You And What Recruiting Pool?

Via Ramesh Ponnuru, I see that Rudy Giuliani is joining Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton in calling for a larger Army. One can't help but wonder where these troops are supposed to be conjured up from. The strongest thing coming through from Brian Mockenhaupt's article on basic training is that it's really hard to recruit an Army up to the current size.

That's not to say that the military isn't going to hit its goals. Clearly, they will. Already, though, they've stepped up recruitment bonuses enormously as well as relaxing standards for who they're allowed to recruit. Less quantifiably, the obvious upshot of Mockenhaupt's reporting is that at this point the message coming down to the people in charge of training new recruits is that at the margin they should worry more about losing soldiers than they should about passing on sub-par ones. The only really reliable way of increasing the recruiting pool would be to have a recession, and I hope that's not what these candidates have in mind.

Comments

One obvious way to increase the recruiting pool for officers would be to allow ROTC back onto the campuses of elite schools like your alma mater Harvard. It's got to discourage potential officer candidates from joining ROTC when they have to commute to another university's campus to participate.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2007 1:49 PM

I bet the Army would get more recruits if they relaxed their PT standards. I'd consider re-enlisting (or, more likely, applying for OCS) if I wouldn't have to drop 50lbs first and have to run two miles in 16 minutes. Let me stay chubby and run 10-minute miles and you've got a deal -- I'd join the NJ National Guard tomorrow.

Posted by Dave | May 8, 2007 1:54 PM

actually, there's another reliable way to increase the pool: pay them more (and not just higher enlistment bonuses).

Posted by howard | May 8, 2007 1:56 PM

"The only really reliable way of increasing the recruiting pool would be to have a recession,

I don't know; Paying soldiers a decent wage might be pretty effective, too. Military pay is pathetic compared to other comparably dangerous jobs, such as fireman.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 8, 2007 1:56 PM

Third-world mercenaries. Full citizenship for four years service. The Empire deserves it.

Posted by Nile Kinnick | May 8, 2007 2:00 PM

Yes, not using your imagination enough. Recruitment would be less difficult if people were not wary of having a commander-in-chief who is completely wrong and not afraid to get people killed in order to continue his wrong-ness. Back in the day, people joined for college money, to get off the streets, to get job experience etc. Yes, there is something of a crap-shoot regarding whether you may or may not be deployed in combat (one could see times when one could spend one's whole time in the military away from combat), but one should not have to fight in wrong, senseless combat. Some Dems want to make over the army to have more "policing" and "peace keeping" skills. This may open avenues for recruiters--think peace corps with guns.

Posted by JMS | May 8, 2007 2:05 PM

Yes, not using your imagination enough. Recruitment would be less difficult if people were not wary of having a commander-in-chief who is completely wrong and not afraid to get people killed in order to continue his wrong-ness. Back in the day, people joined for college money, to get off the streets, to get job experience etc. Yes, there is something of a crap-shoot regarding whether you may or may not be deployed in combat (one could see times when one could spend one's whole time in the military away from combat), but one should not have to fight in wrong, senseless combat. Some Dems want to make over the army to have more "policing" and "peace keeping" skills. This may open avenues for recruiters--think peace corps with guns.

Posted by JMS | May 8, 2007 2:06 PM

The Army didn't have much of a problem meeting recruitment goals when it wasn't fighting a massively unpopular urban war with no end in sight and no clear political objective.

Posted by Patrick | May 8, 2007 2:06 PM

Agree with Howard & Brett Bellmore - You recruit more people to work in the military the same exact way you recruit more people to work in any business: you raise the pay, give better benefits, etc.

I don't see what's so hard about this.

Posted by Al | May 8, 2007 2:11 PM

Foreign Legion time.

Posted by alphie | May 8, 2007 2:22 PM

Time to bring back the draft?

Posted by wiredog | May 8, 2007 2:23 PM

"Time to bring back the draft?"

Sure, let's draft Jewish bloggers who were in favor of the Iraq War first.

Posted by Juan | May 8, 2007 2:25 PM

The Army didn't have much of a problem meeting recruitment goals when it wasn't fighting a massively unpopular urban war with no end in sight and no clear political objective

Actually, it did. The military last had recruitment problems in the late 90s, when there was a good economy. As I said above, no real reason to treat the military very differently than other jobs - increased demand for labor in other sectors makes it more difficult to recruit employees in the military sector, and may require that sector to raise wages or increase benefits.

Posted by Al | May 8, 2007 2:25 PM

More pay, better benefits, and end the discrimination against gays.

