Baghdad Burning

[Vaevictis]

Baghdad Burning (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) is a blog by a female -- college educated -- secular Iraqi. She's no religious extremist, and is not by any means vociferously anti-American.

You guys wonder why I am concerned about us making enemies? Read on...




Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Difficult Days...
They've been bombing houses in Tikrit and other areas! Unbelievable… I'm so angry it makes me want to break something!!!! What the hell is going on?! What do the Americans think Tikrit is?! Some sort of city of monsters or beasts? The people there are simple people. Most of them make a living off of their land and their livestock- the rest are teachers, professors and merchants- they have lives and families… Tikrit is nothing more than a bunch of low buildings and a palace that was as inaccessible to the Tikritis as it was to everyone else!

People in Al Awja suffered as much as anyone, if not more- they weren't all related to Saddam and even those who were, suffered under his direct relatives. Granted, his bodyguards and others close to him were from Tikrit, but they aren't currently in Tikrit- the majority have struck up deals with the CPA and are bargaining for their safety and the safety of their families with information. The people currently in Tikrit are just ordinary people whose homes and children are as precious to them as American homes and children are precious to Americans! This is contemptible and everyone thinks so- Sunnis and Shi'a alike are shaking their heads incredulously.

And NO- I'm not Tikriti- I'm not even from the 'triangle'- but I know simple, decent people who ARE from there and just the thought that this is being done is so outrageous it makes me want to scream. How can that *** of a president say things are getting better in Iraq when his troops have stooped to destroying homes?! Is that a sign that things are getting better? When you destroy someone's home and detain their family, why would they want to go on with life? Why wouldn't they want to lob a bomb at some 19-year-old soldier from Missouri?!

The troops were pushing women and children shivering with fear out the door in the middle of the night. What do you think these children think to themselves- being dragged out of their homes, having their possessions and houses damaged and burned?! Who do you think is creating the 'terrorists'?!! Do you think these kids think to themselves, "Oh well- we learned our lesson. That's that. Yay troops!" It's like a vicious, moronic circle and people are outraged…



Monday, September 29, 2003

...
Shortly after the occupation, Jay Garner began meeting with the prominent members of Iraqi society- businessmen, religious leaders, academicians and sheikhs. The sheikhs were important because each sheikh basically had influence over hundreds, if not thousands, of ‘family’. The prominent sheikhs from all over Iraq were brought together in a huge conference of sorts. They sat gathered, staring at the representative of the occupation forces who, I think, was British and sat speaking in broken, awkward Arabic. He told the sheikhs that Garner and friends really needed their help to build a democratic Iraq. They were powerful, influential people- they could contribute a lot to society.

...
So they came to the meeting, wary but willing to listen. Many of them rose to speak. They told the representative right away that the Americans and British were occupiers- that was undeniable, but they were willing to help if it would move the country forward. Their one stipulation was the following: that they be given a timetable that gave a general idea of when the occupation forces would pull out of Iraq.

They told the representative that they couldn’t go back to their ‘3shayir’, or tribes, asking them to ‘please cooperate with the Americans although they killed your families, raided your homes, and detained your sons’ without some promise that, should security prevail, there would be prompt elections and a withdrawal of occupation forces.

Some of them also wanted to contribute politically. They had influence, power and connections… they wanted to be useful in some way. The representative frowned, fumbled and told them that there was no way he was going to promise a withdrawal of occupation forces. They would be in Iraq ‘as long as they were needed’… that might be two years, that might be five years and it might be ten years. There were going to be no promises… there certainly was no ‘timetable’ and the sheikhs had no say in what was going on- they could simply consent.

The whole group, in a storm of indignation and helplessness, rose to leave the meeting. They left the representative looking frustrated and foolish, frowning at the diminishing mass in front of him. When asked to comment on how the meeting went, he smiled, waved a hand and replied, “No comment.” When one of the prominent sheikhs was asked how the meeting went, he angrily said that it wasn’t a conference- they had gathered up the sheikhs to ‘give them orders’ without a willingness to listen to the other side of the story or even to compromise… the representative thought he was talking to his own private army- not the pillars of tribal society in Iraq.

Apparently, the sheikhs were blacklisted because, of late, their houses are being targeted. They are raided in the middle of the night with armored cars, troops and helicopters. The sheikh and his immediate family members are pushed to the ground with a booted foot and held there at gunpoint. The house is searched and often looted and the sheikh and his sons are dragged off with hands behind their backs and bags covering their heads. The whole family is left outraged and incredulous: the most respected member of the tribe is being imprisoned for no particular reason except that they may need him for questioning. In many cases, the sheikh is returned a few days later with an ‘apology’, only to be raided and detained once more!

I would think that publicly humiliating and detaining respected members of society like sheikhs and religious leaders would contribute more to throttling democracy than ‘cousins marrying cousins’. Many of the attacks against the occupying forces are acts of revenge for assaulted family members, or people who were killed during raids, demonstrations or checkpoints. But the author fails to mention that, of course.



Friday, April 30, 2004

Those Pictures...
The pictures are horrific. I felt a multitude of things as I saw them... the most prominent feeling was rage, of course. I had this incredible desire to break something- like that would make things somehow better or ease the anger and humiliation. We’ve been hearing terrible stories about Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad for a while now, but those pictures somehow spoke like no words could.


Seeing those naked, helpless, hooded men was like being slapped in the face with an ice cold hand. I felt ashamed looking at them- like I was seeing something I shouldn’t be seeing and all I could think was, “I might know one of those faceless men...” I might have passed him in the street or worked with him. I might have bought groceries from one of them or sat through a lecture they gave in college... any of them might be a teacher, gas station attendant or engineer... any one of them might be a father or grandfather... each and every one of them is a son and possibly a brother. And people wonder at what happened in Falloojeh a few weeks ago when those Americans were killed and dragged through the streets...

All anyone can talk about today are those pictures... those terrible pictures. There is so much rage and frustration. I know the dozens of emails I’m going to get claiming that this is an ‘isolated incident’ and that they are ‘ashamed of the people who did this’ but does it matter? What about those people in Abu Ghraib? What about their families and the lives that have been forever damaged by the experience in Abu Ghraib? I know the messages that I’m going to get- the ones that say, “But this happened under Saddam...” Like somehow, that makes what happens now OK... like whatever was suffered in the past should make any mass graves, detentions and torture only minor inconveniences now. I keep thinking of M. and how she was 'lucky' indeed. And you know what? You won't hear half of the atrocities and stories because Iraqis are proud, indignant people and sexual abuse is not a subject anyone is willing to come forward with. The atrocities in Abu Ghraib and other places will be hidden away and buried under all the other dirt the occupation brought with it...



Friday, May 07, 2004

Just Go...
People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.

Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places… seeing the pictures simply made it all more real and tangible somehow. American and British politicians have the audacity to come on television with words like, "True the people in Abu Ghraib are criminals, but…" Everyone here in Iraq knows that there are thousands of innocent people detained. Some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others were detained 'under suspicion'. In the New Iraq, it's "guilty until proven innocent by some miracle of God".

People are so angry. There’s no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can’t explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison.

There was a time when people here felt sorry for the troops. No matter what one's attitude was towards the occupation, there were moments of pity towards the troops, regardless of their nationality. We would see them suffering the Iraqi sun, obviously wishing they were somewhere else and somehow, that vulnerability made them seem less monstrous and more human. That time has passed. People look at troops now and see the pictures of Abu Ghraib… and we burn with shame and anger and frustration at not being able to do something. Now that the world knows that the torture has been going on since the very beginning, do people finally understand what happened in Falloojeh?



Saturday, May 15, 2004

Last Few Days...
That video of Nick Berg is beyond horrible. I haven't been able to watch it whole. It makes me sick to my stomach and I can hardly believe it happened. His family must be devastated and I can't even imagine what they must have felt. With all of this going on- first Abu Ghraib and now this, I haven't felt like writing anything.
...

I was sick to my stomach when I first saw the video on some news channel and stood petrified, watching the screen and praying that they wouldn't show it whole because for some reason, I couldn't take my eyes off of it. I feel horrible. Was I shocked? Was I surprised? Hardly. We've been expecting this since the first pictures of the torture of Iraqi prisoners broke out. There's a certain rage in many people that is frightening. There's a certain hunger and need for revenge that lame apologies from Bush and surprise visits from Rumsfeld won't appease.



Friday, November 25, 2005
...
I try to imagine what would happen to me, personally, should this occur. How long would it take for the need for revenge to settle in? How long would it take to be recruited by someone who looks for people who have nothing to lose? People who lost it all to one blow. What I think the world doesn’t understand is that people don’t become suicide bombers because- like the world is told- they get seventy or however many virgins in paradise. People become suicide bombers because it is a vengeful end to a life no longer worth living- a life probably violently stripped of its humanity by a local terrorist- or a foreign soldier.

I hate suicide bombers. I hate the way my heart beats chaotically every time I pass by a suspicious-looking car- and every car looks suspicious these days. I hate the way Sunni mosques and Shia mosques are being targeted right and left. I hate seeing the bodies pile up in hospitals, teeth clenched in pain, wailing men and women…

But I completely understand how people get there.

One victim was holding his daughter. "The gunmen told the girl to move then shot the father," said a relative.

Would anyone be surprised if the abovementioned daughter grew up with a hate so vicious and a need for revenge so large, it dominated everything else in her life?



Friday, November 18, 2005
...
The whole world heard about the one in Jadriya, recently raided by the Americans. Jadriya was once one of the best areas in Baghdad. It's an area on the river and is special in that it's greener, and cleaner, than most areas. Baghdads largest university, Baghdad University, is located in Jadriya (with a campus in another area). Jadriya had some of the best shops and restaurants- not to mention some of Baghdad's most elegant homes...… and apparently, now, a torture house.

We hear constantly about these torture dungeons. Right after the war, certain areas became infamous for them. The world knows them as 'torture houses' for the obvious reasons- they were once ordinary homes, and now they've become torture centers for suspects and innocents alike. The Iraqi government conveniently calls them 'detention centers' and the Iraqi Ministry of Interior oversees and funds them.
...
These torture houses have existed since the beginning of the occupation. While it is generally known that SCIRI is behind them, other religious parties are not innocent. The Americans know they exist- why the sudden shock and outrage? This is hardly news for Americans in the Green Zone. The timing is quite interesting- it shouldn't matter that this raid came immediately after the whole white phosphorous story came out, but the Pentagon and American military have proven to be the ultimate masters of diversion.

Only last year in an area called Ghazaliya, one such house was discovered. It was on a smaller scale though. My cousin lives in Ghazaliya and he said that when the Americans got inside, they found several corpses and a man hanging from the ceiling on a makeshift noose. The neighbors had tried to get the Americans to check the house for months- no one bothered. They finally raided it because they got information from someone in the area that it was an insurgents hiding place. I read once that in New York, if a woman is being raped, she should scream 'fire' instead of 'rape' because no one would come to save her if she was screaming 'rape'. That's the way it is with Iraqi torture houses- the only way they'll check it is if you tell them it's a terrorist cell.

[Tailwind]

Baghdad Burning (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) is a blog by a female -- college educated -- secular Iraqi. She's no religious extremist, and is not by any means vociferously anti-American.

You guys wonder why I am concerned about us making enemies? Read on...
Riiight. Uh Uh. I'm not buying that.

[SoonerBorn68]

I give up. We're all evil Americans who just want to blow up anything that moves--or shoot poor Iraqi women and children in the head--or rape them--or all three at the same time.

We are occupiers--not liberators. It's all in the self interest of our greedy, wanton thirst for oil and world domination.

:rolleyes:

Saddam had a better grasp of the situation with these people. Apparently he understood they could not handle personal freedom and the sacrifices it would entail to acheive it. 100K Iraqis dying a year on Hussein's folly was enough to put down any rebellion and keep the peace.

I wonder if this college educated bitch ever read the Diary Of Anne Frank?

Keep posting this drivel...use your right of free speech. Apparently some Iraqis don't want to borrow it.

[SoonerBorn68]

Do you have some sort of twist, perverted fantasy about torture? I'm wondering since 90% of your posts are about it.

[Sooner in Tampa]

For you to make the statment "She's no religious extremist, and is not by any means vociferously anti-American." is either a lie or you just didn't comprehend it. She is VERY anti-American...she a makes several statements against Bush and the Troops.

So...move along.

[Vaevictis]

For you to make the statment "She's no religious extremist, and is not by any means vociferously anti-American." is either a lie or you just didn't comprehend it.

I highlighted the keyword for you there.

She's one of those that seems to have been convincable either way. She was not, and is not, tied to "hatred of America," at least not from what I've read. But we've lost her by our actions, or by our inactions.

Someone asked me at one point (paraphrased), "Do you have any evidence of people in Iraq reacting like you think they are reacting to Abu Ghraib, etc?" (wrt my concern that our policies might be creating more enemies). Well, here's some.

[etouffee]

So I guess the point is that because she's an educated Iraqi and living in Iraq, her opinions are the final word on the matter.

I guess that makes sense-- I would definitely tell a foreigner to pick any ONE blog by an educated American and regard it as reliably representative of the state of things in America. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/cool.gif


by the way, Happy 2000th Post To Me!!!!!! http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/smily955.gif

[Harry Beanbag]

Was I shocked? Was I surprised? Hardly. We've been expecting this since the first pictures of the torture of Iraqi prisoners broke out. There's a certain rage in many people that is frightening. There's a certain hunger and need for revenge that lame apologies from Bush and surprise visits from Rumsfeld won't appease.


Yeah, she definitely doesn't have an agenda with statements like this. :rolleyes:

I can definitely see how seeing some of your countrymen, who you would probably want to kill anyway if you actually knew them, with dogs barking at them would make you run out and saw an innocent American's head off. These Bush/America haters are void of all logic.

[Okla-homey]

I don't even think the blog is legit. Its too polished.

[Vaevictis]

We are occupiers--not liberators.

I hate to break it to you, but that is the correct legal term for our status in Iraq.

(Which is not to say that the two terms are mutually exclusive.)

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, she definitely doesn't have an agenda with statements like this. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you definately don't have an agenda with the out of context quotes like this. :rolleyes:

Note the parts you cut out, which modify the tone of what you ended up posting:



That video of Nick Berg is beyond horrible. I haven't been able to watch it whole. It makes me sick to my stomach and I can hardly believe it happened. His family must be devastated and I can't even imagine what they must have felt.
...

I was sick to my stomach when I first saw the video on some news channel and stood petrified, watching the screen and praying that they wouldn't show it whole because for some reason, I couldn't take my eyes off of it. I feel horrible.

[SoonerBorn68]

His family must be devastated and I can't even imagine what they must have felt.

Yeah, poppa Berg was so devistated he decided he took up sides with the enemy.

...and to be a liberator you must occupy the territory you wish to free. Something tells me you haven't cracked open a history book since high school.

[SoonerBorn68]

V, what's you position about arming the Japanese to thrawt the threat of N. Korea?

This ought to be interesting.

