Sen. Kerry: Not a comic, but not wrong either
I know I should be writing about the election results. It is the first day after and normally I would not resist the opportunity. But we are going to be digesting the impact of this for some time to come. And as I have just returned to the United States after being away in Europe since late October I want to deal with something else.
While I was away I read about John Kerry’s attempt at humor, i.e., his telling college students that if they didn’t get an education, they would end up “stuck in Iraq.” Republicans, as you might expect, instantly attacked this as a deliberate insult to the troops; that he was saying people who served were morons.
Personally, I don’t think that is true. Kerry, having actually served in Vietnam, and having followed military affairs closely enough over the years, knows that the U.S. All Volunteer Force has generally done an excellent job in attracting qualified personnel. Not to mention that morons just don’t last in the military.
But even though Kerry botched the joke – don’t give up your day job John, or as Rodney Dangerfield would have said, “Take my senator, please,” he was on to something. When it comes to attracting and retaining qualified personnel the U.S. military has been having problems and it has been getting worse.
Let’s consider some actual facts. Bear with me; I’m going longer than normal here.
Among those that are enlisting, though it tends not to get talked about, are those from that slice of life that can be politely called economically disadvantaged. Enlisted men and women tend to come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500, according to a 1999 Defense Department study. (The median American income is $43,300.) One recruiter candidly noted, “”We have the most success in schools that have low college placement and low graduation rates,” he said. “That’s just a fact.”A November 2005 GAO report found that DOD faces a significant challenge in recruiting and retaining hundreds of thousands of new servicemembers each year, not only to meet annual legislatively mandated personnel levels, but also to meet authorized personnel requirements within its hundreds of occupational specialties. To further complicate an already challenging recruiting environment, DOD reports that over half of today’s youth between the ages of 16 and 21 are not qualified to serve in the military because they fail to meet the military’s entry standards for education, aptitude, health, moral character, or other requirements.
The Army has also placed particular emphasis on recruiting Hispanics. From 2001 to 2005, the number of Latino enlistments in the Army rose 26 percent, and in the military as a whole, the increase was 18 percent. Their efforts have become so aggressive that a counter-recruitment movement has emerged.
Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths’ need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war. More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show.
Furthermore, numbers are only part of the problem. Equally important is quality; something that is proving more difficult to get. Last October Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey told reporters that he would begin accepting more people who score in the bottom third on the military’s aptitude test. What Harvey didn’t say was that the Army had already done that.
Recruiting figures released about that time showed that about 4 percent – or roughly 2,900 of the 73,000 recruits – scored at the bottom of the Army’s test. In 2004, the Army accepted just 440 soldiers from the lowest category, or about 0.6 percent of 70,000 recruits. Army rules allowed the service to accept up to 2 percent of low scorers. Since the 1980s the Department of Defense has mandated that no more than 2% of incoming recruits each year score below 30 out of 99 on the Army’s aptitude test. By doubling that percentage to 4, the Army will bring in more low scorers than at any time since 1989, according to Army records.
Harvey told reporters that he saw “no reason or no data to justify” keeping the 2 percent figure, particularly since Defense Department rules allow the military services to bring in up to 4 percent of low-scoring recruits. News reports indicate that by during the past fiscal year the Army will have enlisted 3,200 Category IV recruits, amounting to 4 percent of the 80,000 volunteers the Army enrolled.
If you add those recruits to the 2,900 who signed up last year, it means that for the next three years the Army will field two brigades’ worth of soldiers who finished in the bottom 30 percent of all those taking the test. This is not good, considering that the counterinsurgency operations U.S. forces are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere require bright people. As the commander of the Army-Marine Counterinsurgency Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas said, “The challenge is to train the force not what to think, but how to think. Counterinsurgency is a thinking soldier’s war. It is graduate-level stuff. There is public relations, civil affairs, information operations. It is not easy.”
Things could get worse. Federal law allows the military to take up to 20 percent annually from the lowest category.
Low scores are hardly the worst of it however. Recruiters, having failed to meet their enlistment targets, are authorized to pursue high-school dropouts.