Ending discrimination against gays would have a twofold effect of both opening up your recruitment pool to folks who are currently eliminated a priori due to factors outside of their control AND brining ROTC back to private college campuses that have barred it from the campus due to the discriminatory policies in place.

War vets should also get full pensions and 100% covered complete medical care (including psychological care) for themselves and their dependents until death (and their spouse until the spouse's death as well). In fact, war vets should just get pensions for the rest of their lives. They've performed enough service for the country that if they cannot or choose not to work after that we should be able to reward them for it handsomly.

If we treated our vets well, we'd have men and women lining up around the block to enlist or look for a commission, regardless of who the boob in charge is at the moment.

Posted by NonyNony | May 8, 2007 2:26 PM

"Ending discrimination against gays would have a twofold effect of both opening up your recruitment pool to folks who are currently eliminated a priori due to factors outside of their control AND brining ROTC back to private college campuses that have barred it from the campus due to the discriminatory policies in place."

Hate to break it to you, but the gays with an interest in military service are already serving -- gay men in the Army Medical Corps and in various Navy jobs; lesbians in the Army's military police. There isn't any gay infantry waiting to join. Changing the Clinton policy on gays keeping things on the DL will drive away more straights than it attracts gays.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2007 2:36 PM

Don't worry. After all the well paying jobs have been outsourced to India and China, the miltary jobs will become very attractive (which, by the way, was cas in India few decades ago) to the youth and there will be no problem recruiting.

Posted by gregor | May 8, 2007 2:41 PM

Or just outsource the army jobs to India and China.

Posted by Max | May 8, 2007 2:43 PM

Changing the Clinton policy on gays keeping things on the DL will drive away more straights than it attracts gays.

Evidence?

Posted by David Tomlin | May 8, 2007 2:43 PM

The evidence comes from the same place Fred thinks that allowing ROTC at Harvard is going to be a big boon.

Posted by Rob | May 8, 2007 3:00 PM

Al,

I think that's actually correct, but the scale of the problem is simply different from the 90s. Here, we are giving people greater benefits and signing bonuses, yet we STILL have to take people who would have been rejected in the 90s: no high school diploma, diagnosed mental problems, much lower scores on the military aptitude tests etc.

And the economy is weaker than the late 90s, so what's the problem? My bet is the Iraq War.

Posted by Patrick | May 8, 2007 3:00 PM

It will be very hard to recruit for a larger armed forces. Absent a renewed draft, and notwithstanding the indirect effects of recession, I see three main pools of labor the Pentagon might tap. In descending order of likelhood:

1. Immigrants. It's already the case that non-citizens make up a noticeable component within the US military. This is an accelerating trend, thanks in part to the administration's policy of expediting citizenship for enlistees. Your average immigrant might wait 12 years before citizenship is offered, but a military recruit can become a US citizen in six months. "Mercenary army," anyone? Which leads us to:

2. Private mercenary armies, staffed not by freelance soldiers of fortune, but by businesses like Blackwater. No questions asked, or at least few. Client armies are also a wedge against war crimes, at least in theory.

3. Backdoor draft: Since re-instituting a draft is probably unpalatable politically, the military continues to raid not just the National Guard but also begins to grab local law enforcement and other civil protection workers, like fire fighters, forest rangers and so on.

4. Convicts and "community service" workers. Yes, the US military is loathe to recruit undereducated people and people with questionable pasts, but it's loosening its standards already. Judges will be encouraged to do more to offer reduced or deferred sentences behind bars in exchange for a convict's willingness to enlist.

5. Robots. Go ahead an laugh, but this is more likely than you might think. Not necessarily Gort-style, four-limbed monsters who walk upright, but robotic weaponry that can be guided by geeks at a safe distance. The simulacrae soldier will be developed, too, just not right away.

Posted by Ron Legro | May 8, 2007 3:07 PM

One can't help but wonder where these troops are supposed to be conjured up from.

Mexico/"Path to citizenship"

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 8, 2007 3:11 PM

David Tomlin:

Have you served in the military? Ever gone drinking with soldiers or Marines? From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience of doing both, I predict that allowing open homosexuality in the military will drive off more straights than it will attract gays. For non-anecdotal, though indirect, evidence in support of this, consider the recent rejection of gay marriage amendments at the ballot box. Support for open-gayness in the military seem strongest among those least interested in serving in the military.

