Study: Army recruits some warm bodies

The recruiters work very hard at their jobs. They are at our local high school daily shaking students hands, handing out "goodies" and visiting with the counselors. They use virtual rides in airplanes and ships to help recruit these teenagers.

As far as the numbers are concerned, I used to work in an accounting office and I know you can make numbers look any way you want. I guess now you could call it Enron Accounting instead of creative accounting?

A draft? I don't think people would stand for it. And as the article points out, the rich would just pay their way out.

Even that blowhard Paulo guy is qualified enough to get in the Military these day's.

I think all of the NeoCons should be required to serve frontline duty in Baghdad.

One thing to point out Most of the kids signing up come from South or Southwestern states. One of the Highest Death and Wounded tolls come from there too

OK, will the 'surge' result in any of the following to be accomplished?

- Secure the borders

- Secure the Baghdad power grid

- Secure the infrastructure (Oil, water, transportation)

- Secure the road to the airport

I don't think 30k more troops will do this. Perhaps slightly better security in Bag., but not necessarily.

I have stated that all solutions sound bad to me, but the idea of reconfiguring our troops into a purely force protection posture, letting the factions slug it out, then dealing with the winner may be the only solution that works.

By the way, has anybody heard or read an update on the trench/wall to be erected around Baghdad? Just wondering how that project is going.

Thanks, Frank, for a really interesting post. It used to be (like maybe thirty years ago) that this information would indeed have come directly from investigative news reporters from -- the Chicago Tribune...or more likely, the NYT, the Washington Post, The LA Times, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun...and even the Miami Herald (remembering the days when Carl Hiaasen and Edna Buchanan -just to mention a few --wrote headline making stories.)

So now we can thank people like you (did re-read your earlier story featuring Rep Rangel)and a group called "NPP"......and of course the late Rep. Dante Fascell of Miami for the Freedom of Information Act for this info.

Have a Merry Christmas and tell your brother Jessie the same.

LS vondrak...Charlie Rangel is a democrat political hack and is trying to divide America with his resumption of the draft and create a class warfare.Everytime facts and figures are shown to him,he backs down,but continues his canard with black audiences.
5%of the troops in Iraq are African American,yet 14%of the U.S population is black.....
The majority of U.S forces are middle and upper class.
Charles Rangel voted nay on his own draft bill in 2004.
Paulo

Worlds strongest man....Have some egg nog,take off your pink underwear and change your name.
Paulo

LS vondrak...Charlie Rangel is a democrat political hack and is trying to divide America with his resumption of the draft and create a class warfare.
Posted by: Paulo | Dec 23, 2006 9:22:12 PM

Nobody can divide like the Bush administration.
Divided into the unpatriotic and the believers in Bush's "holy war". How can you believe in the ultimate war on terror and not support a larger army? If you want to take on all places that islamic radicals exist...then you will need more and more troops. As far as a hack...I believe Bush is a hack at being commander and chief. Our armed forces could have been successful had the
leadership not made mistake after mistake and refuse to admit to them. I think Bush made only two mistakes during this war...starting it.....
and executing it.

billr--The whole article is about Army recruiting and Rangel,but you don't know the facts,so you make a lame attempt to bring in your hatred for President Bush with your dopey left wing views.
Besides,the closest you got to the defending America was playing with your G.I.Joe dolls in the sand box with JohnE.
Paulo

"I think Bush made only two mistakes during this war...starting it.....and executing it."

Posted by: bill r. | Dec 24, 2006 8:12:38 AM

Is President Bush or the military 'executing' the war???

Is President Bush or the military 'executing' the war???

Posted by: Stan | Dec 24, 2006 3:51:52 PM

It depends on whether generals that are yes men
are considered executing.

Paulo...you must have had one too many or something....so I'll let that post go. But....
I have been a little closer to defending America
than you remember....apparently!!!

"It depends on whether generals that are yes men
are considered executing."

So, now the troops are 'yes men".

"It depends on whether generals that are yes men
are considered executing."

