They were having trouble hitting their numbers not so long ago (and still may be). You take away one of the "pros" of joining the military, you will lose some subset of those few who were going to join.
You lose some subset of those few who were going to join IF:
- There is now a better option
- They understand that this was a pro to begin with. Most recruiters can still say there's money for college and I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of those who enlist don't get a breakdown on where the money comes from before joining. They just here XXXXXX dollars for college which they will still hear.
We'll see, but I don't think you can assume this will have a big impact on recruiting numbers.
I should have said this more clearly but I said military as I wasn't just referring to the army branch but the military as a whole. Assuming the 1.4 million military personnel number I've seen is accurate, I think that's way too high. Maybe it's other branches that need more personnel cuts, but our military spending is out of control.
I wouldn't mind a smaller force, but it would be nice if they could drop the number of missions being performed before they start cutting.
That sucks.
Seriously dude. It's not like it was a 50 page thread. Is it that hard to read before commenting? It's obvious you're not well read, but , it was made clear by the op within a few responses.
honest mistake. Now gfy
I'm not sure laziness can be catogorized as a mistake.
http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/news...stance-030813wThe Air Force is considering whether to curtail tuition assistance after the Defense Department told all of the services to consider cutting funding for the program, officials said.
The Army and Marine Corps have both decided to suspend their tuition assistance programs. Soldiers and Marines can finish the current semester, but the services are not allowing new enrollments.
Each service is responsible for funding and administering its tuition assistance program, said Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen.
“This week, DOD’s comptroller issued guidance indicating that the services should consider significant reductions in funding new tuition assistance applicants, effective immediately and for the duration of the current fiscal situation,” Christensen said in an email.
The Air Force has not yet decided whether to make any reductions in funding for tuition assistance, said service spokeswoman Capt. Candice Ismirle. Officials expect to have a decision in the next week or so, she said.
The Navy has also not yet decided whether to reduce its TA funding.
“We are in the process of reviewing our tuition assistance policy, and at the heart of review is the need to balance budget shortfalls with our commitment to sailor benefits,” said Navy spokeswoman Lt. Courtney Hillson.
yeah. Optempo is like a deployment right now.
The reason why I point out the Army is because it is the main fighting force. There can definitely be cuts in the defense without going after personnel. Also make officers in charge of decisions unable to work for any company that makes a bid. But with an American population of 300+ million with 20 million 20-24 yr olds, it doesn't that high.
Your talking about the guy that posts articles time and again without reading them. He seems literate. I dunno.
This isn't really an example of the military leading the belt tightening, though.
This is more like if I were to start tipping less as a way of cutting down my personal expenses.
I would say that its the type of belt tightening we're likely to see. I fully expect cuts to come from programs that benefit those who are least likely to be able to fight back against said cuts.
Oh, I agree with that. And, based on your previous political posting history, I'm pretty sure it's something with which we are similarly annoyed.
I think I was thrown a bit by your phrasing when I first read that comment, though.
Yeah, I'm scared to even look what's happening with the NPS right now, and I wonder where this leaves funding for the Webb Space Telescope.
It's not breach of contract. I wish it was. I think the correct approach would have been to keep it for those in, during their current enlistment. New enlistees wouldn't get it though unless they have signed up delayed entry prior to the announcement. They should also get a letter saying that they can now opt out.
Officers can also resign immediately if they on them too much. Enlisted don't have that option.
I feel bad for the Army and Marine Corps troops that are losing this benefit. Unfortunately, I've lived the experience that cuts to defense usually impact service members first and foremost...two Reduction-in-Force initiatives in six years, the first of which was specifically targeted to pay for weapons programs.
Sucks they can't support both and the service member loses that battle.
Not true actually...officers have an initial service commitment of 4-5 years and get additional service commitment when they take advantage of the very program that's being suspended.
It disproportionately affect enlisted, but it also affects officers that can't just up and leave.
The military doesn't need so many soldiers now that we have pulled out of active engagement. They increased the benefit level to entice new recruits, now they have to reduce the benefits to entice people to leave on their own, rather than finding a formula to decline people who wish to reenlist.
Supply and demand rules in all things.
I had my notice in 1991 that they were eliminating my job field. I could have stayed in, but I would have had to cross train to a job I didn't want. It worked in getting me out, plus, $28k+ exit bonus wasn't anything to sneeze at in 1991.
When I was in, enlisted had a six year commitment minimum, officers 10 years. Now it didn't matter how much of that was active, Some MOS' were only a 2 year commitment, and some as many as 4 like mine. The difference was a required active or inactive reserve. Any time during that 6 or 10 years, one could be called back for a combat situation. I don't know the range of active time for officers, but in my day, the difference was the same thing. Active or inactive reserve to finish 10 years for them.
I stopped reading here. I can't speak for ops tempo of the guard/reserve units that were on regular deployment schedules at the height of the Iraq war, but the Army is still overtasked to the point where it's calling on the Air Force to support taskings.
Just because it's not in the news everyday, doesn't mean there's not "active engagement."
That's a surprise to me. Maybe I'm wrong. What is it over tasked for now that we have pulled out of active engagement? I'm out of the loop now. What's going on?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
