It appears the Army will not (surprise of surprises) meet its recruiting goals this year. Not even after fudging the numbers the last few months! Who woulda thunk it? At any rate, they are now at least willing to admit the problem openly:
The Army’s top personnel officer acknowledged this week that the service will probably miss its recruiting goal this year, the first public admission by a senior Army official and a stark reminder of the Iraq war’s impact on enlistments.
The officer, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, said in testimony to the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee on Tuesday that an improving economy, competition from private industry and an increasing number of parents who are less supportive of military service meant that the active-duty Army, as well as the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, would fall short of their annual quotas.
“We will likely miss recruiting missions for all three components,” said General Hagenbeck, voicing publicly what many senior Army officials have said privately for weeks.
The Army has not missed its annual enlistment quota since 1999, when a strong economy played havoc with recruiters’ efforts.
Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, the commander of Army recruiting, has expressed cautious optimism in recent weeks that the active-duty Army could still eke out its annual enlistment goal, especially with 1,200 additional recruiters on the street for the peak summer months.
The Army met its monthly recruiting goal in June, the first time in five months, and is expected to exceed its July quota, recruiting officials say. But through June, the active-duty Army had enlisted only 47,121 recruits of its overall goal of 80,000, a rate that leaves too great a gap to make up, officials said.
The NY Times still seems willing to play along that the June goal was actually met, but you and I know what happened there. With all of our military committment, it is not off the wall to wonder if recruiting shortfalls be the end of the ban on open homosexuality in the military? The SLDN thinks so:
The United States military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits by lifting its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on gay personnel, new data released today by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) shows. The analysis of year 2000 census data, conducted by Gary J. Gates, senior research fellow at the Williams Project, UCLA School of Law, indicates the armed forces could significantly close its recruiting gap — or even eliminate it — by welcoming openly gay troops to the services.
“The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law hangs like a ‘Gays Not Welcome’ sign outside the Pentagon’s front door,” said Sharra E. Greer, director of law and policy for SLDN. “Thousands of lesbian and gay Americans are ready to answer our nation’s call to service, but are turned away because of federally sanctioned discrimination. Now, more than ever, our country needs the talent of these patriotic Americans. We can make our homeland more secure by repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ once and for all.”
Sunday’s New York Times reported that Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army’s top personnel officer, predicted in testimony before Congress that the Army would miss its recruiting goal for the year. The shortfall, the Times reported, would include “the active-duty Army, as well as the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.” The Army has also suggested raising the maximum age for enlistment to 42. The Army has not missed its enlistment quota since 1999.
We shall see.
Stormy70
Thank you, Clinton, for such a dumb policy. Yet, I do know gays that have served, just not openly, and they make good soldiers. This policy should be changed to allow gays to serve in the military, as long as no feel-good social-type experiments are allowed in. Gays can prove themselves as productive soldiers on the same playing field as straights, with no quotas or silly moddle coddling along the way.
Jill
Oh, I’m sure by next week the Pentagon will be saying that Lt. Gen. Hagenbeck was “mistaken” in his testimony and that the Armed Forces have already made their quotas for the year.
Steve
Another idea we might thoughtfully consider implementing sometime in a more tolerant future would be not firing Arabic translators and such because they happen to be gay. I don’t know if America is ready for this radical idea yet, but it seems like it might help.
ppGaz
Uh, they already do. The whole point of the policy was to let them serve. Get a clue.
neil
The policy is not to allow gays in the military. The policy is simply to make it illegal to find out if someone is gay, if they are in the military, because if you do then you can kick them out.
The officer, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, said in testimony to the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee on Tuesday that an improving economy, competition from private industry and an increasing number of parents who are less supportive of military service meant that the active-duty Army, as well as the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, would fall short of their annual quotas.
It seems like they are missing a big one. I hope they are aware of it below the PR level…
ppGaz
Hard to believe that there are still people who don’t know the history here. Of course, I often underestimate some of the posters around here. DADT is not a Clinton construct, it is a construct basically forced by “compromisers” who feared Clinton’s attempted lifiting of the gay ban, but realized that continuing the old ban was probably not workable either. They caved to pressure from those who insisted (wrongly then, and now) that letting gays serve openly would destroy the military and harm readiness.
From the web:
Birkel
What’s that? The Army missed its recruiting goal in 1998?
And the world didn’t end?
And then form 1999 ’til 2004 the goals were met?
Golly, it’s like there’s no historical perspective or something.
ppGaz
That’s right, Brickhead. But, I seem to recall, we hadn’t declared a state of perpetual war in 1998, either.
Dya think that might have some relevance here?
Sojourner
What a funny girl you are.
Sojourner
Yep. Try it. You might like it.
Stormy70
Birkel – historical prospective is not allowed here, it might contradict the lastest bout of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
ppGaz – I meant serve openly, I know they serve now. If you read my post you would notice that I mention that I know several gay soldiers. As to perpetual war, the terrorists keep blowing people up all over the world, because we have not submitted to their Islamic state ideas. I hope we wage war until they are all dead, and their support dries up. I know you lefties don’t like it when we bring up 9/11, but this is the spark that turned America into a war footing.
Use the clue bat on yourself, please. I’ve yet to see a plan for winning the War on Terror by any prominent Democrats, so until then I will support the party that wants to go out and get the terrorists where they live. Not the party that wants to be on the defensive, and sit here like sitting ducks.
Sojourner
Refresh my memory. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Stormy70
It is not a reactionary war, I think this is where the differences come in between Dems and Reps. Iraq is a strategic country to invade because it is located in the middle of terrorist sponsoring regimes. Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are paying close attention to all the US military hardware in Iraq. It also proved we would invade and replace a terrorist coddling regime in the Middle East. It proved we are not a paper tiger, and they should respect our strength. It is shaking things up in a part of the world that needs Democratic change so their people will have hope for a better life for them and their children. Why should they be condemned to living under tyrants all their lives. We are proving that America’s days of getting along with tyrants for stability’s sake is over. This will take decades, and will come about slowly. What is the Dem’s ideas for changing the face of the Middle East? Really, what would you do to keep America safe?
ppGaz
ppGaz – I meant serve openly, I know they serve now. If you read my post you would notice that I mention that I know several gay soldiers. As to perpetual war, the terrorists keep blowing people up all over the world, because we have not submitted to their Islamic state ideas. I hope we wage war until they are all dead, and their support dries up. I know you lefties don’t like it
.
I’ve seen fancy evasion and subject-changing before, but this is a really fine example, Storm. You could teach seminars.
I responded to your (either misguided, or misstated) blurb about gays in the military, and now you are talking about “going out and getting terrorists.”
WTF? No wonder nobody talks to you any more.
As for “getting terrorists”, yes we seem to have gotten a lot of them. We got them Iraq en masse now, in Asia, in Europe ……. we got em all over. Keep up the good work.
jg
The terrorists goal has historically been to drive an occupier out of the terrorists homeland. Occupying Iraq stops terrorism?
Thats not the goal of terrorism. Thats what the wingnuts say so they can continue to believe Bush’s bullshit about why we invaded. ‘They hate us for our freedom’. Its so stupid.
Why do wingnuts believe that arabs are going to roll over and die just because we have tanks and aren’t afraid to use them? Thy’re just as tough a people as we are and we wouldn’t roll over for an invader and we wouldn’t be intimidated by an aggressor. Why do you think Arabs are pussies?
Stormy70
Still waiting for the opposition to everything party to come up with a better idea.
Osama Bin Laden spelled out his reasons for declaring war on the US in the nineties, and establishing an Islamic state in its place. He hated the Western ideals such as our culture of liberty for women and gay people. I guess we are supposed to lie back and give into what terrorists want? You sound like an appeaser, and you would condemn millions to that kind of Islamic facism, just so we do nothing to piss off terrorists. Whatever, people, whatever. You going to give up your freedom, so Osama will be happy? What an asinine “reality-based” view.
Andrei
I’m just waiting to hear when Stormy signs up for the reserves.
But I can’t pass up this nugget:
Yeah… all those people willing to blow themselves up for their cause are really going to be scared shitless when you threaten to kill them with bombs. That’ll teach ’em!
Sojourner
And you still believe this shit?
Defense Guy
I don’t really care if those that are willing to blow themselves up are scared shitless when we threaten to kill them with bombs, so long as we kill them before they can carry out their acts of murder. Considering that this suicide tactic has been in play for a lot longer than we have been in Iraq or Afghanistan, what solution do you have for stopping it?
Andrei
WHAT?!?!
Now I’m REALLY laughing. You honestly can’t believe the crap that comes out of your mouth Stormy, can you? Since when are gay people accepted in this country legally? They can’t even friggin’ get married or serve their country openly!
Stormy, let me introduce you to little bill called The Patriot Act that has begun the process of taking away your freedom. Or let’s go discuss the Christian right agenda which wants to legislate how people can behave.
You truly are an idiot.
I was going to attempt to try and provide an answer to what other options we had other than waging a pre-emptive in Iraq, but I think I’ll go spend my day watching Jon Stewart.
jg
Bin Laden wanted the US to get its troops out of Saudi Arabia. Nothing more needs to be said. Don’t add compexity to this issue, its very simple. He went to Afghanistan to drive the Soviets out of Arab lands and he wants us out of Arab lands. what he would like to do to the place after we are gone is not relevant to the war on terror.
Are you saying that because the opposition hasn’t put forth an idea that Bush’s idea is a good one? Can’t it still be a monumentally stupid thing to do? Shouldn’t he have a good plan not just the only one? Can’t you recognize the futility of the idea without needing a competing idea to point it out for you?
Stormy70
Andrei – still always adding to the debate in your hyperbolic ways. Ho Hum.
When’s the last time the government pushed a wall over on a gay person, or shot women in the sports arenas for working or showing their face? Never. This is why Americans cannot trust a raving lefty to protect them from terrorists. The left is too busy worrying about the pesky Presbyterians, instead of terrorists who will not hesitate to kill us all.
I do not believe you were going to try and attempt to answer the question, because you have no answer that is grounded in reality. You just go on the attack because it makes you feel superior to say everyone on the right is wrong and an idiot. Why do you always resort to personal attacks if you have actual arguments instead? Your “intelligence” once again overwhelms me.
jg
A right winger is saying that about a liberal. Classic.
ppGaz
Stormy, you can sit there and do the Rush Limbaugh imitation all day, that doesn’t change the reality.
The policy isn’t working. Public support for it continues to fall, and will fall to the point where your government, which is already basically paralyzed, becomes completely unable to do anything because uproar over that policy will reach the level of din. Gallup today reports that 51% of respondents think that your government misprepresented the reasons for the war. A majority or near majority, depending on which poll you look at, no longer think that the war is effective in the so-called War on Terror.
Where do you think this is heading? Do you really think you can sit here and keep saying the same things and it will all somehow just magically get better? Terrorism has now fully metastasized throughout the world, and there appears to be no slowing that process down.
Where do you think all of this is heading?
I’m tired of the one-note song you people keep singing, as if the real world didn’t exist. “New ideas” aren’t going to get onto the table until the stupid jerks running the country now admit that the “old ideas” might — just might — not hold all the answers. Rather than being open to criticism, they attempt to bludgeon and crush all criticism with an iron fist. Don’t fucking preach to me about ideas.
Defense Guy
Don’t worry, no one expects the Democrats have any ideas, or to win elections. You keep on being the “you’re doing it wrong party”, and the Republicans can keep on running the war. At this point in history, that seems like the only sane solution, as the leadership in your party can’t lead.
DecidedFenceSitter
Neither can yours. It can command, but it does not lead.
Active stupid versus passive stupid.
