The Army's manpower squeeze

[babylonsister]

The Army's manpower squeeze

The service is being held together by lowered standards and bonuses. But for how much longer?
March 23, 2008


Everyone knows the U.S. Army is overstretched by the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dirty little secret is that nobody knows how much longer it can keep it up before its fighting capability declines. A year? Probably, with lowered recruiting standards and big bonuses. Three years? No one in Washington will answer that question. But recent indicators are making some tough generals queasy.

First, the good news. The Marine Corps and the Air Force are doing fine. They continue to attract capable young people, and they're managing to retain their top officer talent. And all of the services, including the Army, met or exceeded their recruitment goals for February, no small feat given the near certainty that those who enlist now will soon be sent to Iraq.

But a closer look shows just how far the Army has had to lower its standards to keep itself in soldiers. The following "metrics" -- data the military collects to assess its strength -- were compiled from open sources by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

In 2006, the percentage of Army recruits who were high school graduates (82%) was the lowest since 1981, and their scores on the military's aptitude test were the worst since 1985. The number of "moral waivers" issued to those with criminal records more than tripled since 1996, to 8,500 in 2006. Worse, the number of recruits with felony convictions was up 30% in 2006 compared with 2005. And the Army apparently stooped to social promotion: 94% of recruits graduated from basic training in 2006, compared with 82% in 2005.

Keeping the all-volunteer Army at full strength in wartime hasn't been cheap, either. The cost per troop soared to $120,000 in 2006 from $75,000 in 2001. And to keep reenlistments up, the Army had to pay retention bonuses of $735 million in 2006, up more than eightfold from the $85 million paid in 2003. Even so, officer shortages are a problem, and at the rank of http://http:\\ www.tinyurl.com/369jse "> www.tinyurl.com/369jse , the backbone of the command structure, the Army is at 60% strength in Iraq. Moreover, for the last year it hasn't had the 3,200 troops needed to fill a brigade designated as militarily "required" for Afghanistan.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-army23mar23,0,7045663.story

[noamnety]

1. This doesn't surprise me at all.

I occasionally read the forums at military.com, and in their recruitment section, typical questions asked everyday are:

"I was arrested when I was 17 on a misdemeanor, malicious mischief, domestic violence charge. I was charged, and then the charge was dropped. I joined the Navy and needed a waiver, because I had essentially admitted to the crime, but was never convicted. So my question is, would I be eligible to join the Army as an officer candidate and go to OCS."

"I am a 24 year old male, from CA. I am a parolee who has served time for assault charges. I have been out for over a year. Before my incarceration, I was misguided, immature, young man. ... My dilemma is that I want to join the Marine Corp, but I am still on parole."

(And just for fun, here's advice given to someone thinking about enlisting who writes: "I will also make sure any contract I look at will be seen by a lawyer specilizing in contracts."

Response: "unless you're a real dummy, YOU don't need a lawyer to read fine print for you.")