The standard 12-month tour for a soldier in the U.S. Army has been upped to 15 months, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday. The change should allow consistency between tours for soldiers, giving them 12 months at home between deployments. But it will also strain soldiers and is an indication of how our military is stretched. Another concern is how the change might affect our ability to recruit and retain our volunteer military.
Posted by Ross Stewart
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
72 Comments
What? No opinions on this?
Any caps on the number of deployments to “war zones”? And have they not been getting 12 months between deployments?
This is so unfortunate. There are many reasons for this, most of them are not good. I deplore the drawdown of the active duty military during the CLinton years, in order to get a “peace dividend”I deplore the reliance on National Guard folks as active duty. By this Administration and previous. Enlarge the active duty if need be, send the reserves and the Naitonal guard home. I deplore the fact that we went to Iraq inthe first place, as I’ve stated before–I was in opposiiton. I deplore that we now need to finish the task, and can’t even decide what “finished” looks like. Now they will stay longer. Too bad
RD, no caps on numbers of deployments for active duty forces, from what I could tell reading the linked story. Again, from the linked story, it appears that the Army has been receiving 12 months stateside between deployments, but extension of those currently there, and by my read, of those who will be going, is needed to ensure future periods between deployments do not shorten.
On the retention issue raised by Ross, the linked article notes the $1 billion in reenlistment bonuses paid. I cannot easily find the article I read yesterday that indicated these bonuses were a factor in the meeting of reenlistment goals.
Whatever happened to “months not years”?
On this Littlejohn…..we agree…..absolutely deplorable.
Bring back the draft, that will provide the needed man(and woman) power and will get us out of there in a wink…none of those supporting or running this war would be willing to sacrifice their own..let them put their money where their mouth is.
Our military should only be used for the most compelling reasons, and insuring the Israelis remain unaccountable for abusing the Palestinians isn’t good enough.
Remaining unaccountable for devastating Lebanon for Bush’s flimsy reasons isn’t good enough.
We dishonor the United States Marine Corp by asking them to shoot Iraqi civilians after defeating their Army.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to see to it that funding this shameful venture stops.
Mary–Forcing those to serve who do not wish so? That surely is not the answer. ANd actually, there are quite a number of folks who have sons and daughters over there who support the notion of seeing through this thing until the mission is accomplished.
The other 87% don’t.
Hmmm, this is news? Anyone who has been in the military has had their tours extended. During the Gulf War, my assignment to the Turkey was extended by 12 months (36 months to 48 months.)
My cousin who was in Communication Mobility had his extended, twelve to eighteen months.
This is not new, even when we were larger in military population size.
What people don’t realize that the Military doesn’t consist only of Combat troops. The ones on the ground is the least populated of all the groups. By far, the largest group are the support functions.
By the way, a nephew of mine is at Walter Reed. He says the conditions are worse than shown on TV. The Army never could get things right. Every Army facility I’ve been in that has a few years on it, shows neglect and lack of preventive maintenance.
The draft would be a bad idea. If I were out there, I wouldn’t want someone else out there covering me who doesn’t want to be there. If you’re not willing to get out there with a gun and fight, don’t join the military. That’s like a vegetarian being a butcher, just doesn’t make sense.
Ed-
Missed Shot. 87% want out of Iraq. They didn’t specify when. In fact, I don;t know why 100% didn;t want out of Iraq. Again, the question becomes when and how
I don’t know all the things about Army deployment, but the Marines and Air Force are much different.
The majority of Marines are on a 7 month deployment cycle.
You go for 7 months, you stay home for 13.
However, much of this depends on your MOS.
If you are in a high demand MOS then you are probably looking at longer deployments with shorter amounts of time home.
The Commandant is requesting an increase in Marine Forces by about 25,000 so that we can have a 1 to 3 ratio for Active duty dployed and a 1 to 5 ratio for reserves.
Mary,
There are many who still support this war with family in it. Your blanket statement is absurd.
The draft is a great idea! That will ensure that everyone suffers equally!
Bullshit Mary! You’re old enough to remember the draft, probably didn’t worry too much about it though, it effected men only.
Also, there were so many loopholes and the rules were so ineffectively enforced that the priviledged and the cowards could easily avoid it. Legally or illegally.
