OT us soldiers re-enlisting at a high rate?

[xrongor]

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.

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

[Dave Hinz]

Yes, we saw it.

I'm guessing "tapdancing".

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.

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

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

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

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

Dave Hinz

[Todd Fatheree]

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.

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

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

[xrongor]

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?

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...

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

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

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

[xrongor]

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

[Dave Hinz]

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.

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.

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

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

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

[xrongor]

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

peace.

randy

[xrongor]

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

[Dave Hinz]

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_.

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

[xrongor]

I NEVER SAID THIS!! show me where i said re-enlistment was go 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

[xrongor]

todd specifically issued me a challenge. the challenge was that he could prove re-enlistment was high. the only thing i am accusing him of is not being able to prove it.

well it has become pointless

but he said he could prove it. i dont see the proof to back up his statement. neither do you.

randy

[Dave Hinz]

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.

[Scott Lurndal]

According to this source:

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.

[xrongor]

so my statement isnt false. in fact its absolutely true according to the article.. is it irrelevant? considering the article was used to show troop re-enlistment is high, i think it is completely relevant. at best the ONLY information you can get from the article at all is that its falling compared to last years goal (which is exactly what i said, and considering the title of the article and the numbers provided, it was clearly the point of the article, do you hate the writer too?), and at worse, no information at all. clearly there is no proof there that re-enlistment is high.

come on dave... the article was titled "iraq duty deters re-enlistment'

let's get your position clear. do you think the article provided proves that troop re-enlistment is high? let down your guard for 1 minute and answer honestly.

randy

[Todd Fatheree]

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]

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

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

[xrongor]

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

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

[Scott Lurndal]

Yet another:

scott

[Charlie Self]

Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer Army. In fact, without the draft in earlier years, reenlistment rates for the Army were generally not great. More meaningful comparisons might be made with U.S.M.C. and Air Force reenlistment rates at the current time. I don't note Navy here because, in general, enlisted personnel in the Navy aren't coming under fire with any kind of regularity.

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

[Allen Epps]

snipped

Although the vast majority of the Navy is not under direct fire there is some evidence that the extended. and more often deployments, and more back to back sea tours is effecting USN retention. Part of this is the experiment of not bringing ships home but leaving them deployed then swapping the whole crew out in an overseas location. On the plus side it keeps an asset in theater much longer by cutting off the month transit time on each side but it cuts down on port calls and makes the crew do more in depth maintence on the ship.

A significant reason for me getting of active duty was getting married and looking at the previous three years I had been gone 150 days year one, 210 year two and 270 year three. Of course, in my 9 years in the Naval Reserve I got recalled for Bosnia, Kosovo, three trip to Northern Watch and one to Southern watch but such was the bureden for getting to fly a high demand low density asset.

Allen Catonsville, MD