[Vaevictis]

...and to be a liberator you must occupy the territory you wish to free. Something tells me you haven't cracked open a history book since high school.

... so basically what you're saying is, "Uh, I guess we are occupiers after all, but I'll be all snarky to try and distract you from that fact." Awesome.

[Vaevictis]

V, what's you position about arming the Japanese to thrawt the threat of N. Korea?

This ought to be interesting.

If Japan wants to arm themselves in response to that, fine with me. I think they've gotten over their dreams of a pan-Asian empire. I think it might even be a good idea, as I think an armed Japan might make a good speedbump against China's aspirations in the region.

[SoonerBorn68]

No, what I'm saying is that you don't get it. You need to start being more of an independent thinker and not rely on blogs and biased websites.

[SoonerBorn68]

If Japan wants to arm themselves in response to that, fine with me. I think they've gotten over their dreams of a pan-Asian empire. I think it might even be a good idea, as I think an armed Japan might make a good speedbump against China's aspirations in the region.

...and China's just itchin' for a payback from 60 years ago. Why do you think the Chinese are propping up Kim Jong Il? Again, read some history.

[Sooner in Tampa]

That video of Nick Berg is beyond horrible. I haven't been able to watch it whole. It makes me sick to my stomach and I can hardly believe it happened. His family must be devastated and I can't even imagine what they must have felt.
...

I was sick to my stomach when I first saw the video on some news channel and stood petrified, watching the screen and praying that they wouldn't show it whole because for some reason, I couldn't take my eyes off of it. I feel horrible. Well...NO $HIT!!! It is pretty sick to see some dude get his head cut off and that blood curdling scream will never leave my memory either. WTF is the point???? So she has a threshold of how much she can stand...SO WHAT!!!

If you search the blogosphere, I am sure that you will be able to find an Iraqi blog that supports what we are doing.

[Vaevictis]

No, what I'm saying is that you don't get it. You need to start being more of an independent thinker and not rely on blogs and biased websites.

Neat thing about blogs is that, sometimes, they're a primary source. This one purports to be exactly that. (Ho ho! Look at that. Maybe I did learn something in school after all!)

I've been saying for years (yeah, years) that stupid **** that we're doing in Iraq is likely to **** off some of the locals, and might even result in some of them taking up arms against us when they would not have done otherwise.

I find news reports quoting active US generals in Iraq concerned about it. I find blogs from Iraqi's whose reports indicate its happening. And *I* need to start being more of an independent thinker? I think you need to stop being such a delusional one.


...and China's just itchin' for a payback from 60 years ago. Why do you think the Chinese are propping up Kim Jong Il? Again, read some history.

At this point, I'm just a little confused. Are you sarcastically referring to the Japanese -- 60 years ago -- or are you imprecisely referring to Korea 56 years ago?

[SoonerBorn68]

And *I* need to start being more of an independent thinker? I think you need to stop being such a delusional one.

Yes, you...unless you enjoy being a sheep.


At this point, I'm just a little confused. Are you sarcastically referring to the Japanese -- 60 years ago -- or are you imprecisely referring to Korea 56 years ago?

No sarcasm...and no, I'm not talking about the Korean War. This goes back much further. Thanks for trying to correct me on something you have no clue about.

Here's a hint. Take a look at the politics of Japan, China, Korea, & Russia in 1905, 1910, 1931, and 1937.

[SoonerBorn68]

... so basically what you're saying is, "Uh, I guess we are occupiers after all, but I'll be all snarky to try and distract you from that fact." Awesome.

What I'm saying is Sherman's march to the sea & D-Day were occupations...you can't liberate without occupying the enemy's territory. The terrorists are in Iraq, therefore we are in Iraq.

& yeah, I'll be "snarky" with you 'cause you'll never get it...Go ask Grandpa.

[CatHunter]

Tikrit is riddled with insurgents. THAT is why they are doing the PRECISION bombing. When the supply trucks role through there, it is just expected that they will be RPG'd. Is says alot that she isn't even from Tikrit. I have met guys from Tikrit, and they have another story.

[Vaevictis]

No sarcasm...and no, I'm not talking about the Korean War. This goes back much further. Thanks for trying to correct me on something you have no clue about.

Not trying to correct at all. You say 60 years ago, well, the main thing going on 60 years ago was VJ day (well, just under 61 years ago). But then you refer to China and Korea, which was a little more recent. As I say: confusing.

You want to talk about something? Out with it then, I'm not going to spend time divining your intent. Otherwise, I'll just chalk it up to your typical snarky and utterly baseless comments. Moving on...

[Vaevictis]

Tikrit is riddled with insurgents. THAT is why they are doing the PRECISION bombing. When the supply trucks role through there, it is just expected that they will be RPG'd. Is says alot that she isn't even from Tikrit. I have met guys from Tikrit, and they have another story.

Fair enough. Not really my point though.

My point: Between poor messaging and poor decisions, I am concerned our government is making enemies over there that don't need to be made.

Assuming this blog is legitimate (which may not be the case, as Okla-homey reasonably suggests), this blog contains reports which suggest exactly that.

Doesn't have to be on a large scale -- maybe it's only a few of her friends and family. Maybe it is on a large scale. I don't know. Just saying that maybe, just maybe, my concern is warranted.

(some people in the past have suggested otherwise and asked for evidence, so I have endeavored to oblige. This could, in fact, be considered evidence to that effect.)

Why am I concerned about it? Because there are basically two ways to pacify a populace: Brute force and brutality, and convincing them to lay down arms. We're not willing to apply the first for various reasons, and we seem to be doing a somewhat less than ideal job at the second. Until we do one or the other, we're stuck over there with our people dying, and providing ripe recruiting grounds for our enemies.

[CatHunter]

Fair enough. Not really my point though.

My point: Between poor messaging and poor decisions, I am concerned our government is making enemies over there that don't need to be made.

Assuming this blog is legitimate (which may not be the case, as Okla-homey reasonably suggests), this blog contains reports which suggest exactly that.

Doesn't have to be on a large scale -- maybe it's only a few of her friends and family. Maybe it is on a large scale. I don't know. Just saying that maybe, just maybe, my concern is warranted.

(some people in the past have suggested otherwise and asked for evidence, so I have endeavored to oblige. This could, in fact, be considered evidence to that effect.)

One voice behind the veil of a blog is hardley evidence. (no pun intended)

[Vaevictis]

One voice behind the veil of a blog is hardley evidence. (no pun intended)

Again, fair enough. Consider the source, and if you find it lacking, discard it. Up to you.

[etouffee]

ok, let's assume the the blogger (and you) are right: our actions in Iraq are ****ing some people off and causing them to take violent actions against us.

So what?

This isn't remotely surprising, given that we've invaded their country, toppled their dictator, and introduced a form of government that not all of them agree with.

This is not new news. This blogger has not introduced anything resembling a new concept. So what exactly are we supposed to take away from your post? :confused:

[OklahomaTuba]

This is almost funny its so pathetic...


So now that Zarqawi is dead, and because according to Bush and our Iraqi puppets he was behind so much of Iraq's misery- things should get better, right? The car bombs should lessen, the ethnic cleansing will come to a halt, military strikes and sieges will die down… That's what we were promised, wasn't it? That sounds good to me. Now- who do they have to kill to stop the Ministry of Interior death squads, and trigger-happy foreign troops?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Seriously hasn't it got to the point where we recognize that in this area of the world that they don't have a clue how to deal with conflict. She is right in her point that it isn't about 70 virgins...it is about a large group of uneducated and ignorant people fighting in the name of rich and fat religious leaders. No matter what you say, we are never going to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. It will never EVER be stable over there because there will always be someone over there stirring the pot

[OklahomaTuba]

And by "that area of the world" you must mean san francisco, cause that probably where its from.