No Mary, we don’t need the draft. All we have to do is pay our military men what they are worth and show them the respect they deserve. We don’t need to drag someone yelling and screaming to the military to serve four years as a disgruntled, disruptive nitwit in the way of the men that want to serve.
Hank
Nathan, many of your fellow servicemen and women would disagree with you on the draft. Most of my friends and family that I have talked to would rather be out there alone than have someone out there who is likely to turn their back and run at the slightest hint of a problem because they didn’t want to be there in the first place.
Or maybe Hank wrote that? I’m a little confused now…
When the pain is shared equally, I think the people and those in power would consider the consequences of invading other countries…I believe war would actually be a last resort strategy.And Nathan, just because your family supports the war, that doesn’t necessarily mean “many” people support it. The polls show otherwise. Sorry.
AFN, as I read the comments of Nathan (yes, I think it’s him even though “Hank” appears at the bottom of the post), he’s arguing against a draft. My take.
Vaughn, could be. I guess I was taking this line literally: “The draft is a great idea! That will ensure that everyone suffers equally!” But I could be wrong and if so, I am terribly sorry.
The problem with not having a draft is that is allows most Americans to be come completely disconnected to the war, therefore they become apathetic because it has no immediate affect on thier lives. If we have a draft with NO deferments (not like Vietnam, where all you had to do is go to college), then we’d think twice before we we’re willing to commit to a quagmire like we have now.
Mary,
i understand your thoughts, but i disagree. I think it woul be very poor for military morale. Secondly, would you be willing to pay for a standing army that large?
“When the pain is shared equally, I think the people and those in power would consider the consequences of invading other countries…I believe war would actually be a last resort strategy.”
Dear Mary,
Your statement above is indicative with every thing that is wrong with the liberal point of view concerning the military. You want to use the draft as a political/social policy.
It should be used as a military policy. Do you really believe that the priviledged ones wouldn’t find loop holes to avoid the draft?
Hank
Yes. We would have fewer wars, just look at what this fiasco is costing our country.
Dear AFN,
confused? you aoften are.
Hank
According to the 2000 US Census, the number of people age 20-24(prime draft age) = 18,000,000.
Quite a large army if we drafted them all, or even half
Nothing wrong with the draft, Hank. The loopholes would have to be sewed up. Dave was going to get drafted, so he joined the Air Force…he served with very high quality and intelligent people who were in the same boat he was…they had to join some branch of the military or be drafted.It would make everything more fair, and we would avoid war for the pitiful reasons we got caught up in Iraq.I don’t think we have a better fighting force because some recruiter promised the sky to some young and vulnerable kid who didn’t know any better. The reality of war, I’m sure, has sunk into many of them, because many of them want to come home.
No Mary,
Wars are caused by weakness. We go to war because our enemies either don’t believe we have the will to go to war or because they think they can attack us and win.
Hank
Mary,
Just point to any period in history where a draft has caused fewer wars.
You can say it, but the facts and evidence to back it up are not there.
Nathan
We wouldn’t be in Iraq if we had a draft…no one would have supported, certainly not the American public, it took a little while, but most woke up.
So Dave avoided combat by joining the Airforce and picking where and how he could serve.
Explain to me, why didn’t the draft keep us out of Viet Nam?
And how were the men with boots on the ground it Viet Nam benefitted by serving with disgruntled dopers that were there against their wishes?
Hank
“Dear AFN, confused? you aoften are. Hank”
You don’t have to be an @$$hole about it. I simply misunderstood, excuse me if I can’t tell you’re being sarcastic in writing. I admitted that I could be wrong so get over it.
Mary,
What do you base that conclusion on?
The war in Iraq was overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress when they authorized the President to invade.
How many members of the House and Senate had children of age to be drafted at the time?
Would we have needed a draft at the time?
Why would there have been a draft?
Your posts take no context into consideration.
Nathan
You’re young, Nathan. Some day when you have a children, you may see it differently. Maybe not…but if you are willing to sacrifice your child for oil and power in the Middle East, then there is nothing I can say to you.
Mary,
We went to war in Iraq because of percieved weakness. Draft or no draft we would have been in Iraq.
You have a very disapointing opinion of the resolve of the American people.
Hank
Good questions, Nathan. How many in the House and Senate have kids in Iraq?
Dear AFN,
Can’t get “over it”. “It” never happened.