Posted by: Stan | Dec 25, 2006 9:55:34 AM

Where does this say troops? if you wish to read something into it that was not said, it makes it hard to debate.

Stan.

Get real. ( I know you are.)
Troops are 'yes men'.

I was, and you were too. It's all about 'Yes Sir!', at least back in the day. Army of one? BS.

Generals are 'yes men' on steroids. The ones that aren't are fired.

"Where does this say troops? if you wish to read something into it that was not said, it makes it hard to debate."

Posted by: bill r. | Dec 25, 2006 3:52:53 PM

Okay, lets debate at what rank a military person stops being a stooge for the President.

Stan.....That would be what ever rank where Rumsfeld would ask "can we win the war with only
140,000 troops" and the ones that said no are retired and the ones that say yes get the job.

Stan,

Nice try. Now you will have to debate bill r on what rank a military person starts being a stooge instead of making it sound like he was being critical of the troops who get shot at every day, i.e. not the Generals. Go back and take Swiftboating 101 again, you're not too good at it.

"I was, and you were too. It's all about 'Yes Sir!', at least back in the day. Army of one? BS."

Posted by: c.morris | Dec 25, 2006 6:52:48 PM

I think there is a big difference with the all volunteer force.

I work with new Airmen (and career airmen) everyday. They are sharp and their morale is high. I don't think they feel they are being led into something they disagree (or have to agree) with.

Hope you had a Merry Christmas.

John Kerry took flack for botching a joke and implying that current GIs are not too bright. I must be missing something. I guess Kerry's mistake was saying it out loud just before an election.

Stan, you're back!!

Your behavior pattern is starting to remind of a trapdoor spider. You lie in wait, and when your prey (anyone you perceive to be disparaging the military in any way) happens by you, you spring the trap and envenomate the unsuspecting creature.

We know you've got a hair-trigger when it comes to taking shots at someone who you THINK (key here) is disparaging the troops, but when did you start splitting hairs like this:

Is President Bush or the military 'executing' the war???

Posted by: Stan | Dec 24, 2006 3:51:52 PM

What's the point of making this distinction? The war is being CONDUCTED under the direction of the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. He decides what should be done, and then the generals go decide how best to do it, and on down the line (ideally).

Even if it can be said that the military are the EXECUTORS of the war, they are executing it according to the administrations macro-scale direction.

On a more micro-level, Bush did have things that he needed to "execute" regarding the lead up to the war and forming a strategy (or ensuring there at least was one) for after the invasion and inevitable fall of Saddam and his government. He failed in that respect as well.

Either way, there is no one to be blamed for how the war has gone other than Bush and his admin. Even Hastert had the gall to say "the buck stops here."

But in the spirit of the holiday season, let's focus on the positive. Can anyone tell us anything George W. Bush has done right regarding the Iraq war?

Hope you had a Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Stan | Dec 26, 2006 8:42:44 AM"

Right back at ya. And Happy New Year!

I was a volunteer myself, but it was sort of a forced, calculated, hail Marry kind of volunteer.

I stand by my statement; It's still a 'Sir Yes Sir!' army.
Can't speak for the AF.✈

I don't think President Bush micro-manages the military. (I thought according to you guys, he wasn't smart enough for that)

There is definitely a lack of progress, I believe part of it might because there isn't enough involvement by the President and his people.

I know the main goals are to prop up/support the Iraqis until they can govern themselves. But what about the goals/orders while they are accomplishing the 'big picture'?

We can train the Iraqis to take out the bad guys, but why aren't WE taking out the bad guys NOW?

Why are guys like Muqtada AlSadr still running around?

President Bush is about to announce a change in stategery. I hope the new plan to to kick some supreme ass and get the job done quickly.

Stan....To read your post it seems as though you are blaming the military. Bush is the Commander and chief plain and simple. Does the words"the buck stops here" mean nothing to this administration? Don't blame the troops...it's the mistakes of this administration that has put us into this mess.

Bill r,

You're right that the blame is with the administration. I've never blamed the troops. I think the civilian leadership has let the troops down.

The decisions early on to completely disband the army and security forces were collosal blunders.

