The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 4, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Morale Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: High 1st enlistment turnover
macawman    8/26/2002 1:01:53 AM
The US Army loses about 1/3 of its 1st term enlistment force every year due to
a lack of retention. A former Marine Corp commandant was correct when he
tried to restrict marriages of 1st term marines. The issue of "marriages of
convenience" so one can live off post would be eliminated. The resentment of
the other soldiers who have to stay in the barracks would not be a factor in
morale.

Sociology studies have shown that financial problems are the number ONE
reason for divorce. A 2nd term soldier would likely be at a higher pay grade and
could better handle financial shortfalls of family life. Family separations due to
deployments and the strife that they cause would not be a factor for the SINGLE
1st term soldier. A content soldier/marine without the greater financial
responsibilities of a family is more likely to reenlist on military pay.

The Marine Corp with their gung ho warfighter tradition and smaller number
should be given the chance to lead in this charge to improve morale and increase
1st term enlistee retention saving the tax payer and the Pentagon millions in
Basic/AIT training dollars. This change would require the politically courageous
leadership of the CinC of US forces in this volatile PC environment.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
macawman    RE:High 1st enlistment turnover   9/4/2002 6:11:46 AM
I found statement by Jim Dunnigan that adds more details to my like conclusion about 1st term enlistee turnover. "The military also was forced to abandon its long-standing policy of discouraging low-ranking enlisted personnel from getting married. This particular practice is several thousand years old and based on very practical considerations. The troops in question are often teenagers, are only in the service for a few years, don't make much money and are way too busy to deal with their military responsibilities, leisure time activities and a family. The Clinton administration decreed that the military must be "family friendly" and married individuals (even if single parents) must be allowed to enlist. More money had to be spent on childcare. This became very expensive, as some eight percent of Army personnel are single parents and there are many other families where both parents are in the service. This led to an increasing number of hardship stories when troops had to be sent overseas to areas where the family could not be brought along. The larger number of young families made more work for unit commanders, who are responsible for dealing with family trouble among the troops. All of this hurt training, for not only were the troops more stressed by multiple responsibilities, but money was diverted from training to things like housing and childcare. There also were the stories about families on food stamps. This would not have happened if the traditional policy of "no family until you're an NCO" were maintained. Of course, a hefty pay raise for the lower ranks would have helped as well, but the Clinton administration also held back on pay raises for the military. " The money problem was a result also of pork barrel politics. And this is best represented by expensive weapons systems. Politicians have long known that spending this in the right places can ease re-election anxiety considerably. Military necessity is not an issue. There were no moves from the White House to cut back on the politically popular high-ticket items. When money was needed for peacekeeping or social programs in the military, it came out of training. Fixing the damage, mending the military, won't be easy and it will take several years. That assumes the money is found and recruiting and training policies changed. There is no will in Congress to cut off the flow of military pork. Most people in Congress face re-election every two years. Efforts to keep single parents and teenage parents out of uniform will generate some loud opposition. Politicians seeking re-election don't want to be seen as campaigning against motherhood. Ignoring training and readiness is an easy way out. Don't expect anything to change quickly, if at all. Mending the military will probably not make it past the sound bite stage
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy