More on The Numbers

Hey, I get so few responses to these posts, I need to brag when I get one. With regard to the last post, Greg commented...

Maybe the NY Post gives a source for their numbers, but they flat out contradict the Pentagon's. (See http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20050810-4393.html)

The Army's Active Component met its goal for July, but the Reserves and National Guard were both off by 20%. For the year, the AC is off by 11%; the Reserves 20%, NG 23%.

Seems like either the Pentagon is wrong, or the NYP and "Power Line" are. And while I AM somewhat captivated by the bold electrical graphics at the top of the Power Line webpage, in this instance, I'm going to have to side with the five-sided funny farm.

Turns out Greg is generally right, but the shot at Powerline seems unfair (and personally, I think their graphics need work as well), since those boys corrected their post and already noted this issue in detail. Dan Rather, take a lesson...

The Fox report agrees with Peters that re-enlistments are exceeding projections, so the difference must lie in first-time enlistments. Peters says that for the Army, they are "running at 108 percent of its needs." The Fox story, on the other hand, says that "Military officials will not go into specifics about the numbers of new recruits signing up for Army duty." Odd.

With respect to Army Reserve and National Guard units, the Fox story says that re-enlistments are running at more than 100% of projections, which is consistent with Peters' theme. But, while Peters says that the Army National Guard is up to "106 percent of its requirements as of June 30," Fox says that "in total, the Army Guard has about 331,000 soldiers, 94.5 percent of its authorized strength of 350,000." Is there a difference between "authorized strength" and "requirements"? I don't know, but there should be more data out there somewhere that would resolve the inconsistencies.

SCOTT adds: NRO's Stephen Spruiell caught up with Peters today and reports that he "was most likely the victim of a bureaucratic mixup."

UPDATE: This DoD page seems to have definitive information as of the end of July--which leaves some mystery regarding the Fox story's statement that the Army doesn't release data on new recruits. Anyway the DoD numbers are consistent with the conclusion that re-enlistment is very high, while new recruitment is a little below targets. As I read the numbers, Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force recruiting (not re-enlistment) is at a combined 95% of goals with two months to go in the fiscal year. Combined recruiting for the Army National Guard and the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Reserves is at a combined 89% of targets, also with two months to go.

So some of Peters' numbers do seem to be off, but it's hardly a deficit to give the liberals anything to crow about, especially with sky-high re-enlistment numbers in the units that are engaged in combat in Iraq.

FURTHER UPDATE: Mac Owens, a top commentator on military affairs, writes:

I did a piece for the NY Post on this issue in July. The Army has exceeded its reenlistment goals, and it has exceeded its monthly recruiting--first time enlistments--goals for the last two months, but the service will still fall short of its recruiting goals for the year by about 11,000 because of shortfalls earlier this year.

Most of the questions posed by Powerline and Intel Dump (noted by Greg) are still unanswered. I also have to wonder why, in the face of so much purported bad news in Iraq, why first-time enlistments would be up in the last two months and meet goals, after failing to do so earlier this year.