The Missing Officers

No doubt the need to start offering bonuses of up to $35,000 to retain young officers merely reflects the booming economy in the civilian sector. All those lieutenants are passing up their chance of promotion to become hedge fund managers or real estate speculators. Or something:

Army officials said that lengthy and repeated war-zone tours -- the top reason younger officers leave the service -- plus the need for thousands of new officers as the Army moves forward with expansion plans have contributed to a projected shortfall of about 3,000 captains and majors for every year through 2013.

Now, obviously, the "lengthy and repeated war-zone tours" are a hardship, but not more of a hardship than what was endured during the world wars or the Civil War or what have you. What you're seeing with these shortfalls, however, is officers responding to the fact that unlike in those previous grand conflicts the political class in the United States clearly doesn't actually regard the war in Iraq as a key battlefield in an existential conflict for the ScaryIslamoBoogieFascists. There's no mobilization on the home front that remotely suggests that George W. Bush or Michael O'Hanlon or anyone else really sees this mission as worth giving up anything for. So officers are responding in the same way.

And, of course, they're right -- the more soberminded advocates of endless war don't really think we can accomplish much of anything in Iraq, they basically just want us to hang on indefinitely and vaguely hope for the best. Which seems like an okay option, I suppose, if you're not personally supposed to be doing the hanging on and the vaguely hoping. But it's easy to see why someone might not want to volunteer for that mission.

Comments

Also, this war has now lasted longer than the Civil War or U.S. involvement in either World War. Still a few years from Vietnam though!

Posted by old guy | October 11, 2007 2:59 PM

As a father of a young officer who will be making a decision in January as to whether to stay or leave the service, I cna speak out to this.

When he was first deployed to Iraq, he felt he was part of something meaningful. His experience there did not leave him disillusioned with the military, but did leave him disillusioned with the current civilian leadership.

He felt, along with several of his fellow junior officers, that the military had been betrayed by this administration, particularly the President and Rumsfeld.

He did not come back from Afghanistan with that feeling, except in the sense that he felt it was being under aggressively pursued as a mission. And he knew that the military was having resources drawn from there for Iraq before Iraq was on most Americans' radar.

I don't know what his decision will be, and I find myself torn. He represents (and yes I am biased) what could be extremely good about the military, and I am afraid of what will happen if all that remains are those who bought the Bush propaganda hook line and sinker.

At the same time, if he left, I and my wife would be able to breathe a sigh of relief, knowing he won't be able to be sent there again.

Posted by John | October 11, 2007 3:00 PM

It may be a great deal worse than reacting to indifference. The objectives in Iraq, flypaper and liberation, are mutually exclusive. This war is unwinnable because it's designed to be.

That's demoralizing.

Posted by Tom | October 11, 2007 3:06 PM

Iraq makes for a great resume bullet.

With that (and even without), these one term wonders can easily convert to a contract position for triple the pay.

What would you do?

Posted by bubba | October 11, 2007 3:11 PM

Bubba -
While some probably can and do become contractors, I imagine it's a fairly small percentage. This seems a much more common route for the special forces community than just regular army folks.

Posted by John | October 11, 2007 3:17 PM

The point being laboriously made is that renewal bonuses are required because this war isn't glorious enough to have soldier re-up for patriotism and nothing else. The contrast is false and without factual basis (which, I know, isn't a requirement here).

In the Civil War, the enlistment periods came up during the war and huge numbers left, and big bonuses were offered to regiments and to individuals. The northern draft was really a requirement that states provide certain numbers and they did it by hefty bonuses because by late in the war, people had enough. Desertion was common among the southern armies.

WWII was a draft and no enlistment periods, although bomber pilots did leave after set missions.

While L'il Mat divines with clarity and certainty the Real Single Reason that officers don't re-up, I expect its the same myriad reasons officers in all wars have wanted to go home.

Posted by Béziers | October 11, 2007 3:22 PM

I am a law student who recently sought to join the military and was rejected b/c I take garden variety anti-depressants. Others I know can't join b/c they got lasik. And then of course there is don't ask don't tell. It's very frustrating to learn they are so desperate for officers that they are offering $35,000 bonuses.

Posted by Andrew Brown | October 11, 2007 3:29 PM

What an idiotic post. In World War II and the Civil War there were drafts. We had to resort to slavery to get enough men. Now, we just have to pay them a few extra bucks.

Matthew somehow thinks that a few thousand dollars is somehow more telling than slavery???

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 3:30 PM

i see al and beziers are in exceptional form today.

here's the deal, gents: we aren't talking about what it takes to keep an enlisted person in the army. we are talking about what it takes to keep the pool from which the future senior officer corps will emerge from leaving the army.

this actually belongs under the list of iraq, long-term costs of: the hollowing out of the officer corps.

What i find immensely saddening about this is that the people at the top of the military all supposedly learned all these lessons from vietnam, and yet when push came to shove, not one resigned his (and i'm pretty sure it's all "his" in this scenario) commission. and now the army will have to be significantly rebuilt all over again.

