About a month ago, the media were abuzz with stories about how the Army had missed its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999. Missing from most of these stories was the fact that the Army had increased its 2005 recruiting goal to 80,000 from 72,000 in 2004 (the final recruiting numbers for 2005 reached about 73,000). The stories only focused on the shortfall, without putting the numbers into the context of DOD’s effort to grow the Army.

Now the Army putting out its recruiting numbers for October of 2005 — the first numbers of the new fiscal year — which show that the Army has exceeded its recruiting goals for the month. But suddenly, the press is very concerned about the fact that the Army lowered its goal for October as compared to October of last year. The Washington Post reports:

The Defense Department opened its new recruiting year with good news: announcing yesterday that the Army met its goal for October. But officials also said that the Army lowered the October recruiting goal by about a third from last year’s.
Army officials said that they recruited 4,925 soldiers into active duty in October, the first month of the new fiscal year, exceeding the monthly goal of 4,700. Last October, the Army slightly exceeded its goal of 6,935.

Compare that to the first two paragraphs of this Post story from March of 2005:

The active-duty Army is forecast to miss its recruiting targets again in March and April, as the prospect of combat-zone deployments in Iraq discourages American youths — and adults who advise them — from considering military service.
The Army expects to fall short of its targeted number of recruits, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told reporters yesterday, confirming the likely continuation of a trend that began in February when the active-duty Army missed its monthly goal for the first time since 2000. Last week, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army’s personnel chief, said in congressional testimony that “monthly recruiting figures from March and April will be difficult to achieve.”

Typically for stories from that period, the story did not report that the Army had increased its goals for 2005.

In other words, if the Army exceeds its goals, it’s important to note that it has lowered them. But if the Army falls short of its goals, it’s not important to note that those goals have increased significantly.