58 percent of targeted active-duty soldiers transitioned to Guard in FY '0

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=25568

Just more than half of the 7,000 active-duty soldiers that the Army National Guard sought to transition into its ranks did so in fiscal 2004, according to a Guard official.

The Guard managed to recruit just 3,900, or 58 percent, of those soldiers, during the one-year period that ended Sept. 30, according to Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Michael Jones.

<snip>

By comparison, “we’ve had years in the past when 10,000 soldiers joined the Guard,” said Schultz.

Retention, meanwhile, or the number of guardsmen who chose to stay, “was great,” 99.8 percent in fiscal 2004, Jones said.

“We were surprised,” Jones said. “Retention exceeded what we thought.”

Wonder if stop-loss counted as retention?

[Florida_Geek]

1. stop-loss is the ONLY reason they are there nt

[Scooter24]

3. I was thinking the same thing.

I wonder what the figures would be minus the ones held there beyond their will.

[Poll Ally]

4. objectors

I don't disagree with the premise behind Iraq. We will never know whether the 3 years of no terror attacks here or abroad are related. Regardless the young men and women are being stretched to the max.

They had on Boston tv a couple that got married this weekend. The husband was going back for his THIRD tour in Iraq. He was supposed to be done after his first. They were both positive, both agreed they were doing the right thing but I felt bad for the guy.

The only thing people are forgetting, this is a volunteer military right now for pay and for training. I've got several friends that were in S Korea or Kuwait for years after getting a free education.

National guard members collect something like 200 or 300 a month and train a couple of times a year. It's decent money for the time spent away..unless a war breaks out. :( But, everyone knows going in what might happen.

[Rose Siding]

7. "3 years of no terror attacks here or abroad"? Is that a typo?

Maybe you just read the first, faulty State Dept report. But that can't be it because even that report didn't claim "no" terror attacks.

Faulty Terror Report Card

Are we winning the war on terrorism?
Although keeping score is difficult, the State Department's annual report on international terrorism, released last month, provides the best government data to answer this question. The short answer is "No," but that's not the spin the administration is putting on it.

"You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight," said Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. As evidence, the "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report says that worldwide terrorism dropped by 45 percent between 2001 and 2003. The report even boasts that the number of terrorist acts committed last year "represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969."

Yet, a careful review of the report and underlying data supports the opposite conclusion: The number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003 -- 36 percent -- even using the State Department's official standards. The data that the report highlights are ill-defined and subject to manipulation -- and give disproportionate weight to the least important terrorist acts. The only verifiable information in the annual reports indicates that the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31971-2004May16.html

[leesa]

8. Exactly WHAT part of the premise do you agree with??

The part where we illegally (both international law and national law), immorally, launch an unprovoked invasion of a disarmed, UN compliant country and murder 100,000 of her citizens who did not one thing to us??

WHAT planet do you live on?

[Kool Kitty]

10. No terror attacks abroad?

The train bombings in Spain were-what? There were a lot of terror attacks since September 11, 2001. Read a little more.

*sigh* I see that you were tombstoned. In that case, never mind...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Feel a draft?

[Poll Ally]

5. bet

I'll bet you $100 we don't see a draft during the Bush presidency...deal? :)

[w4rma]

6. I'll accept your bet, also.

This will be the second $100 bet on a draft that I've made.

[Stargazer09]

9. Retention

I have to wonder at the number of Guard members who chose to stay. That's a very high percentage, especially considering the unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

My guess is that many of those Guard members were given a choice: Reenlist and be sent back to Iraq with your current unit, or we'll force you to join a different unit that is being sent to Iraq and will keep you from leaving the service. In other words, if retention is at 99.8%, then the Army probably forced many people to stay in against their wishes under stop-loss or other programs.

If you look at the other numbers, the people who joined the Guard following active duty, you can see that many people left the service rather than join the Guard during the same time period. Normally, the Guard is a great deal for people leaving active duty. Many states have provisions that pay in-state college tuition for Guard members, and there are quite a few other benefits to being a weekend warrior.

After reading the article, it's obvious that even the commanders in the Guard are worried about their troops' morale. I can certainly understand that!

[RedCon1]

11. I'm in the guard

and I'll tell you, plenty of those re-enlistments were voluntary. These guys can't get a job state side so the tax free hazardous duty pay in Iraq is looking very attractive to a guy who can't afford his wife and kids. There are others who wish to go to Iraq for "intangible" reasons as well. Military enlistment and re-enlistment are, conveniently, primarily related to the state of the civilian economy. There's no doubt that plenty of individuals have been involuntarily extended though. It's a black cloud hanging over the heads of all of us 24/7.