Defense Guy
The country won’t stand for passive stupid while the carnage continues. The war will probably get wider before it ends, if it ever does.
albedo
Let’s look at the conservative meme that “liberals/democrats have no ideas” for a second, and for argument’s sake, let’s say it’s completely true. How does it defend, excuse, or in any way address what we’re doing in Iraq? Or dismantling Social Security? Or any of the other nine million terrible ideas some Deputy Undersecretary of Whoosis has at the administration? It doesn’t. It is the lamest defense imaginable of the policies of a party that currently controls all three branches of government.
I mean, sorry, but the democratic party is, perforce, currently an opposition party. You guys get to run the show, so you also get to take the heat when your “ideas” are complete shit.
croatoan
You mean like the new Islamic Republic of Iraq?
Defense Guy
Perhaps it’s not a defense, but rather a request for alternatives. Maybe you should be less cynical and offer up some solutions instead of just criticism.
You are sorry, that much you got right.
albedo
HA! It’s a “request for alternatives.” That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all week. Yeah, the Bush administration and you modern conservatives are definitely big on the marketplace of ideas and other people’s opinions.
Sowwy you tough guys can’t take the criticism. Maybe if you got something right every once in a while…
ppGaz
More of the same. Like I said, the public is buying less and less of the bullshit.
Keep on running the war? You sound like you are running a tire store. No, the war will be run the way the public wants it run, in the long run. And right now, the capacity of the public to swallow the kool-aid is running thin.
Republicans are running the country. It’s incumbent upon them to supply the ideas. The “ideas” in place now, which are nothing but a grandiose experiment with no basis in historical, or even current, facts, have lost their luster.
You have fucked it up. Whenever you get tired of browbeating the opposition, and paying attention to the business you were hired to take care of, let us know.
How’s that “last throes” marketing campaign coming?
albedo
Incidentally, if I were running the show, I might be inclined to spend a bit less time, money and manpower on fanciful nation-building experiments and a bit more on securing our borders, ports, and skies.
Now, back to criticizing…
Defense Guy
albedo calls for isolationism, which at least is an idea. Congratulations, now convince the politicians to follow suit and maybe you won’t lose more seats in Congress next year. It’s not a good idea, but at least it’s an idea.
ppGaz, I am sure when it doesn’t work out the way you want it to in 2006 and 2008, you will be able to come up with all sorts of justifications for why, none of which will be grounded in reality or contain any sort of personal responsibility to it.
Blame, blame, blame and then pretend that everyone thinks as you do. It’s been working wonders for you so far, so keep at it.
DecidedFenceSitter
Simply, focus on the homeland security. Secure out ports. Don’t hand out Visa’s like candy. Institute sane screen procedures at entry and exit points.
And yes, that last sentence means racial profiling. I may not like it, but the majority of the enemy is going to come from a particular ethnic reaction.
But mostly, stop acting like an emotionally punch drunk hysteric. Stop. Think. Plan.
People die.
43,000 people died in the U.S. due to car accidents. Yet, we do not rail against that. Why? We deem it an acceptiable risk.
We deem 3,000 people dying due to an attack unacceptiable because we do not expect it.
Terrorism tries to provoke a reaction, to cause fear. OBL has succeeded in that plan, at least for the majority of the U.S.
If I recall correctly, in the Art of War, you do not win a war by defeating the enemy. You win the war by convincing he is defeated. By attacking where he is unassailable. By striking where he “knows” he cannot be touched.
That was what 9/11 was. It was an attack against that which we considered invincible, against all sense. Similar to Pearl Harbor in that regard.
In all honesty, I would have carried out the attack against Afghanistan. We had support, we had clear targets and goals. Iraq? Even while I supported the war, mainly for humanitarian reasons, I was hoping that Bush’s team had a plan for the aftermath. And it appears that if they did, it was pitiful and insufficient.
In summary, to defend against the tactic of terrorism?
I would secure our borders, that includes ports, airports, and physical, as best as I could.
I would prosecute, with good intel, terrorism suspects.
If good intel is unavailable, I would begin to engage in what is needed to make it available.
I would take to the American people, and begin the emotional and mental work to let them know this is not easy, this will not be quick, and that there will be sacrifices. Let them know that there will be civilian casualities, as there are some costs to our freedom that I will not pay.
I would reevaluate our military structure for the fifth or fourth generation of warfare; versus the current third generation of warfare – large shiny toys. This is the most speculative of functions since it involves the most guesswork at what the next major conflict style will be after individual global actors.
I would cease allies of convenince, for example, Uzbekistan. This is the least realpolitik of my options, IMO, however, necessary for my own need to look myself in a mirror.
And you know what? Most if not all of these won’t happen because they involve sacrificing too many sacred cows, they involve too much work. They aren’t easy solutions like checking the bags at the train station. They aren’t “happy” solutions that gurantee protection.
But you know what? In a open society, you are vulnerable. Freedom provides opprotunity for that freedom to be abused. However, for me, that is worth it. It’s why I support gun rights, nearly unfettered, it’s why I support free speech, nearly unfettered, it’s why I support a great many things that I do. Because freedom itself it worth the cost that it entails.
albedo
“albedo calls for isolationism, which at least is an idea. Congratulations, now convince the politicians to follow suit and maybe you won’t lose more seats in Congress next year. It’s not a good idea, but at least it’s an idea.”
Don’t put words in my mouth, Jack. I’m all for being shocking and awesome where there’s actual terrorists, or real WMDs, concerned. Just not so huge on spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives on deposing every tinhorn despot with oil and convenient parking that Doug Feith and his band of rogues has a hard-on for.
Also, I wouldn’t characterize strengthening our borders and port space as “isolationist.” Is “self-preservationist” a word?
Defense Guy
Another vote for isolationism. What will you tell our allies when they keep getting hit? Too bad, so sad, only our freedoms and security are worthy of consideration?
Remind yourself of the phrase that ‘all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’
Defense Guy
albedo
Why not save us all a lot of time and tell us which ‘tinpot dictators’ are worth shutting down. It would be handy to know which people we can care about without upsetting the left.
Sojourner
And it’s working really well, isn’t it!
Sojourner
I see. As long as you win elections, it’s okay to trash the country. What a patriot.
Defense Guy
You don’t see, but thanks for trying.
Steve
Here is a wild idea from the left. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Let’s get him already.
Another Jeff
“Here is a wild idea from the left. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Let’s get him already.”
This from the same fucking morons who were whining and crying as early as November 2001 that Afghanistan was a “quagmire”.
Mike
“Sojourner Says:
I don’t really care if those that are willing to blow themselves up are scared shitless when we threaten to kill them with bombs, so long as we kill them before they can carry out their acts of murder.
And it’s working really well, isn’t it! ”
We just need to up our scale a bit.
jg
Who called Afghanistan a quagmire? I never heard or read that. How is this anything but a dodge?
Rick
…whining and crying as early as November 2001 that Afghanistan was a “quagmire”.
Well, those experts did recount how it was the boneyard of empires, and the brutal winter was coming on.
And Baghdad was going to be a re-run of Stalingrad, with thousands upon thousands of Murikan casualties, and a civilian holocaust.
Their expertise *must* be heeded, always.
Cordially…
albedo
“Why not save us all a lot of time and tell us which ‘tinpot dictators’ are worth shutting down. It would be handy to know which people we can care about without upsetting the left.”
How about the ones with WMDs or close to it? Iran immediately springs to mind as a much worthier use of our military than Iraq – particularly since they sponsor Hezbollah and others. As far as N. Korea goes, it’s received wisdom that their troop strength and nuclear capability render them unassailable, but it would bolster our saber-rattling towards them if we weren’t totally bogged down in Iraq.
Also, how about finding good ol’ OBL? What happened with that? Oh, right…Bush isn’t that concerned.
Finally, I say again, secure our borders and ports. That should be priority number one. Our government’s current policy of “fighting them over there,” while leaving thousands of border miles unsecured is criminally negligent, not to mention retarded on its face. I suspect if you weren’t in lockstep with this administration, you’d agree with me on that.
On the subject, I don’t speak for the “left.” I speak for myself. I think the left has done a pretty piss-poor job as it goes as well. It’s just that the right are the ones presently in charge.
