are offering up to $50,000 signing bonus YYYYEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!:salute:

diuretic
07-10-2007, 07:43 PM
Have a think about it. Why aren't people signing up? I suggest because the chances of getting killed in Iraq or Afghanistan are increasing.

Monkeybone
07-10-2007, 08:03 PM
that and probably parents D. that is why the Air Force has almost too many ppl

Gaffer
07-10-2007, 08:24 PM
They didn't mention that re-enlistments are up.

The article is purely to inspire the lefties to continue their bullshit. It's a pat on the back to them saying "keep up the good work".

diuretic
07-10-2007, 08:25 PM
They didn't mention that re-enlistments are up.

The article is purely to inspire the lefties to continue their bullshit. It's a pat on the back to them saying "keep up the good work".

Why would Reuters do that?

Gaffer
07-10-2007, 08:34 PM
Why would Reuters do that?

Why do they doctor photos and use phoney sources for stories?

diuretic
07-10-2007, 08:43 PM
Why do they doctor photos and use phoney sources for stories?

Little buggers they had working for them eh? I think they sacked them for doing that. It's unforgiveable of course.

But back to my question - what would motivate Reuters to take a stance on the Iraq War one way or the other? I mean you made the point that the article is to "inspire the Lefties". Why would Reuters bother? No gain in it for them I think.

Gunny
07-10-2007, 10:34 PM
Good thing we got libnat to ensure no piece of negative media coverage about the military is missed.

nevadamedic
07-10-2007, 10:39 PM
Good thing we got libnat to ensure no piece of negative media coverage about the military is missed.

:laugh2: