Full Version: Street Corner Recruiting
I just went to the post office a few moments ago. I have lived in the same mixed neighborhood for more than a decade. I am three blocks west of Hulen Street, one of the main north/south traffic arteries in the city. As I turned right/north onto Hulen I noticed Army recruiter – official car and a card table set-up on a convenience store parking lot. It reminded me of the lemonade stands kids sometimes erect or some of the people you see with “will work for food” signs.
Questions for debate:
1. Is the U. S. military near the point decimation?
2. Do you think this is a viable method of recruiting? Why or why not?
3. Do you think this type recruiting cheapens the image of the U. S. Army? Why or why not?
Questions for debate:
1. Is the U. S. military near the point decimation?
2. Do you think this is a viable method of recruiting? Why or why not?
3. Do you think this type recruiting cheapens the image of the U. S. Army? Why or why not?
1. Is the U. S. military near the point decimation?
It’s not at the point of decimation, but it’s heading down the path to becoming hollow. Very many more tours in Iraq, extended or otherwise, and the wear on equipment are going to contribute to a force that is dispirited and unmotivated, which leads to disciplinary problems. The last thing I want to see is a return to the force of the 1970’s.
I agree with the desire to increase the size of the military, because new life is going to have to be infused. But as long as we remain in a never ending Iraq/Afghanistan deployment cycle, I don’t see too many qualified candidate beating down the door to recruiting offices.
2. Do you think this is a viable method of recruiting? Why or why not?
I don’t consider it to be viable for the type of recruits that we want. For FY 2007, after missing some months of goals, the Army made its yearly goal, but only by decreasing standards. Instead of the DoD standard of 90% of enlistees with at least a high school diploma, this year only 76% made that standard. Add to that a higher percentage of enlistees with criminal records, drug or alcohol problems, or health conditions that would have ordinarily disqualified them from service.
The Army has handed out waivers like crack to school kids since 2004.
3. Do you think this type recruiting cheapens the image of the U. S. Army? Why or why not?
The Army already has a NASCAR car, a video game and gives away trinkets on the internet. How much more tacky can we get? I guess a lemonade stand type of recruiting drive may be the peak.
It’s not at the point of decimation, but it’s heading down the path to becoming hollow. Very many more tours in Iraq, extended or otherwise, and the wear on equipment are going to contribute to a force that is dispirited and unmotivated, which leads to disciplinary problems. The last thing I want to see is a return to the force of the 1970’s.
I agree with the desire to increase the size of the military, because new life is going to have to be infused. But as long as we remain in a never ending Iraq/Afghanistan deployment cycle, I don’t see too many qualified candidate beating down the door to recruiting offices.
2. Do you think this is a viable method of recruiting? Why or why not?
I don’t consider it to be viable for the type of recruits that we want. For FY 2007, after missing some months of goals, the Army made its yearly goal, but only by decreasing standards. Instead of the DoD standard of 90% of enlistees with at least a high school diploma, this year only 76% made that standard. Add to that a higher percentage of enlistees with criminal records, drug or alcohol problems, or health conditions that would have ordinarily disqualified them from service.
The Army has handed out waivers like crack to school kids since 2004.
3. Do you think this type recruiting cheapens the image of the U. S. Army? Why or why not?
The Army already has a NASCAR car, a video game and gives away trinkets on the internet. How much more tacky can we get? I guess a lemonade stand type of recruiting drive may be the peak.
2. Do you think this is a viable method of recruiting? Why or why not?
In the 1973-1974, I had a temporary civilian counselor’s job on a Texas air base. My primary job was to enroll and supervise personnel, who had not graduated from high school, in attainment of a GED.
My supervisor sent me TDY to a conference in San Antonio. There I learned that more non-high school graduates would be coming into the Air Force. This coincided with abolishing the draft.
When I returned and told my supervisor about this development, he got angry with me.
It sounds like history may be repeating itself.
I have a question for those who are in a position to know - maybe DTOM or MrsP. Is this a recurring pattern when recruitment numbers are down or something relatively new?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Dec 6 2007, 07:26 PM) 
I don’t consider it to be viable for the type of recruits that we want. For FY 2007, after missing some months of goals, the Army made its yearly goal, but only by decreasing standards. Instead of the DoD standard of 90% of enlistees with at least a high school diploma, this year only 76% made that standard. Add to that a higher percentage of enlistees with criminal records, drug or alcohol problems, or health conditions that would have ordinarily disqualified them from service.
The Army has handed out waivers like crack to school kids since 2004.
The Army has handed out waivers like crack to school kids since 2004.
In the 1973-1974, I had a temporary civilian counselor’s job on a Texas air base. My primary job was to enroll and supervise personnel, who had not graduated from high school, in attainment of a GED.
My supervisor sent me TDY to a conference in San Antonio. There I learned that more non-high school graduates would be coming into the Air Force. This coincided with abolishing the draft.
