"Hate Speech" or the Truth?

[wvrevy]

Seems that this factual article, including quotes directly from people at the Pentagon, completely contradicts the numbers posted earlier (and pay particular attention to the drastic drop in Guard and Reserve enlistment, which seems to contradict the nonsense about "they know what they're getting into"):

From MSNBC:

US Army Poised to Miss 2005 Recruiting Goal

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army, hard pressed to attract new soldiers amid the Iraq war, exceeded its July recruiting goal but seems doomed to miss its target for the year, while the Army Reserve and National Guard fell short of their goals again.

The Iraq war marks the first test of the all-volunteer U.S. military during a protracted war, and Army officials have conceded that all three components of the Army likely will miss their recruiting goals for fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30.

The Army, aiming to get 80,000 recruits this year, stood 11 percent behind its year-to-date goal at the end of July, with just two months left to overcome a shortfall of more than 7,000. It has not missed an annual recruiting goal since 1999.

The Army provides the bulk of ground troops in the Iraq war, in which about 1,840 U.S. troops have been killed and another nearly 14,000 wounded.

(You can read the rest of the August 10th article here )

One more quote from the article, however:

The Reserve missed its July recruiting target by 18 percent, getting 2,131 recruits with a goal of 2,585, and stood 20 percent behind its year-to-date target. It had a shortfall of about 4,700 recruits toward its 2005 goal of 28,485.

The Army National Guard has missed every monthly goal in fiscal 2005 after falling short in 2004 and 2003, the Pentagon said. It missed its July goal by 20 percent -- getting 4,712 recruits with a quota of 2,585 -- and was 23 percent behind its year-to-date target. With two months left, it had a shortfall of more than 11,600 toward an annual goal of 63,002.

The person that wrote that op-ed piece was either lying, or badly misinformed. Yes, the Army met it's active duty goal for the last two months...but that followed a four month drought. These goals are set in place with full knowledge that recruiting is cyclical throughout the year. As such, the monthly goals are set based on previous years...not by just arbitrarily dividing the yearly goal by 12.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

1) Replace SecDef Rumsfeld. He's served the President well, but it's time to find someone who can better manage the politics of war. I think Mr. Rumsfeld has lost a lot of credibility with Americans and with the military.

2) Increase troop levels in Iraq by any means possible -- including instituting a temporary draft. We are not going to win (if that's even the goal anymore) without overwhelming force.

3) Let the generals on the field prosecute the war without the arm-chair quarterbacking and second-guessing from the gov't. If the goal is to win and secure freedom for Iraq, then give them the ability to do that.

3) Seal Iraq's borders with Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. The military has to cut off the infiltration of foreign insurgents and supplies to insurgents.

4) Target & destroy insurgent camps in Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia. We have the technology to discover and pinpoint these places. They should be taken out immediately. We should make the "shock and awe" of the Iraq invasion look like some 4th of July fireworks.

5) Institute a military draft in Iraq. All civilians would be required to serve in the Iraqi Army for 1 to 2 years, learning how to defend their country. Ramp up the military training in Iraq. Begin deploying the Iraqi Army to supplement civilian police forces throughout Iraq. Increase their responsibility for safeguarding Iraq on a regular schedule.

6) Rebuild the infrastructure faster. I honestly have no idea how to do this, but I am sure there are more companies who would be interested in doing this if security were better guaranteed.

7) Continue to assist Iraq in structuring it's new government, writing its Constitution and instituting that gov't. so that it is stable and secure.

Once these are accomplished, then set a timetable for withdrawal.

Thank you for your plan. Howver, aside from sacking Rummy (BTW, who do you replace him with?), which I whole heartedly agree with, and instituting a draft, your plan soulds like "More of the same...only better".

As far as allowing the Generals on the field to run the war without politicians stick their noses in, you might want to talk to our Commander in Chief. Just a couple weeks ago, General Casey suggested withdrawing 30,000 troops in the near future, and was admonisted privately and contradicted publicly by President Bush.

 

[wvrevy]

As far as allowing the Generals on the field to run the war without politicians stick their noses in, you might want to talk to our Commander in Chief. Just a couple weeks ago, General Casey suggested withdrawing 30,000 troops in the near future, and was admonisted privately and contradicted publicly by President Bush.

That's the pattern with Bush. If you suggest publicly something that he either disagrees with or something that does not follow his rosy view of the world, you're privately shown the door. Just ask General Shinseki (or Christine Todd Whitman...or.....).

