I'm confused! Pentagon said it met it's recruiting goals this month but..

[LynneSin]

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8BT22287.html

Army Recruiting Up, Meets July Targets

- - - - - - - - - - - -


By JOHN J. LUMPKIN Associated Press Writer

August 10,2005 | WASHINGTON -- The active-duty Army reached its recruiting target for the second straight month in July, but the summertime rebound may not be enough for the service to fulfill its annual goal, according to figures provided by a Pentagon spokesman Wednesday.

The Army National Guard, meanwhile, missed its recruiting goal again, recruiting only 4,712, 80 percent of its July goal of 5,920 new Guard members, spokesman Bryan Whitman said. The Guard has hit its target only once in the last 19 months.

The U.S. Army Reserve also fell short of its target, recruiting 2,131 new reservists, 82 percent of its goal of 2,585, Whitman said.

The Pentagon has blamed the recruiting shortfalls in part on an economy that's providing other opportunities to high school and college graduates. Opinion polls also show young people and parents are turning away from Army service because of the ongoing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

<<<<more>>>>

Ok, so the Guard and the Reserve are both down but somehow we're 'On-Target'. Did the pentagon hire Arthur-Anderson to cook their books. I mean, it's well document that the targets were reduced since they were overwhelmingly missing their numbers

My favorite line has to be who they blame for the recruiting shortfalls. Hey idiots, this time it's NOT the economy - it's the fact that NO ONE wants a trip to Iraq!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. The target was drastically lowered

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

2. thats what I thought happened n/t

[deadparrot]

5. That's what I heard, too. nt

[MadHound]

3. Well first off one has to remember

That recruitment goal have been reduced, not once but twice this year. I believe that they were lowered with the PR value in mind, that they can say that they are meeting their recruitment goals.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon is probably rigging the books. These folks come from a long line of experts in book cooking, so that they are doing so now with the enlistment numbers is in no way suprising.

The sad part about this is that by saying the numbers are met, they can continue to feed the sheeple that line about how everything is doing just fine, support is up etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Meanwhile they will continue to extend soldiers' tours of duty, call up those thirty and forty year old reservists, etc. etc. and continue fighting this illegal immoral war, when we should just get out, now.

[tabasco]

4. Goal for the year is 80,000. They won't come close.

They lowered monthly goals (not sure why) but the annual goal of
80,000 is unchanged. Playing with the numbers will not help them meet the objective for the year.

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. Active Duty vs Reserve

They're saying the Army (full time regular) reached it's goal, but the Guard and Reserves did not.

Meeting the targets has also required a drastic lowering of standards and very questionable recruiting methods. This is probably going to show up in a different statistic - a larger number of boot camp rejects.

[elperromagico]

7. In other news: Majority of American students have 4.0 GPAs.

The new grading scale is:

A: 50-100
B: 40-49
C: 30-39
D: 20-29
F: 0-19

[Supersedeas]

8. Two additional conclusions to be garnered from the Pentagon's admission:

1. When the Pentagon admits that the 'good' economy is the cause of lower recruiting numbers, aren't they also admitting that they prey upon those who are economically dependent (ie. the economy is terrible in the Carolinas, so lets focus our recruiting efforts there)?

2. When the Pentagon admits that part of the shortfall is due to the 'conflicts' in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't we feel some pride in the bravery of those recruits willing to serve in the face of such danger? (We have found some really brave youngsters in the Carolinas, so lets focus our recruiting efforts there.)