[Anti] military operations

[Gawain of Orkeny]

[Anti] military operations
Oliver North (archive)

July 22, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Buried in all the mainstream media coverage this week over new terrorist bombings in London, space shuttles that didn't launch, the trashing of Karl Rove and the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice was a little-noted item about reenlistments in the U.S. armed forces exceeding expectations. USA Today offered some prominence to the story, but it was widely ignored by most of the Fourth Estate. Perhaps that's because it's a "good news story."

According to the Pentagon, all of the services are meeting or exceeding their reenlistment requirements -- though the Army acknowledges shortfalls on new recruits. Through the end of June, the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard all "made their end strength objectives" and the Marine Corps actually went 2 percent over its new "accessions" goal. Enlisted accessions are those who are new additions to the enlisted strength of a military service. These are young Americans -- virtually all of whom are high-school graduates -- who have signed an enlistment contract and are beginning basic training. That's good news for the "All Volunteer Force" in what one recruiter called "a fairly hostile environment."

Unfortunately, all the "hostiles" aren't in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some are politicians, some are in the media and others are part of the old, anti-military, "Blame America First" crowd.

Last month Democratic California Senator Diane Feinstein's assessment of the war was "that everything seems to be going the wrong way." Ohio's liberal Senator Dick Durbin likened the men and women of America's armed forces to those of Cambodia's Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. New York Congressman Charlie Rangel actually proposed legislation to "bring back the draft."

The mainstream media has been even worse. The New York Times' Chris Hedges described those serving in today's military as "poor kids from Mississippi or Alabama or Texas [who could] not get a decent job or health insurance." CNN's Eason Jordan claimed that U.S. troops in Iraq had killed journalists after having them "arrested and tortured." And for months, the press beat the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stories like rented mules.

Now, add to these insults new injury from the old left. Last week in Washington, the Center for American Progress hosted what they called the Campus Progress National Student Conference. Bill Clinton was there. So was my former media colleague Paul Begala. Other attendees included former Clinton chief-of-staff John Podesta, Congressman Barney Frank and a handful of conservative students from the Campus Leadership Program and Young America's Foundation. One of them kindly brought me one of the "publications" handed out to participants -- an anti-military, anti-American screed entitled "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste: A Guide to the Demilitarization of America's Youth and Students."

The editors of this "enlightened" journal claim that the "glorification of the military ignores the fact that most positive change in the United States has come from people standing up to the government, big corporations, and other forms of organized violence and crime." It then offers tips on how to protest all things military.

The highly successful Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program is attacked in a spread entitled, "JROTC: What the Hell Is It? And, What Does It Want?" The conspiracy theorists who crafted the piece breathlessly suggest, "Young people in the hood are targeted because their lives are not valued by the U.S. Government."

Another article claims that "the $600+ billion the U.S. spends each year on maintaining a huge war-making machine cuts into the things that really matter to young people -- education, the environment, the arts. Our schools are thrown open to military recruiters while the money needed to buy books, maintain buildings, and pay teachers is dwindling."

In rhetoric reminiscent of the '60s, the authors claim that our military is "about sacrificing what makes us human for the powers of force and violence … We hold that the strength of a democracy comes from its free and democratic institutions, not its capacity for violence." Another piece blasts requirements in the "No Child Left Behind Act" that schools accepting federal education funding must allow military recruiters the same access they grant to business and college recruiters. The writer then cynically asks: "Could it be in the military's best interests to keep schools under-funded and keep college financial aid to a minimum?"

A piece extolling an anti-ROTC "sit-in" at the University of Puerto Rico includes praise for Iraqis who are "resisting occupation" and ends with a clarion call from the past: "We must fight the insanity of war from every angle. This requires ending all ROTC programs and their recruitment activities on our college campuses."

For those of us old enough to remember what it was like to come back from a war that we had won on the battlefield but lost on our college campuses and in the corridors of power, all of this sounds ominously familiar. Back in the '60s this kind of rhetoric helped to alienate America's citizen-soldiers from the citizens they served.

Current reenlistment rates indicate that those who are serving today -- and those who are volunteering to serve tomorrow -- still believe that this country is worth defending. Thankfully, in this war where every American is a terrorist target, there are still enough bright, tough, young Americans willing to stand up and fight.

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Again the left would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam. It seems to be the only hope they have for the future.

[rasoforos]

ok I dont want to put this as a confrontation but...:

a) It was been officially anounced that the US forces will stay in Iraq for at least 3 more years.

b) More and more people had been sent to Iraq after the occupation

c) People in the US who think the war is a mistake ARE now an increasing minority...


Ok , it doesnt have hippies n flowers but this IS turning into Vietnam. A big expensive failure and a quesling government that will collapse the moment the US troops leave...

[bmolsson]

I am sure there are a few conservatives that rather would have their taxes lowered rather than have their money spent in Iraq. It's not all about left..... ~;)

[Azi Tohak]

This reminds me of the big vindication of Bush's policies, Qaddafi's giving in to US demands about inspectors. You did not hear crap about that now did you?

Thank you Gawain. Again, nice to read good news. And tell me again about the 'no-liberal bias' in the media? Seems to me that story should be trumpeted, not hidden. But then...that might have the evil side effect of actually telling the American people Bush is not a corrupt agorrgant a**.

Nope, must convince people war is bad m'kay...War is BAD! m'kay...

Nice to hear our own 'little Saddam's' actually believe the liberals are worth defending ~;)

Azi

[Marcellus]

This reminds me of the big vindication of Bush's policies, Qaddafi's giving in to US demands about inspectors. You did not hear crap about that now did you?

Well, actually...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3335965.stm

When Gadaffi announced that he was going to give up his persuit of WMD, it featured prominently on the news over here, especially since Blair had just come out of talks with Gadaffi.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When Gadaffi announced that he was going to give up his persuit of WMD, it featured prominently on the news over here, especially since Blair had just come out of talks with Gadaffi.


Yes m sure it was because Blair was so nice and explained that it was the right thing to do and not the fact that we invdaded Iraq that finally made up his mind to give in.

[Marcellus]

Yes m sure it was because Blair was so nice and explained that it was the right thing to do and not the fact that we invdaded Iraq that finally made up his mind to give in.

I seem to remember one of the major reasons for Libya's decision was that Libya could 'rejoin the international community' i.e. that Libya could start trading with the west again.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I seem to remember one of the major reasons for Libya's decision was that Libya could 'rejoin the international community' i.e. that Libya could start trading with the west again.

IM sure your correct . But that had always been the case. So you dont believe that the invasion of Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back ay?

[Marcellus]

IM sure your correct . But that had always been the case. So you dont believe that the invasion of Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back ay?

I imagine that the war in Iraq was one of the reasons for Gadaffi's decision. But there were other very important factors. I think that Gadaffi's decision was probably down to a combination of factors. The relative importance of each factor is something that we will probably never know.

[Azi Tohak]

A.k.a. 'we won't admit, no matter how reasonable or logical it seems, that Bush might have been right.'

Let me see now...Qaddafi (Gaddafi whatever, I love Arabic into English...) is a pain for how long... no matter the carrot in front of him. Bush and Blair finally prove that the west won't stand for the religious nut-jobs. Qaddafi says to himself, "I am good tank country too...maybe I should play nice...heck, I might even be able to rob my people of millions of dollars like my buddies Arafat and Hussein. Perfect!"

But thank you Marcellus for giving me that. It is nice to have an article rather then just my memories of what happened.

Azi

[Marcellus]

A.k.a. 'we won't admit, no matter how reasonable or logical it seems, that Bush might have been right.'

As I said, we'll never really know how important various factors were in Gadaffi's decision, so it is pointless speculating. The Iraq war may have been 'the straw that broke the camel's back, or it may have been the most important reason. It may not even have played a part. We don't know. And Gadaffi's decision does not necessarily justify the Iraq war - the end result does not always justify the means of reaching it.


Let me see now...Qaddafi (Gaddafi whatever, I love Arabic into English...)

I love it too. Apparently there are 21 ways of transliterating Gadaffi's name - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3600483.stm


Bush and Blair finally prove that the west won't stand for the religious nut-jobs.

Was Gadaffi particularly religious? He may have been, but I didn't think that he was. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


But thank you Marcellus for giving me that. It is nice to have an article rather then just my memories of what happened.

No problem ~:cheers:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It may not even have played a part.

Oh please!!!!!!!!!

Anyway this thread sure went off topic fast.

[Marcellus]

I imagine that it did play a part. I'm simply saying that we don't know how big a part it did play.

[Azi Tohak]

About the religious thing, I meant he supported terrorism, most of which is religiously motivated (by that is not the religions fault mind you). But yes, I don't know if he is religious or not. I would be no myself...but just call that a hunch.

And 21 ways. Wow. I don't even know if Chinese or Japanese is that bad. And heck, don't we share a similar root language with Arabic? I am just amazed. Cool article though :bow:

See, this is why I like this forum. I make a rant about how the media masks good news and Marcellus is not only kind enough to find me an article to read about it, but also debate my point. Thanks mate ~:grouphug:

Azi

P.S. Eek Good point. Back to topic! ...what was it again? ~;)

[Marcellus]

And 21 ways. Wow. I don't even know if Chinese or Japanese is that bad. And heck, don't we share a similar root language with Arabic? I am just amazed. Cool article though :bow:

My personal favourite spelling is Qadhdhaafiy.


Thanks mate ~:grouphug:

No problem. It's nice to debate in a forum as nice as this one is (usually!) ~:grouphug: ~:cheers:


P.S. Eek Good point. Back to topic! ...what was it again?

I can't remember...something about America recruiting more soldiers, I think.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I can't remember...something about America recruiting more soldiers, I think.

Maybe you should re read it then. Its about how the left is anti military .


See, this is why I like this forum. I make a rant about how the media masks good news and Marcellus is not only kind enough to find me an article to read about it, but also debate my point. Thanks mate

Hey they have to print some of the truth once and a while. He hasnt dissproved your point in the least. Listening to them no one is joining anymore and those that are already serving are like the SS.

[Spetulhu]

I imagine that it did play a part. I'm simply saying that we don't know how big a part it did play.

This dictator has been trying to score points with the West for years now, in order to get out of the hole that finacial sanctions put his country in. Extraditing terrorists, paying damages etc. Giving up a nice little WMD program was just the thing. For all I know he may have staged a program just in order to publicly quit it later.

IIRC western oil companies were signing contracts in Libya the same week Gadaffi promised to quit his WMD program.

[Azi Tohak]

I was kidding about the topic. But yes, I know there is no way to disprove what we think...but by the same token, I don't know if anyone has asked Qadhdhaafiy Duck what his motivation is. Was. Whatever.

I know several men in the military and I just want to punch someone when they start making cracks about our own little SS troopen. I can't believe they think that the military enjoys torturing people. Some people are just sick. Some of them manage to actually enjoy their perversions. And the media (from Al-Jazeera [now THAT is an objective source] to Fox News [ditto]) make a mountain out of mole-hill. Bad news is great for ratings. Isn't that sad?

Azi

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Can we sell the left wing of America for medical experiments? Please?

[Azi Tohak]

Naughty Kaiser! Naughty! Not a bad idea though...what would we use them for? Ooo...stem cell research right? ~;)

Azi

[sharrukin]

All may not be as it seems!

