I have heard that the recruitment age has been raised to 39.  So, any of you men want to pony up?  I think I recall a conversation around here sometime back considering it....

I wish I could agree with your interpretation.  Good news is certainly coming out of Iraq, but there’s still lots of bad news coming out of Iraq.  Even other die-hardwarmongers have noticed.  A major difference is that during the worst of the fighting, there was more hope for a serious reduction in the violence.  Every couple of months there seemed to be some event which the pro-war side (and let me be clear, I’m still on the pro-war side) pointed to and thought, “Well, the insurgency will be significantly reduced real soon.” Remember when Saddam Hussein was caught? 

Ugh, I’m starting to ramble.  I have 2 broad points:  1) the news from Iraq is still pretty negative.  And though I have nothing but respect for those who serve, I think we can be honest and say that there are some people in the Armed Forces that didn’t join to fight, and will be discouraged from joining given the current optempo, and that’s going to have an effect on recruitment.  2) There’s the effect of 9/11 on the pool of recruits.  A lot of able-bodied patriots joined or made plans to join after that, and have had 3 years to do so.  I’d imagine recruiters are really only able to look at high-school graduates (and to lesser extent college graduates, if current college grads didn’t join after 9/11 to serve their country and get college paid for, they’re not likely to join now.) Not that that’s much of a change, but now there’s a war on, and joining up for college money is much less appealing (see point 1).

That said, I think concern over recruiting is overblown.  Mainly because I’ve seen too many dishonest stories in the news.  They’re generally of the form “The Army/Marines have only been able to recruit 70/80/90% of their goals, and, oh, let’s not point out that we’re only 30/40/50% of the way through the particular period those goals are for.” As far as the numbers are concerned, I am in some ways impressed that they’ve managed to keep recruitment levels so high.  Over 3 years of war, incredibly negative coverage for nearly as long, daily reports of soldiers dying, and the Army has just now missed a monthly recruiting goal!  I am frankly amazed that anyone would join the Reserve or Guard instead of the regular Army after their use in the war.  Anyway, I figure reporting will return to the form above, until they meet their recruiting goals for the year, which will be unreported.

I understand your points, but I still think that my analysis is better than the journalist’s. Here’s my reasoning as to why: when even very left leaning journalists are writing about the good things in Iraq and the potential need to give George Bush credit for doing good things, you know that the tone of the conversation has changed. Even when Hussein was captured, the overall mood didn’t seem to change--I never ran into anyone who thought that his capture would suddenly solve all the problems of Iraq. But since the election, the mood truly seems to have shifted.

That isn’t to say that there isn’t bad news coming out of Iraq (although, honestly, I don’t understand Michele’s view on this: we’ve moved past daily lists of American dead, kidnappings, and beheadings--compared to that extended period, it’s hard to not feel better about the way things are going). My point is that the general public seems far less worried about Iraq and about terrorism in general than they were a year ago or half a year ago or even a few months ago. Most of that has to do, I believe, with elation following the elections in Iraq and may well be divorced from the reality of the situation in Iraq (although, again, I think it’s hard to argue that the situation hasn’t improved over the last six months).

Recruitment targets were hit during the beheadings and even when support for the war was at its lowest--but now, when deadly attacks against Americans have been reduced, when no one is on the al Jazeera getting their heads severed from their bodies, and when the country seems to feel better about Bush’s Middle East policies, recruitment is becoming a tougher sell.

I think the mood has changed--and I think that recruitment is tougher when people feel safer and happier.

But even if you disagree with all of that, the fact remains that the journalist was wrong: recruitment during the war hasn’t been tough. It was absolutely fine for the past three years--the absolute worst of the combat.

I do absolutely believe that some of the current members of the armed forces didn’t sign up for combat; they signed up for benefits when they thought there was no chance to actually be thrown into a war. But I don’t think that 9/11 accounts for the whole three years of recruitment--or, at least, not directly. 9/11 accounted for an initial surge, no doubt, but the belief in conservative circles that Saddam Hussein needed to be defeated to help make us safer (either by denying him weapons of mass destruction or by asserting that first, meaningful, political change in the Middle East that would hopefully lead to broader changes) helped drive another surge. That threat has been minimized tremendously and there aren’t too many people who honestly believe that we’re about to take on North Korea, Syria, or Iran--the need for fresh soldiers from the public standpoint is minimized as well.

Anyway, I know that this probably won’t convince you that I’m right, but it’s the way I thought my way through the article and the blanket statement that recruitment in times of war was tough.

Speaking of which, because we weren’t, you’re going to be at the bash, right?

Oh hell yeah I’ll be at the Bash.  In fact, let’s just say that I’m trying to “get in shpae” for it right now (typo not corrected.).  Keeping in “fighting trim”, as it were. I even had an idea for a graphic that I may or not do before or after the event I figured I’ll bring those books for you.  Forget about the Mugabe book, I’ve got a long reading list.  I’ll try and respond further, somewhat more substantively, after a good night’s sleep and plenty of water.

Rereading your post, I do see your point.  I think I was just in a cynical mood, and your post was quite optimistic.  Then again, I am in no shpae to judge rite now (You don’t know how many typos that used to contain.  I think I’m going to enjoy this Bash!)

If I understand it correctly, the monthly recruitment goals are set by taking the yearly recruitment goals and dividing by 12.  There are certainly surges and ebbs in the normal cycle of recruting.

So what else is going on that might impact recruiting?  Well, bunches of people are waiting to see which college they got into...or if.  I’d like to see if Jan-Apr is usually a slow time, with a surge from May-Aug to catch up to goals, as I assume.  That would have been some nice context for the reporter to give, if they were, you know, trying to actually inform instead of indoctrinate.

That doesn’t mean it’s no big deal to have missed the goal.  But there are ways to make up the shortfall.  Heck, they can just increase the retention bonuses to encourage people to stay in.  That’s a common technique.

Now, the big problem is the unwillingness of veterans to join the reserves/guard after their enlistment.  People who want out just want out.  They don’t want to get out, get a job, and then get activated for a year or more.

The reserves aren’t really working like they were intended, not for the GWOT.

I have heard that the recruitment age has been raised to 39.

From 38.

At this rate, by the time they get it up to 43 I’ll be 73 or thereabouts.

I agree with you that the journalist was wrong, but I still think you’re wrong on current public opinion.  Eventually I think we’ll see the situation you’re describing, I just don’t think we’re there yet.

Now if we have another month or two of news like this then I think we’ll be there.

McGehee- I had heard it was raised from 34?  (Or was that humor?)