For the first time in 5 years the Army is not only meeting, but exceeding its recruitment goals. An economist I respect (among many others) is attributing it to a combination of high unemployment and better incentives (both of which are typical factors that contribute to higher enlistment rates in the armed forces). It makes sense, but I'm not buying it. Recruitment shot up after 9-11, and I think there's another external non-economic factor at play here (though considerably more minor).
We have a new commander in chief. Joining the armed forces is risking your life, and you're more likely to do it if you think the risk is lower. Furthermore, the more you trust the guy in whose hands you're putting your life, the more willing you are to do it. I don't think this can possibly be a result of better positive incentives and fewer alternatives alone (though it's certainly a part). I think that from the perspective of potential recruits, there has been a significant drop in their own personal barriers to entry. I'm going to go up against the experts here and say I believe that Obama sitting in the Oval instead of Bush is a statistically significant component of the Army's newfound ability to meet and exceed recruitment goals (if anyone can think of a good way to test these hypotheses, let me know).
[Editor's Addendum: Read First Tiger's reply in the comments section; it's well-thought out and insightful. The only thing wrong with it is that he disagrees with me, though I'm not sure our positions are mutually exclusive...it may just be a matter of degrees.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'll post an alternative theory, and then propose a possibly way to test the hypothesis, and then make some very subjective observations.
First, I think the economic factor is more dominant than you would think. The average demographic in the armed forces is more motivated by economic factors than you might appreciate at first. While that's not the ONLY reason people join the military, it's certainly an IMPORTANT reason. If a person has always thought about serving, but has a good job, he will probably stay at home. Once he gets fired, there are probably a lot of people deciding that it's time to join up. While it's not immediately relevant, I would wager that RETENTION is probably up as well, given the lack of alternatives in the civilian economy. This number is even more important for the health of the military than recruitment - it's better to keep a trained person than it is to recruit an untrained one.
Second, I would argue that the waning of the Iraq war has had a positive impact on recruitment. While we still have a huge number of troops stationed in Iraq, the casualty figures are way down, and media coverage of the war is down even further. THe first sentence in your post "For the first time in 5 years" dates the decline in recruiting to a specific event - the 2003 invasion of Iraq. While Afghanistan has been heating up, it hasn't heated up in the sense that we've seen a substantial increase in US casualties. The possibility of being sent immediately to a war zone was likely a driving factor in decreased recruiting numbers.
Teasing out the economic factor from the "Obama factor" is difficult. That said, testing Iraq v. "Obama/Economy combined" is relatively easy - the "surge" started working as early as late last year. Casualties have been dropping steadily for about that long, and media coverage of casualties all but stopped when the primary season started. If recruitment numbers started going up early in the year as opposed to late in the year when Obama started winning, it suggests that at least part of the rise can be attributed to the slowing of hte war. It's not bullet-proof - in all likelihood, the combination of Economy/War in October caused the numbers to raise even FASTER, and again, there's no way to tease out the Obama factor from that.
If you could get state-by-state or even district by district recruiting numbers, you could test the hypothesis by comparing the increase in recruitment with how successful Obama was in that district. There are a lot of problems with that test, but it could certainly shed some light on the subject.
To make a purely subjective observation, I think you might be hard pressed to see an "Obama" effect in the military - the military has traditionally voted overwhelmingly for the GOP, and McCain was extremely popular in the military. That said, an Obama-effect would suggest that the new class of recruits would be DIFFERENT from the existing military, but I find that hard to believe without strong evidence - the people that have traditionally joined the military are overwhelmingly conservative, and that trend has lasted for decades, and survived any number of changes to the political landscape. It doesn't mean change to that trend is impossible, but it does require evidence.
Post a Comment