The army reduced its objective figures (8,050 to 6,700) to actually achieve the recorded percentages in the DoD release.
In addition the figures do not include the 40,000 Stop Loss Orders issued by the military.
Stop Move Orders prevent soldiers from leaving their current unit of assignment.

There is also an increased Reliance on Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs) which is cash used to bribe the qualified personnel for reenlistment in occupational specialties that are desperately short or cost a lot to train the men doing them.

Stop Loss Orders prevents active duty members from separating from their unit after their term of service is up, and AFAIK isn't part of the retention rates. In the last two years more than 40,000 soldiers, including 16,000 National Guard and reserves, have been blocked from retiring or leaving. The Pentagon has issued Stop Loss Orders from the beginning of 2004, well over a year, preventing servicemen in units destined for Iraq or Afghanistan from retiring.

In addition 3,600 troops from South Korea are already slated to be redeployed this summer to Iraq. More will be rotated from Europe.

The reserve components have had extended, continuous, and multiple activations that are eroding the reserve components morale. The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves. Budgetary constraints would suggest this isn't likely to change.

The Oregonian;

Internal Guard documents tell the story: All 10 of its special forces units, all 147 military police units, 97 of 101 infantry units and 73 of 75 armor units cannot, because of past or current mobilizations, deploy again to a war zone without reinforcements. The Guard needs a staggering $20 billion worth of equipment to sustain its operations, a bill Washington may balk at paying.

The Guard is losing soldiers and cannot attract enough recruits to replace them. And the normally dependable flow of soldiers moving from active duty into the National Guard has slowed dramatically.

"One can conclude," said Brig. Gen. Bill Libby, commander of the Maine National Guard, "that we're going to run out of soldiers."

[Redleg]

All may not be as it seems!

The army reduced its objective figures (8,050 to 6,700) to actually achieve the recorded percentages in the DoD release.
In addition the figures do not include the 40,000 Stop Loss Orders issued by the military.
Stop Move Orders prevent soldiers from leaving their current unit of assignment.

There is also an increased Reliance on Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs) which is cash used to bribe the qualified personnel for reenlistment in occupational specialties that are desperately short or cost a lot to train the men doing them.

Stop Loss Orders prevents active duty members from separating from their unit after their term of service is up, and AFAIK isn't part of the retention rates. In the last two years more than 40,000 soldiers, including 16,000 National Guard and reserves, have been blocked from retiring or leaving. The Pentagon has issued Stop Loss Orders from the beginning of 2004, well over a year, preventing servicemen in units destined for Iraq or Afghanistan from retiring.

In addition 3,600 troops from South Korea are already slated to be redeployed this summer to Iraq. More will be rotated from Europe.

The reserve components have had extended, continuous, and multiple activations that are eroding the reserve components morale. The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves. Budgetary constraints would suggest this isn't likely to change.

The Oregonian;

Internal Guard documents tell the story: All 10 of its special forces units, all 147 military police units, 97 of 101 infantry units and 73 of 75 armor units cannot, because of past or current mobilizations, deploy again to a war zone without reinforcements. The Guard needs a staggering $20 billion worth of equipment to sustain its operations, a bill Washington may balk at paying.

The Guard is losing soldiers and cannot attract enough recruits to replace them. And the normally dependable flow of soldiers moving from active duty into the National Guard has slowed dramatically.

"One can conclude," said Brig. Gen. Bill Libby, commander of the Maine National Guard, "that we're going to run out of soldiers."

You realize of course that Stop-Loss has been around in the United States Military for some time. It was used during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm also. Re-enlistment bonus have also been around for some time also - with many MOS having large re-enlistment bonuses. I remember just after the first drawdown - some enlisted MOS had large re-enlistment bonus even then.

So one must be careful in reading what the media states - especially when the whole story is not being told.

[Marcellus]

Maybe you should re read it then. Its about how the left is anti military .

So it is (although increased re-enlistment into the military was in there, so I got it half right). I suppose I really should read through the whole article before posting...


Hey they have to print some of the truth once and a while. He hasnt dissproved your point in the least. Listening to them no one is joining anymore and those that are already serving are like the SS.

Azi said that the media hadn't reported Gadaffi giving up WMD:


This reminds me of the big vindication of Bush's policies, Qaddafi's giving in to US demands about inspectors. You did not hear crap about that now did you?

I showed that it had, therefore disproving his particular point.

But enough of that. I'll go back to the topic.

I just find it slightly odd that people are complaining about the bias in the US media by using such a clearly biased source.

And you can sort of understand why this story wasn't reported so much - as the article itself recognises, there have been other things in the news to talk about in America recently:


Buried in all the mainstream media coverage this week over new terrorist bombings in London, space shuttles that didn't launch, the trashing of Karl Rove and the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice was a little-noted item about reenlistments in the U.S. armed forces exceeding expectations.

I found this on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/29/army.recruiting/index.html

It seems relevant - the media did report on the story. I can't tell how much prominence this story got in the states, of course.

[sharrukin]

You realize of course that Stop-Loss has been around in the United States Military for some time. It was used during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm also. Re-enlistment bonus have also been around for some time also - with many MOS having large re-enlistment bonuses. I remember just after the first drawdown - some enlisted MOS had large re-enlistment bonus even then.

So one must be careful in reading what the media states - especially when the whole story is not being told.

That doesn't really address the point that the objectives were only met by an increased use of Stop Loss Orders, increasing financial incentives, and reduced recruitment quota's. Whether or not the means to force soldiers to remain on active duty was established in 1902 or introduced last year is beside the point.

The point is that recruitment and retainment is down, and the military is being forced by circumstance to use extraordinary means to maintain force levels. The media in this case was the DoD release that was referred to.

What he is referring to I believe is this DoD release; This uses the reduced manpower objectives and as can be seen for much of the reserve components, even these are not being met.