Rob:

I don't imagine that bringing ROTC back to Harvard and other Ivies would dramatically increase the size of the officer corps, but it wouldn't hurt -- and it might increase the quality, no? Certainly the country would be better off, IMO, if a few super-smart Harvard grads put their educations to work in the military for a few years instead of running off to Hollywood to write for The Simpsons.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2007 3:13 PM

The easiest way to increase the size of the army is a draft.

The best way to increase the size of the army is by a substantial increase in pay and recruitment and re-enlistment bonuses.

The way that takes the least politcal will to increase the size of the army is to relax standards.

Guess which way we are doing it?

Posted by neil wilson | May 8, 2007 3:21 PM

Neil,

We've been doing it the second way. Talk about lowered standards is highly exaggerated: The Army used to accept something like 2% of its recruits from mental cat IV, (the lowest IQ range the military accepts) and now it accepts about 4%. The average IQ of enlisted men in all the services remains significantly higher than that of the average American civilian.

Also, to my knowledge, there has been no relaxation of physical standards.

Posted by Dave | May 8, 2007 3:27 PM

Have you served in the military? Ever gone drinking with soldiers or Marines? From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience of doing both, I predict that allowing open homosexuality in the military will drive off more straights than it will attract gays.

What you and others of your ilk want is to make the military a protected reservation for values and attitudes not tolerated, and not tolerable, in mainstream society.

Fortunately, most of the people I've met in the military are adults, not the immature macho-posturing nutjobs you seem to prefer.

Posted by rea | May 8, 2007 3:45 PM

Yep, that's just what we need, a bigger army! Since we've proved the last 6 years that military solutions are always preferable to political solutions.

Posted by scott | May 8, 2007 3:55 PM

1. there's no large pool of gay Americans that would enlist the moment that DADT is done away with (as it stands most discharges under DADT are purportedly voluntary (someone announces that they're gay to get out of a deployment))...population demography will tell you that.

2. its unlikely the elimination of DADT would have much of an effect on the recruit pool. it probably wouldn't change anything at all. (a couple hundred more gay recruits each year, a couple hundred fewer straight recruits).

3. Dave is correct that the lowering of standards has been exaggerated. large bonuses have kept recruiting (and more so, retention) at an acceptable level.

4. the expansion of ROTC to campuses that ban it would primarily only have a symbolic effect...albeit a worthwhile one. (I find the bans pretty darn offensive and unpatriotic by any definition)

Posted by Nathan | May 8, 2007 3:56 PM

I'm trying to imagine the sort of person who patriotically believes in serving their country... as long as they don't have to be around a bunch of fags. And frankly, it seems like I'd need a lot of contempt for our troops to believe that a lot of them fit that description.

Just because anti-gay attitudes are relatively common in the military, much as they are elsewhere in society, doesn't mean there are very many people who would actually decline to serve on that basis.

Posted by Steve | May 8, 2007 3:58 PM

Rea:

"What you and others of your ilk want is to make the military a protected reservation for values and attitudes not tolerated, and not tolerable, in mainstream society."

Nonsense. I'd be thrilled if enlightened liberals such as yourself and Matt Yglesias were slinging rifles in the military, along with all the marchers in last year's Halloween parade in Greenwich Village. I have just been exposed to reality enough to know that open gayness would not go over well with most of the folks who actually enlist in the military: small-town white boys from the ass-end of Blue states (e.g., Eastern WA and CA, Western MA) who watch 24, self-described rednecks from Red states who own coon hounds, Latinos from Texas and California, blacks from wherever. Open homosexuality isn't well-accepted among any of these groups, least of all the Latinos and blacks.

Steve:

"Just because anti-gay attitudes are relatively common in the military, much as they are elsewhere in society, doesn't mean there are very many people who would actually decline to serve on that basis."

I know it sucks to realize that there are people who aren't as tolerant as you, but this is one case where the usual liberal approach of imposing your views on the rabble won't work. As civilians, poor whites may have to put up with gay friendly curricula in public schools, etc., but they are under no obligation to enlist in a voluntary military.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2007 4:22 PM

Have you served in the military? Ever gone drinking with soldiers or Marines?

Fred, when exactly did the soldiers and Marines you're thinking of join the service? Because if we're talking about entry-level recruitment, the subject of our inquiry isn't some sort of self-perpetuating, culturally stable "warrior class", it's average 18- and 19-year-olds. And average 18- and 19-year-olds care a lot less about sexuality than they did a few decades ago.

I think what a big part of it is is that the popular associations between orientation, gender, and personality have weakened a lot in the past generation, thanks to the influence of the feminist/homosexual/etc. challenges to recieved notions.

Just as with the women in the military, soldiers weren't really concerned about the army becoming more female, or more gay, as such, so much as they were afraid of it becoming less masculine. And gays were historically considered not fully male, and certainly not masculine, making the Army more gay was thought equivalent to making it more mincing and delicate, and that was to be avoided.

But today's soldiers would probably agree just as much that the Army isn't a place for mincing, delicate types, it's just that they have no difficulty wrapping their mind around the idea of manly men who are attracted to men, while the whole "dragging heavy things around in the mud" thing serves to dissuade delicate, nervous types of all gender/orientation combinations. That's why the difference in physical standards for female soldiers is still a sore spot: it feels less like an accomodation to females and more like an accomodation to softness.

Posted by Senescent | May 8, 2007 4:24 PM

This discussion has actually been relatively civil.

Please remember that DADT is a Federal Law. It is not purely a military policy.

Bans on recruiting on campus are illegal. I am unclear if a college is legally able to ban ROTC outright. I think the military probably goes where they are welcomed.

The percentage of "foreigners" in the military today is much lower than it has been in the past. I saw an idea floated to actually recruit in English speaking countries (India, Philipines, Ghana). Not sure what happened to that idea. I think we could also enlist a lot of Europeans if we tried. 8 - 12% unemployment and expedited citizenship may prove enticing.

Enlisted retention is in great shape regardless of the "Long War". Junior officer retention is in dire straits and has been for a long time.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 8, 2007 4:25 PM

I know it sucks to realize that there are people who aren't as tolerant as you, but this is one case where the usual liberal approach of imposing your views on the rabble won't work. As civilians, poor whites may have to put up with gay friendly curricula in public schools, etc., but they are under no obligation to enlist in a voluntary military.

Fred - set yourself 60 years back in time and replace the word "gay" with the word "Negro", and you could be commenting on the moves to integrate blacks into the military. Yet today, black men and women are fully integrated into our armed forces with zero problems.

The current problem with gays in the military is that - they're not allowed into the military. Exposure to folks who are gay changes more attitudes than anything else - just like exposure to folks who are not the same color as you changes attidutes than anything else. And that's true for those of us who are "rabble" as much as it is for high-class elites such as yourself.

Posted by NonyNony | May 8, 2007 4:27 PM

I just realized that Fred used the phrase "poor whites" and I'm beginning to think that I just got trolled by someone who DID take an argument from 60 years ago and replace the word "Negro" with the word "gay"...

Posted by NonyNony | May 8, 2007 4:29 PM

As civilians, poor whites may have to put up with gay friendly curricula in public schools, etc., but they are under no obligation to enlist in a voluntary military.

I just can't believe you would denigrate the patriotic impulse to serve one's country so harshly as to suggest that large numbers of people would pass on the opportunity just because they might have to serve with a fag or two.

I know lots of people who make anti-gay comments, but I've never met a single person who quit their job because they found out a co-worker was gay. And we're not just talking about any old take-it-or-leave-it job like flipping burgers here, we're talking about the chance to serve your country.

Tell us, Fred, how many people have you come into contact with who would actually quit the military if DADT were repealed? You're obviously way more worldly than us, man. Enlighten us.

Posted by Steve | May 8, 2007 4:51 PM

As a Vietnam-Era veteran, I feel that the current recruitment dilemna has little to do with pay rates, gays in the miltary, ROTC, or anything else thats been mentioned here. I may be wrong, but I believe that there has never been, nor is there now, a shortage of military-aged men and women, who are more than willing to come forward to "defend" this country when the "need" arises. If there has been a shortage of anything, it has been responsible executive leadership and clear-headed, comprehensive, foreign policy. I submit that when these two fundamental ingredients have been restored, the problem of recruitment of our Armed Forces will take care of itself. Reinstitution of the draft at this juncture will only serve to further compound the present disillusion and demoralization of the American people in general and the U.S. Armed Forces in particular. In the meantime, sadly, we are forced to continue this debacle with ..."the Army we've got..."

Posted by migunz | May 8, 2007 4:53 PM

By law, the military isn't allowed to accept any new recruits with IQs on the heavily g-loaded AFQT below the 10th percentile. (The AFQT is the test that provided most of the new data in the middle section of "The Bell Curve" -- the head psychometrician of one of the branches of the military told me that he personally gave the data to Murray, and was very impressed with the accuracy of its display in "The Bell Curve.")

From 1992-2004, the military established a new floor of the 30th percentile in IQ (around 92), and only 1% of new enlistees were allowed in with lower IQs. Thus, the average IQ of enlistees is above the national average. Since then, due to Iraq, the Army has bumped up the bottom 30% to 4% and the Army Reserve has said they'll take even more.

