We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:47:26 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification At least if you're an anti- for whom the only acceptable narrative is that the war was botched (fair enough on some points), that it's hopeless (news isn't helping there), the troops home yesterday as the only acceptable solution, and the American People hate you, George Bush and your murdering myrmidons, as evidenced by the fact you can't seduce the poor and downtrodden to be cannon-fodder in your illegals wars of Imperial Hegemoney™ [sic]. The recruiting numbers for October. Active Duty Recruiting Numbers: Army: 101% of goal. Navy: 100% of goal. Marine Corps: 102% of goal. Air Force: 100% of... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:40:22 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66608 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66608 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:55:21 -0600 Well, I figure the round numbers are the result of putting together open billets with expected expansion. As far as I know, the military doesn't do "rounded" numbers for recruits per recruiter. It's usually "2/mo" or "4/mo" and those numbers are figured out about four months in advance so I'm sure they have plenty of time to play with them and make them a "whole" number even if it ends in a strange number like "2388". But, as I was saying, as far as I know, the quotas for the year or set in advance. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66603 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66603 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:51:24 -0600 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. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66602 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66602 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:48:57 -0600 of. Goal setting generally is more about round numbers, so the goal of 2388, for example, stood out to me in the chart. (And I already had the question before John posted, since he and I subscribe to the same emails ... lol!) If the numbers are weird because they generate weird quotas, so be it. If they are juggling the quota DOWN to meet actual, that's bogus. Just sayin'.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66601 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66601 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:32:59 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66599 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66599 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:18:40 -0600 John & Barb - When I was active duty, that was exactly what the AF did when recruiting was ahead of available slots. I'm sure the Navy is doing the same. Plus, the AF, at least, takes peiple in based on actuary formulas for how many slots are going to open up in any given quarter (once again, at least that was the way...) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66596 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66596 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:52:29 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66591 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66591 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:37:02 -0600 That's a good point, Barb. I don't have an answer, but what the heck, I can always ask the question. For those of you wondering what she's talking about - click the "recruiting numbers for October" link in the post and you can see the hard numbers she's talking about. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66590 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66590 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:34:49 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66589 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/more_bad_news_a.html#comment-66589 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:27:14 -0600