But the military has to respond. In part with larger bonuses and lower standards. The Army is also trying a 15-month enlistment:
The Army, faced with a severe and growing shortage of recruits, began offering 15-month active-duty enlistments nationwide Thursday, the shortest tours ever.
The typical enlistment lasts three or four years; the previous shortest enlistment was two years.
Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of the Army Recruiting Command, said 2006 could be even worse than this year, a continuation of "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer Army."
Recruits in the new 15-month program could serve in 59 of the more than 150 jobs in the Army, including the combat infantry, and then serve two years in the Reserve or National Guard.
They would finish their eight-year military obligation in the Guard or Reserve, volunteer programs such as AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps, or the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active-duty troops who can still be called to duty but aren't affiliated with any military unit.
David Segal, a military personnel expert at the University of Maryland, said the 15-month enlistments are no panacea. Fifteen months, Segal said, is often not enough time to learn complex tasks in a high-tech Army.
At first this didn't make much sense. Take 3-6 months to train a soldier. Add 3 months with their unit. Add 2 months of pre-deployment training. Add a month for transit to Iraq and more training in Kuwait. Then spend a year in Iraq. Then add 2 months for movement home and processing out. We're up to 23 months. This makes little sense. Would we really enlist a soldier that is worthless while on active duty?
But then I figured, the real purpose is probably to recruit for the reserves. Most of the enlistment time is in the reserves, so this will cycle people into the reserves more quickly than usual for 4-year active duty enlistments. A large chunk of the reserves is composed of active duty people finishing their commitment--and possibly staying in to get retirement benefits after that. This is a good idea.
Plus, with the use of the military's ability to keep people in through stop-loss, short-termers assigned to units destined for Iraq will still go for a one-year tour. Lots will probably just do 15 months on active duty, but for those in deploying units, the deploying unit won't be gutted by people getting out when the unit deploys. Since reenlistment is good, perhaps these short-timers who wouldn't otherwise have joined will reenlist once home again.
I imagine that the military will solve the recruiting problem with all the tools it has. A draft still makes no sense.
UPDATE: Strategypage (May 17) backs up the idea that the reserves could benefit from this new program and emphasizes the reenlistment angle:
The recruits are smart enough to realize that the two years in the reserves could mean at least one year back on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it’s no secret that even people in the inactive reserves are being called up. But, bottom line, there are limits (by law) on how much time reservists can spend on active duty. So, worst case, recruiters have an attractive deal for potential recruits who don’t want to spend four years in the army in order to get the training and educational benefits. But the recruiters, and the army researchers know something the recruits don’t. A significant percentage of those who get a “taste” of army life, like it, and decide to stay in longer, or make a career of it. The army will know, over the next few years, just how successful this 15 month offer is.I certainly hope this helps. A whole lot of tools will be used to reverse the recent shortfalls.
Winning in a war is clearly not as attractive after over three years of fighting as actual final victory. I never worried that we embarked on a series of endless wars as some on the Left alleged since 9-11. This is one reason.
