Re-enlistment Exceeding Goals

Some noise on the "left" is being made about the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals. While this is true, it is often not countered with the fact that the re-enlistment rates of soldiers currently serving in Iraq is dramatically exceeding their own goals.

In other words, those soldiers who are at the tip of the spear, the men and women who have seen the most action in Iraq, are staying in the Army at rates far above what was expected. An Army source tells me that retention rates have climbed every year since 2001. So all the negative press about minor recruitment shortfalls really ought to be weighed against the fact that the troops who are actually defending America are voting with their boots in increasing numbers to keep doing the job they do so well.

This is also important, for soldiers who re-enlist are so much more valuable to the military than new recruits. New recruits are everyday people like you and me. They have no experience in the field, and may have never even fired a gun. Re-enlistments, however, are already trained. In addition, they are battle-tested, having already served in the field for their service requirement (2 to 4 years).

The point of the National Review snippet I included in this post is also important. The troops that have served on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are so terrified by their experience and what they witnessed, that they are volunteering to go back. Does this rationally make sense? I mean if the situation is as bad as we are being told, would individuals logically elect to go back?