The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent). This was 8,050 until reduced, and they failed to met even this!


No. 577-05
IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 10, 2005
Active duty recruiting. The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their recruiting goals in May. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 1,939, and it enlisted 1,947 (100 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 1,843, and it recruited 1,904 (103 percent). The Air Force goal was 1,037, and it recruited 1,049 (101 percent). The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent).

The Air Force Reserve... 682 recruits against a goal of 606.

The Army Reserve enlisted 2,269 (82 percent), the Navy Reserve brought aboard 1,074 (94 percent) and the Marine Corps Reserve had 914 (88 percent). The Army National Guard recruited 4,071 of its 5,791 goal (71 percent). Although the Air National Guard also fell short of its recruiting mission of 860 by enlisting 675 (78 percent),...

[Redleg]

That doesn't really address the point that the objectives were only met by an increased use of Stop Loss Orders, increasing financial incentives, and reduced recruitment quota's. Whether or not the means to force soldiers to remain on active duty was established in 1902 or introduced last year is beside the point.

Actually it address the point more then you realize. The military has done such things in the past when they need to so. Today is no different then Yesterday in that regards. And what objectives are meet with Stop-Loss, Stop-Loss has no bearing on enlistment and re-enlistment quoto's.



The point is that recruitment and retainment is down, and the military is being forced by circumstance to use extraordinary means to maintain force levels. The media in this case was the DoD release that was referred to.


And that would be a valid point in order to meet force levels the Military has maintained the Stop-Loss. The increasing of re-enlistment bonus have been used in the past to maintain force levels - and strong enlistment bonus have been used in the past also. Only the stop-loss program is an extraordinary means - and like already stated before has been used in the past while the military was conducting missions.



What he is referring to I believe is this DoD release; This uses the reduced manpower objectives and as can be seen for much of the reserve components, even these are not being met.


And I was refering to your statements - not anyone elses



The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent). This was 8,050 until reduced, and they failed to met even this!


(sarcasm on) Oh my so the army did not meet the recruiting goals - lets panic and think that we must bribe young men and woment to join the military. (sarcasm off) Care to guess how well my unit was manned during the time from of 1996-1998. It wasn't even close to 80% of the required manning and this was peacetime.




No. 577-05
IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 10, 2005
Active duty recruiting. The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their recruiting goals in May. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 1,939, and it enlisted 1,947 (100 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 1,843, and it recruited 1,904 (103 percent). The Air Force goal was 1,037, and it recruited 1,049 (101 percent). The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent).

The Air Force Reserve... 682 recruits against a goal of 606.

The Army Reserve enlisted 2,269 (82 percent), the Navy Reserve brought aboard 1,074 (94 percent) and the Marine Corps Reserve had 914 (88 percent). The Army National Guard recruited 4,071 of its 5,791 goal (71 percent). Although the Air National Guard also fell short of its recruiting mission of 860 by enlisting 675 (78 percent),...


Like I stated earler - not the gloom and doom that is being protrayed by some. Is it favorable for the Army - nope - but its not a gloom and doom picture given that the other branches have meet or exceeded their recruitment numbers.

[Azi Tohak]

Sure the Army is taking hits. I would be amazed if it wasn't the way the war is being portrayed. And thank you Redleg for helping me understand what this stuff meant.

I do think it interesting that the other armed services are above what they need though...do the money incentives that the Army has used apply to them as well?

Azi

[lars573]

Was Gadaffi particularly religious? He may have been, but I didn't think that he was. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Gadaffi, like Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussien are/were Arab communists. Or rather they took communism and deleted all the atheism bits.

[Redleg]

Sure the Army is taking hits. I would be amazed if it wasn't the way the war is being portrayed. And thank you Redleg for helping me understand what this stuff meant.

I do think it interesting that the other armed services are above what they need though...do the money incentives that the Army has used apply to them as well?

Azi

Yep - I always find it humorous when a Canadian tries to inform me how the United States Army works - to include stop-loss and recruiting/re-enlistment. Two areas that are not inter-related but have a similiarity in the fact impact of the overall manning of the military.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I believe the Marine Corps have exceeded their enlistment goals- and they don't offer the full ride college scholarship, bonus for enlisting thing (I think).

Crazed Rabbit

[sharrukin]

You can't even agree with yourself, so someone, Canadian, or otherwise should point out the obvious.


"And that would be a valid point in order to meet force levels the Military has maintained the Stop-Loss."

So Stop Loss Orders are used used to maintain force levels in selected MOS's.


"re-enlistment bonus have been used in the past to maintain force levels "

Wow! What a shocker.
Re-enlistment and retention rates are vital to maintaining force levels.


"Stop-Loss has no bearing on enlistment and re-enlistment quoto's."

Why are Stop Loss Orders on the increase now, just when enlistment and re-enlistment rates are down? Just a coincidence? Enlistment, re-enlistment, and Stop Loss Orders are all directly linked to the maintainance of force levels, so to suggest that they are not connected is absurd!

Quote:
The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent). This was 8,050 until reduced, and they failed to met even this!



(sarcasm on) Oh my so the army did not meet the recruiting goals - lets panic and think that we must bribe young men and woment to join the military. (sarcasm off) Care to guess how well my unit was manned during the time from of 1996-1998. It wasn't even close to 80% of the required manning and this was peacetime.

The shortfall, factoring in the original 8,050 leaves them short by 38 percent. And most of this came from those leaving the the combat arms. A LOT of people in the military are worried about it, and little sarcastic comments don't really address the problem.



"Oh my so the army did not meet the recruiting goals"

And my point was, and remains that the army did not meet the recruiting goals. Why you think that pointing this out is an attack on the American military is beyond me.

