Not So Dire Straits: Inside the Army's Manpower Crisis and the Battle of Perceptions

There's this notion in the world that perception becomes reality-- it's only partially true in that how we perceive things will impact our decisions, the action of which will re-shape the world around us (generally, but not always) in a manner consistent with our perceptions. But in politics, especially, substance often takes a backseat to appearance-- far more often than not, something that constitutes astute policy, but that is politically radioactive will get placed on the backburner, while something that does very little (or may even be a bad policy) is likely to be embraced if it is politically savvy. This is why the struggle to define events around us-- the battle for the perceptions of contemporary Americans-- occupies an enormous amount of energy not just for politicians, but for corporations and even academia: witness the amount of advertising that businesses and universities spend marketing their products or recruiting new students. This isn't to say that the product or the education is irrelevant, only that the perception of its relevance has become ever more important over the years-- Apple may very well make a better computer, but most Americans won't know that if the perception is that one needs a PC to get by in the world; the Detroit Tigers may have the best record in baseball, but no one outside the state of Michigan believes they're really the best team (although, in fairness, they will get their chance to prove it, perceptions be damned).

But it helps explain the controversy surrounding the forthcoming ABC production, "The Path to 9/11," a "docu-drama" (when did we stop calling this stuff "historical fiction"?) that apparently alleges the Clinton Administration sowed the seeds of our nation's most recent mass casualty tragedy-- for liberals, going into an election where national security is likely to be one of the most important issues for voters, the perception that Sandy Berger refused to allow the CIA to assassinate Osama Bin Laden is an undesirable one, indeed.

In any case, for some time now, we have been told that the Army's manpower situation was in dire straits and, implicitly, that we would therefore necessarily have to end our military operations in Iraq. I never really bought the second forced conclusion-- the notion that coming up short by 7,000 recruits would reduce the 495,000-strong active duty Army into a state of complete ineffectiveness was, to me, absolutely absurd-- but there was no denying that manpower problems impacted the Army and the perception of the Army's ability to carry out its long-term objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan (I say perception here because even with a two-million man force, I suspect we'd have made little more progress without dramatic changes to our strategy, doctrine, and force structure-- again, how troops are employed is exponentially more important than how many are available). Some pundits used the "recruiting crisis" to revisit the issue of the draft-- that, somehow, because we were short by less than 10% of our annual recruiting goal in a manner that affected barely 1% of the active duty force, we would have to turn to mass conscription in order to ensure we had the Soldiers available to complete our mission. But the draft is usually cover for something else-- generally opposition to the war, since those advocating the draft are well aware that the war's popularity would fall below sustainable levels if enacted.

And as it turns out, calls for the draft were either unfounded or premature (depending on your own perception), as a couple of interesting news wires that flew across the Internet last week seem to demonstrate. The first was notification that the active duty Army had met its retention goal for Fiscal Year 2006-- more than one month in advance. Although this likely hasn't received much attention from the mainstream media, it continues to demonstrate that Soldiers-- especially those in combat, like the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) that re-enlisted 150% of its target this year-- believe in what they are doing, enjoy being a part of something important (even if it's dangerous), and are willing to stick around the Army, even through multiple deployments to Iraq and the perception that those deployments will not be disappearing any time in the near future. This stands in contrast to what many of us believed when we were in Afghanistan three years ago-- that the Army's manpower crisis would manifest itself in 2006 or 2007, as Soldiers refused to re-up for their third deployment and America's youth declined the opportunity to participate at all.

And as it turns out, recruiting seems to be doing okay, too, this year. According to a Department of Defense release, through August (inclusive), the active duty Army has recruited (accessed) 72,997 new troops, well above our goal of 70,200, and-- with one month to go-- well on target to get the last 7,000 for the annual goal of 80,000. That is, with one month to go, we've already surpassed last year's recruiting numbers and look to meet our annual goal for the first time in years. It's an enormous achievement for the Army, and it hasn't come cheap: critics cynically note the large enlistment bonuses and a "lowering of standards" that has enabled Army recruiters to target a higher percentage of GED recipients and older Americans (as old as 42, in fact). I'm not going to talk much about the enlistment bonuses, except to say that if a young American is willing to put on the uniform and serve his or her country in war-- prepared to sacrifice their lives, if necessary-- then they better damn well be better compensated than their classmates who have chosen to sling latte at Starbucks or serve drinks at TGI Friday's. If other Americans have to sacrifice a point or two off their investments by buying war bonds, then that's not something we should ignore.

But the "lowered standards" charge is something else, since it (unintentionally) denigrates the young men and women who have made mistakes in their lives, but who are still willing to serve their country-- it pretends that the stupid and the undisciplined can't emerge from their training socialized into the military culture, prepared to overcome their past mistakes, and able to contribute to a cause larger than themselves. And it determines that we can't find a place where older Americans can serve, either-- which doesn't make sense to me because-- historically and currently-- we've always had forty, fifty, and sixty year olds on the front lines of the battlefield-- in the case of John Burns at Gettysburg, we even had seventy year olds! Though the perception will continue that these Soldiers are inferior to their peers who enlisted during the peacetime army of the Clinton Administration (although that one, too, failed to meet its annual recruiting missions and faced a perception of crisis, as well), I'm not so sure the reality will necessarily play out that way. After all, by conventional standards, Bobby Bran never should have been allowed to graduate from West Point-- and yet I did and wasn't the worst Infantry officer of my class, either. After a series of conduct violations, Henry Opolot probably had no greater "right" to return to West Point, either, and yet he did, graduated, and is now commanding a Field Artillery battery in Korea. And then there's Chad Jones, who was chased off a month before graduation because of an unfortunate incident: he earned his commission through Officer Candidate School, and is now completing his tour of duty as a company commander in Iraq. The list of "those who shouldn't have become lieutenants" is a long one (and many, for obvious reasons, are my closest friends), and I fully acknowledge that the perception was that we wouldn't work out. But we did become lieutenants (and later captains), and we did serve our nation-- in most cases, with distinction. And that's where the "lowered standards" needs to be brought into perspective: we're a nation at war (even if most of the nation isn't really at war), and we're determined to fight our battles with just a fraction of a fraction of our population. In such times, we're going to have make do with the Brans, Opolots, and Joneses, even if they are perceived to be cut from "lesser" material than their peers. It seems that sometimes, perhaps ironically, even a lowered standard can bring high returns.