I think it boils down to the fact that we have as many people in the military as the budgeteers (congress and senate) are willing to support. And if more are needed, there are enough volunteers available without reinstating the draft unless we're going to double or triple the size of our military.
-Doug
Doug Winterburn responds:
From what I've read, some major increase in size is both necessary and justified. We have troops scattered all around the world, in not spots, warm spots and chilly spots. Some of those troops have been in place for over a year, and some are being returned for a second year, with no indication of when the rotations might be over. This kind of thing was semi-acceptable during WWII, when draftees were signed up for the duration plus six months, but in today's more truculent society, it isn't working all that well. Again, from what I read.
The obvious cure is the simplest, and it is expensive: more troops. That's not to necessarily put more troops on the ground in various hot spots, but it is to put different troops on the ground, giving those who have been there, done that and worn the T shirt something more than 8 or 10 or 12 weeks as a reprieve.
Congress may or may not approve more money for such a step, but sooner or later, constantly rotating people into situations where they may get killed is going to affect morale much worse than it already has. When that happens, you end up with a de facto draft anyway--which we have at least in part now, with retention of people who were on their way out, and by calling up inactive reservists. It's only a short step to a draft, which is probably going to be accompanied by a slowing of pay raises, slower promotion, etc. as beginning cost cutting measures.
Charlie Self "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight D. Eisenhower
jeez, the irony is so thick here i cant stand it any more... he dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot now does he.
but lets get back to the heart of it. what started it all: me:
dave: 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.
me again: i never said anything about the raw numbers. if it was 106% of their goal one year, then 96 the next year, the conclusion to be drawn is that the percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down, hence it is falling. this what i said to begin with as you can see clearly in the paragraph above as copied from my original post, and have continued to try and drum into your head dave. i NEVER claimed the actual numbers were falling, or that the article proved they were falling, and in fact pointed this out in the next paragraph in my original post:
do you see that dave? i said myself that the numbers are not pure and that no further comparason can be made.
here's an analogy that is actually relevant: todd: its sunny outside randy: no its not, the article you provided doesnt not prove it is sunny. dave: see randy, you cant prove its raining beacuse that article doesnt prove it randy: i never claimed it was raining, it might be snowing or hailing. its just not sunny. dave: yes you did randy: no i didnt repeat...
randy
Falling relative to an unknown variable, is meaningless. Can you at least see that?
So why would you bring up McDonalds french fry sales goal performance when the topic is Idaho farmer income? From here, it looks like you are bringing up an irrelevant measurement to distort the issue.
And yet you keep making it.
the variable i am referring to is not unknown. the variable reffered to in this statement is the % of their goal. we know that variable in both situations and it went down from one year to the next.
just to be clear dave, are you disagreeing with the statement 'the percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down? are you claiming that even if it did 'go down' that falling is an inaccurate term?
i am not claiming this means more or less actual people. never did. in fact i think i this it very clear. lets see what happens when i put back in what you snipped:
what part of that statement is unclear to you?
i really have no idea what basis you are using to draw this conclusion. this is all in your head.
no dave, you just keep accusing me of it.
if there is anything else to be said, please answer these questions:
are you disagreeing with the statement 'the percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down? are you claiming that even if it did 'go down' that falling is an inaccurate term? what part of the statement 'no further comparassons can be made' is unclear? do you think the article supports todds case that re-enlistment rates are high?
randy
You don't know the _VALUE_ of the variable. FFS, Randy, it's all word-games with you, isn't it.
I'm not disagreeing with anything, Randy. You're completely right, about everything. Your words are unambiguous, your intentions are completely pure, and you're free to have the last word. You win, O wise and glorious Randy. Gosh, I'm so impressed by your wisdom.
Missing a sales goal is equivalent to the 106% vs. 96%. Farmer income is equivalent to the hard number which is re-enlistment rate. Got it now? It's not really that tough, Randy. Two different things.
I'm sure you have a really good response to all this, but I won't see it. Go ahead and crow about how I couldn't handle you or whatever, you probably can't help yourself.
snippy dave again. snips what he doesnt like or cant understand.
i know what i said. i said the % had dropped. you dont disagree so ill assume you agree with that point. its you that plays the word games. you are trying to claim i am using that to prove re-enlistment went down. i NEVER made such a claim. i only said that it was not proof that re-enlistment was high.
ploink or not, i know youll google it. you never answered my questions. your fundamental premise has been that i claimed the numbers showed the re-enlistment rates were falling. i never claimed that and you couldnt show me where i did. you have judiciously snipped my posts to alter reality. this one included.
no steak for you man...
randy
>I think you are both off on looking at the numbers and USA Today is hardly a source worthy of credibility on the subject. Listen, after 18 years in the military I've heard numbers and percentages every year and it comes down to this: Numbers go up and down on recruitment and re-enlistment ALL THE TIME. The biggest short falls in these areas during my tenure occurred during times of relative peace. But it really occurs in cycles. Sometimes we recruit and re-enlist more than what the speculated need is and some times we fall short. ( I have yet to see us hit it right on the nose). Then 20 years later (the time in for retirement eligibility) you see an exodus reflecting those short falls or excesses. Falling 4% below need or getting
6% more than expected is hardly cause for concern. Judging the military's morale based on these numbers is naive to say the least and silly to be more accurate. During times of shortfalls we offer incentives to stay in and during times of excess we offer incentives to get out, and in between that we do whatever necessary to keep the level of manning where congress wants it (i.e. adjusting for force reductions or expansions). Right now the trend is a reduction in the active duty forces and an increase on the role of the reserve forces. Even with all that is going on right now, all branches are looking at force reduction in most areas.
conclusion.
I think you are both off on looking at the numbers and USA Today is hardly a source worthy of credibility on the subject. Listen, after 18 years in the military I've heard numbers and percentages every year and it comes down to this: Numbers go up and down on recruitment and re-enlistment ALL THE TIME. The biggest short falls in these areas during my tenure occurred during times of relative peace. But it really occurs in cycles. Sometimes we recruit and re-enlist more than what the speculated need is and some times we fall short. ( I have yet to see us hit it right on the nose). Then 20 years later (the time in for retirement eligibility) you see an exodus reflecting those short falls or excesses. Falling 4% below need or getting
6% more than expected is hardly cause for concern. Judging the military's morale based on these numbers is naive to say the least and silly to be more accurate. During times of shortfalls we offer incentives to stay in and during times of excess we offer incentives to get out, and in between that we do whatever necessary to keep the level of manning where congress wants it (i.e. adjusting for force reductions or expansions). Right now the trend is a reduction in the active duty forces and an increase on the role of the reserve forces. Even with all that is going on right now, all branches are looking at force reduction in most areas.
conclusion.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, but I've heard this mis-statistic quoted to suggest that military retention and recruitment is up, or that military morale is high.
I think our troops deserve our respect for the fine job they are doing. But anyone who follows the news or has relatives on active duty (as I do) would know that there is a broad stop-loss in effect for most of the military, and that recalls have even been issued for recently retired IRR military. The reason stop-loss and recall orders are issued is obvious: more troops are needed than are currently available by normal means.
Regardless of political viewpoint, people should understand that our regular military, reserves, and guard are stretched very thin.
But without knowing what the goals for the two years are, the change in percentage is utterly meaningless.
He's claiming that absolutely no meaningful inferences can be drawn from that datum, because the information is grossly incomplete.
Example: suppose that last year, the goal was to have 50K soldiers re-enlist, and actual re-enlistment was 53 K; now suppose that this year, the goal is
75K, and actual is 72K. Although actual re-enlistment *rose* by 36%, the "percent of goal" declined from 106% to 96% -- which illustrates the reason that comparing percentages of different values is meaningless, without knowing the actual values.But you continue to argue as though it must mean *something* when, in the absence of any additionaly information, it is in fact utterly meaningless.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
It's not proof of _anything_at_all_. Can't you understand that?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Of course it is, but he's gonna go off on you now about "That's not what I mean" while repeating it.
