Shot In The Dark: Coming Up Short on Context

October 06, 2005

Coming Up Short on Context

The media is in full "spike the ball in the end zone" mode; the Army missed its recuiting goal for the year.

Disaster, right?

First, the primary reason for the shortfall is the fact that the Army was trying to grow this year. According to AP reports, several members of Congress believe the Army needs to expand by 50,000 soldiers in order to take some of the burden off of those currently serving in the Middle East. In pursuit of this goal, the Army increased its recruiting goal this year to 80,000 from 72,000 last year. This 8,000-recruit increase puts the 7,000 recruit shortfall into a context that many media accounts are missing.

Second, media accounts have focused on the war in Iraq as the main cause for the recruiting shortfall. Evidence indicates that the strong economy was a more influential factor. The Army last missed its recruiting goals in 1999, coming up 6,290 recruits short. There was no war in 1999. Rather, the economy was growing and providing competitive opportunities for people who would otherwise consider enlisting.

Don't be silly - it happened more than thirty days ago. It's off the radar.

Posted by Mitch at October 6, 2005 06:50 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Read the same article on NRO a little while ago. The author seems to be advocating level headed reasoning and problem-solving.

Imagine that.

There's something that doesn't get a lot of press these days.

Posted by: goldpython at October 6, 2005 07:56 AM

Mitch said,

"The media is in full "spike the ball in the end zone" mode; the Army missed its recuiting goal for the year."

Really? Where?

I did a search on Army recruiting goals and found one hit at FOX from September 13th. Stuff from February, March, and May.

Media spiking the ball??? I think maybe your analysis is a bit exagerated for effect Mitch.

By the way, just where is that booming economy you guys keep refering to?

Hope you are feeling better. We had some crud winding its way through our family last week and it took a while to get over it...

Posted by: Doug at October 6, 2005 09:34 AM

Mitch, first I agree with Doug, it's hardly the Media's fault that we are in a war where the Nat.Guard and Reserves are getting attritted by injury and are growing weary.

I can promise you, despite serving 12 years and understanding my duty full well, if I were asked to serve 18 months, come home for 4 months, and then serve 18 more months, I'd darn sure not re-enlist, not with 2 kids 10 and under, and not with the original premise of service limited to critical strategic threats, of which Iraq falls FAR short, regardless of your view of "the front line of the war on terrorism." We have not sacrificed strategically (economically) or at the top of the social/economic order, and asking soldiers to give up almost 4 years of their lives for a war they cannot know will be won, is absurd.

The fact is, whether you want to bring it up or not, re-enlistment by prior service soldiers has fallen by more than 30% since 2002. In times of war, that is unprescedented, as the call of patriotism and country is strong. So spin it however you like, but as someone who knows DOZENS of soldiers with more than 10 years of service, I can tell you they are fed up, and so am I.

Posted by: PB at October 6, 2005 10:56 AM