I think the military mission is being hampered by the fact the military isn't allowed to take out the bad guys without the permission of the new Iraqi government.

The President and the Pentagon (DOD) need to let the military kill the bad guys that are killing our troops or pull them out.

The President isn't the only guy in Washington, the buck does stop with him, but I think he's been acting on some pretty crappy advice by DOD, State, and others in DC.

"I hope the new plan to to kick some supreme ass and get the job done quickly."
Posted by: Stan | Dec 26, 2006 8:38:14 PM

If you were in Iraq as someone in command, is that how you'd draw it up? Kick some ass, quickly?

Do you think that killing people will fix Iraq? How bout this:

Insurgents are like flies. Kill one, and 50 come to the funeral.

In reality, it's more like, for every insurgent killed, several others are created out of the anger at the perceived injustice against God, their anger fueled directly by Islam and aimed straight at American troops.

My point is that you can't fix Iraq by kicking its ass. It is not possible to "win" in Iraq, in any way that the Bush administration has described it, by killing insurgents.

Isn't that obvious? It blows my mind that people can somehow look at the situation since we've been there, read the news, and still conclude that what Iraq needs is more killing, and then, when we've killed enough of them, we can let them take over their own country.

Can someone who thinks that what Iraq needs is an ass-kicking please explain how that would fix anything, or allow for the scenario where our troops can be brought home? If you can't explain why that would be good for Iraq and the US, you shouldn't hold that position.

Just started the book "Fiasco" which has some interesting opinions on Rumsfeld and the "yes men" generals who are able to stand working for him. I was surprised to hear the author say (on C-SPAN) that he still thinks we can stabilize the situation in Iraq if we change our approach. Unfortunately, an administration that cannot accept criticism, admit error, or learn from its mistakes is doomed to fail.

James, Stan's approach may be our best hope for uniting the Sunnis and Shia though. If we manage to infuriate both groups sufficiently, they may put aside their differences for a while. Of course, that's not a real positive solution for our side...

"Can someone who thinks that what Iraq needs is an ass-kicking please explain how that would fix anything, or allow for the scenario where our troops can be brought home? If you can't explain why that would be good for Iraq and the US, you shouldn't hold that position."

Posted by: James(disambiguation) | Dec 27, 2006 9:56:11 AM

I think as long as there are Muslim fundamentalists that want to kill us, we will have to fight them.

I don't think the Iraqis were behind 9/11. But that's where the fight is now. If all our troops were in Afghanistan the fight would be there. Afghanistan would be the 'quagmire' and not Iraq. I believe they would/will fight us whereever we were/are.

Why did the fundamentalists attack us on 9/11? What did we do to stir up the insurgents/fundamentalists/enemy? (The Cole, embassy bombings, Khobar, etc...) If we had done nothing in response, would they have left us alone?

It wouldn't have been good for the US to do nothing and wait to be attacked again.

There are bad guys in Iraq killing our troops, do we not fight back?

Stan,

If you indeed work with military people you would know that it's in their job description to say "yes sir" to their superiors.

It's called having a "can do" attitude.

Tell me again about how we would being doing better in Iraq if George Jr didn't listen so much to the DOD.

W. has used the military for every rah rah,stay the course speech that he has given since the Iraq war began.
Remember the "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier??
That was one of my favorites,how about you??

John E.

"If you indeed work with military people you would know that it's in their job description to say "yes sir" to their superiors."

I do indeed (work with military people), and that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say about the military.

I work at Offutt AFB now. Saying 'yes sir' isn't in the job description of any of the people I work with.

I was in the military 20 years, and it was never in my job description. I can provide a 'real' job description from my 'real' evals if you'd like.

A leader plans; knowing his people, his limitations, his mission, and his chance of success (and his chance of bringing his people home alive).

A good leader doesn't set his/her people up for failure by promising others they and their people can do the impossible.

Sometimes the correct answer is 'no sir'.

"Tell me again about how we would being doing better in Iraq if George Jr didn't listen so much to the DOD."

