<p>‘Actually, this is not true at all. Enlistment rates have exceeded targets in almost all branches of the services. Naval reserves appears to be the only one with a significant deficit but all ground-based services are essentially meeting or exceeding their goals.’</p>
<p>Recruiting Goals Met: Gosh, wonder where FF gets his information</p>
<p>According to Major Mark Spear, who commands 44 Army recruiters covering more than 50 communities north and west of Boston, the urge to serve has waned since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. After 101 percent of his area’s enlistment goal was reached in fiscal 2003, the numbers dipped to 84.4 percent in 2004, fell to 55.7 percent in 2005, and stand at 45.2 percent for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.</p>
<p>A friend of my daughters who joined the Marines after careful thought ( he had many opportunities open to him), was assigned as a recruiter.
However, he wasn’t well suited for it, and volunteered to go to Iraq just a few months later. He is still in the service ( although doing desk work- since he is now an amputee), but felt that signing up recruits just to improve numbers wasn’t ethical or safe. You don’t want troops who feel like they have been tricked, and who aren’t suited for combat to be your backup.</p>
<p>Note to CGM: the current year is 2006. You should change your calendar so that when you see something from 2005 you will know that it is old data.</p>
<p>“At least Lieberman has the courage to not waver from his stance.”</p>
<p>Lieberman’s reward for integrity is to be attacked by the left. Meanwhile Dems like Kerry, Edwards and Gore fall over themselves to appease this crowd - principles be damned.</p>
<p>Another Dem that showed some backbone was Dick Gephart who refused to buy into the “I was duped” copout regarding WMDs. He had the integrity to say that he checked the data out himself with the intelligence community. Where is he these days? Suffering the same fate as the left wants to serve upon Lieberman.</p>
<p>Yeah - Fundingfather - you got conned. Targets for 2005 vs. 2006:</p>
<p>Army: 80,000 - 41,100
Navy: 37,635 - 20,495
Marines: 32,917 - 16,499
Army National Guard - 63,002 - 44,245
Army Reserve: 28,485 - 20,175</p>
<p>So, yeah - they’re meeting their “targets” because the targets have been cut by 30 - 50%. Enlistment is, in fact, way, way down. Army enlistment dropped from 73,373 in FY2005 to 42,859 in FY2006 - and still represented an “improvement” in terms of percentage of “target met.” (2005 was lower than 2004, also.)</p>
<p>FF - they got you with that one, didn’t they?</p>
<p>As action in Iraq was being considered, there was notable disagreement within the Pentagon to the idea of a smaller, more agile force being sufficient. It wasn’t just airchair generals but actual ones that had issuesd with the smaller forces. The smaller force idea was clearly Rumsfeld’s. </p>
<p>The notion of a smaller force also fits with the notion that things were going to go easier in Iraq than they did. It also fits with the notion that we had more military options in the Mideast should there be other issues. While not everyone in the Adminstration bought off on this, I think that notion prevailed, at least at first.</p>
<p>The troop levels were certainly enough to take care of the Iraqi army but not enough for the occupation. I think deep down, everyone realizes that now but may disagree about the implications. I beleive that those implications are that the available manpower is strecthed pretty thinly and that future military options are more limited than hoped. </p>
<p>Also, since the draft is not a politically viable option, they either have to keep recycling troops there on mutliple or extended tours of duty and/or recruit significant numbers of new troops. </p>
<p>I think there is enough evidence that have been some recruitment abuses. There probably also has been some, even if just a little. But gang members enlisting for ulterior motives is not a problem that should be ignored just because it might help meet some artifical targets.</p>
I didn’t bother to check the other services since I think most people realize that the Army was the only branch of the military that had recruiting problems and it was limited to 2005, where the shortfall was approximately 10%.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty clear at this point that if we want to be the kind of schoolyard bully superpower the neocon’s salivate over we would need to have a draft. As usual, the right’s problem with implementing its policies is the need to conceal from those who will have to pay the price just what the true objective is. Thus, in the coming months, we’ll get a lot of illegal immigrants, flag burning, ten commandments, homosexual whatever nonsense in order to obscure the “Let us saddle all of your children and grandchildren with debt so we can give Paris Hilton a few more tens of millions of dollars when her parents die” laws they really want. </p>
<p>How could they sell a draft? It’s a tough one, but they’ve sold some whoppers over the past twenty years so I wouldn’t rule it out. North Korean missile crisis? Another bunch of yahoos with box cutters flying a plane into a building? Burning down the Reichstag? (oops - wrong demagogues!)</p>
<p>Don’t know Kluge. I suspect the next Pearl Harbor, I mean 9/11, will result in martial law. The neocons have been salivating over instituting it for years. They could throw in the draft too, at the same time. Kind of a twofer, bang for the buck kind of thing.</p>
<p>I think it must be fundraising time for Morris Dees at the SPLC. As barrons showed in post #4 this has been going on for a long time. It’s a non-story. The NYT jumps on it because they don’t like President
Bush and/or the military. Yawn.</p>
<p>Thanks, DRJ4 - it looks like I misread the YTD for full year numbers. I guess summer is prime recruit time, since they’re apparently projecting getting 45% of their recruits in 1/3 of the year. Makes sense, I guess.</p>
allmusic, you don’t give up do you? First you post that recruiting is “way, way down” without substantiation (which is understandable, because it is false) and now you make up another whopper regarding martial law. Let me guess, your next claim will be that it is Bush’s fault for the divisiveness in this country.</p>
<p>actually while I do think that recruiters are being pressured to enlist people that don’t realize the magnitude of their committment, and of the militarys position, ( we are at war & promises made by recruiters are not enforced), I don’t think that in all cases it is harmful to have gang members in the armed forces. I think people can change, and I think that given a lot of discipline, that men and women who once belonged to a gang- could potentially make a positive contribution to society.</p>
<p>What I am also concernd about, is hearing that troops who have recently returned from Iraq, are being hired as city and county police officers with out much time in between to process their experience.
I know that the police force already attracts those who think they are Wyatt Earp, we don’t need to hire those who think they are Rambo too.</p>
<p>FF: You should know by now that everything that is wrong with the world is Bush’s fault! As soon as he gets out of there all will be right with the world once again!</p>
<p>No, everything that is wrong with the world is the fault of anyone who ever disagrees with Bush. As soon as everyone who criticizes anything the Bush Administration does gets out of here all will be right with the world again! [/sarcasm]</p>
<p>FF - No, the divisiveness in the country isn’t all Bush’s fault. You’ve got to give credit to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Bob Perry, John O’Neill, Michael Savage, et al. You can hear hate-filled right wing bile spewing 24/7 on at least one and usually two AM stations in every major media market in America. I’m sure you folks don’t listen to that sickening, xenophobic, paranoid, fear-mongering claptrap, but obviously somebody does. And the message is clear: They are out to get us. They are not like us. Hate them. Fear them. It’s not always clear who they are - sometimes its “llliberals”, sometimes it’s “hhhhhomosexuals” (or “fags” as Fred Phelps would prefer), sometimes it’s foreigners, usually Muslims, but could be Europeans, especially the French. But one thing is always clear: They are bad, wrong, not like us, and need to be feared/hated/held in contempt for their wrong beliefs.</p>
<p>You want divisiveness? Listen in fior a while.</p>