When I returned and told my supervisor about this development, he got angry with me.
It sounds like history may be repeating itself.I have a question for those who are in a position to know - maybe DTOM or MrsP. Is this a recurring pattern when recruitment numbers are down or something relatively new?
The Airforce isn't in the same shape as the army. Well, they are undermanned but for different reasons. They actually very recently laid off several thousand personnel, which was a bad idea but they aren't going to recruit higher numbers for a while. They spent their money on new planes (and the F15s are now grounded for falling apart in the sky). Their tasking has changed since the (second) Iraq war and most of them actually aren't deployed as much as they used to be, paradoxically. Those who are usually deploy only in five month blocks, rather than the army's year and a half...so it's still pretty easy to recruit, but they don't have the money to recruit (and don't deserve it because they spent it stupidly).
From what I've heard the army is really hurting. When we were in DC last year, we lived near a lot of army...some high ranking army, several of whom are in charge of brigades now. Another close friend of ours is air force, but worked with the Army (in Afghanistan), he is a wing commander now. All agree the army is hurting, and it isn't rocket science why.
First, the pool of qualified candidates has shrunk. Only a quarter of our youths between 17-24 are eligible for military service due medical conditions, drug/alcohol use, low aptitude scores, or criminal records. Then, of those eligible, we have to find those willing to serve. So the military has responded by lowering recruitment standards, raising age limits, making basic training easier to pass, and increasing incentives for both retention and recruitment.
The military lifestyle is hard, even without Iraq and Afghanistan. I have just received notice that we will be moving yet again (our fourth move in four years). My husband will be stationed in New Mexico in April. That's less than nine months we'll have lived here, or supposedly 'longterm location' (even bought a house. Ouch.)....Long hours, undermanning, lots of deployments, physically taxing, hard on families....
Then enter these seemingly endless wars into the equation and it can become hard to tolerate, let alone volunteer for. How much would you sell your legs or arms for? Particularly when you know you're risking your neck for no directly beneficial cause, a cause that few people can agree upon, let alone support?
From what I've heard the army is really hurting. When we were in DC last year, we lived near a lot of army...some high ranking army, several of whom are in charge of brigades now. Another close friend of ours is air force, but worked with the Army (in Afghanistan), he is a wing commander now. All agree the army is hurting, and it isn't rocket science why.
First, the pool of qualified candidates has shrunk. Only a quarter of our youths between 17-24 are eligible for military service due medical conditions, drug/alcohol use, low aptitude scores, or criminal records. Then, of those eligible, we have to find those willing to serve. So the military has responded by lowering recruitment standards, raising age limits, making basic training easier to pass, and increasing incentives for both retention and recruitment.
The military lifestyle is hard, even without Iraq and Afghanistan. I have just received notice that we will be moving yet again (our fourth move in four years). My husband will be stationed in New Mexico in April. That's less than nine months we'll have lived here, or supposedly 'longterm location' (even bought a house. Ouch.)....Long hours, undermanning, lots of deployments, physically taxing, hard on families....
Then enter these seemingly endless wars into the equation and it can become hard to tolerate, let alone volunteer for. How much would you sell your legs or arms for? Particularly when you know you're risking your neck for no directly beneficial cause, a cause that few people can agree upon, let alone support?
1. Is the U. S. military near the point decimation?
I doubt it. Decimation usually does not come from gargantuan spending increasing with are the new bottom and expected to be held a time moves forward.
2. Do you think this is a viable method of recruiting? Why or why not?
For putting warm bodies in the line of fire yes. For building competence, not so much. Depends on what type of army you are after I guess.
3. Do you think this type recruiting cheapens the image of the U. S. Army? Why or why not?
I think cheapens is the wrong word. They are simply providing easy access for a disinterested population in an attempt to dance around a draft.
I doubt it. Decimation usually does not come from gargantuan spending increasing with are the new bottom and expected to be held a time moves forward.
2. Do you think this is a viable method of recruiting? Why or why not?
For putting warm bodies in the line of fire yes. For building competence, not so much. Depends on what type of army you are after I guess.
3. Do you think this type recruiting cheapens the image of the U. S. Army? Why or why not?
I think cheapens is the wrong word. They are simply providing easy access for a disinterested population in an attempt to dance around a draft.
The recruiter was not in this spot today. I don’t know whether this was policy or just an individual recruiter using it as a tool.
I think that - like the sports watch offered a while back - it’s cheesy at best.
I mail my friend at the Fort Worth Star Telegram about the issue. He’s had never heard of this before either and has forwarded the matter to the news desk
I think that - like the sports watch offered a while back - it’s cheesy at best.
I mail my friend at the Fort Worth Star Telegram about the issue. He’s had never heard of this before either and has forwarded the matter to the news desk
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.