[KafirChobee]

Yep, the military met its enlistment quota for June ... High School graduation - you know? With no work for those not going to college, what are they suppose to do?

Still, using an essay by Ollie North to show the possitive things occurring in Iraq is the same as listening to Westmoreland 40 years ago telling us how we were winning in Vietnam. It all sounds just to familiar.

The idea that the left, liberals, are hoping this turns into another 'nam is so wrong I can't even begin the disclaimers for that. All I have heard from the left is they pray it doesn't, but acknowledge that it seems to be turning in that direction. Next, the rightwingers will be blaiming the war on the Democrats - oh, wait they've already done that (are trying too).

We won't be there for 3 or 4 more years. We will be there for the durration - 'til what ever forces us to leave occurs. After all, why else would Haliburton be contracted to build 14 (of 20) permanent American military bases in Iraq?
That is, if the mold was not already made for us staying there for a very extended period of time?

So, now it is the liberals fault for our being in Iraq. It is also their fault we are not winning. It is their fault Chenney said the populace would cover our troops with roses as liberators - not use human bombs to kill our troops, put suspicion upon their motives (i.e. giving candy to kids was really just meant to use the kids as human shields).

Step by misserable step, Iraq is turning into a quagmire. As similar as it is dissimilar to 'nam (One has nothing to do with the other, yet those of us that remember how the one was propagated recall the words being used today as being the same as those used then to justify the sending of our troops - to defend us at home going on as usual). It is really more like the USSR's experience in Afghanistan - than anuthing else, only we are the USSR (in this senario).

Bottom line: Please, don't use Ollie as the key editorialist on any issue to justify a cause you believe in - it is like using a traitor to justify patriotism.

[Redleg]

You can't even agree with yourself, so someone, Canadian, or otherwise should point out the obvious.

And you have gotten it all wrong before this conservation - and many of them are still wrong.



So Stop Loss Orders are used used to maintain force levels in selected MOS's.


Yep that is correct - not like you alluded to earlier - it is not a re-enlistment effort - its an effort to maintain the current trainedforce for a time period - which can be indefinite - for mission requirements.



Wow! What a shocker.
Re-enlistment and retention rates are vital to maintaining force levels.


Sure its a shocker to you - the bonus program has been around since the all volunteer army - and even before hand. SOmething your attacking in your posts because you dont understand there use - why else the use of the term bribe?



Why are Stop Loss Orders on the increase now, just when enlistment and re-enlistment rates are down? Just a coincidence? Enlistment, re-enlistment, and Stop Loss Orders are all directly linked to the maintainance of force levels, so to suggest that they are not connected is absurd!


Again incorrect - Stop loss was in effect back in 1991 to maintain the trained forced for the combat operations that were underway. Stop-Loss for this operation was initially drawn up to maintain the current trained force for the current operation - Stop-Loss is not a defined time period program ( the airforce by the way does do it in time period blocks the Army does not)and can be indefinite for the duration of the mission.

You might want to check out the whole context of the statement. Then you might want to check into when Stop-Loss started - another failure on your part. To say they are directly linked is more incorrect and absurd then you just accused me of. This is really getting to be fun.



Quote:
The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent). This was 8,050 until reduced, and they failed to met even this!



The shortfall, factoring in the original 8,050 leaves them short by 38 percent. And most of this came from those leaving the the combat arms. A LOT of people in the military are worried about it, and little sarcastic comments don't really address the problem.

Sure it does - when your attempting the same thing. Whats wrong - it seems to be fine for you to be sarcastic but not I. Again laughable. When you understand the complete concept come back and discuss it in a civil manner and I just make remain un-sarcastic myself. The point is - the United States Army has been undermanned since 1994 - and the Army has still accomplished the missions assigned to it. Again its not all the gloom and doom you are attempting in this little effort.




And my point was, and remains that the army did not meet the recruiting goals. Why you think that pointing this out is an attack on the American military is beyond me.

Not an attack on the military at all oh yea - just look at your use of language


There is also an increased Reliance on Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs) which is cash used to bribe the qualified personnel for reenlistment in occupational specialties that are desperately short or cost a lot to train the men doing them

Re-enlistment bonus are not bribes- but that didn't stop you from using the term now did it. Bribe is usually associated something other then honorable - the use of the term bribe shows that you are hostile to the United States Military practice of re-enlistment and enlistment bonus. Hell I even had a bonus when I started my new civilian job - was that a bribe to get me to come to work? LOL.


The Pentagon has issued Stop Loss Orders from the beginning of 2004, well over a year, preventing servicemen in units destined for Iraq or Afghanistan from retiring.

Misleading and incorrect - Stop-Loss has been going on since way before that. Try looking at what happen during operations besides Desert Storm and the recent operations in Afganstan - which also had a stop loss - and Iraq - which is what you are focusing on - Again incorrectly and shows that you have a hidden agenda in your arguement. Discuss the whole picture when you can understand it.


The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves

Again misleading and incorrect - since the military is conducting normal operations and warfare as we speak. The number of division involved is about half of the current active duty force and about 20-30% of the reserve forces last time I looked. Your statements are misleading and incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the current operations of the United States Military.

Now to draw the point home for you -

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_072005_Army,00.html


Army recruiters reached their monthly target in June, but had missed those goals in the previous four months. The Army has recruited about 47,100 in the fiscal year so far, about 86 percent of its year-to-date goal and about 33,000 below its goal of 80,000 for the fiscal year, which ends in October.


Chu noted to the committee that retention data has been much more positive, with all four services above their active-duty re-enlistment goals. Marine officials announced earlier this month they have already reached their year-end goals for re-enlistments and have already begun their fiscal 2006 retention campaign.

295,000 United States Army soldiers are serving in 120 nations,

Yep its not stop-loss that is taking its toll on the Military - its something completely different. And you haven't even gotten close to touching it. I will give you a hint - it started way before 2004 and the current operations in Afganstan and Iraq.

