Back in the 90's there was a push to make smaller more educated Armed
Services as spending was cut back from Cold War levels.  More people were
also encouraged to join National Guard and reseve units to become citizen
soldiers and to be called up in time of need.

They were pickier and wanted more educated a more educated force (to prepare
for more technological prospects in war).  A big difference from in 1986, if
you were breathing and could walk they recruited you into the
Reagan/Rumsfield/Cheney military. 
Now and days, as you can see from the NY times article they are returning to
the 1986 standards.  And it's taking more man power to get the same number
of recruits in as last year, hmmm?  They also didn't mention how many people
are just not being allowed to get out of the military as they start their 8
year obligations of active and inactive time.  And lets face it, $40,000
bonus is not chump change to drive a truck in a convoy.  

I couldn't read all the tables in the Heritage Foundation article but, like
the info I get from the Progress Fund, I know I have to read carefully.  3
years later and not looking at census blocks give me a problem.  The Iraq
war didn't start until 2003, so a lot of people were still joining perhaps
as a result of the 9-11 call to patriotism.  

Here's some about newer trends in recruiting...d

May bit a bit biased:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01
/ING42LCIGK1.DTL

Don't know where the guy gets his information though:

http://www.harpers.org/sb-six-questions-eli-flyer.html

A little more balanced and up-to-date about recruiting and how the Army has
had to stretch the definition of qualified recruit (especially lately):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/10recruit.html?ex=1318132800&en=e88e396
784abefce&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Beth t.

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy