Navy & Air Force Recruiting numbers surge while Army, Marines struggle

On the front page of the USA Today this morning

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede24.art.htm

Shouldn't be a real shocker, considering that's the usual pattern in peace time, given the duties of each branch. But the War in Iraq and ongoing activities in Afghanistan hasn't completely dulled the will of young men and women to go serve their country.

The bullet at the end of the story on retention rates is surprising to me, given all the negative press about troop morale.

Quote:

---

Recruits swamp Navy, Air Force
Army and Marines struggle with goals
By Dave Moniz
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — While the Army and the Marine Corps are straining to meet their yearly recruiting goals, the Air Force and the Navy are having banner years and may wind up turning away thousands of potential recruits.

The Air Force says it is so overstocked that it has a backlog of about 9,000 enlistees who have not yet been called to duty. It has slashed its 2005 recruiting target from 35,000 to 24,000. Together, the Air Force and Navy say they are planning to reduce the total number of troops by more than 27,000 in 2005. In contrast, the Army and the Marine Corps, which are providing the bulk of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, are adding more than 12,000 troops this year.

One of the primary reasons the Air Force and the Navy are so flush with troops and willing recruits, personnel experts say, is that those branches have suffered relatively few casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think the most obvious explanation is that you're less likely to be killed or wounded in the Navy or Air Force,” says Richard Kohn, a professor at the University of North Carolina who studies military culture.

Of the more than 1,350 U.S. deaths during the Iraq war, 41 have come from the Air Force and the Navy, according to a Defense Department breakdown of war deaths. The vast majority of those killed are active Army and Marine Corps troops and reservists from those two branches.

The four military branches say they have no way to directly measure the effect that war injuries and deaths are having on each service's recruiting. “There is no way to quantify it, no block on an application that you can check for that,” says Maj. Dave Griesmer, a Marine Corps spokesman.

Both the Marines and the Army say they expect to meet their recruiting goals this year but acknowledge it will be difficult.

There are other reasons for the bounty of personnel in the Air Force and the Navy and the strains facing the Army and Marine Corps:

•The Navy and the Air Force traditionally have more high-tech jobs that give enlistees valuable skills when they leave for civilian work. Even in peacetime, the Navy and the Air Force typically have an easier time recruiting than the Army and the Marines.

•Overall retention rates in the military have risen sharply since 9/11 and are well above historic levels in the Air Force and the Navy.

• The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been labor intensive for the Army and the Marines, the nation's primary ground combat forces. In contrast, the Navy and the Air Force have largely played a supporting role since major combat in Iraq ended in May 2003.

---

I got some Army recruiting junk mail just last week.. I don't think they realize my age :lol:

I wouldn't be surprised if some enlistees in the Air Force have missed the news that large numbers from their branch are being re-assigned to the Army after basic training. Haven't heard whether that's happening in the Navy, that's just the scuttlebutt here in my city with 3 AF bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unassisted

I wouldn't be surprised if some enlistees in the Air Force have missed the news that large numbers from their branch are being re-assigned to the Army after basic training. Haven't heard whether that's happening in the Navy, that's just the scuttlebutt here in my city with 3 AF bases.

---

That may be a little shady ethically, but I'm sure the lengthy military service contract has provisions for that. As long as they are serving in similiar jobs that they enlisted for in the Air Force after they transfer over to the Army I don't have any real problem with that.

But now if they are getting shifted from one branch where, say they are Rear Eschelon guys in the Air Force and suddenly they are infantry in the Army, I have a serious problem with that. That's deception of 18-20 year old young adults who are most likely signing their first legal contract when they join, getting trapped by folks who know better.

We have an all volunteer force for a reason.

Do you have any links to recent stories about that UA? I'm extremely interested in hearing more about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcclain19

Do you have any links to recent stories about that UA? I'm extremely interested in hearing more about it.

---

Wash Times, September 30
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2138-5753r.htm

"The Air Force three months ago exceeded a goal of retaining 55 percent of first-termers, garnering 68 percent. In fact, the branch is 20,000 over its budget-authorized personnel strength and is transferring some airmen to the Army. "

There was a long article about this in the local paper back in the fall, but I think it's not on the web site anymore. IIRC, some airmen were being transferred to infantry units and were not happy about it - at least they were less than enthusiastic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unassisted

I wouldn't be surprised if some enlistees in the Air Force have missed the news that large numbers from their branch are being re-assigned to the Army after basic training.

---

Yet their retention rates are 'are well above historic levels'. If enlistees really felt they were getting screwed, I doubt that would be the case.

Reading that story, it could be anyone, considering they just call them "Airmen" meaning it could be any rank readjusting.

I just worry about the 18-20 year old signing the enlistment contract thinking he'll be a B-1 Mechanic and suddenly he's going to jump training to be a paratrooper, and since he signed the contract he's bound to serve where ever they assign him.

I don't know if that is the case, in fact I'm leaning, reading that story, that it's the opposite. I just always worry about our young men and women who sign over their lives to serve our country. Want to make sure they are taken care of in the right way, after making that tough decision.

My cousin is joining the Marines in a few months. :thumbup:

sadly, recruiters have been lying to young people for years.

Had a buddy that agreed to serve on a sub in the Navy on the condition that he could be stationed in Charleston (near his wife). Well, after his training, they put him in Charleston,SC for 6 weeks, then shipped him to San Deigo for the rest of his term (5 years, I think). Had he known that, there's no chance he would've signed up for subs.

Many similiar stories too. Those recruiters lie more than used car salesmen.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if some enlistees in the Air Force have missed the news that large numbers from their branch are being re-assigned to the Army after basic training.

---

My best firend is an Air Force SSgt. and he and his unit have been attached to an army divison. He shipped out yesterday.

He was security in the AF, but he did not know (i.e. wouldn't tell) what he will be doing in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuEconRedLeg

My best firend is an Air Force SSgt. and he and his unit have been attached to an army divison. He shipped out yesterday.

He was security in the AF, but he did not know (i.e. wouldn't tell) what he will be doing in Iraq.

---

They're not part of the Army's personnel strength numbers, however, they are assigned to Army units to augment the Army's manpower numbers and needs.

Even though I hate democrats if one were in office I would be in the Marine Corp right now. I wished I would have joined out of high school cause I would have been in there under Clinton. I almost joined in 2000 (thank God I didn't).

Quote:

---

Yet their retention rates are 'are well above historic levels'. If enlistees really felt they were getting screwed, I doubt that would be the case.

---

How much of this record-setting retention is due to the controversial "Stop Loss" program?

If I'm reading that right, the overall size is being reduced. The context of the article is that the AF and Navy is so flush they're throwing recruits back but this sentence...

Quote:

---

Together, the Air Force and Navy say they are planning to reduce the total number of troops by more than 27,000 in 2005.

---

....seems to say that the overall personnel level for those two branches is being reduced. Perhaps that has something to do with the reduction of European forces or maybe it does have something to do with Iraq.

Quote:

---

In contrast, the Army and the Marine Corps, which are providing the bulk of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, are adding more than 12,000 troops this year.

---

In other word, your choices are A)Army, B) Marine Corps and C) "Would you like fries with that?"

Quote:

---

Yet their retention rates are 'are well above historic levels'. If enlistees really felt they were getting screwed, I doubt that would be the case.

---

For the AF and Navy, it says. "Overall" retention rates have "risen sharply since 9/11". Not since the war began, but since 9/11.

After 17 years, free Bachelor's and Master's degree, 16 foreign countries, 15 months in the Gulf and sailed all the way around the world, it's still the greatest armed service.