[Redleg]

Yep, the military met its enlistment quota for June ... High School graduation - you know? With no work for those not going to college, what are they suppose to do?

Get a job. There is plently of work for anyone that wants it. To bad the nasty little liberials like yourself continue with your postion that the military is a last resort for all that enlist. Bah.



Still, using an essay by Ollie North to show the possitive things occurring in Iraq is the same as listening to Westmoreland 40 years ago telling us how we were winning in Vietnam. It all sounds just to familiar.


And the rest of the media is doing the same thing - reporting news and misleading the public also. Like only Ollie is guilty of it. Again Bah.



The idea that the left, liberals, are hoping this turns into another 'nam is so wrong I can't even begin the disclaimers for that. All I have heard from the left is they pray it doesn't, but acknowledge that it seems to be turning in that direction. Next, the rightwingers will be blaiming the war on the Democrats - oh, wait they've already done that (are trying too).

Considering that Congress voted to authorize the use of force - both parties are indeed responsible of it. Futhermore Congress is responsible for allowing the President to have greater then his Constitutional Powers when they based the Emerancy War Powers Act - a Democratic Party lead congress by the way.



We won't be there for 3 or 4 more years. We will be there for the durration - 'til what ever forces us to leave occurs. After all, why else would Haliburton be contracted to build 14 (of 20) permanent American military bases in Iraq?
That is, if the mold was not already made for us staying there for a very extended period of time? Maybe to turn over to the Iraq government?



So, now it is the liberals fault for our being in Iraq. It is also their fault we are not winning. It is their fault Chenney said the populace would cover our troops with roses as liberators - not use human bombs to kill our troops, put suspicion upon their motives (i.e. giving candy to kids was really just meant to use the kids as human shields).

Well you said it.



Step by misserable step, Iraq is turning into a quagmire. As similar as it is dissimilar to 'nam (One has nothing to do with the other, yet those of us that remember how the one was propagated recall the words being used today as being the same as those used then to justify the sending of our troops - to defend us at home going on as usual). It is really more like the USSR's experience in Afghanistan - than anuthing else, only we are the USSR (in this senario).

Oh my bleeding heart - what abunch of claptrap if I have read in a while.



Bottom line: Please, don't use Ollie as the key editorialist on any issue to justify a cause you believe in - it is like using a traitor to justify patriotism.

Only thing you said that makes sense - just like your hero Jane Fonda is it not.

[sharrukin]

I am not going to waste a lot of time on this, so I will only point out the more obvious.


Quote:
The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves

In January (most recent data available), there were 90,000 active forces and 60,000 reserve (including National Guard) deployed in Iraq.



Again misleading and incorrect - since the military is conducting normal operations and warfare as we speak. The number of division involved is about half of the current active duty force and about 20-30% of the reserve forces last time I looked. Your statements are misleading and incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the current operations of the United States Military.

41% of the troops in Iraq are reservists. To suggest they can conduct normal operations without those troops is utterly false. My statement that the army needs it's reserve components to go to war, or to conduct normal operations is backed up by reality. If you are unaware of something so obvious, then you learned very little about your own military, during your time of service.

The Army National Guard provides 38 percent of total Army force structure and 30 percent of total personnel for 14 percent of the nonprocurement budget. The Air National Guard provides 34 percent of total Air Force aircraft and 20 percent of Air Force personnel for 11 percent of the nonprocurement budget.

The Air National Guard provides:

Aircraft Control and Warning Forces 100%
Air Traffic Control 64%
Tactical Airlift 49%
Air Refueling KC-135 Tankers 45%
General Purpose Fighter Force 32%
Rescue and Recovery Capability 23%
Tactical Air Support 16%
Weather Flights 15%
Bomber Force 11%
Strategic Airlift Forces 9%
Special Operations Capability 6%

I used the term bribe because that in essence is what it is. And yes, they use the same sort of thing in the civilian workforce for much the same reason. They are using cash incentive's to get people to re-enlist, and there's nothing wrong with doing so.

I am not hostile to the military, I don't hate America, I don't think the army is dishonourable, and I don't have a "hidden agenda".

You have been reading too many conspiracy novels!

[Redleg]

I am not going to waste a lot of time on this, so I will only point out the more obvious.

LOL - and in that you are again misrepresenting and misunderstanding the data and the arguement that has been used to counter your arguement.




Quote:
The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves

In January (most recent data available), there were 90,000 active forces and 60,000 reserve (including National Guard) deployed in Iraq.

41% of the troops in Iraq are reservists. To suggest they can conduct normal operations without those troops is utterly false. My statement that the army needs it's reserve components to go to war, or to conduct normal operations is backed up by reality. If you are unaware of something so obvious, then you learned very little about your own military, during your time of service.

And that is not what I stated - and yes look at the statistics - the number of reservists in Iraq is not 41% of the reserve force - but 41% of the force that is there. And besides where did I say that the reserves were not part of the necessary force, or were necessary. Nice attempt to twist words - and again it shows how little you know about the AMerican Military. Nor did your orginal statement imply what you are now trying to say it did.

The statement was Again misleading and incorrect - since the military is conducting normal operations and warfare as we speakThe number of division involved is about half of the current active duty force and about 20-30% of the reserve forces last time I looked. Your statements are misleading and incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the current operations of the United States Military.

Now look at the numbers in the reference that I used. Some background for you since it seems you are obviousily misinformed.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/u/un/united_states_army.htm

Its old data - but its good enough for this discussion (data from 2002)


The Army is the branch of the (Click link for more info and facts about United States armed forces) United States armed forces which has primary responsibility for land-based military operations. As of (Any accounting period of 12 months) fiscal year 2002 (FY02), it consisted of 480,000 soldiers on active duty and 555,000 in reserve (350,000 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 205,000 in the Army Reserve (USAR). .

