End class warfare. Restore the draft
This Just In:
ARMY MISSES RECRUITMENT BENCHMARKS BY GREATER MARGIN;
RECRUITS FROM WEALTHIER AREAS DROP FURTHER, says public-interest research group
The Army failed to meet its 90 percent benchmark for new recruits having at least a regular high school diploma by nearly 20 percentage points, with a rate of 70.7 percent in 2007, according to a county and state-level report on 2007 military recruits released today by the National Priorities Project (NPP), a non-profit research group releasing its fourth annual analysis of military recruits.
NPP based this analysis on military recruitment data obtained from the Department of Defense through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Since 2005, the percentage of recruits with at least a high school diploma dropped almost 12 percentage points in two years, according to NPP. Department of Defense (DoD) studies have shown that a high school diploma is a powerful indicator for recruits' success, with around 80 percent of those with regular high school diplomas finishing the first term of enlistment compared to only half of those without a diploma.
At the same time, the percentage of 'high quality' recruits continued their downward trend, dropping 12 percentage points since 2004, from 60.9 percent in 2004 to 44.6 percent in 2007. The DoD defines 'high quality' to include recruits who have at least a regular high school diploma and have scored in the upper half of the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT).
"The Army's increased failure to meet its own benchmarks really speaks to the much larger failure of the Iraq War," said Greg Speeter, executive director of the National Priorities Project. "Young people are naturally thinking twice before signing up to fight an unnecessary war with no end in sight," Speeter continued.
National Priorities Project's analysis also found that in 2007, upper-middle and high-income neighborhoods, or those with median household incomes of $60,000 and greater, were under-represented by an even larger margin than in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of recruits from low and middle-income neighborhoods ($30,000 to $54,999) grew since 2004. Click here for income breakdowns by neighborhood.
"Once again, we're staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden," Speeter noted. "Instead of spending millions more on new enlistment bonuses, we need to change the terms of where these soldiers are fighting and why they're taking the risk of never coming home."
County, city and state-level findings include:Click here to find recruitment data on a particular county or state or to see the full analysis of Fiscal Year 2007 active-duty Army recruits by ZIP code with data on race, ethnicity, age, citizenship, educational attainment and Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT).
- Harris County, TX, Maricopa County, AZ and Los Angeles County, CA had the highest absolute number of recruits.
- Edwards County, TX, Dixie County, FL, Galax city, VA and Turner County, GA had the highest recruitment rates, all over 10 per 1,000 youth.
- Alabama, Montana and Maine had the highest recruiting rates for the states.
- Nevada, Montana and Mississippi had the lowest percentages of recruits with a regular high school diploma or better.
- Mississippi, Louisiana and Nevada had the lowest percentages of 'high quality' recruits.
- States with higher recruiting rates correlated with lower percentages of 'high quality' recruits.
The National Priorities Project (NPP) is a 501(c)(3) research organization that analyzes and clarifies federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent. Located in Northampton, MA, since 1983, NPP focuses on the impact of federal spending and other policies at the national, state, congressional district and local levels. For more information, go to http://nationalpriorities.org.
Comments
Dan,
Every once in awhile I read people write that we need the draft to restore class equality in the military because the wealthy are not joining and it is the poor who are dying. So my two cents as a veteran:
Was it really equitable with a draft during the Vietnam War? How many wealthy kids got college deferments? Vietnam was much more a poor man/minority war than Iraq.
Hopefully, the lack of "high quality" recruits is temporary as was the lack of quality immediately after Vietnam. Once the war is over, things should return to normal with military enlistment.
Finally, this is all opinion here, but having a military primarily of lower income people is a good thing. The military is far from perfect, but it is the one aspect of society where merit gets you promoted. It is the best way for someone to improve their class standing. If you perform well, you get promoted and you can live a much better life. It is a way for people to escape growing up in poverty.
So basically, I dont think a draft is needed anymore. The all-volunteer force has worked for over 30 years and should continue to keep American safe.
Posted by: Mike | January 22, 2008 12:30 PM
Isn’t it perplexing that people such as yourself who are clearly out of draft range and most likely with no children in draft range propose this ridiculous idea? Why is it difficult to fathom that a young person with available choices would choose not to join the armed services? Is there an American agenda worth dying for? The question you should be asking is why we are still involved in areas that have nothing to do with us except for the natural resources that America consumes.
Serving our country and believing that what you are doing makes a difference should not be mutually exclusive. Truly fighting terrorism, humanitarian efforts, stopping genocide and ending war are issues worth fighting for.
The question is; why are we sending our uneducated masses to fight in a war with ulterior agendas and consequences they can’t fully fathom…
Posted by: Dexter | January 22, 2008 12:52 PM
Dan - how do I get your job? America's wars are always fought by the underclasses....just like every war in history. Pick up a book.
---------------------------
Hey JTK: I did. I read AWOL, the book by Frank Schaeffer and and Kathy Roth-Douquet, and learned that the draft was re-imposed in World War I (May 1917) to prevent too many of the nation's elite from volunteering for service. Can you imagine? Princeton and Harvard lads once volunteered for military duty. Congress came up with the draft because it didn't want the nation suffering a brain drain into the muddy battlefields of France. It was believed that a military draft would mean all classes of Americans would sacrifice for the greater good. . . . . Here's more of what you would learn if you read this book: "In 1956, 400 of Princeton's 750 graduates served in uniform. By 2004, only nine members of the university's graduating class entered the military. Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia and many other schools do not even allow ROTC on their campuses. The gulf is growing in Congress, too. In 1971, three-quarters of our representatives had military experience. Now, fewer than a third do, and that number drops with each passing year." . . . . Maybe you ought to do a little reading too.
Posted by: JTK | January 22, 2008 8:06 PM
when are we going to stop policing the world? why should we keep sending our
sons and daughters to war? whose pockets are being lined? we need help here in our own country, healthcare,education and infastructure really need fixing. we are all sick of war,
war and more war.!!!!!!!
DR: Seperate issue. I'm talking about, when we go, who does the fighting. Right now, this is the longest war we've been engaged in with an all-volunteer force.
Posted by: charlie | January 23, 2008 3:16 AM
Draft???? Draft our young men send them off to WAR...more room for the illegals and green cards at cheaper labor costs....and when our young men return maimed or poor health... place them in the substandard VA hospitals with substandard health care and close the doors! Yup...right on brother!
Big Al
Posted by: Big Al | January 23, 2008 7:45 AM