The Pentagon's 12-Step Program to Create a Military of Misfits

[Watser?]

TomDispatch (http://www.tomdispatch.com/) is a left-wing blog that bills itself as "a regular antidode to the mainstream media". It has very good background articles written by experienced reporters and writers that you won't find anywhere else.
This article (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=121072) focuses on the transformation of the US army: under pressure to come up with sufficient numbers standards are lowering.


Military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, propaganda releases by the Pentagon, and a spate of recent press reports touting the way the military has made its wo/manpower goals.

But the armed forces have only met with success through a fundamental "transformation," and not the transformation of the military -- that "co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology" -- Rumsfeld is always talking about either.

While the Secretary of Defense's longstanding goal of transforming the planet's most powerful military into its highest tech, most agile, most futuristic fighting force has, in the words of the Washington Post's David Von Drehle, "melted away," the very makeup of the Armed Forces has been mutating before our collective eyes under the pressure of the war in Iraq. This actual transformation has been reported, but only in scattered articles on the new recruitment landscape in America.

...

The result: U.S. ground forces are increasingly made up of a motley mix of underage teens, old-timers, foreign fighters, gang-bangers, neo-Nazis, ex-cons, inferior officers and a host of near-mercenary troops, lured in or kept in uniform through big payouts and promises.

In the latter half of the Vietnam War, as the breakdown was occurring, American troops began to scrawl "UUUU" on their helmet liners -- an abbreviation that stood for "the unwilling, led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful." The U.S. ground forces of 2007 and beyond, fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other war du jour may increasingly resemble the collapsing military of the Vietnam War, the band of criminal misfits sent behind enemy lines during World War II in the classic Vietnam-era film, The Dirty Dozen, or the janissaries of the old Ottoman Empire.

[California Tanker]

Of the five US armed services, I've always thought that the one that needs the best advertising campaign has always had the worst one. The other branches are doing rather well in recruiting, because each has a certain appeal. The Air Force generally has the impression of being quite safe and comfortable, the Navy is also generally safe, and the ship's accomodation is made up for by all the foreign places you can visit, the Coast Guard is more appealing to those who want to get into law enforcement or lifesaving, and the Marines have their own appeal of being considered 'a cut above'. But the Army, we're just the run-of-the-mill footsloggers, the big Green Machine with nothing particularly special about us.

Here's the latest batch of recruiting adverts for the British Army. Over there, the military is considered more of a vocation for life than in the US where doing a stint and getting out is far more common.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxYXX7pFp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgZU6UwoWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weudbL9tXCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfp-jqJB81U

Here's an Irish one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbOQgqK1TBc

Compare those to the Army advertisements you see on the TV in the US. I can't remember the last time I saw a rifle on a US Army advert, let alone a tank, or people shooting things. At least the most recent US Marine and US Navy adverts have rifles. Whilst other countries and branches are selling the appeal of the job itself, the US Army sells the ancilliary items: Anything but the job.

Thus the mercenary comment in the article above is both true and false at the same time. The current Army recruiting adverts generally emphasise the compensation, usually in the form of training for after you get out, or for money for college. (There are a couple of slight deviations from this: the one with the battlefield TOC keyboard ninja, the 'teamwork' firefighter, and the 'self respect' one, none of which I consider particularly great). The counter-argument, however, is that all they're doing is competing in the job marketplace. We're almost all mercenaries: When we go looking for a job, we always pay great attention to the pay scale, the medical, pension benefits, stock options, and so on. Why should the military be any different when it comes to competing for employees? Not enough people want to work for you? Sweeten the pot. In addition, the recent salvo of adverts are aimed not at the potential recruits, but at the parents, as they have a large sway over their kid's path. "Ah, there's a war on, we won't let our Johnny go get killed"

Of interest is the fact that although the Army has been struggling to meet its recruitment goals, the retention rates are very high: People that are in are staying in, the problem is getting new blood to join. The combat arms are generally doing quite well in recruitment, by way of example, about 20% of my tankers on my books are so new that they've not completed basic training yet. But that shouldn't be a surprise: The people who tend to go infantry or armour tend to be in it because they want the challenge and excitement, and going to war is exactly what the job they signed on to do entails. Combat arms has the highest proportion of educated folk of them all, with exceptions of the 'professions' like medical, JAG and so on: They're not in it to get an education for life, they are in it for the challenge. Where the Army is taking a serious hit is in the support arms, like logistics and ordnance: People joining not primarily for the excitement of running around with a rifle, but who want to do a three year stint, learn how to drive trucks, repair helicopters, whatever, and then put that skill to use in the civilian world. They are wondering if the perceived risk, however small, inherent in being sent to the middle-east is really worth it to obtain those other skills.