90,000 of 480,000 = less then 20%, or in the way I used it 295,000 soldiers (A number that includes the reserves also) out of a total force of 480,000 + 555,000 = 1,030,000 soldiers. 295,000 divided by 1,030,000 = less then 30% of the total force is deployed.

Break it down even farther - 60,000 reservists out of a total possible for deployment of 555,000 is equal to about 10% of the reservists.

Yes indeed you have an agenda that you are attempting to hid with your misrepresentation of the facts, the statements, and the data itself.





The Army National Guard provides 38 percent of total Army force structure and 30 percent of total personnel for 14 percent of the nonprocurement budget. The Air National Guard provides 34 percent of total Air Force aircraft and 20 percent of Air Force personnel for 11 percent of the nonprocurement budget.

Like I already said - I know what there is in the military - and like I said again your attempting to twist things for your own agenda - just like the media. You are only touching the surface to support your arguement without going into the details - nice to see how baised you are.



I used the term bribe because that in essence is what it is. And yes, they use the same sort of thing in the civilian workforce for much the same reason. They are using cash incentive's to get people to re-enlist, and there's nothing wrong with doing so.

Again the word show your baised on the subject - bonus and sign-on incentives are not bribes in the true sense of the word. There is not an effort to get the individual to do something unhonorable or illegal.



I am not hostile to the military, I don't hate America, I don't think the army is dishonourable, and I don't have a "hidden agenda".


And your only presenting a very narrow view of the total picture. One that you only barely understand, and one you are attempting to use data that only represents half the picture or less as evident in your above paragraphs.

Sure you dont have an agenda: Bah



You have been reading too many conspiracy novels!

Don't read conspiracy novels - currently finish reading a book about native americans and thier ill treatment by the government, you might want to actually try reading information about the military from the military - not just the politicial baisd media sources or one hit press releases from the military to draw your conclusions.

[Franconicus]

Again the left would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam. It seems to be the only hope they have for the future.
Noone wants to have another Vietnam. Let's hope for the best.
However, I really agree that the US military is far too strong. It will bring the US in trouble.

[Roark]

Again the left would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam.

What an outrageous suggestion. You really do have that whole red corner / blue corner mentality...

[PanzerJaeger]

Its the truth..

Vietnam empowered the left and they've been defeatist from day one.

[Aurelian]

As usual, Ollie is being a little bit misleading when he trumpets the recruiting figures as 'good news'. To quote:

"According to the Pentagon, all of the services are meeting or exceeding their reenlistment requirements -- though the Army acknowledges shortfalls on new recruits. Through the end of June, the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard all "made their end strength objectives" and the Marine Corps actually went 2 percent over its new "accessions" goal... That's good news for the "All Volunteer Force" in what one recruiter called "a fairly hostile environment."

While the June figures were good for the military overall, June was the first month this fiscal year that the Army has been able to reach its recruiting goals. For the fiscal year overall it is way behind schedule, and it is unlikely to reach its overall targets. From the June 30th Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902662_pf.html):


Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the Army's June success at the end of a town hall meeting at the Pentagon yesterday, calling it a "bit of good news" in what has been a troublesome topic this year. The Army missed its recruiting goals for the active duty forces by increasing margins from February through May, falling thousands of recruits behind expectations.

According to preliminary numbers cited by a Pentagon official yesterday afternoon, the Army has brought in more than 6,150 recruits this month, passing the goal of 5,650 by about 9 percent. The official released the early numbers after Myers's speech but did not want to be identified because the numbers are subject to change. The Army Reserve, which also has been affected by sluggish recruiting numbers, passed its June goal of 3,610 by about 50 recruits.

The slight surplus in June, however, barely chipped away at what has become a major gap in recruiting numbers. The Army hopes to gain 80,000 recruits this fiscal year but is well behind its target thus far.

About 48,500 recruits have joined through the first nine months of the fiscal year -- 7,800 behind the year-to-date goal, or about 86 percent of the expected numbers. The Army must now add about 31,500 recruits in the next three months, an average of 10,500 each month, to meet the annual goal. January was the only month this year in which the Army brought in more than 8,000 recruits. At the current pace, the Army would miss its goal by more than 11,000.

When you look at the numbers, it's not really very good news at all. It would be reasonable to expect that June would be the high point for Army recruitment during the year (due to High School graduation, etc.), and the Army only exceeded its June goal by 50 recruits. Overall, it looks like they are going to be 11,000 bodies short at the end of fiscal 2005. This is, of course, a serious shortfall when the Army is stretched as thin as it is currently.

As usual, Ollie is just trying to fire up the troops (meaning the ditto-heads) with this kind of editorial. It would be silly for the media to be trumpeting June's recruitment numbers as some sort of triumph when they are pretty piss-poor when taken in context. Overall, there hasn't really been much MSM coverage of recruiting issues either way.

Here's the recruiting data straight from the DoD (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050711-3941.html).

As for the rest of the article: Yes, there are some Americans who think that at least some of the vast amount of resources spent on the military might be better spent on education, infrastructure, paying down the debt, etc. There are also some Americans who would rather not have US troops in Iraq, ROTC programs in their schools, or torture in Gitmo. I guess that's what you get in a democracy - differences of opinion. Boo, hoo.

Calling people who hold those views "hostiles", as Ollie does, just exposes the contempt he has always had for democracy when it gets in the way of his militarism.

[Franconicus]

Its the truth..

Vietnam empowered the left and they've been defeatist from day one.
Panzer,
what would you do if the US starts a not justified war? Would you say: well, this war is wrong but keep on fighting. Or would you say: this war is bad! Take the soldiers home as soon as possible?

