Military Recruitment and the Economic Crisis
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Just last year, I was reporting that increasing difficulties in military recruitment and retention (particularly in the field grade officer corps), had led the Army to relax its standards and start paying unprecedented sums in incentives to both recruit and to keep men and women on the job. The Army, specifically, was giving out more waivers than in recent memory to felons who would otherwise not be eligible to serve. High school graduation rates among recruits had dropped as did scores for the Armed Forces Qualification test. In the words of one former Marine Corps officer I had interviewed, the military was hurtling dangerously towards the dark days of the post-Vietnam years, where the recruits were “probably the worst in the history of the Marine Corps.”
According to the Washington Post this morning, this ship of doom has already reversed course and the unlikely captain is the economic crisis itself. It makes sense — young people are graduating high school and entering a dismal jobs market, and the military is there, looking less like the grim reaper, then say, in 2005:
Above all, the economic crisis has increased unemployment and reduced job opportunities — particularly in sectors that tend to employ young people, said Curtis Gilroy, the Pentagon’s top recruiting official.
When the recession hits the service sector, “everything from McDonald’s to cutbacks at Best Buy and some of the more entry-level jobs . . . this impacts young people more. Those who are last hired tend to be first fired,” Gilroy said. “They would then view the military option more favorably.”
“Improved security in Iraq” has also made the Armed Forces more attractive, the article reads, further leading the Army to raise standards regarding previous arrests and drug use and offer less incentives. High School graduation rates are increasing — 93 percent so far this year, compared to 79 percent in 2007.
So, given the right financial desperation and better odds they’d return from a first tour of duty with a whole body and mind, recruits are lining up again. Combined with the planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq, this bodes nicely for a military in need of recuperation. But how tenuous is this narrative? With more than 20,000 new troops headed for Afghanistan and the neoconservative hawks suddenly in favor among the national security elite clamoring for more, the big question mark hovering over Pakistan and Iraq Commander Ray Odierno making noises about delaying withdrawal in key Iraqi cities because of ongoing violence, the answer seems, “pretty much.”
For the moment, however, today’s WaPo news reinforces the obvious, that a recession is good for recruitment, and that the Department of Defense will remain one of the nation’s leading employers, despite the current tempest over Pentagon cutbacks. It’s disappointing though, not necessarily because recruitment has turned around, but that there has been, until now, no consequences for the way the military has tended to its brave and dedicated servicemen and women, either in the field (putting them unnecessarily at risk) or when they return home.
It’s a pity that a economic crisis at home might forestall real reform in the Armed Forces — who can possibly hold their feet to fire when they have all the “cannon fodder” necessary to fight these unpopular but nonetheless ongoing wars abroad?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Here’s a program Republicans and Democrats alike can get behind: sure, it’s adding to the public employment rolls, but it’s adding them to the big-government program the Right loves. Military Keynesianism offers something for everybody. (And how long before Obama realizes that war is the biggest stimulus package of all?)
You might try reading Buchanan. He makes a pretty good case for the possibility that World War II did NOT pull us out of the depression, but rather countered unionism, brought financial deflation, controlled entitlement mentality, and stored up demand that decended upon the American market as the war ended. He posits that it was the FREE MARKET that took off AFTER the war.
If some of the LIB BLOGGERS on this site were photographers, we’d only see the LEFT LEG of any championship runner, and the RIGHT HAND of any thief they could get a picture of.
While I don’t have much of a bone to pick with any of your analysis, only your agenda and conclusions, I am left with a question.
What effect has the “left handed propaganda” had on recruitment?
Everybody, quick, go look at an episode of Nancy Grace on CNN, from 4 months ago, before Obama. Notice the tear-jerking “pause to remember a DEAD HERO from BUSH’s ill-conceived war”?
Anybody notice those are gone? Now, some fake conservative on CNN, between muttering obscenities about BUSH and CEOs of Large Corporations, will present the HEROIC UPDATE of a LIVE HERO currently serving in the backward and tiny country that used to be no threat to us.
If we add back into your equation the admission of existence of PATRIOTISM (on the part of both liberals AND conservatives), then some of your conclusions lose weight.
Finally, as even the most “dead brained Rush Limbaugh listener” will have noticed, part of your argument is based on the fact that it is SO MUCH SAFER in the military now, than 4 months ago.
That overlooks the slipping OBAMA timetable for withdrawing from an IRAQI TERRORIST MOVEMENT suddenly and mysteriously re-invigorated.
That overlooks OBAMA’s statement that he might need to attack one of our allies, Pakistan, who possesses nuclear weapons, as well as a general worldwide resurgence of AlQuida over the last 4 months, no doubt BUSH’s fault.
We need both the LEFT and the RIGHT. Because people like me might only focus on the RIGHT SIDE of the championship runner.
You asked “…how long before Obama realizes…”? What? That he can cut the military budget, ask more of them, control the media, and we won’t hear charges of soldiers who have inadequate vests or humvees, or medical care, or post-service followup? …as long as he wants, depending on how many of the right-wing media he can silence… …or get to promote HIS wars.
Thanks for your comment, Tom. PJB’s analysis derives in part from Robert Higgs’s. No, WWII did not pull us out of the Depression in any real sense. It did, however, reduce unemployment through conscription and the industrial war effort. But of course unemployment reduced in that fashion is not a sign of economic recovery. Military Keynesianism only creates the appearance of economic health, and that at an enormous real cost in lives and money that can be better spent elsewhere.
Higgs’s Crisis and Leviathan and Depression, War, and Cold War are good places to look for a full account.
I found this on Google, in order to post it’s facts on another blog. But I’ll add my 2 cents here.
Durring the Regan and Bush I era, I had “Recruits” joining the Army with their Masters Degrees!
And I’m talking about as Privates, Not Officers!
Think about that. And then….today.
I’ve had a number of friends go in and come out of the military. Since 9/11 they have either quit or joined the Guard or a private contractor outfit. Those who just quit have never expressed any regrets; they just didn’t want a military life. The ones who took the other two paths were sharp guys who loved military life but found a way to make a better living.
#
There was no war then and the status of military was probably a motive to enhance future political motives.
—————————————————————————————–
SSG Ret. Molder, on April 19th, 2009 at 11:00 pm Said:
I found this on Google, in order to post it’s facts on another blog. But I’ll add my 2 cents here.
Durring the Regan and Bush I era, I had “Recruits” joining the Army with their Masters Degrees!
And I’m talking about as Privates, Not Officers!
Think about that. And then….today.
There have always been bonus incentives for joining and rejoining the military, but in the past few years, I felt they went a bit overboard on the $$$. Now, they have abruptly cut all bonus’ new and re-signs, and are cutting out the acceptance of GED receipients, regardless of how well they did on their ASVAB scores (and GED scores). There are some really good folks out there who are willing to commit their lives to save our country, and its freedom, but are not being allowed to because of such blanket rules. I understand wanting to “weed through”, and I uphold that, but I think each case needs to be dealt with individually, and also, age appropiately.