[Hatfield]

Seriously hasn't it got to the point where we recognize that in this area of the world that they don't have a clue how to deal with conflict. She is right in her point that it isn't about 70 virgins...it is about a large group of uneducated and ignorant people fighting in the name of rich and fat religious leaders. No matter what you say, we are never going to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. It will never EVER be stable over there because there will always be someone over there stirring the pot


why can't you get it that nobody in that area of the world could possibly feel the way portrayed in the blog?

everything always has and always will be the fault of the libz

from san francisco apparently

[JohnnyMack]

why can't you get it that nobody in that area of the world could possibly feel the way portrayed in the blog?

everything always has and always will be the fault of the libz

When I call W, Paladin the Red Staters get mad at me. It's fun to watch.

[Vaevictis]

This isn't remotely surprising, given that we've invaded their country, toppled their dictator, and introduced a form of government that not all of them agree with.

This is not new news. This blogger has not introduced anything resembling a new concept. So what exactly are we supposed to take away from your post? :confused:

In previous threads, I have stated that we are doing things over there in Iraq that we should not be doing -- not necessarily just because they are "bad things" -- but also because they are bad policy. They inflame the local populace against us, making our job harder. And some of these things are not necessary -- they are just coincidental to what we are doing. Being culturally insensitive, that kind of thing.

When I have said these things, there have been people who have essentially said (paraphrased) that nah, nobody's reacting that way over there. It's all honky-dory. Do you know of anyone who is reacting that way?

So, here's (allegedly) an Iraqi over there reporting essentially what I have previously suggested.

That's all.

Long term, I'd like people to realize that the war on terror is not going to be won soley at gunpoint. Long-term victory is going to require a combination of both military action and diplomatic/political action; the first of which people obviously get, and the second of which people seemingly don't, being that they seem to be quite satisfied with our rather poor record on the matter.

It should be noted that (in my opinion) what has transpired has largely been predicted by of the author of Beating International Terrorism (http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Sloan/Sloan.pdf) (1992, revised 2000ish), in which he states:



A final question must be raised: Under what conditions would the public accept the need to engage in a covert preemptive war against terrorism? And it is here that the crucial irony must be considered. After there are sufficient bombings, and other acts of terrorism directed against US citizens and interests at home and abroad, Americans will accept the need for action. But by then it might be too late to consider limited convert or clandestine operations. Rather, there might be clamor to engage in large-scale conventional operations, therby escalating the war against terrorism in the spectrum of conflict. As one observer noted regarding attitudes related to the conduct of armed operations, "It is not yet clear what actions would be taken in implementing a preemptive and retaliatory policy nor is it clear how extensive these actions would be. Some maintain that retaliation can best be accomplished by clandestine agents, but this implies a covert capability that some experts argue is not present, and also does not meet the need to satisfy the public's desire that terrorism be punished."
(....)
This "public desire" can lead to an overreaction. Our lack of a capability within the military/intelligence community for clandestine and covert preemptive operations against the terrorists and their sponsor states will encourage terrorists in even more violent acts, and the possibility of an overreaction to such carnage cannot be ignored; for it is in the national character of the United States to conduct foreign relations and wage war.
(...)
And in doing so the democracy risks fulfilling a goal directly held by terrorists globally -- to become a force to be reckoned with, that by its provocative acts can force a superpower to overreact and create an international state of siege that threatens the existence not only of the democracy but (in this age of the balance of nuclear terror) of the world as we know it.

In short, I am concerned that our recent actions are playing directly into the hands of our enemies.

(fwiw, before anyone attacks the author of that book as being "anti-American" or anything like that, you might want to check out the original publisher)

[picasso]

we could have just made the entire place a parking lot with oil wells.

[OklahomaTuba]

In short, I am concerned that our recent actions are playing directly into the hands of our enemies.

That makes sense I guess. I mean, that must be why the insurgents are killing more Iraqis everyday than US troops.

Its apparent that the Iraqi's themselves dissagree with your analysis, considering they have asked us to stay.

[OklahomaTuba]

why can't you get it that nobody in that area of the world could possibly feel the way portrayed in the blog?

everything always has and always will be the fault of the libz

from san francisco apparently

Well, SF is the best place to parrot the braindead leftist talking point, which are all over this blog.

Another great liberal attempt at making the US look like th bad guy, once again.

[SCOUT]

Why is it that people claim the culture of Iraq is to seek revenge for damage done to a family member? I have heard (ok read it) time and again as a reason why people are taking up arms against the US. It is said that our killing (collateral damage) of Iraqis force them to seek revenge by attacking the US forces.

If this is truly the case, why aren't the Iraqis attacking the terrorists since the majority of Iraqi deaths are caused by them these days? It seems to me that if the honor code is truly a motivating force, there would be even less support for the "insurgents" than there is for the US. Is that the case?

[Vaevictis]

If this is truly the case, why aren't the Iraqis attacking the terrorists since the majority of Iraqi deaths are caused by them these days?

Haven't you been reading about the Sunnis-bombing-Shiite-Mosques-Who-Then-Bomb-Sunni-Mosques-Who-Then-Bomb-Shiite-Mosques-Who-... that's been going around?

Just go search for "sunni shiite retaliation" on Google. Have fun.

[Hatfield]

Well, SF is the best place to parrot the braindead leftist talking point, which are all over this blog.

Another great liberal attempt at making the US look like th bad guy, once again.

so now iraqi citizens that are espouse frustration are thrown into the liberal camp.

awesome.

[Vaevictis]

That makes sense I guess. I mean, that must be why the insurgents are killing more Iraqis everyday than US troops.

So basically, we are utterly incapable of protecting the people we're obliged to protect, and that's supposed to somehow convey that we're large and in charge?

Um, you realize that one of the primary goals of the terrorist is to convince people that the powers that be can't stop them, right?


Its apparent that the Iraqi's themselves dissagree with your analysis, considering they have asked us to stay.

The Iraqi's asked us to stay? You mean the politicos who can't control the country with our forces, much less without them? Shocking.

Of course they asked us to stay. They're the first against the wall if we withdraw before pacification is complete.

[etouffee]

So basically, we are utterly incapable of protecting the people we're obliged to protect, and that's supposed to somehow convey that we're large and in charge?Utterly? No. We're protecting the Iraqis from the insurgents, we're just not doing it as effectively as many think we should.


Um, you realize that one of the primary goals of the terrorist is to convince people that the powers that be can't stop them, right?And given that we keep killing them, and that their leaders write letters to their higher-ups lamenting how badly things are going, and that the Iraqis are turning out for elections and forming a new government and enjoying freedoms the terrorists don't want them to have, it doesn't look like that primary goal is working out all that well, now does it?

[Vaevictis]

Utterly? No. We're protecting the Iraqis from the insurgents, we're just not doing it as effectively as many think we should.

Buddy, weekly bombings and raids by various religious sects resulting in double digit deaths is indistinguishable from "utterly incapable."

Imagine the terrorists setting off a bomb 3-4 times a month, every month, in an Iraq-sized area in the United States, for years. And tell me that it would be distinguishable from "utterly incapable."


And given that we keep killing them, and that their leaders write letters to their higher-ups lamenting how badly things are going, and that the Iraqis are turning out for elections and forming a new government and enjoying freedoms the terrorists don't want them to have, it doesn't look like that primary goal is working out all that well, now does it?

We'll see. You may be right. I hope you're right. Time will tell.

