I don't know. But 20 months ago, there was another attempt to show a crisis of the captains and it wasn't terribly convincing to me:
I do not wish to minimize the importance of retaining these officers. We need them to stay in the service. I would, however, like to point out that the article speaks of retention since 9/11 but the helpful chart goes back to 1997. The loss rates for 1997 to 2000 were all higher than today's post-9/11 "high rate" (sadly for the article's premise, the trend ticks down for the first quarter of 2006). Indeed, in 1999 the loss rate was about a quarter higher than the 2005 year's rate.
So apparently, serving while at war is considerably less onerous than serving during peacetime in the late 1990s.
Just a little perspective, is all I'm saying.
It seems as if some are determined to show that Iraq is wrecking the Army. Yet superb performance after nearly 5 years keeps making the complaints hollow. Is the war stressing the Army? Yes. Do we need captains to stay in order to advance up the chain? Sure. Since I served one term and got out, how can I say that Army captains finishing one term of service are fleeing when they leave? I imagine these fluctuations are normal and the Army will adjust.
Next plastic turkey, please.