I never said the President shouldn't listen to DoD. I said they (DoD) should have been better prepared.

The civilian leadership at the Pentagon had the duty to prosecute the war and secure the peace. Their job was not to walk around in circles saying 'yes sir', their job was to come up with a plan and implement it. They along with the President, State Dept, and others have made bad decisions.

"W. has used the military for every rah rah,stay the course speech that he has given since the Iraq war began."

President Bush is proud of the troops. There is no reason he shouldn't acknowledge them in his speeches?

Do you think he shouldn't?

"The President isn't the only guy in Washington, the buck does stop with him, but I think he's been acting on some pretty crappy advice by DOD, State, and others in DC.

Posted by: Stan | Dec 27, 2006 9:37:05 AM"

Stan,

The State Dept. tried to warn and plan for post Blitzkrieg Iraq, but TeamBush chose to ignore it. Labeled them all a bunch of liberals.

Also, all the counterpoint (more troops needed) generals were fired/retired.

Now it's too late.

I don't think the Iraqis were behind 9/11. But that's where the fight is now. If all our troops were in Afghanistan the fight would be there. Afghanistan would be the 'quagmire' and not Iraq. I believe they would/will fight us whereever we were/are.

Posted by: Stan | Dec 27, 2006 12:49:35 PM

How would Afghanistan be like Iraq? In no way are those two countries similar except that they're both in the Middle East. Afghanistan does not have quite the sectarian make-up as Iraq, it does not have any large cities like Baghdad and there's no oil worth drilling.

Granted, it would still be a fight that would require total military committment, but it would not be the horror that Iraq is. We've put the place into civil war, sir. Not to mention Abu Graihb and extraditions to countries that officially torture.

The knowledge that Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11 and they never had nuclear WMDs exacerbates the horror because now all those fine men and women are dying for nothing, and that includes innocent Iraqis.

But the bottom line is that the situation is, as a matter of fact, there is no military answer short of genocide in Iraq. You couldn't kill enough insurgents because new ones are created every day, and handed a gun shipped in from Pakistan or some homemade bomb, and more soldiers die.

Just do the math. There are infinitely more insurgents than there are US soldiers and Marines, and the insurgents don't care about dying. They WANT to be martyrs, it is written into their religious code. And the more of them we kill, the more insurgents are created in response.

Stan,

Don't lecture me about the military,I'm retired Army 20 yrs,my son is a Marine in Iraq,we come from a long line of a military family members.

I'm proud to say that I worked for living while in the military,I didn't push papers,and talk tough like you Stan.

W. is a disgrace to every single military man/woman,and private citizens of this once great country.

If your going to defend W.'s action's then I consider you a joke also.

Military people hate the toughtalking,paper pushing NeoCons Stan,I took orders thru gritted teeth for years,fortunatly I don't have to fight your wars or listen to you punks anymore.

"Afghanistan would be the 'quagmire' and not Iraq. I believe they would/will fight us whereever we were/are.

Posted by: Stan | Dec 27, 2006 12:49:35 PM"

But Stan,

Afg. is going down the tubes also. Every day more attacks and IED's kill combatants and civilians. We, and all our allies should be there in force.

But GWB made the same stupid mistake as Hitler; He opened up a two front war BY HIS OWN CHOICE! (emphasis only)

Now he claims we are in a 'must win' situation. Don't any of these neo-con planners understand that the whole idea of power and diplomacy is to avoid 'must win' situations?

"Afg. is going down the tubes also. Every day more attacks and IED's kill combatants and civilians. We, and all our allies should be there in force."

I agree 100 percent. If we are going to fight, we need to fight all-out.

I also think if we lose this the consequences would be very bad. I believe the bad guys won't stop coming.

"Don't lecture me about the military,I'm retired Army 20 yrs,my son is a Marine in Iraq,we come from a long line of a military family members."

Just for the record:

I was in the AF 20 years (450 combat flying hours), my wife spent six years in the AF, my dad spent was in the AF for 15 years and the Army for 5 (2 tours in Nam). My mom was in the AF. My brother is a Major at the Pentagon (Army). He went to Bosnia and spent 9 months embedded with Afghan forces training them. One uncle was in the Navy, two cousins were in the Navy also.