It is worth noting that the Army has been down this road before. During the Vietnam War Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara created Project 100,000, a program intended to help the approximately 300,000 men who annually failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test for reasons of aptitude. Research conducted in the late 1980’s revealed that across the services Project 100,000 recruits were reassigned at rates up to 11 times greater than their peers. Likewise, 9 percent to 22 percent of these men required remedial training, as compared to only one to three percent of their higher-category counterparts in the Army, Air Force and Navy.
Even worse, the Army is granting “waivers” to an increasingly high percentage of recruits with criminal records — and trying to hide it. This is another means by which the military is trying to meet recruiting targets. Through the use of a little-known, but increasingly important, escape clause known as a waiver. Waivers, which are generally approved at the Pentagon, allow recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards.
Since the Bush administration views the military as its primary all purpose cure-all, good for whatever ails you, whether it be Iraq, Iran or the Mexican border, these facts can only be seen as troubling.
Related posts:
I would have thought Kerry’s message was simple… If your alternative choices are limited by failure at school or the social class you come from… the army becomes relatively more attractive. But these days it’s far from an attractive option – you get your bits blown off fighting wars you don’t believe in to enrich people like Dick C.
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Hmmm…
I wonder how the dummy percentages among recruits compare to recent educational levels overall.
What with kids these days being trained to pass specific tests rather than being educated, there’s little use for the “skills” garnered from the eucational system – unless they can land jobs in which the work consists of taking the CSAP.
Narf,
Bix, gek of the plains
Power without wisdom is akin to an adze with a ruined edge, suited more to the vandal than the builder.
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 11:46 am
John Kerry was disgraceful in the 70s and continues to be disgraceful now. Personally, I don’t know how anyone can elect such a horsehead like him, or for that matter someone who evidently will do anything and say anything that will try to drive the morale of our men and women downward. If anyone of you support that kind of thing, then you too are un-American. If you don’t like being told that, then support our troops and let them do the job!
John Kerry is not an American hero and if he hadn’t written his own awards, he would not have received them from Vietnam. Talk about someone who is stupid!
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
Thank you Mr. Isenberg. There is no doubt that Senator Kerry could have been more careful delivering his speech. Many on the right gleefully distorted his words and continued the character assassination that has marked his political career ever since he was a Vietnam War protester.
Jeff N adds little to this discussion, resorting to the usual name-calling: “horsehead” or “stupid”. In fact, Senator Kerry has created as much controversy as he has due to his annoying habit of reminding us all of the truth.
As you point out, even his mis-statement holds much truth. It is well known that recruiting soldiers for our all volunteer army and for the National Guard is getting more difficult and that standards have indeed been relaxed. This does not mean that soldiers are stupid. It does not denigrate their service. It is just a matter of record.
It is also a fact, that with stop-loss orders and repeated tours of duty, many soldiers are indeed getting “stuck” in Iraq. This is no laughing matter. This is harming the morale of our brave young men and women and is unfair to them. This is what Senator Kerry anticipated in 2004 when he talked about the “backdoor draft.” This ‘draft’ has indeed come to pass.
Senator Kerry is indeed an American hero. No matter how Republicans and others would like to spin it. He has worked tirelessly for soldiers and veterans and most recently has been an inexhaustible source of support for our veterans who have been running for office. Veterans like Tammy Duckworth, or Jim Webb, or Murphy or others who have jumped into the political arena after serving our nation in Iraq.
It is common to suggest that anyone who points out the tragic mistakes of our military, such as Abu Ghraib, or Haditha, or reporting on the International Red Cross report that noted how American soldiers were barging into Iraqi homes, is somehow not to ’support our troops’. This is the cover that incompetent leaders use to cover their own shortcomings. To criticize atrocities is not synonymous with attacking our soldiers. It is a plea to keep our fighting forces at a moral level that we in America require, even under the harshest conditions.