Al and Beziers are just garden variety fantasists in this matter, but colin powell, for example, knew better and failed to act on his knowledge.

Posted by howard | October 11, 2007 3:39 PM

Al:

What an idiotic post. In World War II and the Civil War there were drafts. We had to resort to slavery to get enough men. Now, we just have to pay them a few extra bucks.

Yo moron, since when have we ever had "enough men" to win in Iraq? That's the whole point. The need to win never matched the rhetoric of winning.

Posted by Bill | October 11, 2007 3:52 PM

To be fair, there was only a draft in WWII and the Civil War because we decided to fight those wars with enough troops to give us a chance of winning.

Being, as they were, your normal horrifying and tragic our-nation-had-no-choice-but-to fight wars, as opposed to a debacle of an invasion our troops were sent on by a self-absorbed idiot working out his daddy issues, aided by his coterie of lying morons who'd given in fully to their delusions of grandeur.

But again, it's really not fair to compare WWII and the Civil War to Iraq. I mean, those Presidents really cared about winning.

Posted by anon | October 11, 2007 3:53 PM

i really don't think matt was being too obligue here, but, let's try again for the sake of, say, Al.

our political class obviously doesn't think this conflict is important enough to institute A DRAFT, hence risking their own political necks.

given this, they need to try to keep people with the single tool of monetary bonuses.

does this help?

Posted by josh bivens | October 11, 2007 4:09 PM

Well, at least they met their targets for new recruits this year. Though in doing so, they had to lower the qualifications a little. 18% of this year's Army recruits have a criminal record.

That should really help us win those hearts and minds. And, of course, the next time US soldiers are accused of committing an atrocity, the right wing will once again go berserk and insist we give these good ol' American boys the benefit of the doubt -- even if they did happen to have a rap sheet back in the US.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 11, 2007 4:12 PM

1) What draftdodgers like Bush and Cheney don't understand is that moral influence is important in war -- men don't fight for money. It is one thing to defend your country. It is something else to risk your life so Bush can seize oil deposits for Big Oil and solicit campaign donations from Israeli billionaires.

2) It is even more stressful as an officer to send enlisted men to die for such.

Posted by Don Williams | October 11, 2007 4:17 PM

If Yglesias is saying that we need a draft, he is being very oblique. I thought he was saying that if this were a popular, well-managed, worthwhile war, people would be signing up voluntarily without recruiting bonuses. Which, as several commentators have noted, would make this war different from any other the country has fought, starting with the Revolution, where both conscription and bonuses, including rather extravagant promises to officers, were a major factor in recruiting.

Posted by y81 | October 11, 2007 4:24 PM

18% of this year's Army recruits have a criminal record.

That's false. 18% needed a waiver. You need a waiver for all kinds of things, including answering "yes" to the question "have you ever used marijuana (even once)".

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 4:27 PM

It was mentioned above, but bears repeating, is "officer loss" being caused by Blackwater et. al., in which officers might return to Iraq for $150K - $250K per year?

Posted by jerry | October 11, 2007 4:46 PM

Did Al just demonstrate that Americans want to fight this war even more than WWII? I think he did.

Posted by Steve | October 11, 2007 4:46 PM

To Al and others, this is not about recruiting new members of the military. It is about retaining highly trained officers who will in future years become the senior officers and eventually those from whom the Joint Chiefs will be drawn.

It is about not having to place into the positions of major and above, officers without the necessary experience.

These bonuses are being offered to captains in specific areas, where a significant loss of officers would have significantly negative impact of the future defense of this nation.

What is at issue, and what is being pointed to here is why the military even feels the need to make these offers, which are unprecedented on this scale in our history. Officers are resigning at the highest rate since the post Vietnam era, and it isn't even close to the next highest level.

And it isn't because these officers are unpatriotic or unwilling to lay down their lives for their country. And they are not "one-term wonders."

Many of these officers entered the military looking at it being a career, knowing that they may be called upon to be put in harm's way.

But they trusted the country and its leadership not to put them in harm's way for petty reasons.

This administration has failed them, and in doing so has weakened the future strength of this country.

Posted by John | October 11, 2007 4:52 PM

You need a waiver for all kinds of things, including answering "yes" to the question "have you ever used marijuana (even once)".

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 4:27 PM

Which means they committed a crime, and thus are criminals.

Posted by Tom | October 11, 2007 4:54 PM

Which means they committed a crime, and thus are criminals.

But not that they have a criminal record!

In any case, is smoking a joint really "criminal"? I don't consider myself a criminal for having smoked any more than I consider myself a criminal for having driven 60 in a 55.

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 4:59 PM

The military always suffers a loss of junior CPTs. They are on top of their game but have a hard time envisioning staying in for 13 - 15 more years to get a retirement check. I think it is smart to pay to retain these guys because it would be much more expensive to replace them. In the organization I am familiar with, 50% are taking the money as of today, 40% are still undecided and 10% are resigning.