I think that's it. Is that line long enough for you?

"How would Afghanistan be like Iraq? In no way are those two countries similar except that they're both in the Middle East. Afghanistan does not have quite the sectarian make-up as Iraq, it does not have any large cities like Baghdad and there's no oil worth drilling."

I agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different. But I do think the Islamic Fundamentalists from other countries would have come there to fight us if we weren't in Iraq.

But we're there. What to do we? I think we have to fight to win or leave.

My first post to John E didn't make it. It should have been the first response. Here it is again. If it get duplicated, my apologies...

“Don't lecture me about the military,I'm retired Army 20 yrs,my son is a Marine in Iraq,we come from a long line of a military family members.”
Someone who’s been in the military that long should know more about it.

“I'm proud to say that I worked for living while in the military,I didn't push papers,and talk tough like you Stan.”

John, I was a dual qualified linguist, Arabic and Farsi. I flew in support of Eldorado Canyon, Ernest Will, Just Cause (look them up, you’re a military expert). I flew in Desert Storm. I worked at NSA a while and my last duty station was at Ft Gordon (an Army base) where I was a Senior Collection Officer at a joint service unit. All my assignments except one were joint service where I worked with Navy, Army, and Marine linguists. I retired in 1998 as a Master Sergeant.

“W. is a disgrace to every single military man/woman,and private citizens of this once great country.”

Military people like the President, just ask them. They believe in what they are doing. They think they are making a difference. Many of them joined right after 9/11.

If your going to defend W.'s action's then I consider you a joke also.

Joke’s on you, bud.

Military people hate the toughtalking,paper pushing NeoCons Stan,I took orders thru gritted teeth for years,fortunatly I don't have to fight your wars or listen to you punks anymore.

Too bad you had to follow so many orders through gritted teeth. It’s hard to do a good job when you don’t like what you’re doing or who you’re doing it for.

I’m proud of my service. No gritted teeth.

WHO ARE "WE" FIGHTING STAN ??????

That's the problem flyboy!!!!

By the way,I don't consider yours or your familys military service to be any better than mine.

While you were flying over "them",I was looking "them" in the eye, Top Gun.

Quit repeating my questions before you answer them,you know what they are,don't be condescending.

"WHO ARE "WE" FIGHTING STAN ??????"

The people that are shooting at us.

"By the way,I don't consider yours or your familys military service to be any better than mine."

Not my intention to say it was better. Don't care if you were in the military or not.

"While you were flying over "them",I was looking "them" in the eye, Top Gun."

You were looking at the reflagged Kuwaiti tankers in the eye???

"Quit repeating my questions before you answer them,you know what they are,don't be condescending."

Oops, I did it again.

"That's the problem flyboy!!!!"

There's a slam...OUCH

Oh John, by the way,

'Top Gun' is Navy, I was in the AF. A 'real' military person would have known that.

Were you on our side or theirs?

Stan,

Any feelings about the seemingly disproportionate removal of Arabic linguists from militay ranks for suspicion of homosexuality since the start of the "Global War on Terror"?

I believe the language issue is critical; you can't effectively fight an enemy (I am referring to Al Qaeda as the enemy in this context)if you can't understand them. Why aren't we witnessing a large surge in Arabic-speaking personnel now that the War on Terror is into its sixth year and what can be done to fix this?

John e,

It's happened in every blog Stan is involved with;
'Gonna go round in circles'.

He is taylor made to jerk your chain.

He also seems to be denigrating the service of non-lifers, like myself. We were in the way somehow. He seems to be applying that to you, also.

I gritted my teeth until the enamel came off, but I guess that's not good enough.

Stan,

The NeoCons who think like you do just lost a nationwide election.

People don't like your misguided, NeoCon, tough guy talk,and that's why you are now the minority party,it's also why a Republican won't win the Prez job in 08.

See Ya Stan...........

Stan, according to No Time for Sergeants the AF was just the helpers.

