-
[Anti] military operations
Quote:
[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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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...
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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..... ~;)
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
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?
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
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:
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
It may not even have played a part.
Oh please!!!!!!!!!
Anyway this thread sure went off topic fast.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
I imagine that it did play a part. I'm simply saying that we don't know how big a part it did play.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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? ~;)
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
Thanks mate ~:grouphug:
No problem. It's nice to debate in a forum as nice as this one is (usually!) ~:grouphug: ~:cheers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
P.S. Eek Good point. Back to topic! ...what was it again?
I can't remember...something about America recruiting more soldiers, I think.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
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 .
Quote:
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Can we sell the left wing of America for medical experiments? Please?
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Naughty Kaiser! Naughty! Not a bad idea though...what would we use them for? Ooo...stem cell research right? ~;)
Azi
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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."
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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."
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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:
Quote:
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/arm...ing/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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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),...
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
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
-
Re: [Anti] military operations
You can't even agree with yourself, so someone, Canadian, or otherwise should point out the obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
"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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
(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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
"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.
