recruiting more people in the U.S. Army

[john121]

if the Army did a better job at keeping the men and women that they already recruited and used them wisely, we wouldn't need to keep signing on more and more people. I myself tried to sign up for the Army, but because of asthma and basically not physically fit (way too thin and can't lift enough, NOT because I was overweight or a slob) they turned me away. I've seen on the news about the 1,000th soldier who died.. and that is very sad.. but have they released how many people have been permenantly injured? what types of jobs has the army given these other wounded and brave soldiers to continue to serve this great nation? Do they still want these wounded soldiers to still be helping the war effort?

 

[Ikerous]

http://icasualties.org/oif/

That has a list of how many soldiers are killed, wounded, etc.
It also says how many injured return to duty and how many dont

 

[john121]

thank you VERY much

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Actually as far as I was aware, reenlistment levels were met/exceeded. It was simply the new recruitment levels that were just below what they wanted.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Actually as far as I was aware, reenlistment levels were met/exceeded. It was simply the new recruitment levels that were just below what they wanted.

True...also note people do not/cannot quit the military. In fact they are very very strict as to who they allow into the military because they are able to meet the requirements so they will only take the healthiest people.

 

[Sheikah42]

john what's your height and weight?

 

[The Mullinator]

Used more efficiently? The US uses it's troops more efficiently on the battlefield than any other national military in history. If you want to hear about using troops the wrong way then read up on how the British handled a few trench battles during World War 1.

A couple thousand military casualties over the course of a few years in most military campaigns is often considered an overwhelming sucess.

 

[CptStern]

2100 dead, 16,000 + wounded ..of those 20% are severely

you couldnt pay me enough to throw myself into certain death

 

[jondy]

If you want to hear about using troops the wrong way then read up on how the British handled a few trench battles during World War 1.

I'm not sure citing a 90-year old example as a precedent for modern warfare efficiency is the best way of getting your point across :O

 

[The Mullinator]

I'm not sure citing a 90-year old example as a precedent for modern warfare efficiency is the best way of getting your point across :O

Then cite an example showing how modern warfare can be handled more efficiently than how the US has been handling it. Take into account of course the size and nature of the operation.

 

[jondy]

Then cite an example showing how modern warfare can be handled more efficiently than how the US has been handling it. Take into account of course the size and nature of the operation.

I wasn't arguing with you; I didn't see the relevance of trench fighting in modern combat is all

Incidentally, what is the accepted definition of efficiency in combat? I've never thought about efficiency in a war, although now it seems obvious considering the example of WWI

 

[Homer]

The big problem with army recruiting as I see it is that they offer huge cash incentives to recruits, causing them to recruit a awful lot of people who shouldn't be there. The army is full of civilians who just joined for the money.

Yea, the navy and airforce do the same, but they are more or less designed to be loaded with civilians with ID badges, the army should be different. I guess they just need so many people that they have to let some in who shouldn't be there.

 

[The Mullinator]

I wasn't arguing with you; I didn't see the relevance of trench fighting in modern combat is all

Incidentally, what is the accepted definition of efficiency in combat? I've never thought about efficiency in a war, although now it seems obvious considering the example of WWI

I would say that what is taken into account for efficiency would be the speed at which the operation is done, the number of friendly casualties against the number of enemy casualties, the number of civilian casualties (very specific to modern warfare), the number of actual open combat incidents that come up (soldier to soldier fighting is very bad when compared to something like a single bomb or tank shell to take out an enemy unit), also the cost of the operation as a whole.

Probably more but I suspect those are the real major ones. For the Iraq war I don't think any of us know enough to decide on whether or not it is being handled properly in relation to most of these facts. Sure there may be very high numbers but then again this is a massive operation, and the fact is the larger the operation the higher the numbers such as casualties will get. I think however it can be generally accepted though that this is a very costly operation, I don't think the U.S. has handled itself very well in this category. Mind you that is often to do with the nature of the weapons that they have rather than poor tactical and strategic considerations by generals and commanders.