this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
"I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA Today
story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96% fall
into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-troops_x.htm. The
story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year before,
but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they would
be reenlisting at that rate."


yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the title
of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the tip
off right there.

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean 96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be
made.

todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell short
of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to defend
my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the answer
is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd backing
up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me backing up
my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to convince
todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
sorry todd. im not taking your bait.

and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion is
the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you are
about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if you
want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your other
thing true.

i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
re-enlistment.

do what you have to do...

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:25:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

Yes, we saw it.

yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed.

I'm guessing "tapdancing".

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean 96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling.

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The re-enlistment
goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the
goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or
missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be
made.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell short
of their goal.

....which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the
stop-loss order.

i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
re-enlistment.

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

Dave Hinz

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:25:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers
are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

Yes, we saw it.

yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed.

I'm guessing "tapdancing".

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean
96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal
was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling.

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The
re-enlistment
goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the
goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or
missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?


the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any
numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can
be
made.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

all i said is the % is falling. this is true. and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...


todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not
think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
of their goal.

...which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the
stop-loss order.

maybe, maybe not. im just going on the proof todd gave.


i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.


i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
re-enlistment.

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

all i said is the % is falling. this is true.

The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment
is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.

and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...

Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.

i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.

And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down".
How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree.
considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

all i said is the % is falling. this is true.

The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment
is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.

and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...

Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.

i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.

And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down".
How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing.
he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...

he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:49:22 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.

he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.

Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree.
considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

I NEVER SAID THIS!! show me where i said re-enlistment was going down.

lets get this straight. here is what i said:

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean 96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be
made.

i specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal. are
you saying thats not true? probably...

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:57:11 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

lets get this straight. here is what i said:

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean 96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be
made.

i specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal. are
you saying thats not true? probably...

When the topic is number of re-enlistments and you throw in a "it's
falling" comment, yeah, it's irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst.

for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we would
all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some fresh
aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics g

peace.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...
for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we would
all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some
fresh
aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics g

peace.

randy

Can we skip the asparagus? I don't suppose there is any broccoli in that
garden? If you get the charcoal going, I'll bring the steaks. ;-)

todd

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"xrongor" wrote in message
...
for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we
would
all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some
fresh
aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics g

peace.

randy

Can we skip the asparagus? I don't suppose there is any broccoli in that
garden? If you get the charcoal going, I'll bring the steaks. ;-)

ill put little green wigs on the asparagas. you wont notice the difference
g

but seriously. its easy to get caught up in internet arguments, but the
forum isnt very good for extended discussion, and what takes 10 pages to try
and make clear so nobody is misunderstanding each other would probably take
1 minute in real life. i dont hate you, and i hope you dont hate me. we
just dont agree about iraq. and we arent alone... i certainly dont have
all the answers.

ok ok. ill get the brocoli, but it will have to be from the store!

ttyl
randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers
are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
"I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA
Today
story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96%
fall
into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-troops_x.htm. The
story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year
before,
but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they
would
be reenlisting at that rate."


yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the title
of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the
tip
off right there.

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean
96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal
was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any
numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be
made.

Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.

todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly
isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to
defend
my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the
answer
is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd
backing
up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me backing
up
my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to
convince
todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
sorry todd. im not taking your bait.

Translation: I don't have any basis for my argument, but that won't stop me
from shooting off.

and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion is
the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you
are
about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if
you
want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your
other
thing true.

You're the one who supports a near-immediate pullout and tells us you know
more than anyone in a position of authority on the subject. I'm just trying
to find out if you're just blowing smoke up everyone's keister (or is it
"kiester"?) or if you really know what that will mean on the ground.

todd

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

"xrongor" wrote in message
...
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers
are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
"I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA
Today
story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96%
fall
into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-troops_x.htm.
The
story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year
before,
but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they
would
be reenlisting at that rate."


yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the
title
of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the
tip
off right there.

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean
96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal
was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what
the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any
numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can
be
made.

Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.

todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not
think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly
isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to
defend
my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the
answer
is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd
backing
up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me
backing
up
my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to
convince
todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
sorry todd. im not taking your bait.

Translation: I don't have any basis for my argument, but that won't stop
me
from shooting off.

and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion
is
the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you
are
about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if
you
want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your
other
thing true.

