Candorville 1-27-2006
Detox
Sorry Darrin. I don't believe that to be the case.
The Army's recruiting goal this year is 80,000. Same as last year.
Additionally, the entire recruiting story was a big nothing last year.
If you look at total military recruiting, the shortfall was pretty
minimal. The Corps exceeded expectations and I'm pretty sure the Air
Force and Navy did as well.
Also, all of the military did very well in terms of re-enlistments for
FY2005. In the case of the Army, re-enlistments almost covered the
shortfall in new recruits. And....here's the big
surprise....re-enlistment rates were strongest among units that had
served in Iraq.
Curiously, there seemed to be more stories about the shortfall in new
recruits than there were about the increasing retention rates.
The Army did cut their recruiting goal for May last year, but kept the
overall 80,000 goal for the year.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
As I lay back looking up at the stars, I thought to myself, "Where the
heck is the ceiling?"
Darrin Bell
Detox wrote:
> http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20060127.html
>
> Sorry Darrin. I don't believe that to be the case.
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/01/17/army_aims_high_with_recruiting_goals/
>
> The Army's recruiting goal this year is 80,000. Same as last year.
>
> Additionally, the entire recruiting story was a big nothing last year.
> If you look at total military recruiting, the shortfall was pretty
> minimal. The Corps exceeded expectations and I'm pretty sure the Air
> Force and Navy did as well.
>
> Also, all of the military did very well in terms of re-enlistments for
> FY2005. In the case of the Army, re-enlistments almost covered the
> shortfall in new recruits. And....here's the big
> surprise....re-enlistment rates were strongest among units that had
> served in Iraq.
>
> Curiously, there seemed to be more stories about the shortfall in new
> recruits than there were about the increasing retention rates.
>
> The Army did cut their recruiting goal for May last year, but kept the
> overall 80,000 goal for the year.
Thanks for posting, Dann. I'll have to post my response this evening
(after I meet my deadline).
Andrew Ryan Chang
>http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20060127.html
>
>Sorry Darrin. I don't believe that to be the case.
>
>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/01/17/army_aims_high_with_recruiting_goals/
>
>The Army's recruiting goal this year is 80,000. Same as last year.
>
>Additionally, the entire recruiting story was a big nothing last year.
>If you look at total military recruiting, the shortfall was pretty
>minimal.
Is that why the Army relaxed its yearly caps on "category 4"
recruits a while back -- from 2% to 4% -- and then took in _double-digit_
cat 4 recruits in November and December 2005? Because it's all a big
nothing?
--
This forms a three-dimensional object known as a "cube", or a
"Frinkahedron" in honor of its discoverer, n'hey, n'hey.
-- Prof Frink, "Treehouse of Horror VI"
4rag...@gmail.com
"Curiously, there seemed to be more stories about the shortfall in new
recruits than there were about the increasing retention rates."
Yeah, damn liberal media never gets it right, retention is up!
US Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty
Darrin Bell
Detox wrote:
> http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20060127.html
>
> Sorry Darrin. I don't believe that to be the case.
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/01/17/army_aims_high_with_recruiting_goals/
>
> The Army's recruiting goal this year is 80,000. Same as last year.
The only reason the Army met its June goal was to lower it from 6650 to
5650.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-army-recruiting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
They went on to miss their annual goal by at least 6600 soldiers.
"Fiscal 2005 marked the first time the Army fell short of an annual
recruiting goal since 1999 and was one of its poorest recruiting
performances since the birth of the all-volunteer military in 1973
during the tumult of the Vietnam War era."
-Reuters0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/arms_usa_recruiting_dc
> Additionally, the entire recruiting story was a big nothing last year.
> If you look at total military recruiting, the shortfall was pretty
> minimal. The Corps exceeded expectations and I'm pretty sure the Air
> Force and Navy did as well.
If you look at this graphic from Stars & Stripes, you'll notice that
recruiting goals for the other branches are significantly lower than
those for the Army. And not to disparge the Air Force or the Navy, but
in this battle, neither branch faces the conditions faced by the Army
or Marines. Marine recruitment met its targets, but the story was about
Army recruitment, not the entire military. The Army National Guard fell
even shorter:
image: http://www.stripes.com/05/oct05/recruit1013.jpg
story:
http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=&article=31389&archive=true
This is troubling because of the increased signing bonuses and other
lengths the Army went through to expand their pool of recruits.
