Army Digs Deep to Get Strong

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Army may have met its recruitment goal of 80,000 troops last year but these are not the soldiers of yesteryear. Along with questionable recruitment tactics, the Army has rewritten its enlistment standards on everything from facial tatoos to criminal records. We break down some of the changes in our latest issue, showing how over the past few years the Army has allowed in not only older and fatter plebes, but also record numbers of recruits whose felony records and medical conditions would have disqualified them in years past.

Now the National Priorities Project has run the numbers on the latest data from the DoD, and the declines continue:

-In 2004, 61% of active-duty Army recruits were ‘high quality,’ (average aptitude scores or better, high school diploma). In 2006, less than half, 47%, were high quality, a 23% decrease.

-The number of high school dropouts grew from 13% in 2004 to the just released 27% in 2006, doubling in just two years.

The NPP also breaks down recruiting by income bracket and state. Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Montana had the highest recruiting rates while Connecticut, New Jersey and the District of Columbia had the lowest number of active-duty Army recruits in 2006.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend