Do you have a source for the military’s enlistment rate? Not as a percentage of the DoD’s goals but the actual enlistment rate.

…”They all volunteered for it, in fact.”

Amen, brother. I’m a successful 40 year old women – and I wish I had joined when I was younger – I think my life would have been richer for it. I have teenage sons – if they join, I don’t think I could put in to words my pride……As for Olby -
You sir, owe us an apology for your horrible impression of Edward R. Murrow
I can’t wait for his meltdown next week…… Just like in 2004 – add ‘im to the list of great meltdowns – Lawrence O’Donnell about the Swifty’s – that was a great one. Dean’s screams – always fun to hear.
Susan Estrich on election night in her screechy voice – “I can’t believe this, I don’t understand what’s going on!!!” – loved it!!
I wonder what he’ll do……hmm???

Preston are you referring to the re-enlistment rates for the military?

I don’t know what you mean by enlistment rates, as a rate has to be “rated” against something else — unless you are referring to hard enlistment numbers (i.e., in 2005, x-number of Soldiers joined the US Army, etc.)

Yes- I left off the ‘re’.

Are you saying John Kerry never fought in a war? Hm..

OK- just to be clear- how do you know that the military is achieving record re-enlistment rates if you don’t know what the rates are?

Actually, I do know. My brother is a Station Commander for a US Army Recruiting Station, and we have discussed re-enlistments — and specifically battelfield re-enlistments — on numerous occassions. He’s told me repeatedly that the US Army has re-enlistment rates that far outstrip the Army’s goals or forecasts. I’ll take my brother’s first-hand knowledge over a “story” I might have read in the NY Times.

But…in addition to that, I have also read other reports (from other Mil Bloggers, to include other recruiters as well as Senior NCOs and Officers in the field) that describe the unprecedented re-enlistment rates.

I’ve also read enough news stories that explain that this is indeed what is going on: Soldiers are re-enlisting to continue to fight in this war. And if you doubt that the Soldiers are re-enlisting specifically to stay and fight this war, then here’s a link from a fairly valid source (the United States Department of Defense):

Retention is another story and a bright spot in the picture. In units that have deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, the re-enlistment rate actually is higher than in units that have not deployed.

CollegeRecruiter has an interesting story here about Battling Turnover Rates in the corporate world. The article says that there are lessons to be learned from the US Army:

But apparently, the Army has found ways to battle turnover rates and retain its soldiers. Over the last three years, re-enlistment rates have been at least six percent higher than the Army’s goals. The troops re-enlist knowing they will return to Iraq and other hotspots and once again be risking their lives. Are they doing it for the money, the glamour, the prestige? Well, the Army is paying its people bonuses for re-enlisting, but I think that few would argue that anyone fighting the war in Iraq is going to stay in the Army for a few thousand dollars more a year.

What is it that the Army is doing so right and what can corporations learn from the Army’s ability to retain its personnel despite those people being forced to be able from their families for months or even years at a time, sleeping on the ground, and constantly dodging improvised explosive devices (IEDs), bullets, mortars, and scorpions? Why is that so many organizations, which do not ask their people to risk their lives, are having significant problems retaining the most talented and productive employees?

Do you really doubt that the Army is doing exceptionally well in the re-enlistment arena? Are you skeptical because it’s only “against the Army’s own goals”? What do you base your skeptisicm on?

Are you skeptical because it’s only “against the Army’s own goals”? What do you base your skeptisicm on?

I’m not necessarily skeptical- I’m just curious. (And I will say that it’s absurd to claim that re-enlistment rates are historically high if no one actually knows that the rate is.

Doing a little google search I found that the ‘adjusted’ re-enlistment rate averaged in the 60-70 percent range through most of the 1980’s before topping that regularly in the 1990’s.

It would be interesting to compare but the current numbers are very difficult to find.

Actually, I’ll amend my statement- I think it’s only difficult to find the numbers for the Marines and Army. For instance this article discusses the Navy’s reenlistment in absolute numbers but the Marines as a percentage of ‘goals’:
The Marine Corps continued their strong performance in this area by meeting their retention goals for the 14th consecutive year, for both first-term and career Marines. Navy retention numbers for CY 2004 remained strong, exceeding goals in Zone B with 70.4%, and Zone C with 85.6% retention. The Navy’s Zone A reenlistment rate was 54.4%, which reflects Perform-to-Serve initiatives and early release programs that create a more experienced, better trained, and smaller force.

I also found some numbers for the Air Force but nothing for the branches that are bearing the brunt of service in Iraq. I guess I’m forced to raise the alert level from GREEN, “Curious” to YELLOW, “Skeptical”.

Here’s the link.

If anyone bothered to read the actual speech Kerry screwed up it is quite evident it wasn’t a shot at the troops. When I first heard the statement I too thought it had to do with something else.

Particularly the fact that highschool student records are provided to recruiters. (Which they are) This is why students who don’t do well end up in Iraq. Is that a shot at everyone who signs up? NO WAY! but it is a sad commentary on american society and the commitment to the education of their youth. No Student Left Behind, because we will scoop ‘em up and send them to Iraq.

Keith is not really much of a reporter. i still remember him from when he was with Sportscenter. he knows nothing of any war or anything political for that matter.