The Army is offering two-year contracts and cash bonuses to grow the Army

I passed up a 12,000 dollar re-enlistment bonus and E-6 to leave the Army National Guard, and enlist in the Air Guard with no bonus, and no chance of making E-6 for a few years. Why? Because the Air Guard would send me to EOD school. If the Army wants to keep people they could focus on listening to what their soldiers are telling them. Bonuses are a complete waste of money. Yes everybody loves them, but the guys who take them, would almost always re-enlist anyhow, and the guys that don't, don't! When I did ETS counselings, I'd hear "I'll re-up for deployment," "I'll re-up for Air Borne," "I'll re-up for Sapper." The money was never there for that. Soldiers can't be expected to put the effort in with NO REWARD, year after year. We often lost our best soldiers because we weren't offering them enough, and that enough WAS NOT about money, or benefits, it was about career reward. I know my post is about the reserve component, but I can't imagine that it doesn't have some reflection on AD as well.

Way back when ('70), I enlisted in the AF
and didn't need a bonus waved in my face
To do so.. Prob'ly because my incentive was to be allowed to be able to serve this Great country of ours on a equal footing
with my comrades of all races and creeds.

It sounds like part of the purpose of these short contracts is the assumption that enough will stay on for longer times to make it worthwhile for the Army.

It's certainly a Recruiting issue, kids don't want to commit a "large" chunk of their life-- 3-4 years is lot longer period of time, seemingly, to a 18 year than it is to a 21 year old. Just how life works.

So it's not really a matter of earning their keep in two years. It's a matter of retaining the ones that weren't sure, but wind up liking the Army-- and being able to get rid of the ones who won't succeed for a "real" contract length in half the time. Sounds like a win-win all around.