"After missing its recruitment goal this year by nearly 7,000 troops,
the widest margin since 1979, the Army has announced a revision of
recruitment tactics. It is now accepting a greater number of less
qualified applicants, doubling the amount of so-called Category 4
troops, those men and women who score low in the aptitude tests from 2
percent of the class to 4 percent."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9598242/
> Also, all of the military did very well in terms of re-enlistments for
> FY2005. In the case of the Army, re-enlistments almost covered the
> shortfall in new recruits. And....here's the big
> surprise....re-enlistment rates were strongest among units that had
> served in Iraq.
That's re-enlistments. Stop-loss programs and the beratement many get
when they decide to leave aside, here's a good article about why some
soldiers re-enlist. It may have less to do with support for Bush's
policies than with the comeraderie abroad and the respect they receive
when they come back home.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html
Re-enlistments are entirely different than new enlistments. I'd like to
see someone do a study examining whether the re-enlistees are mostly
career military who plan on staying in the army long enough to earn a
pension, or whether they're mostly the short-timers who serve 6 years
or so and then go on to a civilian career. My guess is it would be the
former.
> Curiously, there seemed to be more stories about the shortfall in new
> recruits than there were about the increasing retention rates.
>
> The Army did cut their recruiting goal for May last year, but kept the
> overall 80,000 goal for the year.
It missed its recruiting goal last year. And the Army lowered its
recruiting goals for the first few months of fiscal year 2006 (which is
when it reported meeting its goals). They are keeping the 80,000 annual
goal, but only hope to meet it by increasing their summer goals, when
it may be easier to recruit soldiers.
"Even within the Defense Department, few suggest that the Army has seen
its way through the crisis. Instead, what the Army has done is backload
the goals for its recruiting year, which runs from October through next
September.
For instance, last fiscal year, the Army's October recruiting goal was
6,935 recruits; this year it dropped to 4,700. To make up the
difference, the Army will look to sign up more recruits next summer:
Last July it sought to bring in 7,450 soldiers; next July it is seeking
10,450, an extra 3,000."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1215/p02s01-usmi.html
I don't know if missing the goal suggests a widespread lack of support
for the President's policies, but I do know it does not suggest the
opposite. Which is what that strip was about.
Dann
news:1138640100....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 30 Jan
2006:
> Detox wrote:
>> http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20060127.ht
>> ml
>>
>> Sorry Darrin. I don't believe that to be the case.
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/01/17/army_a
>> ims_high_with_recruiting_goals/
>>
>> The Army's recruiting goal this year is 80,000. Same as last year.
>
> The only reason the Army met its June goal was to lower it from 6650
> to 5650.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-army-recruiting_x.htm?PO
> E=NEWISVA
>
<snip>
yup
>
>> Also, all of the military did very well in terms of re-enlistments
>> for FY2005. In the case of the Army, re-enlistments almost covered
>> the shortfall in new recruits. And....here's the big
>> surprise....re-enlistment rates were strongest among units that had
>> served in Iraq.
>
> That's re-enlistments. Stop-loss programs and the beratement many get
> when they decide to leave aside, here's a good article about why some
> soldiers re-enlist. It may have less to do with support for Bush's
> policies than with the comeraderie abroad and the respect they receive
> when they come back home.
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html
Yup. The money is good, too. I do believe that it would be nearly
impossible to retain service members if they thought continuing to serve
placed an unreasonable and unjustified risk on their lives.
That isn't the same thing as saying that they support Mr. Bush's
policies, btw.
BTW, "beratement"????? It doesn't happen. If you are in a crucially
needed skill, then a stop loss might hit you. Contractually they are
obligated to pay you very big bucks if you are kept past your term, so it
is kind of like being hit with a loaded armored car.
But no one hassles you if you decide to leave. Career counselors are
salesmen[women] just like recruiters. You don't make many sales if you
are abusing your customers.