Hank
PS I fixed my “Posted by” problem, sorry
I don’t think so Hank. It’s because no one had to get directly involved unless they wanted to that we ended up there.I was against the war before we invaded, I haven’t changed my mind about it either.
Mary–i categorically reject your notion that I am potentially sacrificing my son for”oil and power in the middleast”.
“Can’t get “over it”. “It” never happened.”
That doesn’t even make sense, but you know what? It’s not even worth arguing about…
Their are several problems a draft one being loopholes to get out of it’ And the fact you cant eliminate the loopholes.
Do you draft women? if not the draft is inherently sexist and probably could be challenged in court on those grounds. But the flip side is do draft single Moms, or moms period whose gonna take care of the kids, the state grandma? what will that cost?
What about felons, drug addicts, and other assorted figures. Do you really want them in the service? If getting high gets you out of the draft theirs another loophole.
What about Mennonites,Quakers, Amish and other pacifist religious sects going to force them to fight and violate deeply help convictions. Another loophole
Drafting College students that the big loophole do we really want to empty out our universities of med students engineers, scientists, scholars etc. what will that have on the future well being of the United States.
Then theirs a host of Medical physcolical conditions that bar one from service you can actually be to fat to get in. More loopholes.
Besides do taxpayers really want to foot the bill for the bueracarny, increased expense in having several million new recruits. and the lose of those recruits in the private sector that pay those taxes.
Lj–
Categorically denying it doesn’t make it untrue.
Every reason that BushCo (TM) gave for invading Iraq has been proven false. They don’t even care. They still maintain it was the right thing to do.
Why? Because the real reason they invaded is the obvious one: the oil and the power.
Then what are you sacrificing him for, littlejohn?I’m sorry, I’ve got to get back to work before I get myself into trouble…no more time to enlighten my fans.
Wars are caused by weakness. We go to war because our enemies either don’t believe we have the will to go to war or because they think they can attack us and win.
*****
Take Vietnam, for instance.
The NVA attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin because they thought they could win.
Wars aren’t caused by strength or weakness. They’re caused by perceived injustice.
Al Qaeda saw American troops stationed indefinitely in the land of the two holies (Arabia) and they attacked us for seven years until we left.
After 9-11, we left.
The Palestinians attack Israelis, the Pakistanis attack Indians, the Tamil tigers attack Sri Lankans, the Chechyns attack Russia not because they think they can “win,” but because they are aggreived and want justice (or what they perceive as justice).
I am not sacrificing him at all, he was an adult when he enlisted, I didn’t send him anywhere. However, i will still attempt to answer your question. As a side note, you will find that I have posted previously that I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq to start with. However,
There are three kinds of people doing most of the killing in Iraq and elsewhere. One) Those who were in power, and want it back. The US has nothing to fear from them Two) THose who want revenge from the slaughter that went on while Hussein was in charge— I think we can probably discount them. It is the third group that you should be concerned with. They are the true believers of Islamofascism. WHo believe that you shut wear a burka and shut your mouth because you a woman, who believe that your daughters should have their genitalia mutilated as a young girl to keep them pure, those who riot because a cartoon depicts their “leader” in an inglorious manner, who stab in the heart one who dares describe Islam in anything but a positive Light. They would rip your heart out if given a chance. They would shut your mouth by violence if no other way. These people hate everything the western world stands for, and their sole aim to to bring the entire world into the dark ages.The beginning of this war was an attempt to put these people out of business. Now, we need to find a way out that sends the right message to the third group that we will not tolerate any bs from them, and let the other two kill each other as they wish
Lj–
Categorically denying it doesn’t make it untrue.
Every reason that BushCo (TM) gave for invading Iraq has been proven false. They don’t even care. They still maintain it was the right thing to do.
Why? Because the real reason they invaded is the obvious one: the oil and the power.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | April 12, 2007 at 03:19 PM
You saying they don;t even care and that it was for the oil and power doesn;t make it so either, sorry.
“Your statement above is indicative with every thing that is wrong with the liberal point of view concerning the military. You want to use the draft as a political/social policy.” – nathan
Hmmmmmmmm, what would you call what our military is doing in Iraq if not as the tool to implement “political/social policy.” After all, “democracy in the Middle East” has been the refrain from the right after every other reason for the war was debunked. I just hope that the whole “democracy in mid-east’ reason is still in vogue today, or has it been abandoned by the administration as a rationale, as well?
LJ–
It’s not my opinion. WMD’s were not found. The Pentagon reported a few days ago that Saddam had NO TIES to Al Qaeda.
That only leaves “building democracy in the Middle East.” Of course, if there were a real democracy, we would have had to leave because that what the Iraqis are voting for.
All the lies that BushCo gave us for invading have been proven false.
“They would rip your heart out if given a chance. They would shut your mouth by violence if no other way. These people hate everything the western world stands for, and their sole aim to to bring the entire world into the dark ages.”
Yeah, you really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
Why didn’t these America-haters who wanted to rip our hearts out attack us in 1970? Or 1985? Or 1990?
They attacked us when the Ayatollah took over in Iran, because we had supported the Shah (king) for 20 years (after we helped overthrow the democratically elected PM Mossegadeh in the fifties).
They attacked us in Lebanon because we had stationed troops in Lebanon (there to quell the civil war which we help start by overthrowing the democratically elected Islamic government).
They attacked us in 1993, in ‘95, in 2001 because we had troops in Arabia, troops Dick Cheney promised would not be there “one day” after the first Gulf War ended.
We finally pulled the troops out.
Too little, too late.
The continued occupation of Iraq begets violence against the United States. It doesn’t alleviate it.
Someone want to give ddub a kick in the head so he can catch up.
His point was that you don’t use the draft as some type of social/political agenda.
All this talk about war for oil.I would like to hear the libs ideas of what we would do if tomorrow the oil dried up? What if the entire Mid East said no more.
What do you think would happen to your job within 3 months. Do we all go on welfare? Since no one is working who will foot the bill? We’re not allowed to mine our own resources, so what would happen?
Will 7.25/hour for minimum wage cover the cost of 8.00 a gallon gas. I have a 65 mile round trip to go to work, what would that do to my budget.
I make widgets, my company sells them for 3.00 each. The cost to my company to now truck widgets to the store has increased by 100% (3.00 gas now, 6.00 gas then) do you think my company will sell as many widgets? Do you think my company will be able to hold on to the number of employees they have? They are forced to lay off half the employees. What do the laid off employees do? Will my taxes go down when the price of gas goes up? How many of you have received raises since the price of gas has now topped 3.00. Is the price of products higher or lower now due to the price of gas?
Hate to break it to you kids. It may sound all good on the posting and in your little cliques of “hate bush.” But our economy RUNS on oil. Our old people keep from freezing to death because of oil.
“Sorry you might freeze to death grandma, but we are not allowed to drill in Alaska because the striped/spotted marmaduke may only have 3 baby marmadukes instead of 4. Rest in peace.”
So either come up with a quick workable solution, or let us develop our own resources or let us continue our use of oil. Which is it?
Here’s an interesting perspective on the merits of a largely conscription army vs. an all-volunteer one:
“To assuage uneasy consciences, the many who do not serve proclaim their high regard for the few who do. This has vaulted America’s fighting men and women to the top of the nation’s moral hierarchy. The character and charisma long ago associated with the pioneer or the small farmer—or carried in the 1960s by Dr. King and the civil-rights movement—has now come to rest upon the soldier. The signatories of the Appeal for Redress make full use of the prerogatives of this ranking.
Justice alone seemingly demands that they be allowed to do so. The thousands of Americans killed in Iraq include no members of Congress and not a single general. Shouldn’t those who bear the burden of war have some say in determining its future course?
…In fact, however, empowering groups of soldiers to join in the debate over contentious issues is short-sighted and dangerous. Implicit in the appeal is the suggestion that national-security policies somehow require the consent of those in uniform. Lately, media outlets have reinforced this notion, reporting as newsworthy the results of polls that asked soldiers whether administration plans meet with their approval.
On matters of policy, those who wear the uniform ought to get a vote, but it’s the same one that every other citizen gets—the one exercised on Election Day. To give them more is to sow confusion about the soldier’s proper role, which centers on service and must preclude partisanship. Legitimating soldiers’ lobbies is likely to warp national-security policy and crack open the door to praetorianism.
The Appeal for Redress does not pose an immediate threat to the republic. It’s been signed by only a tiny minority of U.S. soldiers, and the movement could simply peter out, becoming little more than a minor historical curiosity, rather than a harbinger of something larger. Yet in either case, it offers further evidence of advancing constitutional decay.
As the Founders anticipated, a democracy intent on maintaining a great and powerful military establishment confronts acute challenges. Deflecting those challenges today requires renewed attention to hallowed principles of civilian control. In recent decades, these principles have eroded badly. The irresponsible politicking of generals and admirals is one reason. But so, too, is the abdication by Congress of its constitutional duties on matters of peace and war—and the recent exploitation of that abdication by an imperial, irresponsible, and habitually dissembling administration.
In an environment where governing principles have seemingly ceased to govern, it is surely understandable that some members of a more assertive military would be tempted to dip their toes into political waters. What is unforgivable is that elected officials and activists have indulged and nourished that desire, while the problems that are producing an increasingly politicized military establishment continue to be ignored.”
(I apologize upfront that this link requires a subscription, paid in full, before it can be read)
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/military-dissent/2
*************************************************
The author, Andrew Bacevich, is a very interesting Old School Conservative:
“Both his recent books are critical of American foreign policy in the post Cold War era, maintaining the United States has developed an overreliance on military power, in contrast to diplomacy, to achieve its foreign policy aims. He also asserts that policymakers in particular, and the American people in general, overestimate the usefulness of military force in foreign affairs. Bacevich believes romanticized images of war in popular culture (especially movies) interact with the lack of actual military service among most of the population to produce in the American people a highly unrealistic, even dangerous notion of what combat and military service is really like. Finally, he attempts to place current policies in historical context, as part of an American tradition going back to the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a tradition (of an interventionist, militarized foreign policy) which has strong bi-partisan roots. To lay an intellectual foundation for this argument, he cites two influential historians from the 20th century: Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams.Ultimately, Bacevich eschews the partisanship of current debate about American foreign policy as short-sighted and ahistorical. Instead of blaming only one President (or his advisors) for contemporary policies, both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for policies which may not be in the nation’s best interest.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich
*************************************************
I think Bacevich would agree with Mary in principle (as do I), but I’m less sure he’d agree with her tactic (a return to a conscription army).
Still waiting to find out cappy, why didn’t Billary do all those things for eight years.
Stop sanctions against Saddam.Get us out of Saudi.Stop supporting Israel.
OH, I forgot, he had to spend all of his time, defending himself against the Monica scandal.
hmmm.
The Iraqis have yet to vote for us to leave, hindsight is always better than foresight. Wrong does not make “lies”, can;t prove otherwise. That is part of the problem I have had in the past lisenting to dissenters. They start out with the “Bush lied, people died” mantra and I think, just another one. However, I agree that the current situation is unstainable. Hence, I offer the following for discussion. It is only about half thought thru, but a place to start. We immediately begin a pullot of our troops throughout the world. We leave a small training contingent in Iraq, only to train Iraqui troops. We leave all foreign countries and redeploy troops along our borders, and in our ports of arrival for security purposes. We allow all of those countries in the world to their own devices. That includes, Korea, Europe, The Balkans, etc. And, we remove those countries from our nuclear umbrella. They gotta get their own. However, we also do the following:Because of the immediate disruption of the worlds oil, we allow drilling in ANWAR and all coastal waters. In return, oil companies must spend at least 30% of their research and development and exploration dollars in renewable energy. We build nuclear and wind power turbines wherever feasible. Further, we position air craft carriers throughout the world. They have one mission. Defense of the United States. We tell everyone, do what you will to your own. If you take an American captive, we will come and get you. We will kill all of your associates, regardless. IF you are a nation that sponsors terorism, and one of those terrorists attack the UNITED STATES or it’s people, we will reduce your governmental buildings to rubble. We don;t care if you are Saudi Arabia, yada yada yada. WE simply don;pt care. Attack us, and feel the wrath. Kill your own people, we don;t care. Kill us, you cease to exist.
Yeah Capn,
I do kow what I’m talking about. It’s spelled out the world over where the radical ISlamist have taken over.
