[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...

[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.

[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.

[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:

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.

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.

[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:

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.

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.

[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?