> Re-enlistments are entirely different than new enlistments. I'd like
> to see someone do a study examining whether the re-enlistees are
> mostly career military who plan on staying in the army long enough to
> earn a pension, or whether they're mostly the short-timers who serve 6
> years or so and then go on to a civilian career. My guess is it would
> be the former.
The military has a pyramid shaped rank structure. They need a lot of
kids to serve that first term. They need a smaller number to re-enlist
the first time around. And the number required for subsequent terms
declines as we go from the 10 to the 20 year mark.
I would be willing to guess that we are now seeing more second and third
term re-enlistments than were occurring pre-2001. And such subsequent
re-enlistments taken as a total may equal first term re-enlistments. But
by far the largest single group is first term re-enlistments.
>> Curiously, there seemed to be more stories about the shortfall in new
>> recruits than there were about the increasing retention rates.
>>
>> The Army did cut their recruiting goal for May last year, but kept
>> the overall 80,000 goal for the year.
<snip>
> I don't know if missing the goal suggests a widespread lack of support
> for the President's policies, but I do know it does not suggest the
> opposite. Which is what that strip was about.
Jeez, Darrin. I didn't mean to open the floodgates. <grin>
So since A=!B, then ^A=B???
We are apparently going at this particular strip from two totally
different directions. I see the question of "support for the President's
polices" to be a minor issue. I also see the mis-characterization of the
Army's recruiting goals to be a larger issue.
I'm assuming based on your post that the reverse is true for you.
There's a three-fold problem. First the military is definitely facing
recruiting/retention problems. I don't question that in the slightest.
However presenting those various issues compactly in a comic strip is
hard. Thus the short hand used in the strip.
The second problem is that the obvious inaccuracy of that short hand
means that some portion of your readers aren't going to get to the point
of the strip because they are going to get hung up on the factual error
that started it off. That's one of the tactics that Mr. Trudeau uses
that drives me absolutely freaking nuts. I'd like to think you are
better than him on that point.
Lastly, recruiting/retention rates change based on a lot of different
factors. The civilian economy, signing bonuses, and whether or not you
like what you are doing can affect the decision to sign on the dotted
line. The President and Presidential policies don't really have the
effect on the individual decision as your strip suggests. They have some
effect to be sure, but just not the linear relationship the strip
suggests.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Books are the lodestones of life. Everything else is a passing fancy.
Darrin Bell
because that implies anger. "Simple persuasion" would be better. Such
as this example, from the documentary "Occupation: Dreamland," (not
fiction, documentary):
"At a meeting labeled 'A Guide to Your Reenlistment Options,' at least
half the soldiers present raise their hand when asked if they've
decided not to re-enlist. The recruiters' horrifying answer to that is
that they won't be able to survive 'back home.'"
http://www.mvtimes.com/calendar/12292005/film.html
Most soldiers, at least those who joined prior to 2003, didn't join
because they approve of the President's Iraq policies, they joined for
other reasons. And I think the odds are good that most of those who
reenlist either decide on their own or are persuaded, based on those
other reasons.
> We are apparently going at this particular strip from two totally
> different directions. I see the question of "support for the President's
> polices" to be a minor issue. I also see the mis-characterization of the
> Army's recruiting goals to be a larger issue.
...
> The second problem is that the obvious inaccuracy of that short hand
> means that some portion of your readers aren't going to get to the point
> of the strip because they are going to get hung up on the factual error
> that started it off.
There is no factual error. As I explained above (perhaps not clearly
enough), the Army claimed to meet their monthly goals, not their annual
goal (which they missed). Candorville accurately stated that they
lowered those monthly goals before meeting them. You're arguing that
Candorville misrepresented the issue by focusing on monthly goals
rather than annual ones; by that logic you'd also have to argue that
the Army misrepresented the issue by focusing on monthly goals rather
than annual ones. You are talking about an annual goal that neither
Candorville nor the Army (or the Administration) was referring to. If
the Administration is going to point to monthly goals rather than the
annual one, then it's perfectly fair for a satirist to respond by
talking about those monthly goals rather than the annual one.