You're the one who supports a near-immediate pullout and tells us you know
more than anyone in a position of authority on the subject. I'm just
trying
to find out if you're just blowing smoke up everyone's keister (or is it
"kiester"?) or if you really know what that will mean on the ground.

todd

todd, you have nothing to say. you started with very high re-enlistment, it
fell down to only high, and you havent made your case at all.

goodbye.

randy

"Todd Fatheree" writes:

Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.

According to this source:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml

As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their feet"
and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.

---

If everyone was re-uping, the stop-loss orders wouldn't be necessary.

scott

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
m...
"Todd Fatheree" writes:

Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.

According to this source:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml

As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their
feet"
and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.

So, your source is a disgruntled colonel who isn't even in the Army any
more?

If everyone was re-uping, the stop-loss orders wouldn't be necessary.

Maybe they just feel like they need every person that they have available.
The reason we got onto this whole business in the first place was Randy
asserting that the troops believe they are wasting their time. I asserted
that based on the re-enlistment numbers I heard that there wasn't a lot of
evidence for that. After looking for backup on the reported numbers, I
can't find any good, raw data. But let's say for the sake of argument that
the re-enlistment rate is not what we want. Based on soldiers I have heard
that have been in Iraq, they are proud of the job they're doing and believe
it is important. That said, many of them, especially Guard troops and
reservists who didn't think they would be deployed for as long as they have,
want to get back home, and I don't blame them for that. For those men and
women, I don't believe it is a reflection on their commitment to our cause
as it is a desire to get back to their civilian lives. I'm sure few of them
would rather be in Iraq than back home, but most of them understand they are
doing a very important job.

todd

scott

(Scott Lurndal) writes:
"Todd Fatheree" writes:

Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.

According to this source:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml

As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their feet"
and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.


Yet another:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

scott

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yet another:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

....and a few counters:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

Doug Winterburn writes:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yet another:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

...and a few counters:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm


These are both about the air force. The discussion, IIRC, was about
soldiers (i.e. army), not airmen (i.e. air force).

scott

Doug Winterburn provides:
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm

Air Force reenlistment rates are always significantly higher than those for the
Army. There are a variety of reasons for that, including more technical
training, no need for grunts, less need for front line discipline, and on.
Oddly enough, Marine Corps rates are also higher, usually significantly.

I'm not sure reenlistment rates reflect satisfaction within the military as to
their mission as much as they reflect the economy at a particular period, along
with visible opportunities to advance within any of the services...added to
pride of service. Reenlistment bonuses help, too, though not as much as the
military might like.

Oddly enough, the Air Force and Navy are both planning reductions in personnel
numbers next year--I seem to recall the Air Force getting ready to drop 5600
people from their overall roles. The Army is looking to, as they say, turn
"Blue To Green". They want anyone over E5 who is released in the program.

For a general look at military matters, try military.com.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower

Well, not to diminish their efforts, but becoming a rifleman is hardly a
career choice. It's a young, single man's field.

Promotions and bonuses tied to the "needs of the service" are used to
overcome shortages in the skilled fields, as well as lowering the testing
threshold for entry into them. This almost guarantees an ebb and flow as
incentives fill a field at a certain level, then shed personnel at the next
level because it is overmanned. The service has an up or out policy which
denies reenlistment to those who fail promotion, even though it will not
promote unless the position exists.

Add the outside world into the equation, and it becomes even more
complicated.

Then there are the purely bone-headed policies which drive people out. One
of the best co-pilots I even had was an EE by training. As the end of his
commitment approached, the Air Force was offering bonuses for EEs, since
there was a shortage. Long story short, the wings he wore were more
important than the "needs" of the service. With no shortage of UPT grads to
take his place, he could not work in his preferred field, but left the
service. Even happened to a navigator I flew with. All he wanted to do was
change aircraft, not "waste his expensive training."

I, for one, am amazed at the levels they're able to maintain with long
unaccompanied tours and more in the offing.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yet another:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm

...and a few counters:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm

Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) (xrongor) puts
out:
snip claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting snip

OK, let's clear something up first. By the "us", are you meaning
as in part of a group, meaning that you are a soldier (or military)
also? Or do you mean "US" or "U.S", as in United States?

Yeah, sometimes people don't know what you mean anyway.

JOAT

We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg

"J T" wrote in message
...
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) (xrongor) puts
out:
snip claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting snip

OK, let's clear something up first. By the "us", are you meaning
as in part of a group, meaning that you are a soldier (or military)
also? Or do you mean "US" or "U.S", as in United States?

Yeah, sometimes people don't know what you mean anyway.

JOAT


to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make sure
to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence you
are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us means
U.S.

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:52:13 -0600, "xrongor"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Some caps and stops would not hurt a better understanding (and make
your opinion carry more weight perhaps.)

to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make sure
to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence you
are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us means
U.S.

randy

call me silly, but if someone thinks what i have to say carries more weight
because i use more caps or write U.S. every time instead of us (and lets
face it, it wasnt that far of a stretch, JT got it on the first go...) then
that person is likely to think someone else has something more important to
say if they use a nice font. then we have to make letterheads and fancy
sigs to promote our image of worthiness. im not going to change the way ive
posted to bbs and newsgroups for 15 years just for an aura of
respectability.

that said, you're probably right g

randy


"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:52:13 -0600, "xrongor"
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Some caps and stops would not hurt a better understanding (and make
your opinion carry more weight perhaps.)

to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make
sure
to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence
you
are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us
means
U.S.

randy

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:16:41 -0600, xrongor wrote:
call me silly, but if someone thinks what i have to say carries more weight
because i use more caps or write U.S. every time instead of us (and lets
face it, it wasnt that far of a stretch, JT got it on the first go...) then
that person is likely to think someone else has something more important to
say if they use a nice font.

While I'm the last person to post a grammar, speeling, or punctuation flame,
I must say that it doesn't make your message more likely to convince
anyone if you can't be bothered to at least attempt to get those right.
Hard to tell if the writer is ignorant, or just careless, but either way
it doesn't add anything to the effectiveness.

Before you jump all over me for this, I've more than several times
said the same sort of thing to people I agree with - "You're not helping
our cause with that sort of message" kind of posts.

im not going to change the way ive
posted to bbs and newsgroups for 15 years just for an aura of
respectability.

Your choice, of course. The reader's choice on how to interpret the
lack of whatever, of course.

I can't speak for the Army and what their personnel force is at or headed,
but the Navy has just released a message allowing personnel to exit the
service 12 months early due to overmanning concerns. What was really
unusual about this message was that there were very few restrictions placed
on any of the Navy "ratings", just about any and all could be eligible.
Re-enlistment is up, recruiting up, reserve requests to convert to active is
up
(which has all led to promotion rates dropping) and a need to let some
people
go. But like I said this is the Navy not the Army.


"xrongor" wrote in message
...
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers
are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
"I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA
Today
story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96%
fall
into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-troops_x.htm. The
story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year
before,
but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they
would
be reenlisting at that rate."


yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the title
of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the
tip
off right there.

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean
96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal
was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling. the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any
numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be
made.

todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly
isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to
defend
my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the
answer
is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd
backing
up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me backing
up
my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to
convince
todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
sorry todd. im not taking your bait.

and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion is
the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you
are
about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if
you
want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your
other
thing true.

i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
re-enlistment.

do what you have to do...

randy

Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) (xrongor) puts
out:
snip of a bunch of stuff, mostly speculation it would seem, that I'm
totally ignoring for starters the title of the article is: 'iraq duty
deters re-enlistment'. this should be the tip off right there. snip

Dunno about that. I reenlisted just before I voluntered for Nam.
In fact, might have reenlisted to volunteer, don't really recall. All
of the people I had deep respect for had been, at least once, some
twice, and several were going back, for second, or third tours. They
thought pretty highly of me, so seemed like the proper thing to do at
the time. Found out it was a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want
to live there. I would suspect the reasons for a lot of the present
day reenlistments are for similar reasons. It's always nice to to get
out of the house for a bit.

JOAT

We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg

"xrongor" wrote:

this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, but I've heard this
mis-statistic quoted to suggest that military retention and
recruitment is up, or that military morale is high.

I think our troops deserve our respect for the fine job they are
doing. But anyone who follows the news or has relatives on active
duty (as I do) would know that there is a broad stop-loss in effect
for most of the military, and that recalls have even been issued for
recently retired IRR military. The reason stop-loss and recall orders
are issued is obvious: more troops are needed than are currently
available by normal means.

Regardless of political viewpoint, people should understand that our
regular military, reserves, and guard are stretched very thin.