 

[treesinger]

Seems that this factual article, including quotes directly from people at the Pentagon, completely contradicts the numbers posted earlier (and pay particular attention to the drastic drop in Guard and Reserve enlistment, which seems to contradict the nonsense about "they know what they're getting into"):

From MSNBC:



(You can read the rest of the August 10th article here )

One more quote from the article, however:



The person that wrote that op-ed piece was either lying, or badly misinformed. Yes, the Army met it's active duty goal for the last two months...but that followed a four month drought. These goals are set in place with full knowledge that recruiting is cyclical throughout the year. As such, the monthly goals are set based on previous years...not by just arbitrarily dividing the yearly goal by 12.

And I stand corrected then.

 

[peachgirl]

From the author of the op-ed piece posted earlier, Ralph Peters:

"Make no mistake: The anti-war voices long for us to lose any war they cannot prevent"

Yeah, there's an unbiased source if I ever saw one!

Not surprisingly, the military doesn't keep stats on the socio-economic status of recruits, but how about from the mouth of their own recruiters?


From a D.C. recruiter:

Sergeant Isaac Horton, McDonough's Army recruiter, sees it differently. For him, enlisting is a way to improve the lives of young people with few options. In his pitches to recruits, he uses his life as an example, talking of returning home to find many of his high school friends either dead or in jail.

"If I had to do it over again, I would do it," Horton said. "Look at the crime rate in D.C. -- I'll take my chances in the military."

Interesting...This was from 11/04

But this year, the Army is relaxing its rules to help fill its quotas. The number of high school dropouts allowed to enlist will rise 25 percent -- accounting for 10 percent of recruits this year, compared with 8 percent last year. The percentage allowed to enlist despite borderline scores on a service aptitude test will rise by 33 percent -- from 1.5 percent last year to 2 percent this year.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/29/military_recruiters_pursue_target_schools_carefully?pg=full

 

[wvrevy]

And I stand corrected then.

Not really, as you were just taking somebody else's word for it (but I doubt she'd ever admit to a mistake, so to paraphrase the future Australian US colony, "Good on ya', mate ! )

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Just ask General Shinseki (or Christine Todd Whitman...or.....).

...four-star General Kevin Byrnes, with many more to come as this war lingers!!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Proof?

https://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-006.html

From the article:

"For years critics of the AVF have been charging that the United States has an army of the poor, and those voices are now growing louder. John Kenneth Galbraith recently declared, "Deployed on the sands of Saudi Arabia and facing possible extinction, are young men and women drawn, in the main, from the poorer families of our republic."(15) Governor Cuomo raised the same issue by telling columnist William Safire in an interview on the Persian Gulf that "I'm not going to raise the fairness question" about a poor man's army, "but I'd like to hear what the President has to say about that."(16)

Unfortunately, that argument is not supported by the facts. Throughout the 1980s military recruits were smarter and better educated than their civilian counterparts. Ten percent of young people scored in the bottom AFQT category (V); the military took none of them. Twenty-one percent scored in Category IV, but the military drew just 4 percent of recruits from that group in the first half of 1990.(17) An Ohio State University study found that recruits have greater educational aspirations than their civilian counterparts. In short, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the services are not the last refuge of society's dregs.

If the officer corps is excluded, the military is not quite equal in social status to the civilian world, but the differences are small. According to a 1989 Pentagon survey, the family backgrounds of recruits were slightly more blue collar than those of youth generally. Parents of recruits had roughly the same rates of college attendance as did parents of civilian youth. Enlistees' fathers are relatively more likely to be skilled production workers than professionals or executives.(18) Similarly, a 1989 Congressional Budget Office study found that young men from families with incomes 20 percent below average were only marginally more likely to join the military than were those from families with incomes 20 percent above average."

As I said the vast majority of military volunteers are not joining out of economic desperation.

 

[peachgirl]

As I said the vast majority of military volunteers are not joining out of economic desperation.

Ummmm....your "facts" are around 15 years old....got something that's a little closer to current conditions?

Enlistment? How's it going?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

As I said the vast majority of military volunteers are not joining out of economic desperation.

I'll make you a deal...you promise not to suggest that the Cato Institute is unbiased and I'll promise not to use Maureen Dowd Op-Ed pieces as "fact".

 

[peachgirl]

I'll make you a deal...you promise not to suggest that the Cato Institute is unbiased and I'll promise not to use Maureen Dowd Op-Ed pieces as "fact".

I've just been reading up on the author of the op-ed piece Joe posted.

All I can say is garbage in, garbage out, what a nut case!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Ummmm....your "facts" are around 15 years old....got something that's a little closer to current conditions?

Enlistment? How's it going?

The article points out that this argument has been going on for a long time. I doubt much has changed. If I find something more current, I'll post it.

Enlistment? I'll meet you in Iraq. I'll be carrying a rifle. You can carry your protest sign.

 

[peachgirl]

The article points out that this argument has been going on for a long time. I doubt much has changed. If I find something more current, I'll post it.

