Center for a New American Security

A NY Times' article on the weakest job market for teenagers in half a century provides a crucial test of the all volunteer force in a time of war.

The story's beginning:

Mr. Stallings, 18, says he has been looking for three months, burning gasoline to get to the mall, then filling out applications at stores selling skateboard T-shirts, beach sandals and baseball caps. He likes the idea of working amid the goods he covets. But so far, no offers. “I’m going to go to Iraq and get a job,” he says acidly. “I hear they’ve got cheap gas.” He grins. “I’m just playing. But I’ve been all over, and nobody’s hiring. They just say, ‘We’ll call you tomorrow.’ And no one ever calls back.”

Whether we can get Mr. Stallings and his friends to join up to go to Iraq to serve (and not for cheap gas) will be a testament to whether we have the right recruiting strategy for American youth to grow our Army in a time of war.

Do you ever wonder why the U.S. Marine Corps consistently out-performs the U.S. Army -- not to mention the other two services -- with respect to recruiting? Abu Muqawama doesn't. Because although the Army has a lot of high-speed units whose pedigree and exclusivity outshine anything the U.S. Marine Corps has to offer, just being a Marine carries with it a cache of its own. And even if you're a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment or the Special Forces or the Units Whose Names We Dare Not Speak, you still belong to the same tribe as a bunch of overweight service support soldiers held to a lower standard than most high school athletes. This is why a certain retired Marine colonel has been known to introduce Abu Muqawama with "This is _______. He used to be in one of the Army's high-speed units. Which is a lot like coming in first at the Special Olympics."

At least we don't sew our names onto our asses. (Who is meant to read that?) But the big difference between the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marines is that just being a Marine is to be a member of an elite group. How can soldiers feel the same way when they see such low standards all around them? Maybe we should give them all black berets. Oh...

Update: It gets worse. They are now, apparently, allowing Fobbits to breed.

The Marines have announced a new marketing campaign targeting women. Charlie can't decide which is more surprising: that they didn't do it before, or that they're doing it now. But, per usual, their messaging is spot on: “There are no female Marines. Only Marines.” Nice. Whether this is true or not (signs generally point to "not"), it's in keeping with their best traditions of savvy marketing. (The slogan of "A Few Good Men" has long been studied in business schools as a classic branding exercise; see the Army's vain efforts to come anywhere close in their own branding for supporting evidence.) So far, however, it hasn't markedly improved female recruitment, but we'll obviously stay tuned.

PS Be sure to look at the accompanying slide show for an historical review of "WM's." At least now they let us fly...

PPS Charlie has also been following the (escalating) war between Marine and Army recruiting, as the Corps not-so-subtly implies that while the Army may be scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits, the Marines would never do such a thing. The opening salvo of "We don't take applications, only commitments" was a shot across the bow. But more recent "No Compromises" is like a shot to the mizzen-mast, no? (Or, at least, a giant middle finger to the Army.)

While the Air Force has responded to the current operational environment by stonewalling change, the Navy has embraced it.

In a multimillion-dollar television, radio and online ad campaign, the Navy is presenting itself largely as a humanitarian rather than a warfighting organization. Several of the ads give more emphasis to the Navy's prowess in delivering relief supplies than its ability to deliver bombs.

And, unless you're selected to serve as an individual augmentee in landlocked Afghanistan, it is true that there ain't too much warfighting for the Navy this days.

Is the Navy cashing its COIN dividend too early? Check out this new commercial and see for yourself.

Update: Charlie, here. While Kip's right that we're not fighting too many wars off carriers these days, let's not underestimate the number or impact of the individual augmentees getting assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the number of Seabees ashore in either country. Finally, a fair number of naval aviators (esp. helos) are also based inland. So while Charlie's glad that the Navy has embraced its theater security cooperation mission (no doubt this is good for recruitment), she also appreciates the warfighting they have been doing.

Princeton is providing its new students with a fully structured "gap year" (which kind of defeats the purpose, by the way).

Proponents of the year off say it allows students to discover themselves and the world before they enter college.

The Army needs recruits. Serving in the Army, I can tell any Princetonite, allows you to discover yourself and the world.

Time to make a deal?

Kip's hit the big time, giving your favorite blog one of its biggest mainstream media pick-ups in recent memory. Fred Kaplan picked up Kip's screed from last week regarding new $40k enlistment bonuses. He writes:

First, at a time when the Army is trying to expand its ranks for the long haul (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has authorized the recruitment of 65,000 more troops in the next several years), this bonus is likely to attract—or, in any event, produce—short-timers. Since the cash is handed over only after the recruits finish their service, they will have an incentive not to re-enlist for a second term, much less to make a career of the military.

Second, it may work against another set of incentives to retain junior officers, who are leaving the service in droves. The Army recently offered a $30,000 bonus for captains who re-enlist. Some have found it alluring, but now they're likely to be peeved that the Army's giving mere recruits even more.

[...]

Are we about to witness an arms race of bonuses among the ranks or, short of that, another wave of exits from the likes of Kip?

To be clear, Kip's not leaving anytime soon. But it's likely that a fair number of his friends will be. Kaplan argues that the Army will fight the numbers game until it brings most of the troops home from Iraq. That may true, but not the whole story: these aren't all new problems. Some in the Army recognized in the late 1990s that it had a retention crisis and began studying ways to address it. But 9/11 provided a short-term fix, and many of the reforms under review were abandoned. Too bad, because those problems still underlie the current complains about optempo an deployments. Most of the officers Charlie knows would gladly trade their bonuses for a rationalization of the assignment process, that actually matched skills to tasks.

Update 1: AM here. Allons enfants de la Patrie, le "Kip" est arrivé. En Francais.

Update 2: Kip here. While I don't usually give biographical details, I think it is worth mentioning that I continue to serve and will for some time. I did not, however, take $30,000 because I objected in principle and also because I thought the incentives list was particularly back-handed in offering things that could be gotten at much lower cost (e.g., a branch transfer with an additional service obligation as opposed to a normal branch transfer which would cost nothing and is likely to improve officer satisfaction and keep him in anyway). I also think that most captains would agree that $10,000 per year for 3 years (taxed, even if you are in a war zone, unlike enlisted bonuses) is simply not enough to commit yourself to the Army. In retrospect, the $30,000 bonus only attracted those who were going to stay in anyway. It convinced many others, including me, that the Army simply did not "get it."

You reading this?

You a US Army captain?

You wonder what your worth to the Army?

Well, less than a private...

How's $30,000 of indentured servitude feel now?

(Or, perhaps you opted for some non-guaranteed grad school between your 8th and 11th year of service for which you could pay back an additional service obligation of 3 years per year AFTER you complete school--or maybe you went after that branch transfer that you could have got without an additional service obligation.)

Update: Slate readers, check out more on the topic here, here and here.