Are there any public numbers on soldier reenlistment?

It seems to me that soldiers wouldn’t be lining up to reenlist in a military that doesn’t give them enough toilet paper or food in 100degree heat, then cuts their pay just to make their true value perfectly clear. Not to mention the increasing Iraqi frustration with the success of the invasion.

Are the soldiers going to be allowed to leave when their terms are up, and if so who will replace them?

A former Marine (just came back from Iraq) said he could not WAIT to get out of that hell. I asked him if he ever thought about re-upping and he looked at me with such vile.

I think that was a no.

I'm dying to know if the numbers have gone down at recruitment centers or overall. I mean for the past 30 years since Vietnam ended chances of soldiers dying or being sent into battle zones were considerably less. They were there obviously, but since the country was still so skittish after Vietnam the chances I think were less. Since Shrubco has thrown out the window any reservations the government had about sending other children's kids off to die those chances are much greater. And it's even more dangerous because he's convinced a plurality of the american people it's o.k. too.

But I can't imagine anyone signing up knowing this.

More people are dying in risky occupations than in Iraq. The real question is, can those that would sign up normally believe in our govs. case for war on terror. I think that the young see it for what it is. We will never change the minds of the elderly. They have been subjected to megahours of nightly news and truly believe the world to be as dangerous as portrayed. They have put the lie to joining to get college money, seeing the world, army of one, and certainly us as liberators. I saw a new commercial for the navy, it said accelerate your life. That is truth in advertising. There is a sixties type resistance coming and we learned to not alienate the military. There are going to be a lot more of us getting our heads bashed in and killed than those two by two that are killed in Iraq now. I just hope that we can get a real man in the white house before that happens.

We started at the same time a year ago and he was a die hard Bush lover and his family is from Mexico.
Now he is thinking about moving to Mexico and he was born in Chicago. He said that he wouldn't reenlist in a war for oil.

A soldier can be called back after his/her term is up? For how long is this possible?

He is going to College on the GI Bill maybe he had to sign a paper that stated the he would allow them to call him back if they needed him.

unfortunately the ruling class has shipped
so many jobs overseas that opportunities
are shrinking. High school graduates may
have some dismal choices, go to college
(not an option for many) work at minimal
wage jobs or join the military. If they
are not college material (and many are not)
and a dead end service job looks bleaker
than a military job then Rummy is going
to get his unending supply of troops.

The children of the wealthy will have
opportunities that will become totally
unavailable to the lower classes. Our
children will become the military
protectors for the rich.

diminishes enlistment as much as it should.

none since then. They reflected the post 9-11 surge. Those are the numbers used by the wingnuts to dispell any fear of recruit (cannon fodder) shortfall.

News from Aug.2002
Army Achieves Recruiting Goals Early
http://www.army.mil/usar/news/2002/08august/newrecruit.html


Interesting Town Hall Meeting with Rumsfeld from 2001:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2001/t08092001_t809town.html

Question: "I've heard there may be an emphasis on careers longer than 20 years. How will that work? Will a person have to serve more than 20 years before they can retire?"

SEC. RUMSFELD: No. The short answer to it is that this is an issue that we're addressing and have not resolved. But we're looking at the question of whether or not people could serve in a tour longer. Dr. David Chu, the undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, is addressing that.
Chu Sees Value in Longer Military Tours of Duty-http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2001/n08142001_200108141.html

Question: I've read in newspapers, sir, that Army leadership says that the Army needs more troops. And I also read that you wanted to cut two divisions. Could you tell me how the two will compromise?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You don't believe everything you read in the press, do you? (Laughter.) Goodness gracious, a smart person like you. All of those three things have been up and discussed, but those issues have not been resolved.

Question: "What do you envision the Department of Defense will look like when my 11-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter are old enough to follow in my footsteps?"

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think the Department will still be a volunteer force, and I think it will be filled with men and women who care about the country and recognize the special responsibility that they have.

Question: "Do you foresee a need for a separate space force?"

SEC. RUMSFELD: I don't, at the moment. It is -- it is -- I say I don't at the moment.
I guess that's right.
I chaired a space commission -- a commission that looked at the organization of space, and our group -- and it was filled with a bunch of people who were an awful lot smarter than I am -- Howell Estes and Chuck Horner and just a great group of folks -- Admiral Jeremiah was on it. And we spent a lot of time looking at that, and the question was, should we leave it basically like it is, or should we have the Air Force serve as an executive agent, basically, for space, so that it has a bit more cohesion and a bit more identification?
(The admin. is lousy with former space industry execs.)

Question: "Are you going to return deployment rates to normal levels? We have read reports confirming our feeling that the length of deployments has increased by one-third, on average, since 1992.
We know that service members have to deploy, but this is getting ridiculous."

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am trying. I have already been trying. I will continue to try. There are big blocks of resistance every time anyone tries to calm things down. We've got detailees spread all over this city, uniformed people who are doing all kinds of things that don't have an awful lot to do with the Department of Defense right now. We've got it all centralized now.

But it has to be done at a level that's rational, that doesn't wear people out, that doesn't drive people away from this institution, because we need the best people.

So I simply will close by saying thank you for being here. I've got a lot of respect for what you do. You're appreciated, and I wish you well.

David Jeremiah, Admiral Jeremiah did a good study on various aspects of quality of life and morale. Says he:
"We have to make realistic commitments to our troops. We have to be consistent in what say and do what we say." http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2001/t06132001_t0613qol.html

Is there one for '03? It would be interesting.

Do you have any recent links?

Military enlistment up
Services: All branches surpass recruitment goals Monday, March 17, 2003
http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C204~21474~1251637%2C00.html

The atmosphere has to have changed since March.

Something from David Chu, undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness
All-Volunteer Force Has 'Come of Age,' Chu Says, 06/27/2003
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/n06272003_200306278.html

Here is an Active Duty Military Strength Report For June 30, 2003 with Year/Month Comparisons for the last 12 months:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms2.pdf

Service Totals: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms0.pdf

Monthly Summaries: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms1.pdf

Active Duty Military Personnel by Service by Rank/Grade June 2003
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/rg0306.pdf

Can someone verify that?

The Pentagon did consider that question in 1999 but backed down, at least publicly, after a public backlash.

"One key change that this admin is considering would turn many soldiers who are doing administrative and technical jobs in the Army into real fighters and replace them with civilians. That would keep the Army's head count flat but beef up the U.S. war machine."
Sounds dangerous. Desk jockeys to full combat positions. Suicide.

"It has begun rotating officers and senior ncos out of Iraq, which means replacing seasoned commanders with freshly arrived officers who don't know the country or the troops they are leading. And it is telling enlisted soldiers that they will be spending a year in Iraq, not the six months they expected. This is likely to hurt recruitment and make it tougher to hang on to troops when they consider re-enlisting. Those moves hurt morale in Vietnam and will probably do the same in Iraq."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030901-477891,00.html?cnn=yes

I've heard that the numbers aren't terrible, but I think the reserves are going to get hit hard by people who would otherwise sign up for service in time of emergency, but won't sign up if they know it means a year in Iraq.

sorry.