<p>
</p>
<p>If that’s charitable, I’d hate to meet you on a bad day!</p>
<p>I realize that you have held this unwaivering position as long as I have been on CC.</p>
<p>If we cannot discuss things without including inane rhetoric, designed to insult, I do not think we can hold a fruitful discussion. I will take my leave of this thread.</p>
<p>ff, the poll from March, 2008.</p>
<p>It’s called a link originaloog, use it or don’t expect us to believe your supposed polls.</p>
<p>In the beginning I was told why, then I thought because, and now I forget exactly why we Americans have so much skin in this game. </p>
<p>Now I used, I and We and Americans 5 times in the above sentence. But maybe the question is Why are so many of THEM fighting US?</p>
<p>^^That was deep. Thank you for that insight.</p>
<p>CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 28-April 2, 2008. N=1,368 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults):</p>
<p>“Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?”</p>
<pre><code>ALL adult
Right Thing 34% Stayed Out 62% Unsure 4%
</code></pre>
<p>CBS News Poll. March 15-18, 2008. N=1,067 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).</p>
<p>“How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?”</p>
<p>Very Well 4% Somewhat Well 39% Somewhat Badly 30% Very Badly 24% Unsure 3%</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm]Iraq[/url”>Iraq]Iraq[/url</a>]</p>
<p>drb - Your point would be???</p>
<p>Fundingfather and others- do you think a draft would solve the problems with the military shortages?
Seems reasonable.</p>
<p>No, a draft is not necessary nor desirable. The strength of today’s military is that it is comprised of people who want to be there and re-enlistment rates consistently exceed the goals. Taking people off the street who don’t want to be in the army is asking for a repeat of the low morale back in the days of Vietnam.</p>
<p>Also, a draft isn’t really needed to meet the needs. Last year enlistments for army, army reserves and marines met or slightly exceeded goals. The only real shortfall was in Army National Guard but that was only by a little over 3,000 people. You really don’t need to crank up a draft to fill that small of a shortfall. </p>
<p>The army has been given permission to grow by 2010 so recruitment will have to increase, but still, the increased numbers each year are small enough that it wouldn’t warrant installing a draft.</p>
<p>re-enlistment rates consistently exceed the goals----
Fundingfather- then why are there so many issues with the military spending excessive time in multiple redeployments? </p>
<p>I don’t understand why they don’t have necessary “down time”- </p>
<p>Didn’t the military have to increase the incentive to meet recruiting goals? This must be a costly endeavor to “meet or slightly exceed their goals?”</p>
<p>If you set your goals low enough you can consistently exceed them.</p>
<p>The problem with recurring assignments is the fact that the military, by law, is limited to a certain size. We have been able to maintain this size with current recruitment and re-enlistments. Unfortunately this size cap is not sufficient to allow as much down-time as some would like. That is the reason for Congress giving permission to increase the size of the army by 2010. </p>
<p>BTW, I checked the current fiscal year of recruiting (the 5 months since last October), and we are ahead to significantly ahead of our goals in all branches. Assuming that these goals reflect the fact that the military is ramping up to meet its 2010 objective, then we should be in fine shape and certainly do not want a draft. If we did a draft to meet these objectives, it would have to be the smallest draft in military history (perhaps instead of a lottery number based on birthday, it would have to be based on what hour of the day you were born on.)
[FY</a> 2008 Military Recruiting Statistics – February 2008](<a href=“http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2008recruitingstatistics/a/february.htm]FY”>http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2008recruitingstatistics/a/february.htm)</p>
<p>FF: Firstly, my “point” would be to answer Laxattack: “It’s called a link …, use it or don’t expect us to believe your supposed polls.” Try to keep up.</p>
<p>Secondly, regarding recruiting: from the LA Times:
"First, the good news. The Marine Corps and the Air Force are doing fine. They continue to attract capable young people, and they’re managing to retain their top officer talent. And all of the services, including the Army, met or exceeded their recruitment goals for February, no small feat given the near certainty that those who enlist now will soon be sent to Iraq.</p>
<p>But a closer look shows just how far the Army has had to lower its standards to keep itself in soldiers. The following “metrics” – data the military collects to assess its strength – were compiled from open sources by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.</p>
<p>In 2006, the percentage of Army recruits who were high school graduates (82%) was the lowest since 1981, and their scores on the military’s aptitude test were the worst since 1985. The number of “moral waivers” issued to those with criminal records more than tripled since 1996, to 8,500 in 2006. Worse, the number of recruits with felony convictions was up 30% in 2006 compared with 2005. And the Army apparently stooped to social promotion: 94% of recruits graduated from basic training in 2006, compared with 82% in 2005."</p>
<p>Lastly, as an antidote to the Michael Totten Hoo-rah propaganda: from the NY Times blog:</p>
<p>April 8th, 2008 10:22 am</p>