Rick
jg,
The NYT’s R.W. “Johnny” Apple, for one.
Cordially…
jg
Well if it was one guy in the NYT then it clearly was a platform of the left. Since I was very pro-Bush at that time I can’t speak to what the left was saying but I’m fairly certain no one was against going into Afghanistan. We weren’t even doing the most fighting. We were support. Bush said we would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them (except if its Pakistan) and we all yelled hooha go get ’em. Maybe the goatee and ponytail crowd was upset but I think its obvious no one really cares what they think. They certainly don’t represent the anti Iraq war movement now. They’re in there but they aren’t representative.
Sojourner
Ah, we’re invading London next! Great idea.
Jess
I think many of you were too harsh on Stormy. At least she was willing to stick her neck out and take a stand on what she believed was right, rather than just bitching about what everybody else was doing wrong. If others were more willing to do that, we might actually have some productive discussions that don’t just go around in circles repeating the same insults and talking points.
One issue that nobody seems to be taking a position on is whether our first priority should be taking care of our own interests or promoting human rights in other countries. Of course it’s lovely when we can do both, and in the long run I think it’s in our own best interests not to screw others over too badly, but if we have to choose one or the other, which should it be? It seems like whenever one side points out how badly we’ve messed things up for other countries, the other side argues that it was necessary to defend American interests (or corporations, in many cases). Then when someone argues that our invasion of Iraq is a waste of American lives and resources, someone else says we had to save the Iraqui people from SH. Let’s get a bit of consistency happening here.
Defense Guy
It has been said that the best way to secure your own liberty is to ensure it for your neighbors. I tend to agree, so the two issues are not mutually exclusive, IMO.
Michael Murry
I served for eighteen months in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972) and I know the devolving stages of an untenable quagmire when I see one. Actually, I see two quagmires coming unraveled right now: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. That old implacable bugaboo, The Law of Diminishing Returns, has indeed set in with a vengeance. No benefit but only accelerating costs equals either a timely, well-managed withdrawal or military debacle and national humiliation. In Vietnam, a lack of willingness to plan for the former led to brutal reality supplying the latter.
The United States has no money in the bank to pay for these unnecessary wars of choice and indeed has come perilously close to indenturing itself to foreign lenders for a generation. With no new money on the horizon, no new troops available from either domestic or foreign sources, and a steady, grinding attrition eating away at our disintegrating ground forces, the troops will come home at any rate: either (1) dead or wounded, as they come home now, or (2) alive and serviceable for future security needs. “Staying the Curse” sloganeering can no longer pass for acceptable national policy and the American regime (currently under Republican mismanagement) knows it.
Look for the inevitable Orwellian euphemsisms designed to mask the necessary military withdrawal. With the ludicrous “war on terror” propaganda line now “inoperative” (as the Nixon gang like to put it) we now hear of the “struggle against violent extremism.” Look soon for Bush hagiographer Bob Woodward to retitle his credulous “Bush at War” to something like “Bush at Struggle.” The Orwellian rewriting of history has begun in earnest, fellow Crimestoppers, and it would prove amusing to watch, like the movie “Groundhog Day,” if I hadn’t already seen and heard it all so many times before.
W.B. Reeves
Spot on.
Rick
jg,
So Google “Afghanistan quagmire.” I picked the Apple-turd off the dungheap. As I said, “for one.”
So search out the others yourself. As Mr. Murry proves, you lefties are still fighting the Vietnam syndrome. At least our military, at worst, if fighting the last war. You darlings aren’t quite that up-to-date.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
james richardson
stormy70:
all the reasons you gave for going into Iraq are great, except, they’re not the reasons we were told we were going into iraq for. all those reasons turned out to be false.
as for a democractic plan to fight the war on terror, and in iraq, we do have one. get rid of the bush administration. this is b eing mis-handled from the top down. repeated information by the people in the know was ignored by the administration.
we have a plan, and removing the bush administration is where it begins.
p.s. ease up on the kool-aid will ya?