The Army and Marine Corps gave out nearly $640 million during the fiscal year 2008 to entice new recruits to join up, according to data obtained by the Associated Press and reported on Friday.  Enlistment incentives as high as $40,000 increased the costs of bonuses for the two services by 25 percent over last year's totals.

The investment appears to have been fruitful, as the services met their recruiting goals for the year even as the death toll in Iraq surpasses 4,100 and violence in Afghanistan increases.  The Army brought in 80,500 recruits, beating its goal of 80,000.  The Army Guard and the Army Reserves also met their goals.

These numbers are good news as the Department of Defense (DoD) pushes to increase the size of the nation's ground force. Plans are to increase the number of active duty Army, Army Guard, and Army Reserve by 74,000 overall by 2010.

According to the Marines, more that 10,700 enlistment bonuses were issued to about 33 percent of the recruits who made it to training.  The Marines use a sliding scale of bonuses that was used to fill critical jobs such as combat arms, intelligence, reconnaissance, and linguists.

The Navy met its enlistment goal for 2008 despite a budget of $105 million for bonuses - less than its 2007 budget of $110 million.  The Air Force also met its recruiting goal but has not released data on bonuses yet.

It is unclear what role the nation's economic crisis plays in these recruiting successes, but it is clear that a trend is reversing since these larger bonuses have begun.  Three years ago the Army fell far short of its year-end recruiting goal as the war in Iraq dragged on, spurring the Army to create a multi-pronged campaign to attract soldiers.

Some observers question the effectiveness and ethics of such large monetary incentives for an all-volunteer force.  As Army spokesman Paul Boyce told the AP, "We recruit not only the soldier but his or her family, and this money is important to them." Recruits may be blinded by sums of money greater than they've ever imagined and later regret their decision, becoming more of a liability for the service than an asset.  Also, if the primary motivation is financial, they argue that a disproportionate number of recruits from economically disadvantaged backgrounds will enlist while those with more economic resources will sit it out. 

According to 2007 data compiled by the National Priorities Project, recruits from upper-middle and high income neighborhoods are underrepresented and have become even more so since 2004 when the Army began its intensive recruiting campaign.  At the same time low and middle income neighborhoods are overrepresented among recruits.  Some lawmakers have used this data to argue that a draft would be a more equitable and effective system for staffing our armed services, especially during times of war.  But one doesn't have to look very far to find examples of individuals whose money and connections allowed them to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War, so previously existing loopholes would need to be severely tightened.

OhMyGov! commends the brave men and women who volunteer for the armed services and believes they are worth more than any sum of money.  However, we hope that those who choose to enlist do so with full awareness of the agreement they are making to risk their life for their country and are not blinded by the color of money and that young people of all walks of life, including those with little need for the money, continue to enlist out of a sense of patriotism and duty.

Other Recruitment Stories:

[+] Army creates new educational program to combat recruitment challenges

[+] Agency culture has big influence on recruitment 

[+] How appealing is public service? A new poll has the answer