So, there is an enormous pool of low-IQ potential cannon fodder out there. However, the military has enormous experience correlating IQ with performance in training and on the job, and it knows that low IQ recruits spell Trouble with a capital T. They kill themselves and their friends in accidents, they fail to learn complex modern technologies, and the list of troubles goes on and on.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 8, 2007 4:57 PM

I think migunz has it right. In late 2001, excess recruits were turned away. There is no shortage of people willing to serve. There is a shortage of people willing to be used.

Posted by Njorl | May 8, 2007 5:23 PM

Obviously Sailer shows up with his copy of The Bell Curve. Set your clocks by it.

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 8, 2007 7:17 PM

The IQ test used in The Bell Curve, the Armed Forces Qualification Test, and the IQ cutoffs established by Congress and the Pentagon, are the biggest factors in determining the size of the recruiting pool.

Deal with it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 8, 2007 8:07 PM

DJ Rudy "kewl m.t." may not be such a fresh face or a bitchen populist but can be obviously trusted to prevent the likely possibility that someone will someday fly an airplane into your respective place of work better than those lib Dems for the simple reason that America itself is endowed with magical qualities of protection with a Republican in the White House.

Posted by Linus | May 8, 2007 9:06 PM

Re: From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience of doing both, I predict that allowing open homosexuality in the military will drive off more straights than it will attract gays.

Racism was at least as ferocious 60 years ago as homophobia is today. Probably more so, because it was still enshrined in law, and the KKK still got away with stringing up the occasional uppity Black man. But how big a fall off was there in voluntary enlistments when the armed services were integrated. And conisder this too: if someone is so cowardly that they can't handle the mere possibility that someone finds them attractive in the showers, do we really want that person in the front line when he faces a real danger, like an enemy with a machine gun?

Posted by JonF | May 8, 2007 9:46 PM

First of all, Ramesh Ponneru hates the West. He supports the third-world invasion and thus is guilty of treason. Like the Indians in Camp of the Saints, he detests Western Civilization with every breath he takes, which is why he hates real conservatives and wants to wallpaper over real conservatism with Jacobin abstractions.

Second, all these neoliberal globalists want large armies so that they can command them and further implement their globalist policies and empires.

It will reach a point and, soon I believe, when actual Americans will disobey these internationalists and you'll see general insubordination in the military. We are on the verge of seeing it in Iraq.

Posted by Russell Kirk | May 8, 2007 9:51 PM

"Third-world mercenaries. Full citizenship for four years service. The Empire deserves it."

That is what lead to the fall of Rome.

Posted by Russell Kirk | May 8, 2007 9:52 PM

Blacks have been openly serving in the military at least since the Civil War. Prior to Truman's integration order, in segregated units with white officers. So gays serving openly isn't really analagous.

The point about the ROTC being banned from elite colleges is a sound one. Its absurd that a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the president (incidentally, in both cases Democratic) is used to justify opposition to on-campus military training or recruiting. If the schools were consistent, they'd show their opposition by refusing Congress or the White House the right to train or recruit on campus.

But wouldn't you know, Congress conducts its freshman member orientation at Harvard.
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_new_congress_members.html

And God only knows how many congressional and White House staffers have been recruited from schools that ban the military from doing likewise. Mustn't let principles stand in the way of career planning.

Posted by beowulf | May 9, 2007 12:05 AM

Yeah, Congress and the President forced DADT on an unwilling military, that's how it happened. Surely the military has no culpability in the matter.

Here's a little more realistic version of what happened: some schools have policies against allowing employers who discriminate to recruit on campus. One particular employer, the US military, successfully lobbied Congress to permit it to discriminate legally against gays. The schools decided that it's still discrimination in their book even if Congress says it's ok.

If you think that's wrong and un-American, then great, don't send your kid to Harvard! Harvard will survive and so will the US military. But don't go acting like the military is somehow innocent of any involvement in the enactment of DADT because that's just silly.

The ban on ROTC, by the way, is an entirely separate issue and I have no idea why you brought it up.

Posted by Steve | May 9, 2007 1:37 AM

The problem is that our military has been allowed to shrink to the point where it is limiting the ability of candidates to campaign on a platform of fighting more glorious little wars. With half our fighting strength tied down in Iraq, it may well be impossible for us to find any piss-assed little countries small enough to be thrown against the wall by our remaining forces.

Posted by brooksfoe | May 9, 2007 2:23 AM