Burying the Lede on Army Recruiting

Why, oh why am I not surprised it took until halfway through the WaPo's article on Army recruiting to mention the real cause of the impending officer shortage? And no, it's *not* the war:

According to Army data, the overall attrition rate for captains averaged 12.2 percent from 1999 to 2007. But the estimated captain deficits for the past year were pronounced in some fields that require heavy deployments, such as military intelligence, where the Army is short 10
percent; transportation, where the gap reaches 21 percent; and aviation, where the shortfall is 11 percent.

Army officials said the projected officer shortage is mainly the result of the Army's plan to add 65,000 active-duty soldiers to its ranks -- including more than 6,000 captains and majors -- by 2010.

...Army surveys show that the bonuses would persuade 40 to 55 percent of captains who intended to leave to sign new contracts. The Army's goal is for 85 percent of those eligible to stay on, either taking the bonus or another incentive such as attending graduate school or selecting their next post. About 600 of the 900 captains who chose incentives other than bonuses picked graduate school.

...Army officials acknowledge that many eligible captains -- those promoted to that rank on or after April 1, 2002 -- would have stayed regardless. They say that they will not know whether the incentives are attracting officers who would have left until at least 70 percent sign up.

The officials said that while $35,000 might tilt wavering captains toward staying, it is unlikely to change the minds of those fundamentally opposed to three more years with likely war-zone duty.


Incroyable! You mean the "shortage" is *not* about a broken Army unable to recruit due to the horrible strain of Iraq and Afghanistan?

If the Army was fundamentally too short of personnel to fight a protracted war now, they were going to be fundamentally too short to fight any significant conflict. In other words, the force was either too small or the composition of forces wasn't well suited to the tasks the Army was called upon to perform. And we can't "grow" mid-level officers overnight.

This is a problem bringing back the draft won't solve.

Bottom line: this shortage predated the war, but Congress didn't have to deal with it until the Army and Marine Corps were called upon to perform the services for which we pay them. Labelling it a result of the GWOT is misleading and inaccurate. We keep hearing that Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping up from dealing with "greater threats". But how can the Army and Marines be expected to deal with Iran, if it comes to that, if we were too shorthanded to deal with Iraq?

That's a question you won't see addressed too often in the media.

No comments: