Ralph Peters reports on a story that hasn’t got much press although if the news were the opposite, you know you’d be reading about it all over.

But my nomination for the “Greatest Story Never Told” is a quieter one: Locked in a difficult war, the U.S. Army is exceeding its re-enlistment and first-time enlistment goals. Has anybody mentioned that to you?

Remember last spring, when the Army’s recruitment efforts fell short for a few months? The media’s glee would have made you confuse the New York Times and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered was the wonderful news that the Army couldn’t find enough soldiers. We were warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army’s numbers look great. Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record levels. And you don’t hear a whisper about it from the “mainstream media.”

It’s amazing to me that all these people would reenlist in a time of war with daily reports of casualties. Or that we would be exceeding our goals for new enlistments. Perhaps this has something to do with it.

UPDATE: Almost Daily Blog links to this story saying that the Army did not meet its recruitment goals for 2005. Another reader sent in a link to this story saying that the Army met its goals for July but is still having problems meeting goals for the Reserves. There seems to be a discrepancy between these stories and what Ralph Peters has written. I’m not sure what the explanation is for the difference in these stories. Does anyone else have an idea? Please, let me know. Is Peters focusing on one part of recruitment and are Fox News and the Washington Post focusing on another set of numbers? Let me know if you have something that explains this since I wouldn’t want to use misleading information. Thanks, Betsy

UPDATE II: I changed the title as several people pointed out that his column focused on reenlistments and not recruitment. Sorry.

comments (0)   trackbacks (0)