The fact that the first panel clearly refers to monthly goals should be
enough to prevent any confusion. It appears to have been enough,
because while I receive a host of challenges on nearly every fact I
present in Candorville, almost nobody challenged me on this issue (to
be precise, aside from you there was only one challenge). To the
contrary, I received many e-mails from Army personnel who read
Candorville in Stars & Stripes, who acknowledged the point was correct.
Some didn't appreciate that I made the point (to put it mildly), but
even they didn't suggest it was inaccurate.
> Lastly, recruiting/retention rates change based on a lot of different
> factors. The civilian economy, signing bonuses, and whether or not you
> like what you are doing can affect the decision to sign on the dotted
> line. The President and Presidential policies don't really have the
> effect on the individual decision as your strip suggests. They have some
> effect to be sure, but just not the linear relationship the strip
> suggests.
The strip suggests that the Army meeting its lowered goals is not the
endorsement of the President's policies that some said it was. Nothing
more.
Darrin Bell
> different directions. I see the question of "support for the President's
> polices" to be a minor issue. I also see the mis-characterization of the
> Army's recruiting goals to be a larger issue.
...
> The second problem is that the obvious inaccuracy of that short hand
> means that some portion of your readers aren't going to get to the point
> of the strip because they are going to get hung up on the factual error
> that started it off.
There is no factual error. As I explained above (perhaps not clearly
enough), the Army claimed to meet their monthly goals, not their annual
goal (which they missed). Candorville accurately stated that they
lowered those monthly goals before meeting them. You're arguing that
Candorville misrepresented the issue by focusing on monthly goals
rather than annual ones; by that logic you'd also have to argue that
the Army misrepresented the issue by focusing on monthly goals rather
than annual ones. You are talking about an annual goal that neither
Candorville nor the Army (or the Administration) was referring to. If
the Administration is going to point to monthly goals rather than the
annual one, then it's perfectly fair for a satirist to respond by
talking about those monthly goals rather than the annual one.
The fact that the first panel clearly refers to monthly goals should be
enough to prevent any confusion. It appears to have been enough,
because while I receive a host of challenges on nearly every fact I
present in Candorville, almost nobody challenged me on this issue (to
be precise, aside from you there was only one challenge). To the
contrary, I received many e-mails from Army personnel who read
Candorville in Stars & Stripes, who acknowledged the point was correct.
Some didn't appreciate that I made the point (to put it mildly), but
even they didn't suggest it was inaccurate.
> Lastly, recruiting/retention rates change based on a lot of different
> factors. The civilian economy, signing bonuses, and whether or not you
> like what you are doing can affect the decision to sign on the dotted
> line. The President and Presidential policies don't really have the
> effect on the individual decision as your strip suggests. They have some
> effect to be sure, but just not the linear relationship the strip
> suggests.
The strip suggests that the Army meeting its lowered goals is not the
Dann
2006:
> About the "beratement" comment, "berate" is a poor choice of words
> because that implies anger. "Simple persuasion" would be better. Such
> as this example, from the documentary "Occupation: Dreamland," (not
> fiction, documentary):
>
> "At a meeting labeled 'A Guide to Your Reenlistment Options,' at least
> half the soldiers present raise their hand when asked if they've
> decided not to re-enlist. The recruiters' horrifying answer to that is
> that they won't be able to survive 'back home.'"
> http://www.mvtimes.com/calendar/12292005/film.html
Given that the civilian world is a well and truly *(&%$^ up place with
totally misplaced priorities, I'd say that the counselor's advice is
reasonable.
<snip>
>> Lastly, recruiting/retention rates change based on a lot of different
>> factors. The civilian economy, signing bonuses, and whether or not
>> you like what you are doing can affect the decision to sign on the
>> dotted line. The President and Presidential policies don't really
>> have the effect on the individual decision as your strip suggests.
>> They have some effect to be sure, but just not the linear
>> relationship the strip suggests.
>
> The strip suggests that the Army meeting its lowered goals is not the
> endorsement of the President's policies that some said it was. Nothing
> more.
I think it was an error to mix support for Presidential policies with
recruiting rates. There are too many factors that go into those
decisions and foreign policy making is only one of those factors.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Gilbert and Sullivan...the team that made opera palatable.