I think you are both off on looking at the numbers and USA Today is
hardly a source worthy of credibility on the subject.
Listen, after 18 years in the military I've heard numbers and percentages
every year and it comes down to this:
Numbers go up and down on recruitment and re-enlistment ALL THE TIME.
The biggest short falls in these areas during my tenure occurred during
times of
relative peace. But it really occurs in cycles. Sometimes we recruit and
re-enlist more than what the speculated need is and some times we fall
short.
( I have yet to see us hit it right on the nose).
Then 20 years later (the time in for retirement eligibility) you see an
exodus
reflecting those short falls or excesses. Falling 4% below need or getting
6%
more than expected is hardly cause for concern. Judging the military's
morale
based on these numbers is naive to say the least and silly to be more
accurate.
During times of shortfalls we offer incentives to stay in and during times
of excess
we offer incentives to get out, and in between that we do whatever necessary
to keep the level of manning where congress wants it (i.e. adjusting for
force reductions
or expansions). Right now the trend is a reduction in the active duty
forces and
an increase on the role of the reserve forces. Even with all that is going
on
right now, all branches are looking at force reduction in most areas.


"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:12:53 -0600, xrongor
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Falling relative to an unknown variable, is meaningless. Can you at
least
see that?

the variable i am referring to is not unknown. the variable reffered
to
in
this statement is the % of their goal. we know that variable in both
situations and it went down from one year to the next.

You don't know the _VALUE_ of the variable. FFS, Randy, it's all
word-games with you, isn't it.

snippy dave again. snips what he doesnt like or cant understand.

i know what i said. i said the % had dropped. you dont disagree so ill
assume you agree with that point. its you that plays the word games. you
are trying to claim i am using that to prove re-enlistment went down. i
NEVER made such a claim. i only said that it was not proof that
re-enlistment was high.

just to be clear dave, are you disagreeing with the statement 'the
percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down?

I'm not disagreeing with anything, Randy. You're completely right,
about everything. Your words are unambiguous, your intentions are
completely pure, and you're free to have the last word. You win,
O wise and glorious Randy. Gosh, I'm so impressed by your wisdom.

So why would you bring up McDonalds french fry sales goal performance
when the topic is Idaho farmer income? From here, it looks like you
are bringing up an irrelevant measurement to distort the issue.

i really have no idea what basis you are using to draw this
conclusion.
this is all in your head.

Missing a sales goal is equivalent to the 106% vs. 96%. Farmer income
is equivalent to the hard number which is re-enlistment rate. Got
it now? It's not really that tough, Randy. Two different things.

I'm sure you have a really good response to all this, but I won't
see it. Go ahead and crow about how I couldn't handle you or
whatever, you probably can't help yourself. plonk

ploink or not, i know youll google it. you never answered my questions.
your fundamental premise has been that i claimed the numbers showed the
re-enlistment rates were falling. i never claimed that and you couldnt
show
me where i did. you have judiciously snipped my posts to alter reality.
this one included.

no steak for you man...

randy