More bad news about things military.

I just find the absolute numbers ... odd. Given that it's hard to imagine setting a goal for exactly 2388 Navy recruits, or 2656 Air Force recruits. I don't question the results numbers, just the goals - since this is the third month in which the goals were met exactly at 100% for both services.

And Barb - thinking about it... both the Navy and Air Force are actually reducing force sizes, so they may well be turning recruiting off each month when they hit their goals, deferring qualified candidates from month to month.

Yes, in my endeavors for support, I've had a lot of opportunities to speak with recruiters and understand how it works. Each has a quota to meet. This quota is only fulfilled when each recruit signs their contract and is "approved". Then the DoD decides when and where they will go to basic training. by that process, the DoD actually controls how many enter the service on a specific date. Recruiters play a part in that when they have "leads" and the end of the month or year is coming, they may not schedule a meeting for them to come in and sign the paperwork until the next cycle. This is so they can maintain their quotas, particularly in slow periods of recruiting.

On the subject of bonuses/compensation for military service: One of the things that disturb me about the Left is its need to cherry-pick current events and historical events to suit its agenda. A couple of cases in point: 1. American Revolution: Of course, I know the Lefties vacillate between saying the founders were just like them (secular humanists) or wanton exploiters of the masses. However, this does kind of set the precedent: Each continental Army soldier was promised 40 acres of land upon completion of his service at the end of the war. 2. The US Constitution: a document the Left claims to hold dear (when it suits, and if you leave out that pesky 2nd amendment). It’s right there under Article 1, Section 8; the Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, which, of course if not a sanctioning a mercenary navy (some would say Pirates) at least it shows the founding fathers saw no reason to separate their dream of a free market economy form national defense. 3. US Civil War: Rich men on both sides, at various times during the war were allowed to pay poor men to take their place in the draft. A practice which gave rise to a common expression heard in the Confederate Army, “This is a rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.” 4. World War II: presided over in this country by the Left’s favorite president ever (FDR). Army AF, Navy and Marine fighter pilots were allowed to take indefinite leaves of absence to fly as mercenaries in the Flying Tigers. They were paid both a salary ($250 - $750/month) and $500 for each confirmed kill. I said all of that to say this: Where is the sin in making a buck during a conflict and why is it one of the Left’s straw dogs? Why do they act like this is yet another evil invention of the hated Bush? When a GI (or mercenary, for that matter) deploys to combat, there is a good chance that A. they won’t come back and B. when they do come back, many times, all the good jobs were taken by the 4F punks while they were gone. (I know I probably shouldn’t call them punks since they pay taxes on those jobs…) Anyway, according to the last number I saw, in spite of the bonuses, the majority of recruits are coming from middle class zip codes not the poor unwashed masses that the libs claim to care about.

I must admit when i saw the line of 100% and near 100% I though of official approval votes for slimy dictators. I don't think the goals are moved to match the recruitment numbers, probably instead they are accurately anticipating the recruitment numbers and driving the recruiters to fill it with the sort of tricks you are all mentioning. The driving force would be that a 80% will look quite bad and a 130% might make it hard to keep it up. It's still a bit dodgy and one wonders how many are actually needed compared to filled. Australia is not doing quite so well. The Government have set up bonuses but they are applied for retention (not recruitment) of specific areas the Aus. military believes is in a dire situation. Seems to be a bit of a muddle causing internal fire as those in the better served areas see the difference with the areas that get the bonuses.