I predict it'll be the same circular stuff he gave me, but I'll only see your posts so it might actually be entertaining this time.
Dave Hinz
which is what ive said all along.
sure you cannot draw a meaningful conclusion. but you can draw a conclusion. the one i began with. sigh. lets go back to the beginning:
"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."
doug, the information provided in that article means exactly one thing. as measured by the percent of their goal, the rate is falling. thats what i said, thats what im continuing to say and its true. they list the percent for two different years, one is lower. between those years, it fell. thats all it means. do you disagree?
what i keep arguing about is that you guys are putting words in my mouth. see the problem here is that you are reading dave's snipped posts which give the appearance im saying something i never said.
did i ever say it means the actual number of solidiers re-enlisting is falling? no. in fact i stated the opposite : '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 '
did i ever say that you can draw any conclusions from the fact the % of their goal is falling? no. in fact i specifically stated the opposite. 'no further comparasson can be made' is it that much of a stretch to get you to agree that 'no further comparasson can be made' is basically the same as saying 'the data is meaningless'?
so in short, back up your claims of what i have said with quotes please of intact paragaraphs from posts that i made in this thread. i tried to get dave to about 10 times and he wont. will you?
randy
Wrong -- it doesn't mean a damn thing, because it's comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't state what the goal is this year, or what it was last year, so any comparison of the rates of meeting those goals is completely without meaning at all. It doesn't measure anything, and it doesn't mean anything. Nothing. You can draw _no_ conclusions at all, because the data is incomplete.
Yes, I do disagree -- you think that means something (not clear what, but you obviously think it's meaningful in some respect), and in fact it does not mean anything at all.
Nobody's putting words in your mouth.
Incorrect assumption. I have read everything you've posted in this thread.
Yet you continue to cite this as though it actually meant something. It doesn't.
In fact, the figures provided don't even support _that_ conclusion. Unless you know what the actual goals were, you can't draw _any_ meaningful conclusions from the percent-of-achievement figures.
Never mind "further comparassons [sic]" -- I'm telling you that the _initial_ comparison is meaningless.
I have nothing to "back up", Randy. I never made any claims that you said, or didn't say, any particular thing. The _entire_ substance of my participation in this thread has been to attempt to show to you that the figures you cited, and any comparisons between them, are meaningless, because the data is incomplete.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
can we agree that this is the crux of the disagreement? that you think that my comparing the %ages of their goal from two different years means absolutely nothing and i think it means that the percentage of their goal is falling? all else seems to come from this from what i can tell...
if not, what is the crux of the issue?
randy
Pretty close, anyway...
If I might put it in a nutshell, the crux of the issue is your failure to comprehend that the comparison is meaningless, because the crucial data required to put it in context is missing.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
im trying to get this really clear. you are saying my comparison of the two years is meaningless?
the article gives you the percent of their goal for two different years. we agree on this? lets not get into what it means yet, just that we can agree that the article provides those numbers. can we do that?
lets replace the sentence % of their goal with the word apple since you've accused me of comparing apples to oranges. you got it? the phrase "% of their goal" shall be replaced by the word 'apple'. so to rephrase, the article gives you the apple for one year, and gives you the apple for the next year, and you cant say that the apple has gone down or is falling?
because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not actual numbers.
randy
Yes. I think I said that before.
Yes.
Your paraphrase conceals the problem, because it obscures the fact that the goals themselves, and any change in them from one year to the next, are not known. Let's stick with the original phrasing, please.
The incomplete numbers equally well support _both_ of these statements:
a) the percentage of goal achievement is falling b) the goal itself is rising
and hence it is not possible to derive _any_ meaningful conclusion, in the absence of further data.
SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a percentage OF. And you don't.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Doug Miller respons:
Yabbut, the OP made similar claims. Jump him, too. Or, better yet, let all this die, because it is essentially meaningless (because the statistic is meaningless and mildly misleading and was probably intended to be so).
Charlie Self "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.