I think highly of anyone that served in any service for any length of time. I'm a little disappointed that doesn't show in my posts. I, unlike other people, haven't slammed anyone elses service by calling them a 'paper pusher'.

I admit I do like to jerk peoples chains, it's one of my character flaws (one of many). But guys like John E. make it too easy.

There are penty of people that like being in the military and don't grit the enamel off their teeth. I really do feel bad that c. morris had that experience (not so much about John though).

I don't see it as going around in circles, I see it as defending my position. I can take it and I can dish it out.

I look forward to each and every 'encounter'.

Bryan,

I hadn't heard about the 'seemingly disproportionate' numbers of liguist being thrown out.

There are a lot of linguists (Arabs/Pashtu/Farsi) being trained now. Linguists go through 2 - 3 years training before they are considered 'initially' qualified. Being a good linguist takes years of experience.

When I was an instructor at Goodfellow AFB TX, my boss told us often that there was only one AFSC (AF Specialty Code) that had higher costs per trainee other than linguist, and that was astronaut. I never looked it up.

I think the cost of training and the amount of time required makes it difficult for the military to plan how many linguists of the differnt languages to produce each year. I think (and I could be wrong) the military plans and budgets annually and that makes it even harder for them to plan 5 - 10 years out.

So do we start pumping out the Korean linguists now? Does that take money away from the number of Chinese linguists we can train? Do we cross-train our Serb linguists now because that area of the world is settled enough?

And the linguists are enlisted guys and gals that make squat for pay, they are deployed most of the time. The demand for Arab linguists by other agencies that pay more and don't send them away from their families makes it tough to keep them when they are due to reenlist. (That's even with an $80,000 bonus) I heard that figure two weeks ago from a SSgt that has to decide what he wants to do.

"Stan, according to No Time for Sergeants the AF was just the helpers."

Posted by: Catherine | Dec 28, 2006 8:57:39 PM

Great reference material. You are quite the military expert. You and John E should get together.

Stan,

You're living in a fantasy-land if you believe that there is a military solution to the problem we are facing in Iraq. The time for a military solution is passed.

You keep saying over and over that we need to fight them there, not here; they'll fight us wherever we are, so we need to fight them; we need to kill the bad guys, the bad guys will keep coming...

You're like a GOP talking points broken record. Is there any substance to your position? Maybe answer these questions:

How is more troops going to stop the insurgency?

Do you honsestly believe that the more troops we send in, the better our chances for success?

How can you ignore the never-ending stream of insurgents, created every day by perceived US atrocities and injustices? How do you reconcile that seemingly endless supply of jihadists with your position that we can beat them with our limited supply of troops, who are already at a distinct dis-advantage?

Can you explain how sending more troops will solve the problem?

"Can you explain how sending more troops will solve the problem?"

Already have.

"You keep saying over and over that we need to fight them there, not here..."

See, I explained it over and over and over again.

While you were flying over "them",I was looking "them" in the eye, Top Gun.

Posted by: John E. | Dec 28, 2006 12:42:20 PM

Hmm... I recall that you've written several times that you served in peacetime John E. So who were you "looking in the eye"?

Don't get me wrong, there's no dishonor in peacetime service. But it sure as hell is dishonorable to change your story and try to come off like some kind of hero.

Look everybody, can we stop comparing military service records?

PS to Stan: I don't have a clue what the solution to the Iraq mess is, but the first problem with sending more troops is that we're already maxed out.

"PS to Stan: I don't have a clue what the solution to the Iraq mess is, but the first problem with sending more troops is that we're already maxed out."

Posted by: Leo T | Dec 31, 2006 9:53:04 PM

I agree, I was yanking Rob's chain. If Rob would read all my posts here he'll see I never once said we should send more troops.

I just said we should let the troops do their job or bring them home.

So much for the Republican talking points her brought up.

I was actually agreeing with a lot of the poeple here that President Bush and his people have screwed up, but they were too dumb to see that.

As for John E., He's a blow hard. He didn't like the military when he was in, doesn't like or repect it now.