<p>As a Captain in the Army currently working as an advisor to an Iraqi Army Battalion I have grave concerns regarding the current stay the course, “the surge is working”, mentality. Everyday I have the privilege of reading, watching, and listening to my military and political leaders emphasize the military transition teams as the key to winning in Iraq. Yet, the reality on the ground is token efforts, here and there, to synchronize operations between US and Iraqi forces. In almost every instance when problems arise, tactical or technical, my Iraqi Army counterparts are pushed to the side so that the more effective, disciplined, and resourceful US fighting force can solve the Iraqi problems. The insistence of US forces to provide a clean, fast, and effective solution to every problem only serves to further delay growth and impede the Iraqi Army’s progression. In addition, our insistence on imposing American solutions to Iraqi problems further weakens the Iraqi Army’s growth and legitimacy. Our strong arm, occupying force tactics, in many instances, serve only to increase public resentment, distrust, and violence. In fact, without going into specifics, I regularly feel as I participate in daily operations with both US and Iraqi Forces that our presence on the streets of Iraq does more to disrupt and destroy the peace more than it helps.</p>
<p>Finally, as a citizen there’s got to be a better way for our country to spend $400 million dollars a day…</p>
<p>— Posted by MITT TEAM CPT</p>
<p>drb-
On the topic of “keeping up”, I suggest you go back and check the history of Laxattack’s request for a link. A link to any old poll doesn’t quite cut the mustard. Try keeping up.</p>
<p>Your LA Times article artfully used data and terms to paint the recruits as the nation’s dregs. The reality is that the HS graduation rank is better than the national average and the “criminal record” category is primarily misdemeanors which can include anything from underage drinking to parking tickets - hardly something that would disqualify anyone from serving in the army.</p>
<p>As to the captain’s blog entry, you can always find individuals in any conflict who don’t like the way things are going. That won’t ever change. The Fallujah piece that I linked provided data and specifics to support the view that Fallujah has had a remarkable turnaround. For people to deny this just illustrates that they are out of touch with reality and have closed their mind. That puts them in good company with their eventual candidate who claim that they won’t even consider the condition on the ground in Iraq - they will pull the troops out regardless. That’s what I call enlightened leadership.</p>
<p>Ah, I see. “Any old poll” that does not serve your purpose doesn’t cut the mustard. Here is the specific data in the link that debunks one of your assertions:</p>
<p>“If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?”</p>
<p>3/14-16/08: Keep Same Number 33% Remove Most 61%</p>
<p>And there is no “data” in Totten’s story - its the same “we are so manly” propaganda he always writes. And with respect to the HS graduation rank, PLEASE tell me its not the same old Heritage Foundation bull crap that is usually trotted out around this point.</p>
<p>drb,
You still haven’t caught up. Perhaps you shouldn’t jump into conversations about which you don’t know what is being discussed.</p>
<p>But, as long as you want to talk about a different subject - the American view of the war, since when does one poll “debunk” another poll? Does the fact that it suits your purposes make it the correct one?
[Pew</a> Research Center: Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008](<a href=“Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008 | Pew Research Center”>Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008 | Pew Research Center)</p>
<p>You are absolutely right. Let me list the other most recent polls from the same site which address the question:</p>
<p>NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). March 7-10, 2008. N=1,012 registered voters nationwide.
“Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?” </p>
<p>3/7-10/08 Is Still Possible 40% Is Not Still Possible 53% </p>
<p>“When it comes to the war in Iraq, which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? The most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009. The most responsible thing we can do is to remain in Iraq until the situation in the country is stable.” </p>
<p>Withdraw Most Troops By 2009 57% Remain Until Country Stable 43%</p>
<p>Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 5-6, 2008. N=1,215 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5. </p>
<p>“On the subject of Iraq – All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?”</p>
<pre><code> Better 29% Worse 25% Same 43%
</code></pre>
<p>ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 28-March 2, 2008. N=1,126 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“Do you think the United States is or is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq?”
Is 43% Is Not 51 %</p>
<p>USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 21-24, 2008. N=2,021 adults nationwide.
“If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S.: to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time?” </p>
<p>Stay Until Situation Gets Better 35% Stick to a Withdrawal Timetable 60%</p>
<p>No doubt your answer to this is the same as Cheney’s: “So?”</p>
<p>Gee, you skipped over this one:
</p>
<p>And, don’t you love the way the Gallup poll is worded by assigning a negative ramification to staying (“even if that takes many years”) but no such overtly negative ramification to getting out? A fair poll would have said something like: “… or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable even if conditions in the region deteriorate”</p>
<p>Ah, but that was the same one in which those polled wanted to withdraw according to a timetable by nearly a 2:1 majority. So perhaps the apparent inconsistency is due to the opinionby the majority that no stability and security will be established until we commit to withdrawal.</p>
<p>Another interesting tidbit from that poll:</p>
<p>“Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or not?”</p>
<p>Did Mislead 53% Did Not Mislead 42%</p>
<p>Well, certainly if 53% of the well-educated, well-read American public thinks this, it must be true. I go back to my original question to you: “And your point would be???”</p>