As a result, the overall numbers of applicants have gone down, hence the reduction in minimum standards for accession. It is to be noted that whilst lower ASVAB scores can now get you in to the Army, the sub-requirements for the various jobs still haven't changed. For example, you might still need a GT (General Technical) score of 90 (or whatever) to get into Infantry as GT is a 'rated' category for the job, but you could now get away with a lower CL (Clerical) score because it's not an issue for Infantry, even though it lowers the total ASVAB score. As it happens, the easiest job to get into is 'cook', which probably explains Army food.

As for the rest of the article, the transformation is going fairly well, the new modular design does seem very flexible (though I'm unhappy at the size of Brigade and Division TOCs), and the Strykers are doing great. (Even though we all know that they're 'interim' in name only.) We're not too happy with the berets, but that's a small issue. The bit about ex-cons, neo-nazis, and so on, is overstated. It's not as if we're taking in bank robbers and rapists.

NTM

[JackDog]

How widespread are "green-card soldiers"? I've heard a little about them, but it's mainly been from internet sources.

[California Tanker]

They're out there. I've only run across a few in my time, and it's a fast-track to citizenship. The catch is that you need to be a legal resident of the US before you join up: You can't join up first and then become a resident.

NTM

[Javaman]

There was an article several months ago (perhaps I heard it on NPR) about The ARMY's increase in the allowable percentage of non-high school graduates. IIRC, the change was dramatic. I believe it was something along these lines but I'm not positive: It used to be required that non-HS grads can only make up 1% of the total active duty USARMY but it has now been increased to 10% (I pulled that number out of my rear so I'd better go look for actual numbers). I'm a USAF veteran and worked in many Joint situations so I have some knowledge of the other services.

[Javaman]

Hmm... I must have been dreaming though the numbers aren't good (I'll keep looking, though). This article has some very telling signs:

Army on Pace to Meet Year's Recruiting Goal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801534.html)

But though the number of Army recruits has grown this year, the number of those meeting key Pentagon standards has declined compared with the past several years.

For example, the proportion of recruits holding a high school diploma was 81.2 percent as of August, falling below the Pentagon benchmark of 90 percent for the second year in a row. The last time the Army fell to such a low level of high school graduates was in 1981, when it dropped to 80 percent.

[California Tanker]

Well, that's a yes and no. Whilst one can enlist without a High School Diploma or GED, they also can't go to Basic. The Army basically makes sure that the GED is obtained.

http://www.1800goguard.com/education/edu_gedplus.html

Do I need a GED or High School diploma to join the Guard?

Not necessarily!

If you do not have a GED or a HS diploma, the Guard can help. The Army National Guard’s GED Plus Program provides free training and testing services that will enable you to successfully obtain your GED.

The Army National Guard will pay you to get your GED when you enlist. If you don't have either a high school diploma or alternate education credentials (GED, National Guard Youth Challenge, Correspondence Diploma, etc) we can help. You can enlist under the “Army National Guard GED Plus Program”. You must have a minimum AFQT score of 31% and a certified transcript showing completion of the ninth grade. You must also meet the following criteria:

a. You must have withdrawn from high school for at least six months prior to your date of application for enlistment. No waivers are authorized.

b. You must be 18 years old or older, or not be eligible to return to your local high school to complete your diploma program.

c. You must scorce a minimum of 31% on the AFQT. If you score 50 or higher on the ASVAB you may be eligible for other incentives and/or bonuses.

d. Anyone testing positive on the Drug and Alcohol Test (DAT) screening will be immediately discharged from the program. DAT waivers are not authorized.

If you enlist under the GED Plus Program you will not be able to participate in the Split Training Option (STO), and may not be shipped for Initial Entry Training (IET) until you complete theGEDPlus Program.

The GED Plus training program will take place at the Professional Education Center in Arkansas.

Anyone enlisting under the GED Plus Program who presents an accredited GED completion certificate or diploma prior to shipping will not be required to attend the ARNG GED Plus Training program

NTM

[Javaman]

Ah, I found it. I was off base a bit. It wasn't high-school graduation, it was ASVAB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASVAB) scores (I should have read CT's post better!). Here's the whole article (from Slate):

GI Schmo: How low can Army recruiters go? (http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/nav/tap1/) And I wasn't too far off on the numbers :shocked:

Then it started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test—a group, known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years.

...

In response to the tightening trends, on Sept. 20, 2005, the Defense Department released DoD Instruction 1145.01, which allows 4 percent of each year's recruits to be Category IV applicants—up from the 2 percent limit that had been in place since the mid-1980s. Even so, in October, the Army had such a hard time filling its slots that the floodgates had to be opened; 12 percent of that month's active-duty recruits were Category IV. November was another disastrous month; Army officials won't even say how many Cat IV applicants they took in, except to acknowledge that the percentage was in "double digits."

The whole story is worth a read.

[trientalis]

The incomparable Billmon weighs in here (http://billmon.org/archives/002727.html) with help from the equally incomparable Mr. Gibbon.

So are we witnessing the decline and fall of the American Empire?