While I feel sorry for the soldiers and their families, the fact is that sometimes certain jobs require sacrifice. During hurricanes, utility linemen and telephone employees are often sent hundreds of miles from home for months at a time. Same with police, fire, doctors, nurses and civil engineers. That is part of their job and they know that when they sign on the line for the work. The same goes for the military. We are in a war and we have to win it so sacrifices have to be made. We are not in a draft and all the soldiers joined voluntarily and they were well aware of this when they signed up.
Kev-
As a former military man, and as a current fire and ems provide, I agree. i just want to start a conversation of overall national policy. Kosovo deployment good, Kosovo deployment bad. Darfur should be deployed to, Iraq should not. On and on. B lied, no he didn’t. Blah Blah Blah. I think that we should take a good look at deployment policy, regardless of who is in the White House at the time.
Kev’s right.
As an anesthesiologist, I put needles into several people a day. Got an occasional self-puncture, but was lucky. One of my colleagues, a nurse anesthetist doing a life-saving emergency surgery case accidentally punctured himself after injecting a patient and got Hepatitis B. A colleague of my wife go Hepatitis C. Not benign diseases, believe me. And you don’t even want to think about risks to frontline-provider paramedics and EMS techs.
Mark
Sorry to hear about your friend and your colleague’s wife. That sucks. Paramedi Friend now has Hep C from a needlestick. Gloves just don’t seem to stop needles. Sad
On the draft, the brass’s assessment is that it is better to have volunteers who are in for 4+ years, and can be fully trained, rather than 2-year draftees. That’s reasonable.
However, due to this war, NPR reported yesterday that Army enlistments were several thousand below target-level last year. The WSJ reported today that recruiters are being forced to dip down to lower-than-desired aptitude-test scores to get people who want to join, and are in some cases even being forced to waive past criminal convictions. Now the article didn’t say if the waivers were applicants with a single DUI at age 16, a single shoplifting conviction or carrying a pocketknife in middle school, or got caught with a single joint on a traffic stop, so we don’t know how serious the allowable crimes are. But even with these waivers, the Army can’t fill its recruitment quotas. (Navy and Air Force quotas are much easier to fill, since groundcrewmen and offshore sailors in a non-naval war aren’t often in harm’s way. The USMC gets people who are itchin to fight. ;))
Republican –being in Turkey (probably with your dependents) for 3 years is no comparison to being in a war zone for a year getting shot at. — so puhleease return to some form of credibility.
Kev — same comments to you — those job examples you cite do not have the same risks or level of risks of combat troops — in a war zone, wether on the front line or in a rear postion you are 24/7 risk of being rocketed, mortared etc ….. and I would venture a guess most of those professions earn considerably more with better bennies —
What is missing from this war from day one is a shared sacrifice of everyone, a viable energy policy and competent leadership. Less than 1 per cent of the population is fighting this war — the rest are profiting on it ….. SHAME ON YOU !!!
Little john
They have not voted us out of the country because they have not been asked to and not surprisingly that won’t happen unless we allow it (hmm an Army of Occupation?) — most of them want us out — most of us want us out — something about a duck goes here ….
Get us out — Impeach / censure GWB and DC before they can do much more damage —
Bush is little more than a child with a loaded gun.
And Nancy Pelosi needs to put a stop to this madness.
If enlistments are down the miliatry needs to raise the pay and benefits. As a father of teens, I can tell you this- there will be NO draft. Nothing will get folks like me out in the street rasing hell faster. My kids are going to college- not the Army. But there are plenty of people out there that will join if they pay is good. Look at the contractors working in Iraq- there is NO shortage of contractors because they bring home about 120K a year tax free. If the raise the pay of the soldiers to that level, there will no shortage of people willing to sign up. And don’t say we cannot afford it because I will say we should have thought about that before starting a war. Of we have to raise taxes to pay for it then we will.
Kev
Why not a draft? Fewer than 1 percent of the population has a dog in this fight and that one percent is being stretched to the limit – we give a lot of lip service to supporting our military, but lip service doesn’t buy 1 bandage, a crutch etc ..
Comparatively speaking most of the contractors there are not fighting a war as our soldiers are — they are on the gravy train created by Cheney / Halliburton etc …… probably the same gravy chain your kids will be on — and contributing very little
“Mary,We went to war in Iraq because of perceived weakness. Draft or no draft we would have been in Iraq.”Hank are you meaning a perceived weakness on the part of the United States or Iraq? If you mean Iraq I would agree as in the conclusion of the report prepared by the Heritage foundation for the Bush administration. They listed Iraq as a possible threat some time in the future but that Iraq would be the easiest to defeat.