[Redleg]

As usual, Ollie is being a little bit misleading when he trumpets the recruiting figures as 'good news'. To quote:

"According to the Pentagon, all of the services are meeting or exceeding their reenlistment requirements -- though the Army acknowledges shortfalls on new recruits. Through the end of June, the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard all "made their end strength objectives" and the Marine Corps actually went 2 percent over its new "accessions" goal... That's good news for the "All Volunteer Force" in what one recruiter called "a fairly hostile environment."

While the June figures were good for the military overall, June was the first month this fiscal year that the Army has been able to reach its recruiting goals. For the fiscal year overall it is way behind schedule, and it is unlikely to reach its overall targets. From the June 30th Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902662_pf.html):


And what is the attempt that you are doing here - basically the same thing that you just accused Ollie North of.



When you look at the numbers, it's not really very good news at all. It would be reasonable to expect that June would be the high point for Army recruitment during the year (due to High School graduation, etc.), and the Army only exceeded its June goal by 50 recruits. Overall, it looks like they are going to be 11,000 bodies short at the end of fiscal 2005. This is, of course, a serious shortfall when the Army is stretched as thin as it is currently.

Another doom and gloom scenerio from the left. The army has faced serious shortfalls in recuirting and manpower before. Care to guess how many divisions had just at 90% of strength in thier combat units during the 1990's.



As usual, Ollie is just trying to fire up the troops (meaning the ditto-heads) with this kind of editorial. It would be silly for the media to be trumpeting June's recruitment numbers as some sort of triumph when they are pretty piss-poor when taken in context. Overall, there hasn't really been much MSM coverage of recruiting issues either way.

Again accusing Ollie of the same thing your doing - what a hypocrit.



Here's the recruiting data straight from the DoD (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050711-3941.html).

Yep and then read the data from the last 10 years, make a comparrision and draw your conclusions then.



As for the rest of the article: Yes, there are some Americans who think that at least some of the vast amount of resources spent on the military might be better spent on education, infrastructure, paying down the debt, etc. There are also some Americans who would rather not have US troops in Iraq, ROTC programs in their schools, or torture in Gitmo. I guess that's what you get in a democracy - differences of opinion. Boo, hoo.


Difference in opinion is fine and dandy - and should be encouraged.



Calling people who hold those views "hostiles", as Ollie does, just exposes the contempt he has always had for democracy when it gets in the way of his militarism.

Now look at your hypocrisy yourself - so Ollie can't have his opinions without it being against democracy. LOL your such a card. Lets keep dealing out the hypocrisy in your arguement.

Try reading the posture statements from the last several years

http://www.army.mil/aps/05/summary.html

http://www.army.mil/aps/04/

http://www.army.mil/aps/aps_ch1_7.htm


The compensation enhancements and support for Army recruiting and retention programs contained in the FY1999 supplemental funding measure as well as in the FY2000 defense legislation have been critical in helping to meet endstrength requirements. This support, along with the efforts of leaders across the Army, helped make FY1999 a tremendously successful year for retention. The Select ive Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program continues to be the Army's most effective tool for retention because it can be targeted to specific locations, as well as to specific grade and skill shortages. Retention alone, however, is not enough; we must also attract sufficient numbers of recruits. Recruiting costs have more than doubled over the past 14 years, and are now well over $12,000 per recruit. Continued support for our most effective recruiting incentives, including enlistment bonuses, the Army College Fund, and the Loan Repayment Program, will help meet future requirements.

http://www.fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec6.html


However, U.S. forces will still face myriad challenges in seeking to maintain a sufficient state of readiness into the future. Advanced joint operational concepts and new technologies will increase the complexity of operations and require new and different skills. The number of different skills required will also increase as U.S. forces are asked to be increasingly multi-mission capable, able to transition from peacetime activities and operations, to deterrence, to war. In order to maintain proficiency in the wide variety of required missions and tasks in a joint environment, units will need more effective training and careful time management. Furthermore, as lift capability increases and logistics get leaner, units will be tasked to respond to crises more quickly, and conversely, will have less time to prepare. Joint Vision 2010 calls for all military organizations to become more responsive to contingencies, with less "startup" time between deployment and employment. Finally, if not adequately managed, the demand for peacetime operations, coupled with a smaller force, could overstress personnel operating tempo and take its toll on the quality of life of military personnel that is the foundation of long-term readiness. Given these challenges, the Department intends to implement new management practices that support the defense strategy, conserve resources, and ensure our versatile forces remain prepared to carry out the multiple missions they may be called upon to perform.

Guess what year this was written?


The Army will maintain four active corps, 10 active divisions - including six heavy and four light divisions - and two active armored cavalry regiments. Within that force posture, the Army is prepared to restructure parts of its force to reflect increased efficiencies in support activities and in anticipation of further organizational change, including the redesign and downsizing of its heavy divisions as it integrates the results of ongoing warfighting experiments. Given today's regional threats, elements of the Reserve component, the traditional Cold War strategic reserve can be reduced and transitioned into capabilities that have greater utility across the entire spectrum. This transition will increase depth in the Army's support structure to better support combat operations. These actions, together with the infrastructure efficiencies described in Section VIII, will result in the following personnel reductions:

Active 15,000
Reserve 45,000
Civilian 33,700



Care to guess how many individuals were rifted in 1997 to 1998 to meet the above mentioned decreases.?

There was not a RIF - and the military just restructed some of its manning.


And here is a link to get all of the Sec of Defense reports for the last 10 years.

http://www.comw.org/qdr/offdocs.html#secdef

Yes indeed Ollie North is incorrect in some of the picture that he tried to paint - just like you and others are incorrect in the gloom and doom picture your trying to paint by only looking at the data from 2005.