Willing to serve

[Tigermike 3,050]

Jack Kelly: Willing to serve

The Army fell short in recruitment goals. But long term, the call of duty winsSunday, March 20, 2005

The Army fell far short of its recruiting goal for February, giving journalists a welcome respite from the avalanche of good news from the Middle East.

The Army signed up 1,823 fewer recruits than its goal of 7,050 for the month. A falloff in enlistments by blacks and women appears to be the chief reason for the decline. In the 2000 fiscal year, 23.5 percent of Army recruits were African American, 22.1 percent were female. So far this year, only 14.5 percent of recruits are black, just 17.1 percent are female.

The Marine Corps made its goal, but by the skin of its teeth. The Air Force and Navy are having no recruiting problems.

Journalists portrayed the February shortfall in the worst possible light.

"To the daily drumbeat of casualty reports from Iraq, young blacks and women are marching away from offers to the join the Army," wrote Robert Burns of The Associated Press.

"These trends, combined with negative effects of the Army's image as a last-resort career choice for what one study called the 'average Joe,' suggests the military's largest service may be entering a prolonged recruiting slump at a time when it is trying to expand its ranks," Burns wrote.

Or maybe not. The last time the Army missed a monthly recruiting goal -- in May 2000 -- it made it up by the end of the fiscal year. The glass always seems half-empty when you tell only half the story.

The war in Iraq and an improving economy have made the recruiting mission "very difficult," said S. Douglas Smith, public affairs officer for the Army's Recruiting Command.

But Congress has approved higher enlistment bonuses, more money for college and more recruiters. As these resources come on line, recruiting should improve, he said.

Burns implied that opposition to the war in Iraq is the chief reason for the decline. His article cited a quote from the U.S. Military Image Study, conducted for the Army last year by the Minneapolis polling firm Gfk Custom Research: "More African Americans identify having to fight for a cause they don't support as a barrier to military service."

But blacks and Hispanics still have a higher propensity to enlist than whites do, and more young people are willing to join up now than before the war on terror began, the study also indicated. These facts didn't make it into Burns' story.

Overall, 6 percent of blacks, 7 percent of Hispanics and 5 percent of whites surveyed in 2004 said they definitely would serve in the military. An additional 17 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Hispanics and 9 percent of whites said they probably would serve.

In 2001, only 11 percent of all young people surveyed said they would definitely (2 percent) or probably (9 percent) enlist. Last year that figure rose to 15 percent (5 percent definitely, 10 percent probably).

Since the economy is stronger now than it was in 2001, and good economic times typically are hard times for military recruiters, a 36 percent increase in the proportion of young people willing to consider enlisting since the war on terror began says something good about our young people that Burns, apparently, is not eager to have you hear.

Burns notes with alarm that the proportion of young people who cite fear of combat as a reason for not joining the military nearly doubled (from 14 to 26 percent) between 2000 and 2004. He quoted the study again: "In the past, barriers were about inconvenience or preference for another life choice. Now they have switched to something quite different: fear of death or injury."

But is it all that astonishing that fear of death would be a bigger consideration during time of war than it is during peacetime?

Money for college was the principal reason young people gave for a willingness to enlist, followed by "duty."

Proportionately more blacks and women enlist for the economic benefits, while a higher proportion of white males give duty as a reason for joining up.

So blacks and women who enlisted primarily for the benefits are being replaced by white males who enlist primarily to serve their country. That's not such a bad thing.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05079/473937.stm

[Auburn85 432]

Just a thought, how about train all the illegal immigrants of the right age to sever in the military. If they stay in the military for 4 or 5 years, then they earn citizenship

[Tiger Al 0]

The glass always seems half-empty when you tell only half the story.

It seems like Mr. Kelly is trying to force a "half-full" perspective when the facts, at least the ones he presents here, don't necessarily support it. He wrote, "But blacks and Hispanics still have a higher propensity to enlist than whites do, and more young people are willing to join up now than before the war on terror began, the study also indicated. These facts didn't make it into Burns' story." The numbers at the beginning of his article, 14.5 percent of recruits are black, just 17.1 percent are female, are down by his own admission.

He counters this with "happy news" proof that this is a positive and not a negative by quoting a survey by Gfk Custom Research that said, "...blacks and Hispanics still have a higher propensity to enlist than whites do, and more young people are willing to join up now than before the war on terror began."

A "propensity to enlist" and a "willingness to join" both exclude any evidence of action nor do they reflect those results being met, as the decreased numbers of people actually raising their hands and joining shows.