To criticize anyone for wishing to bring our soldiers home where they are in an endless war acting as policemen in the midst of a civil war is somehow ‘not supporting our troops’ is turning reality topsy-turvy. It is not ’supporting our troops’ to place them in harms way in an unnecessary war contrived on false pretenses. On the other hand, asking that our soldiers be removed from a battlefield with no end is the essence of support that they deserve.
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
John Kerry has taken every opportunity to break our troops, by voting for, before voting against the money for the war, from standing up and stating that he “Knew” Iraq had WMDs, to making stupid comments that, whether he meant something else or not, went right along with his years of bashing the military, John Kerry has shown his rainbow of colors. Never being solid on anything except his hatred. John Kerry is demoralizing to the troops everytime he opens his mouth and if there were any truth in anything he says, I would be the first to appologize, but not one thing he says is true. Calling him names is much less harmful than the dangers he puts our country in. But with the hatred of the left there is no sense in trying to make a point, no matter what it is, the left is blind and will not acknowledge anything good that conservitives do, and that is really sad and in the next two years, the left with show thier true colors and we will wonder why the liberals were elected.
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Jeff n.
Your a moron man! You have no idea what your talking about. If you love Iraq so much join up and die for this illegal war.
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
I was in the military in 99 – at which the study that this person uses. It was during this time that recruitment levels had reached the low point of the 90’s. It was a pre-9/11/pre-recession world in which opportunities for those more qualified easily found jobs elsewhere, as I did when I left in the Army in 2000. Even though there wasn’t a war, we need recruits to maintain that force – at least to maintain our agreements in guarding the borders of other nations.
Secondly, if 44% come from rural areas – doesn’t that mean that at least 56% or more have to be coming from cities or suburbs?
Another point I want to bring up is this. I served from 92-2000 and saw combat in Somalia. It was during the 90’s that Democrats were DEMANDING that the military relax its recruitment standards so that more women and minorities could serve – seek career opportunities.
I am completely baffled by this change of heart on denying people the opportunity to serve (as the phrase was coined during the 90’s). Lastly, in either way what does 4% mean when some jobs in the military, e.g. maintenance, supply, etc, don’t need people scoring 120 on the ASVAP. Criminal records? So Democrats have a problem with someone with a criminal record serving in the armed forces – yet see no problem with allowing convicted felons the right to vote?
Serving in the military is a calling for some – as is the environmental movement which probably attracts members on the lowest scales of intelligence and highest levels of wealth on a more unequal basis.
These very same arguments made in the 90’s would be called bigoted for DENYING people the opportunity to serve their country.
Please continue to look to homosexual ministers as examples of hypocrisy.
BTW – Mr. Freedland and Eric – soldiers can’t be predators and victims at the same time so please make up your own mind before imposing your own beliefs on others. The military overwhelmingly supports their mission. Maybe next election you’ll figure out a better way to keep them from voting than just delaying the arrival of absentee ballots.
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Jeff N. is a cretin. If Kerry’s comment had actually been the distortion that Jeff N. believes it was, then Jeff would have proved its basic premise to be correct. “The dangers he puts our country in”…? Who are you kiddding? Just keep swallowing hook, line and sink buddy; at least Kerry doesn’t.
Comment on November 8, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
Among the many observations mentioned by the astute reporter I do not see any discussion of Ivy League disdain for recruiting, nor do I see any mention of who is using the “opt out” parental declination for release of high school student contact info to recruiters. I see it as disengenuous to not mention the disdain with which the economic upper third of this country view military service. Shame on you Mr. Isenberg. Your exercise of your Freedom of Speech is only afforded to you through the service of those that choose to serve, for whatever reason. If you are critical of who WE as Americans are putting into uniform, then I suggest you do some research on what WE might do to make service a little more socially equitable. I won’t expect you to jump up and start working on that one.
To Paul, Robert, Eric, and James… Gentlemen, service is universal and obligatory in this country(Selective Service my fellow Americans!) WE do not currently use the draft to maintain the force. However, every man and woman in this country has a legally mandated obligation to 8 years of service in one of the US uniformed services. Should the Third Horde be on our door step and a draft be necessary then this will become increasingly important. You do not elect to serve or not based on current administration policies…YOU VOTE! Participation in the electoral process is your chance to move the country in the direction you see fit. Service is YOUR chance to directly contribute to the welfare of your fellow Americans, and pull your own weight. Kerry has HISTORICALLY made service out to be a less than accetable course for those of the “right sort”, while he has enjoyed a privileged life made safe by those he has contempt for. This is a mistake because service to your country is the one opportunity to bind us as Americans under one cause, Freedom. Personally, it isn’t Kerry’s position on service that is even the issue for me, it’s his snotty attitude toward the rest of us that didn’t go to Yale!
Before anyone starts insisting that I go to Iraq, two tours down and I won’t stop until the job is done.
Comment on November 9, 2006 @ 6:47 am
[...] Sen. Kerry: Not a comic, but not wrong either Across the Aisle, DC – 23 hours ago This is not good, considering that the counterinsurgency operations US forces are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere require bright people. [...]
Pingback on November 9, 2006 @ 8:15 am
Mr Isenberg you should spend some time at the National Training Center and personally observe what the sons and daughters of America are capable of accomplishing under some of the most severe conditions so that you can sit in your ivory palace and sip wine spritzers in the afternoon discussing the education levels of the Armed Forces. I would put these young Americans up against any large corporation for comparison of education levels, respponsibility, job satisfaction, loyalty, and providing an honest days work. Please do not try to re-speak for John Kerry. He is a wealthy egotistical snob. I guess it would have been too hard for him to say to those college students, “You should thank the men and women serving our country in harm’s way for your opportunity to sit here and listen to me bad mouth this great country.” “Their daily sacrifices allow me to talk and act like a fool.”
Comment on November 9, 2006 @ 8:36 am
I am a 16 year Navy Vet Eric, what have you done for your country?
Comment on November 9, 2006 @ 8:52 am
To Jeff N, Ben, and Steve in Kansas.
I normally choose not to respond to reader’s comments, as I think it detracts from your right to engage in unfettered commentary. But I just want to mention this. My point in writing this was neither to defend or attack Kerry. There are enough other people doing that. I simply wanted to put some fact that are, at least to me, troubling.
As deceased Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan once said,e veyone is entitlted to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts.
The point about Ivy League disdain is well taken though it is hardly new. Others have covered it better than I – there was a book about it inthe past year — so I did not feel the need to deal with it.
And for the record I am a U.S. Navy veteran (Vietnam era), 1973-1977, 3 years, 6 months 27 days sea duty (Not that anoune was counting).
Comment on November 9, 2006 @ 11:28 am
“But even though Kerry botched the joke – don’t give up your day job John, or as Rodney Dangerfield would have said, “Take my senator, please,” he was on to something. When it comes to attracting and retaining qualified personnel the U.S. military has been having problems and it has been getting worse.”
John Kerry meant what he said before he didn’t. I do believe that if you go to the DOD website and look to see how much trouble recruiting is having, wait, it dispells your facts because every service minus some of the reserves have made 100% goal or better. To me that is not worse, it is better because not long ago, the Army did not make goal.
Now take for example the diehard kerry fans who listen to his jibberish, and the crap that he talks, could keep a smart person who would be perfect for the military from joining, just because kerry said so. To me, that is treasonous and should not be taken lightly. John Kerry needs a muzzle and should be helping to fill the ranks instead of keeping people out.
Thank you for your service in the Navy Dave, but please, before you decide to write something, get your facts straight…
http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10057
Comment on November 9, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Thank you for your service. You served at at time when young people were drafted in order to fill recruiting requirements. Please research your facts on the quality of the current service members that “volunteer” to serve their country. It is not as dismail as you write. What you might consider focusing on is the limited quality of young Americans to make the minimal standrds for military service. That pool of Americans that eat fast food, play video games and can not run two miles to save their lives. The young people in uniform are special and make personal sacrifices everyday. Even those with waivers. I still invite you to travel to the National Training Center and just see what is expected of these “volunteers” who are better informed then a lot of college students sitting around sipping Star Bucks coffee. I base these facts on 23 years of service with two children currently serving. Both officers, both college graduates, both volunteers.
Comment on November 9, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
To Jeff: Yes, it is true, as you write, “every service minus some of the reserves have made 100% goal or better.” in the latest recruiting year. However, that does not tell the whole story. You neglect to mention the extraordinary measures the military has had to take to make their goas, i.e., diping into the DEP, lowering overall acession goals, phased callup of the IRR, the Marine Corps calling up its last line of reservists, men and women so removed from active duty they’re no longer attached to a unit,…
To Steve: I do not think the quality of current personnel is “dismal.” And I agree that the quality of overall American youth may not be much better. But facts are facts. Equipment today is more sophisticated, and takes intelligent people to operate. One reason we have so many private contractors embedded with active duty forces is that they are the only ones who have the skills necessary to provide cradle to grave maintenance. Lowering standards, for example, to take more CAT IVs is just not a good thing.
Note, I volunteered at the age of 17, about 6 months after the last draft call.
Comment on November 9, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
[...] Sen. Kerry: Not a comic, but not wrong either Across the Aisle, DC – Nov 8, 2006 This is not good, considering that the counterinsurgency operations US forces are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere require bright people. [...]
Pingback on November 11, 2006 @ 8:30 am
I would venture to say that most Veterans have a disdain towards John Kerry, one that is derived from his disloyalty to his fellow Vietnam Veterans. I believe the name of the book is “Tour of Duty”, it shows Kerry’s lack of faithfulness to his fellow warriors. His time on Capitol hill and his television apperances in debating that Swift Boat gentleman in the early 70’s, showed his precipitous attitude towards the military.
The idea that Mr. Isenberg’s blog has merit is true in my opinion, and it is “troublesome” that the military is has had to lower standards to meet the nation’s requirements. However, the “troublesome” part is not a problem of political and military policy, it is one of the American society and patriotism and economic circumstance.
Where are the best of the best? They are going after the almighty dollar.
Many of our schools teach negativity about the U.S. and its current and past policies, and they fail to educate on many of the great American political achievements.
Our national pride must be re-fostered and our ability to be selfeffacing be reasoned and honest.
All in all, our military today is still the most educated and the most proffesional in the world. Those who serve today have more intelligence and intestinal fortitude than any citizen who has never served.
Semper Fi
Comment on November 11, 2006 @ 8:33 am
[...] Sen. Kerry: Not a comic, but not wrong either Across the Aisle, DC – Nov 8, 2006 This is not good, considering that the counterinsurgency operations US forces are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere require bright people. [...]
Pingback on November 12, 2006 @ 12:45 am
David,
Let me know when you get your free case of Heinz products from John or an invitation to break bread at his house. It is obvious that you will continue to support Kerry regardless of his blatant arogant remarks. What was different when you used your GI Bill benefits after you served and what these current volunteers do with thier college benefits. Not to mention that while on active duty they can enroll in classes and tuition assistance pays for those credits, they can enroll in Army E-University and take courses online with a computer provided by the Army. And if you were to go to any DoD school and see the participation of parents in their children’s education it would boggle your mind. Between school day assistance by parents and after school involovement in their children’s future would be a good example for the rest of America to mirror. David enjoy your life and thank the current military volunteers for ability to live in a free society where people can make outragious commnets only because their freedoms are protected 24/7 by some extremely dedicated and patriotic citizens.
Comment on November 14, 2006 @ 7:45 am
I don’t really understand why all the insults and ad hominem attacks are hurled at people who merely report the apparent facts that the army is lowering its standards, and allowing more criminals, and reportedly is getting more gangbangers and nazis.
I mean, even if those are unpleasant (alleged) facts — and they are — how does it help to insult the people mentioning them? Preventing free discourse won’t make the unpleasant facts go away…
Comment on November 19, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Luogo interessante, buon disegno, lo gradisco, signore! =)
Comment on December 19, 2006 @ 11:32 am