But if you mean the United States I would remind you that the fact remains that Iraq did not attack us nor were they listed as a prime threat to the U.S.
there is NO shortage of contractors because they bring home about 120K a year tax free. If the raise the pay of the soldiers to that level, there will no shortage of people willing to sign upKen, I recently read that the retention rate for our special forces is down for that very reason. Our highest trained military personal can go to Blackwater and make well over 120K, in the same light there are several other private companies that pay well for regular soldiers. You could have a point.
The problem is people even though it keeps being said that there is no military solution, there is little talk except about a military solution. To quote Richard Armatage “We are dropping a good deal of our military, our money and time into using the Military as the only form of diplomacy in Iraq. A side effect for an administration that thinks the only form of diplomacy is to say “Do what we say or else!”. Is that we have no other choice but to use diplomacy where military force is needed.”.
Gene–
I agree what Clinton did was reprehensible and really stupid. The Republicans were breathing down his neck looking for something to get him with and then he has a sleazy affair in the White House.
Very reckless, and shows no thought not only for his own administration but the Democratic party that he led.
Also, by keeping troops in Arabia, he was feeding Al Qaeda rage.
Absolutely true that Clinton shares a lot of the responsibility, as I have previously said.
LJ says, that it’s spelled the world over where Islam has taken over–
Uh, you mean Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Qatar, Indonesia, Malaysia?
There are many Muslim-majority nations that don’t suffer unduly from fundamentalist based terrorism.
CapnAmerica’What did my post say? Did it not say the RADICAL Islamist? BIg difference
You have to remember that many- perhaps most people that read this have not served in the armed services and do not know what military terminology means so you cannot use standard terms like “MOS” without telling folks what it means. MOS means Military Occupation Specialty. It is a number that defines what person’s job is and roughly what they do. For example the MOS for my specialty was 1A60. The same specialty in the Army would be 88N I think. That means that you work in transport.
First of all I happily support the military and always have. I am a member of the USO and re up every year. I am one of the few that have supported them even in peacetime. I stand by those in uniform. I think that they, and their families, deserve much more than they get including much higher pay. If I am hiring and 2 candidates are qualified, the veteran will always get the job. But I am also a father and I have not spent a whole lot of time and effort trying to educate 3 kids and send them on to college and hopefully a good life ONLY to see them possibly die in Iraq because Bush is a fool. War slavery has never worked and such people who are forced into the military usually are angry and resentful about it. That does not mean that I am not supportive of those who do choose to serve in Iraq even if their commander Bush is a damn fool and idiot. I do support them.
Excuse me friend but the USAF does not allow you to pick where and how you serve during wartime. I was in the USAF and I can tell you that. You go where you are told and do what they tell you to do. Futhermore, although most of those killed have been Marines and Army, there are plenty of Navy and USAF on that list too as their was in Nam. Now during peacetime, the USAF does offer some flexibility- for example when I signed up an enlistee could choose either WHERE he wanted to go or WHAT he wanted to do but not both. And the deal was only for the first year. After that they could move you where they wanted you on a moment’s notice although they usually didn’t bother you if you were in good standing in your current assignment. Your C.O. would fight for you if he liked your work. But some people get moved to places and jobs they don’t like. Ask the tank rats out at McConnell.
“So Dave avoided combat by joining the Airforce and picking where and how he could serve.”
I do have 2 sons involved in this mess in Iraq and I’m am angry as hell that they are in harm’s way for oil and power. Both went there with high ideas of “saving and liberating” the Iraqi’s. They both have changed their opinion. My youngest son told me just the other day that he hates them all(the Iraqi’s) and doesn’t trust anyone. He is not like that as a rule so I can only think that it is the stress he is under. I hope the Democrats stick to their agenda, cut off the money, and bring the soldiers home.
If every parent had a kid (or two) over there like Brenda, I can guarantee that the troops would be home by now. The fact that only %1 of the population is fighting this war allows the rest of us to stay disconnected from the war if we choose to. Many would rather focus on who the father of Anna Nichole’s baby is than how many soldiers died today in Iraq. Our foreign ploicy would make dramatic changes if everyone was required to make an equal sacrifice for a war effort.