There were other incentives offered instead of money to include grad school, station of choice and branch transfer.

Posted by danceswithgoats | October 11, 2007 5:01 PM

What you're seeing with these shortfalls, however, is officers responding to the fact that unlike in those previous grand conflicts the political class in the United States clearly doesn't actually regard the war in Iraq as a key battlefield in an existential conflict for the ScaryIslamoBoogieFascists.

Actually, it's funny, because if I had actually read the story before posting, I would have seen that Matthew's post is even more idiotic than I first realized. The story says the following:

"Army officials said the projected officer shortage is mainly the result of the Army's plan to add 65,000 active-duty soldiers to its ranks -- including more than 6,000 captains and majors -- by 2010."

So, my question is, did Matthew fail to read the story (as I did)? Or is he just lying?

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 6:38 PM

Matt,

So, when are you going to join up? America's military needs the best and brightest officers it can get. A Harvard graduate like you would make a fine addition to the force, especially with your keen sense of world affairs. I'd like to see you join the ground forces where you can make a direct contribution to the war in Iraq, but could also see you excelling in the Navy or Air Force.

What do you say? Ready to stand up and be a man among men?

Posted by Mess-o-potamia | October 11, 2007 7:22 PM

There seems to be reading comprehension problems today, so let me try again.

Mat reports that the Armed forces are using large bonuses to retain officers. Mat says that fact obviously means that, unlike the civil war and WWII, officers aren't sold on the war and are leaving in droves.

I wrote that plenty of men left the army during the civil war and retention and signing bonuses were widespread. (Just check out any routine Civil War history like Battle Cry Freedom.) WWII had a draft. Therefore, the contrast Mat tried to draw was wrong (Civil War) or inapplicable (WWII).

That's all... No particular assertion on the war, how it was started or how its run. Just that Mat's wrong again.

Posted by Béziers | October 11, 2007 8:34 PM

Worth remembering again that New York Democrats like Matt weren't exactly itching to sign up to fight to free the slaves in the Civil War. Instead, they were protesting the war. Their forms of protest included draft riots, lynching of free local blacks, and torching the houses of prominent local Republicans.

Posted by Juan | October 11, 2007 10:04 PM

Someone who compares the Civil War and WWII with the Iraq War, merely in terms of how existential the conflict was viewed, and how that affected the retention rates of officers, is either ignorant or very silly. Matt, pick up a book, and learn somnething about these topics before pecking at the keyboard, or if you already know better, just shut up.

Posted by Will Allen | October 11, 2007 10:04 PM

Andrew Brown:

I am a law student who recently sought to join the military and was rejected b/c I take garden variety anti-depressants.

I was in exactly the same position in all particulars. You can apply for a waiver 1 year after you stop taking them.

Posted by Dylan | October 12, 2007 12:05 AM

Will Allen drools: "Someone who compares the Civil War and WWII with the Iraq War, merely in terms of how existential the conflict was viewed, and how that affected the retention rates of officers, is either ignorant or very silly. Matt, pick up a book, and learn somnething about these topics before pecking at the keyboard, or if you already know better, just shut up."

Will Allen has an unblemished record of stupidity on the Atlantic blogs. His next step should be to apply for a job in the White House. He seems to have what it would take to impress the geniuses running the place.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 12, 2007 2:18 AM

moron al, are gang members criminals? they have waivers, dumbass. get your head out of bush's ass. or join up. cowardly moron

Posted by merlallen | October 12, 2007 3:32 AM

So now Al is in favor decriminalizing marijuana? Interesting -- I wouldn't have expected it, but I guess it's not completely inconsistent with his philosophy.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 12, 2007 3:49 AM

"Worth remembering again that New York Democrats like Matt weren't exactly itching to sign up to fight to free the slaves in the Civil War. Instead, they were protesting the war. Their forms of protest included draft riots, lynching of free local blacks, and torching the houses of prominent local Republicans.

Posted by Juan | October 11, 2007 10:04 PM"

Worth remembering that the New York Democrats of the 1860's aren't exactly the New York Democrats of today. Worth remembering that the descendants of the same Southern Democrats we fought the war against are now the Republican base.

Posted by Reality Man | October 12, 2007 4:44 AM

Which, as several commentators have noted, would make this war different from any other the country has fought, starting with the Revolution, where both conscription and bonuses, including rather extravagant promises to officers, were a major factor in recruiting.

The Revolution, like the Iraq war, was supported only by a minority of the American population (many of whom stood to make a great deal of money from it).

Posted by ajay | October 12, 2007 5:54 AM

In any case, is smoking a joint really "criminal"? I don't consider myself a criminal for having smoked any more than I consider myself a criminal for having driven 60 in a 55.

This moral relativism on the right is really getting out of hand.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | October 12, 2007 9:19 AM

Moe, increase the lithium dosage.

Posted by Will Allen | October 12, 2007 9:43 AM