Enlistment? I'll meet you in Iraq. I'll be carrying a rifle. You can carry your protest sign.

Why on earth would you think things have not changed in 15 years??? Nice try, but no dice.

No, you won't find me in Iraq and we won't find you there either I'm quite sure. However, I don't think we ought to be there, you do.

Why aren't you joining up?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I've just been reading up on the author of the op-ed piece Joe posted.

I was just reading on the Cato page he linked to that blamed the shortfall in recruiting not on the willingness of America's youth, but on the unwillingness of the parent's whose kids are too young to join without parental consent to sign the paperwork!! It's all about family values, I guess.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I've just been reading up on the author of the op-ed piece Joe posted.

All I can say is garbage in, garbage out, what a nut case!

The author heavily references his research.

If you disagree, just resort to name calling.

 

[ThAnswr]

I'd be curious to see the evidence that supports this assertion.

Is this a joke?

Starting with Bush, Cheney, and the Bush cabinet, is there anyone who has a child in the military, least of all in Iraq? I know Ashcroft did, but I believe he was the only one.

 

[peachgirl]

The author heavily references his research.

It's still an op-ed piece and the author (who apparently believes that we should do away with public schools and base government on religion..his of course) is extremely biased. As we all know, one can twist "facts" any way they want to when trying to prove their point.


I don't care if he got his "facts" from Jesus Christ himself...the piece is 15 years old. I don't know if you realize it, (surely you do because I imagine they told you this at the recuiting office), but things are just a bit different now than they were 15 years ago.

How do you explain the actual fact that the military is letting up on their standards for allowing drop outs and those who score low on testing to sign up?

 

[ThAnswr]

The terrorists will decide when the war is over.

What an interesting assertion! Unlike FDR who defined victory as unconditional surrender, the Bush administration can't/won't define victory. Since abhors a vacuum, you're fine with the idea that the terrorists will decide what victory is?

The war on terrorism will be going on for many years until the world unites against it and stops thinking its someone else's problem or that we can solve it by niceness and understanding and appeasement.

Hey, Joe, grab a rifle and go get 'em.

Btw, I know you righties like to poo-poo the idea of understanding your enemy, but Sun Tzu (The Art of War) writes that the first step towards defeating enemy is knowing your enemy. That includes who they are and what they are.

The vast majority of those who go are NOT going out of economic desperation.

I don't give a crap why someone joined the military, but I do care that trained Army paratroopers are going to be used as security and prison guards. I do care that this administration has just about busted the National Guard because they're being improperly used in Iraq.

 

[ThAnswr]

Thank you for your plan. Howver, aside from sacking Rummy (BTW, who do you replace him with?), which I whole heartedly agree with, and instituting a draft, your plan soulds like "More of the same...only better".

As far as allowing the Generals on the field to run the war without politicians stick their noses in, you might want to talk to our Commander in Chief. Just a couple weeks ago, General Casey suggested withdrawing 30,000 troops in the near future, and was admonisted privately and contradicted publicly by President Bush.

And let's not forget General Eric Shinseki, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the truth to a congressional committee when he stated the Iraq war and subsequent occupation would require nearly 200,000 to be successful.

General Shinseki resigned soon after that and Rumsfeld did not attend his retirement ceremony. It's customary for a Secretary of Defense to do so.

So, T_M, as far as letting the generals fight the war, that Bush administration horse has been out of barn since the beginning.

 

[peachgirl]

Hard to argue with the DOD...

[font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman] In summary, enlisted accessions come from all socioeconomic levels. However, there is a tendency for accessions to come from families in the lower three-quarters of the status distribution. These differences are expressed in the occupations of the parents of accessions, as well as discrepancies in education and home ownership. No systematic differences were discovered between active duty and Reserve Component accessions. Including officer accessions in the analysis would be expected to increase the representation of higher social strata among military accessions, but would probably not eliminate differences between DoD and CPS parents.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]Socioeconomic Status. [/font][font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]Socioeconomic representation[/font] [font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman] in the volunteer force is a key interest because of concerns that our Nation's defense might fall heavily on the poor and the underclass. DoD conducts the Survey of Recruit Socioeconomic Backgrounds annually among active duty and reserve enlisted accessions to assess this issue. Based on a summary of parents' education, employment status, occupation, and home ownership, FY 1998 data showed that both active and reserve recruits are primarily from families in the middle and lower middle socioeconomic strata. The high end of the distribution was not as well represented among the backgrounds of new recruits as in census data on parents of civilian youth ages 14–21.[/font]

What a surprise. I note that this particular report is from '98. Given the difficulites in recruitment as of late, I would guess that it's only gotten worse since this report was made.