[etouffee]

Buddy, weekly bombings and raids by various religious sects resulting in double digit deaths is indistinguishable from "utterly incapable."I'm sure our men and women in uniform would be heartened to know that despite the hundreds of terrorists they've killed so far, and all the good they've done for the Iraqi people, you consider them "utterly incapable". http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/usa.gif

[Vaevictis]

Meh!

(FWIW, it's not that I'm finding fault with the troops in any way over their inability to stop this crap. It's just the nature of the beast.)

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm sure our men and women in uniform would be heartened to know that despite the hundreds of terrorists they've killed so far, and all the good they've done for the Iraqi people, you consider them "utterly incapable". http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/usa.gif

Pretty sickening stuff. Its got to be mental disorder or blind hatred of the troops.

Either way, I can't believe we have people who "think" this way of the people who serve our nations military.

[Hatfield]

what is sickening and unbelievable is people like you who have no ability to rationally talk about something without bending words out of context and creating a "you must hate the troops" arguement.

seriously, get in a quite place and take time to reread what V has said. Use your lips to help you read if necessary.

[OklahomaTuba]

what is sickening and unbelievable is people like you who have no ability to rationally talk about something without bending words out of context and creating a "you must hate the troops" arguement.

seriously, get in a quite place and take time to reread what V has said. Use your lips to help you read if necessary.
Yet again, as you always seem to do hat, you are defending those that love to trash the troops. Interesting your always there to do this.

Rereading his trash posts about how our troops are doing nothing good and are just "utterly incapable" is something I can do only once.

BS like this can only come from one place, and that isn't a brain or a heart.

[Hatfield]

Yet again you fail to understand the simple concepts being presented to you. He isn't "trashing" the troops.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yet again you fail to understand the simple concepts being presented to you. He isn't "trashing" the troops.

So what is this "simple concept" then? Cause what I see are a bunch of posts in a blog about how much atrocities our troops are committing, along with comments by the person that posted these "blog" calling our troops "utterly incapable".

Are you saying that calling our men and woman serving in Iraq "utterly incapable" and posting made up BS about our troops isn't trashing them?

If so, you're more blind than I thought.

[Scott D]

this thread amuses me....kinda like a dying frog that a little kid pokes with a stick.

[OklahomaTuba]

Oh no, this isn't trashing our men and women serving in Iraq.


Rape. The latest of American atrocities. Though it's not really the latest- it's just the one that's being publicized the most. The poor girl Abeer was neither the first to be raped by American troops, nor will she be the last. The only reason this rape was brought to light and publicized is that her whole immediate family were killed along with her. Rape is a taboo subject in Iraq. Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them. We've been hearing whisperings about rapes in American-controlled prisons and during sieges of towns like Haditha and Samarra for the last three years. The naiveté of Americans who can't believe their 'heroes' are committing such atrocities is ridiculous. Who ever heard of an occupying army committing rape??? You raped the country, why not the people?

And all this time, I thought they were "utterly incapable".

[JohnnyMack]

Is it a question of resolve or of sheer manpower that is preventing the U.S. from keeping the people of Iraq safe? If the troops don't believe in their mission are they as effective as need be? If the troops get an attitude that all they're doing is for naught because these factions are going to kill each other regardless of how hard they work does that in turn lead to more violence? I don't know the answer to this, maybe someone who's served in such a capacity would be a good person to ask.

Tuba, you may now shriek at me and tell me what a bad person I am.

Thank you.

[OklahomaTuba]

Is it a question of resolve or of sheer manpower that is preventing the U.S. from keeping the people of Iraq safe? If the troops don't believe in their mission are they as effective as need be? If the troops get an attitude that all they're doing is for naught because these factions are going to kill each other regardless of how hard they work does that in turn lead to more violence? I don't know the answer to this, maybe someone who's served in such a capacity would be a good person to ask.

Tuba, you may now shriek at me and tell me what a bad person I am.

Thank you.

Not a bad person, you just lack knowledge about what your posting about most of the time.

If the troops didn't believe in what they are doing, and that its all for naught, why do they keep RE-ENLISTING and going back in record numbers?

Oh wait, theres those damn facts again. I'll grab some cover while JM & hat's heads explode at the thought of reading factual information.

[SoonerBorn68]

Yet again you fail to understand the simple concepts being presented to you. He isn't "trashing" the troops.

You're right. He hinges his whole argument on the fact that they don't like us because we're there and fighting a war...oh, and he's against torture.

He's only brought this subject up about a million times. If he just sticks to torture & the fact that some Iraqis don't like us he's fine...just don't ask him to bring out an opinion or fact he can't link or quote to.

[OklahomaTuba]

More patriotism and support for our murderous raping troops...hatefield style.


I look at them and wonder just how many innocents they killed and how many more they'll kill before they go home. How many more young Iraqi girls will they rape?

Obviously this comment is in no way intended to be a indictment of US forces serving in Iraq.

[JohnnyMack]

Not a bad person, you just lack knowledge about what your posting about most of the time.

If the troops didn't believe in what they are doing, and that its all for naught, why do they keep RE-ENLISTING and going back in record numbers?

Oh wait, theres those damn facts again. I'll grab some cover why JM & hat's heads explode.

I don't think that's my point. There has to be times when the overall troop morale is very low. Lots of bombings, lots of U.S. casualties, the heat, being gone, whatever. Those things start to pile up and my question is does a sense of futility set in among the soldiers? Are they less inclined to stick their collective necks out to help the people of Iraq because they think it's all for naught anyway?

If that's the case, would a sense of stagnation set it? It seems the military doesn't want to come across as an occupying force and is wary of having too many troops in the situation and is doing everything it can to get the Iraqi police forces trained and turned loose on the street. But I wonder if a sense of frustration doesn't set in when an Iraqi police force goes rogue and slaughters a group of Sunnis/Kurd/Shiites or whatever group is the opposite of what it is?

Now Tuba I know you're much smarter than I am, and I defer to your wisdom in these situations, so if you tell me I don't know my elbow from my ******* in this situation I understand.

[Hatfield]

So what is this "simple concept" then? Cause what I see are a bunch of posts in a blog about how much atrocities our troops are committing, along with comments by the person that posted these "blog" calling our troops "utterly incapable".

Are you saying that calling our men and woman serving in Iraq "utterly incapable" and posting made up BS about our troops isn't trashing them?

If so, you're more blind than I thought.


what has he said in the past?
then people say uhnn uhnn not happening.
then he shows a blog.

i don't read where he is endorsing the blog merely providing it as an example...of his previous concerns

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Is it possible to think the the war is bad but not think the soldiers are horrible? I do think our resources might have been better served not invading Iraq, we have bigger fish to fry in Iran. If nothing else, Iraq has shown us that our intelligence agencies need huge overhauls. I do believe our troops would be a much better deterrent to Iran if they were home and just imagine how much dent we could make against the illegal immigration problem if the National Guard was all over here. The whole situation reminds me of Sauron in the Lord of the Rings and instead of launching a massive war should have stayed home and guarded his borders. I just pray that no more of our troops die(which won't happen) and that we get the problems solved in Iraq(which won't happen) I just wished pre-war on Iraq, we had been more patient and decided our courses in a much more definitive manner.

[Hatfield]

Not a bad person, you just lack knowledge about what your posting about most of the time.

If the troops didn't believe in what they are doing, and that its all for naught, why do they keep RE-ENLISTING and going back in record numbers?

Oh wait, theres those damn facts again. I'll grab some cover while JM & hat's heads explode at the thought of reading factual information.

please provide a link that indicates record re-enlisting....just sounds odd that with record re-enlistment occuring we would still need the stop loss policy in effect.....or the need to raise the cut off age for enlistment.....etc.

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't think that's my point. There has to be times when the overall troop morale is very low. Lots of bombings, lots of U.S. casualties, the heat, being gone, whatever. Those things start to pile up and my question is does a sense of futility set in among the soldiers? Are they less inclined to stick their collective necks out to help the people of Iraq because they think it's all for naught anyway?

If that's the case, would a sense of stagnation set it? It seems the military doesn't want to come across as an occupying force and is wary of having too many troops in the situation and is doing everything it can to get the Iraqi police forces trained and turned loose on the street. But I wonder if a sense of frustration doesn't set in when an Iraqi police force goes rogue and slaughters a group of Sunnis/Kurd/Shiites or whatever group is the opposite of what it is?

Now Tuba I know you're much smarter than I am, and I defer to your wisdom in these situations, so if you tell me I don't know my elbow from my ******* in this situation I understand.

What is your point then? Are you saying that the moral of our troops is low?

If the Morale of the troops in Iraq is low, where is the proof? Record re-enlistment would prove this to be false.

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba, he was talking about their morale not their morals. keep up.

[OklahomaTuba]

please provide a link that indicates record re-enlisting....just sounds odd that with record re-enlistment occuring we would still need the stop loss policy in effect.....or the need to raise the cut off age for enlistment.....etc.


WASHINGTON — Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.


Charles Henning, a national defense analyst with the Congressional Research Service, says robust re-enlistment allows the Army to maintain its strength.

"Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-09-army-re-enlistments_x.htm

Sorry guys, I know the thought of "very high morale" might not sit well with you, but it really is a good thing.

[1stTimeCaller]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-09-army-re-enlistments_x.htm

nowhere in that article does it mention 'record setting re-enlistment' but that's not surprising considering your reading comprehension skills.

[OklahomaTuba]

nowhere in that article does it mention 'record setting re-enlistment' but that's not surprising considering your reading comprehension skills.

1stXcaller, always on time with the personal attacks.



101st Airborne Division Sets Re-enlistment Record


Tikrit, Iraq - Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Ky., currently deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, have exceeded the retention goal for the 2006 fiscal year three months before its end. They have achieved the highest number of reenlistments for any active-duty division in the Army.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,104170,00.html

[Hatfield]

doing some research on the matter of record re-enlistment:

while morale is one indicator (which is a great thing); they also look at factors toward reenlistment as the increase in resigning bonuses and the condition of the economy. poor economies generally provide for higher reenlistments.

notice he is talking about reenlistments and not record enlistments.....

[Hatfield]

speaking from a personal angle, I know my brother's decision to recently re up had nothing to do with any outside factor it was based on the fact that he wasn't where he wanted to be/accomplished all that he wanted to at the end of his time in the army and so he signed back up.

wasn't motivated by economy, war, moral or bonus...although he was glad to get the additional money that they are paying folks to reup.

[etouffee]

please provide a link that indicates record re-enlisting....just sounds odd that with record re-enlistment occuring we would still need the stop loss policy in effect.....or the need to raise the cut off age for enlistment.....etc.Re-enlistment rates are exceeding targets for the last 3 years, but new recruitment rates are falling short. Sorry, don't have a link. Read it recently and have heard it reported several times on radio and tv. I'm sure if you do some googling you can find a source. Not surprising, really. Current troops are reenlisting because they don't want to leave their units during a war. There's a strong sense of loyalty there. My neighbor across the street is a reserve officer, has been deployed to Iraq twice, and is currently trying to get them to send him back over. At the same time, you really wouldn't expect young folks who aren't already in the military to be beating down the doors in the midst of a war.

[OklahomaTuba]

doing some research on the matter of record re-enlistment:

while morale is one indicator (which is a great thing); they also look at factors toward reenlistment as the increase in resigning bonuses and the condition of the economy. poor economies generally provide for higher reenlistments.

notice he is talking about reenlistments and not record enlistments.....

Heh, so the Bush economic depression we are currently in is causing this record re-enlistment, huh?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Wow. Who knew someone could be so full of it.

And notice I wasn't talking about enlistments either.

[1stTimeCaller]

1stXcaller, always on time with the personal attacks.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,104170,00.html

you do realize that every year one division 'achieves the highest number of reenlistments for any active-duty division in the Army.'

You do realize that. Please tell me that you do?

[Hatfield]

Heh, so the Bush economic depression we are currently in is causing this record re-enlistment, huh?

Wow. Who knew someone could be so full of it.

And notice I wasn't talking about enlistments either.


so since it isn't directed at you what you are doing isn't a "personal attack"? hypocrit.

and I am not "so full of it"

I am merely stating what a defense institute stated. you know people that actually study this thing the name of the group is defense technical information center.

[etouffee]

poor economy? http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/wtf.gif

[1stTimeCaller]

Please tell me that you understand that every year one division in the Army will have the "highest number of reenlistments for any active-duty division in the Army."

[OklahomaTuba]

you do realize that every year one division 'achieves the highest number of reenlistments for any active-duty division in the Army.'

You do realize that. Please tell me that you do?

Obviously the person who wrote this article didn't know that, considering the title of it.

You were able to read the title of that story, right?

[Hatfield]

poor economy? http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/wtf.gif

the study indicated that some factors that influence reenlistment are yada yada yada....

do you need further help understanding or did that clear things up.

[JohnnyMack]

What is your point then? Are you saying that the moral of our troops is low?

If the Morale of the troops in Iraq is low, where is the proof? Record re-enlistment would prove this to be false.

I don't know that the re-enlistment rate has a direction correlation to overall troop morale. I would think that during a time of war re-enlistment rates would be traditionally high? I can look.

The point of my argument was to ask whether or not low morale among the troops was leading to more insurgent violence. Is there a correlation? You, as usual, go off on a flag waving tangent about re-enlistment numbers when that has zero to do with what I was talking about.

[etouffee]

the study indicated that some factors that influence reenlistment are yada yada yada....

do you need further help understanding or did that clear things up.i dunno, do you need help finding your question mark key, smarta$$?

just odd that someone would mention poor economies as a factor in reenlistment, when we don't have a poor economy. seems a bit, you know, pointless.

[OklahomaTuba]

and I am not "so full of it"

I am merely stating what a defense institute stated. you know people that actually study this thing the name of the group is defense technical information center.

Ahh of course. Cause we all know the economy is in the ****ter.

The "poor economy" with a 4.6% unemployment rate (full employment in many economic definitions BTW). Laughable at best.

Maybe you should stop getting your "facts" from people like Abbas and his drunken translator?

[etouffee]

Maybe you should stop getting your "facts" from people like Abbas and his drunken translator?I was figuring it was Kos and Atrios.

[Hatfield]

i understand what you are saying but when you look at the reenlistment rates for the last several years, the economy hasn't been where it is at currently so tangently it is related...maybe just not as relevant as say reenlistments from this year.

capiche. :)

[1stTimeCaller]

Obviously the person who wrote this article didn't know that, considering the title of it.

You were able to read the title of that story, right?

Yes, I was able to read the headline. Were you able to read the rest or did your head get to hurting after you read the headline?

Did you read the story?

[1stTimeCaller]

Please tell me that you understand that every year one division in the Army will have the "highest number of reenlistments for any active-duty division in the Army."

you don't do you?

[Howzit]

IT'S A TRAP!!!1

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

"Bin Laden determined to strike in US" This article title obviously was erroneous too....hold up..

[etouffee]

"Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
f*cking unions. i swear.

[Hatfield]

i told yall not to vote on right to work

[OklahomaTuba]

Yes, I was able to read the headline. Were you able to read the rest or did your head get to hurting after you read the headline?

Did you read the story?

Yes, I did read the article, and the point and headline still stands to be true.

Consider other sources that I have read, yet did not have time to look up today, such as this article from 2004...


Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

And all evidence that one can find (which is difficult since the media refuses to report the good news) indicates that the re-enlistment rate is still as strong 2 years later.

[OklahomaTuba]

you don't do you?
Sure, but the story had this key word called record.

[Vaevictis]

Pretty sickening stuff. Its got to be mental disorder or blind hatred of the troops.

Either way, I can't believe we have people who "think" this way of the people who serve our nations military.

I know that anything short of constant verbal fellatio of the troops makes you reflexively go "OMGZOR, ANTi-TROOP ANTi-AMERICAN BADZOR!", but try to put aside your personality cult view of the military, and engage your higher brain functions for a few moments instead of the ones that control your bowel movements, okay?

If I were to say, for example, that a battalion of M1A1 tanks is utterly incapable of stopping a fleet of Akula nuclear submarines, it isn't because I hate M1A1 tanks, or think that the troops operating them are incompetent or anything. It's because, frankly, M1A1 tanks are utterly incapable of stopping a fleet of Akula nuclear submarines.

The fact of the matter is, we're seeing one or more "major" attacks on civilians in Iraq pretty much every single week. In this type of conflict, this is indistinguishable from "utterly incapable" of stopping attacks. Do you honestly think the local populace has confidence that our military can protect them if they see a "major" attack on the news at least once a week? Until we can convince the populace that we can protect them, we cannot successfully proceed with anything else. A government which is incapable (in the eyes of its people) of enforcing law and order is utterly impotent and is doomed to failure. It's really that simple.

I personally think that the military folks over there are doing a very good job given the doctrine and forces that they have available to them, but here's a question to you: When was the last time the USA won a lasting victory with conventional forces against forces engaging in a low intensity conflict on what amounts to friendly turf? From those (few) cases where we won, how is our doctrine similar? From those cases where we didn't win, how are we applying lessons learned?

[1stTimeCaller]

Sure, but the story had this key word called record.

No, no it didn't. I clicked the link again and it seems that the headline has changed so as to not confuse the slower animals in the herd.

Here is the story from your link.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,104170,00.html



WASHINGTON — Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.
The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.

Strong retention has helped the Army offset recruiting that has failed to meet its targets as the war in Iraq has made it harder to attract new soldiers. The Army fell 8% short of its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, although it is exceeding its goal this year. Army recruiting figures for the first half of the year are to be released today.

The Army has met or exceeded its goals for retention for the past five years, records show. It was 8% over its goal for 2005, and 7% ahead of its targets for 2004. The number of re-enlistments has exceeded the Army's goal by a larger margin each year since 2001.

Soldiers like the Army, "and the war is not causing people to leave," says Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. Through March, 2,325 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq; 1,593 were Army soldiers.

The Pentagon announced in March that each of the armed forces was on track to meet its retention goal for the year.

Pay and re-enlistment bonuses help, Hilferty says. Bonuses range from nothing to $150,000 for a handful of special operations commandos. The average re-enlistment bonus is $6,000, Hilferty says.

"It's not just pay," Hilferty says. "Our people want to be part of something greater than themselves, and they're willing to put up with a lot."

Charles Henning, a national defense analyst with the Congressional Research Service, says robust re-enlistment allows the Army to maintain its strength.

"Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet."

In the longer term, the trend could create an older, more expensive-to-maintain Army, according to military sociologist Charles Moskos, an emeritus professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill.

The Army needs to balance career soldiers with younger troops who serve for just a few years, Moskos says.

"It can be financially astounding in terms of retirement and health benefits," Moskos says. "You need more citizen soldiers rather than professionals."

The Army accounts for age when it accepts soldiers for re-enlistment, Hilferty says. While the Army has fewer privates and more specialists than in the past, he says, the age structure is balanced. "We're aware of it, and we're considering it."

[OklahomaTuba]

No, no it didn't. I clicked the link again and it seems that the headline has changed so as to not confuse the slower animals in the herd.

So I guess you missed this one, huh?

My apologies for not having the time to spoon feed you this stuff.


Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

[OklahomaTuba]

I personally think that the military folks over there are doing a very good job given the doctrine and forces that they have available to them, but here's a question to you: When was the last time the USA won a lasting victory with conventional forces against forces engaging in a low intensity conflict on what amounts to friendly turf? From those (few) cases where we won, how is our doctrine similar? From those cases where we didn't win, how are we applying lessons learned?

No see, a reasonable question can come from you!

I suggest you stick to questions like that instead of posting blogs by leftists pretending to be some poor abused iraqi whose biggest problem in the world is the US and our "utterly incapable" troops who seem to just go around killing and raping the innocent whenever possible.

As for your question, I am not sure if Yugoslavia would fit that mold, but it may come close. Afganistan would not, as of yet, but such is the case with Afganistan. Its nearly as bad as Washington D.C.

[1stTimeCaller]

Sure, but the story had this key word called record.

you still do not get it. The link that I copied the story from, the one you postted to back up your claim that about setting records in retention and/or recruiting says nothing about setting records.

Please tell me that you realize that. Or do you maintain that it does in fact say that?

Is your fact checker broke?

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm gonna highlight the word 'record' and 'records' for you being as all of the letters seem to get in your way when trying to read.

WASHINGTON — Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.
The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.

Strong retention has helped the Army offset recruiting that has failed to meet its targets as the war in Iraq has made it harder to attract new soldiers. The Army fell 8% short of its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, although it is exceeding its goal this year. Army recruiting figures for the first half of the year are to be released today.

The Army has met or exceeded its goals for retention for the past five years, records show. It was 8% over its goal for 2005, and 7% ahead of its targets for 2004. The number of re-enlistments has exceeded the Army's goal by a larger margin each year since 2001.

Soldiers like the Army, "and the war is not causing people to leave," says Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. Through March, 2,325 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq; 1,593 were Army soldiers.

The Pentagon announced in March that each of the armed forces was on track to meet its retention goal for the year.

Pay and re-enlistment bonuses help, Hilferty says. Bonuses range from nothing to $150,000 for a handful of special operations commandos. The average re-enlistment bonus is $6,000, Hilferty says.

"It's not just pay," Hilferty says. "Our people want to be part of something greater than themselves, and they're willing to put up with a lot."

Charles Henning, a national defense analyst with the Congressional Research Service, says robust re-enlistment allows the Army to maintain its strength.

"Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet."

In the longer term, the trend could create an older, more expensive-to-maintain Army, according to military sociologist Charles Moskos, an emeritus professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill.

The Army needs to balance career soldiers with younger troops who serve for just a few years, Moskos says.

"It can be financially astounding in terms of retirement and health benefits," Moskos says. "You need more citizen soldiers rather than professionals."

The Army accounts for age when it accepts soldiers for re-enlistment, Hilferty says. While the Army has fewer privates and more specialists than in the past, he says, the age structure is balanced. "We're aware of it, and we're considering it."

[Mjcpr]

Maybe if you just called them albums?

[1stTimeCaller]

So I guess you missed this one, huh?

My apologies for not having the time to spoon feed you this stuff.


Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

the next paragraph, which you have discredited.
The services believe a combination of patriotism and the economy is driving people to the military and keeping them there.

Is this guy right or wrong?


Do you see why I give you a hard time about comprehension?

[OklahomaTuba]

the next paragraph, which you have discredited.

Is this guy right or wrong?


Do you see why I give you a hard time about comprehension?

Which is ironic since you don't seem to read very well yourself...


Consider other sources that I have read, yet did not have time to look up today, such as this article from 2004...



Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...=airforce-a.nl

And all evidence that one can find (which is difficult since the media refuses to report the good news) indicates that the re-enlistment rate is still as strong 2 years later.

[1stTimeCaller]

can you post some numbers? What records are being broken? I understand that it is your position that retention and/or recruiting (you haven't been very clear) records are being broken. I'm asking for some data. You can't/won't provide this data.

You post one article that you think backs up your claim but after I read it and then explained what it said to you, you should see that that article did not back up your claim in the slightest.

You then post another sentence that does back up you assertation but as I pointed out, you had previously discredited what that author was saying as he also mentions that the economy is helping out retention and recruiting.

Did you understand that?

[OklahomaTuba]

I understand that it is your position that retention and/or recruiting (you haven't been very clear) records are being broken. I'm asking for some data.

You do know what the word re-enlistment means, correct? You were in the military, so please tell me you do know what this means.

[1stTimeCaller]

You do know what the word re-enlistment means, correct? You were in the military, so please tell me you do know what this means.

Yes, re-enlistment and retention are the same thing. That would have been me staying in. Enlistment(recruiting) is what I did right out of highschool. Two similar yet different things.

Now get back to reading the rest of my post and spinning some asinine answers our way.

[1stTimeCaller]

Retention numbers - the number of military folks that re-up.
Recruiting numbers - the number of civilians that join the military.

I figured that I would make it a little more clear for you.

[OklahomaTuba]

More spoon feeding, but hopefully it helps...


Reenlistment

\Re`["e]n*list"ment\ (-ment), n. A renewed enlistment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Reenlistment

[OklahomaTuba]

Yes, re-enlistment and retention are the same thing. That would have been me staying in. Enlistment(recruiting) is what I did right out of highschool. Two similar yet different things.

Ok, so why was this so unclear to you?

Maybe its that reading problem we both seem to have?

[1stTimeCaller]

Retention numbers - the number of military folks that re-up.
Recruiting numbers - the number of civilians that join the military.

I figured that I would make it a little more clear for you.

Quit sidestepping my questions.

[1stTimeCaller]

Ok, so why was this so unclear to you?

Maybe its that reading problem we both seem to have?

Is it your position that retention rates are setting records?
Is it your position that recruiting rates are setting records?
Is it your position that both are setting records?
Do you think that they are the same thing?

[OklahomaTuba]

Is it your position that retention rates are setting records?
Is it your position that recruiting rates are setting records?
Is it your position that both are setting records?
Do you think that they are the same thing?

WTF are you talking about?

You seem to still be confused. I have not mentioned anything about recruiting in this thread.

[OklahomaTuba]

Thought I would re-post this (more spoonfeeding), since you seem to be lost.


If the Morale of the troops in Iraq is low, where is the proof? Record re-enlistment would prove this to be false.

[1stTimeCaller]

WTF are you talking about?

You seem to still be confused. I have not mentioned anything about recruiting in this thread.

so your answer is that retention rates are setting records.

That's fine. Now, please show me some data that backs up your claim.

Simple.

[1stTimeCaller]

*edited to only include retention numbers*

can you post some numbers? What records are being broken? I understand that it is your position that retention records are being broken. I'm asking for some data. You can't/won't provide this data.

You post one article that you think backs up your claim but after I read it and then explained what it said to you, you should see that that article did not back up your claim in the slightest.

You then post another sentence that does back up you asertation but as I pointed out, you had previously discredited what that author was saying as he also mentions that the economy is helping out retention.

Did you understand that?

[Hatfield]

morale is one factor considered in re-enlistment rates. You assertion/insinuation that morale is the only factor is misleading at best.


AND NO I AM NOT SAYING I WANT THE TROOPS TO HAVE LOW MORALE

[OklahomaTuba]

so your answer is that retention rates are setting records.

That's fine. Now, please show me some data that backs up your claim.

Simple.

I have. I have linked 3 different articles that explain this to you. And, as I explained earlier, its still very strong.


WASHINGTON — Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-09-army-re-enlistments_x.htm

[1stTimeCaller]

don't let the letters confuse you. read this s l o w l y.

You post one article that you think backs up your claim but after I read it and then explained what it said to you, you should see that that article did not back up your claim in the slightest.

You then post another sentence that does back up you asertation but as I pointed out, you had previously discredited what that author was saying as he also mentions that the economy is helping out retention.

[OklahomaTuba]

morale is one factor considered in re-enlistment rates. You assertion/insinuation that morale is the only factor is misleading at best.

Never said/asserted/insinuated that Morale was the only reason. Bonuses help, but so does pride, patriotism, etc.

However, it does prove JM & other lefty nitwits incorrect that our army is battered and broken thanks to Bush and his war for oil.

[OklahomaTuba]

don't let the letters confuse you. read this s l o w l y.
Heres some more numbers, since you don't read those so well.


The Army has met or exceeded its goals for retention for the past five years, records show. It was 8% over its goal for 2005, and 7% ahead of its targets for 2004. The number of re-enlistments has exceeded the Army's goal by a larger margin each year since 2001.

And, as the other articles say, they have had record re-enlistments.

Not sure why your so damn confused about all this stuff. Frankly, I am getting tired of sitting here trying to spoonfeed you this information. Its really not that hard to understand.

[JohnnyMack]

I don't know that the re-enlistment rate has a direction correlation to overall troop morale. I would think that during a time of war re-enlistment rates would be traditionally high? I can look.

The point of my argument was to ask whether or not low morale among the troops was leading to more insurgent violence. Is there a correlation? You, as usual, go off on a flag waving tangent about re-enlistment numbers when that has zero to do with what I was talking about.

Tuba,

Did you feel like answering this question or is your brain all full?

[Hatfield]

If the Morale of the troops in Iraq is low, where is the proof? Record re-enlistment would prove this to be false.

this sentence says that record re-enlistment proves that Morale of the troops is high. You make no mention of the other factors contributing to the numbers. Thusly, you are insinuating that the record numbers are attributable to the high morale of the troops.

don't backpeddle away from something as simple as this.

[1stTimeCaller]

I have. I have linked 3 different articles that explain this to you. And, as I explained earlier, its still very strong.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-09-army-re-enlistments_x.htm

not the same as 'record setting retention'

I clearly pointed that out to you earlier. Remember the word 'records' only appears once in that article.

Where is the data?

[JohnnyMack]

I had an 8 track once. It ruled.

[etouffee]

exceeding goals and setting records are definitely two different concepts.

[1stTimeCaller]

exceeding goals and setting records are definitely two different concepts.

everybody except ole Sousaphone understands that. It seems to be a mighty complicated concept for him.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba,

Did you feel like answering this question or is your brain all full?

Obviously you are suffering from the same reading problem 1X is.

[1stTimeCaller]

Here you go

Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

*Tuba has quoted this numerous times in this thread*

The services believe a combination of patriotism and the economy is driving people to the military and keeping them there.

*he hasn't quoted this one yet but had this to say about the author's position here.

Ahh of course. Cause we all know the economy is in the ****ter.

The "poor economy" with a 4.6% unemployment rate (full employment in many economic definitions BTW). Laughable at best.

Maybe you should stop getting your "facts" from people like Abbas and his drunken translator?




"The war is not only not having a negative effect, but it is helping to reinforce the number of people who want to join," said Cmdr. John Kirby, a spokesman for the Navy's Bureau of Personnel.

Even the Army National Guard, which has had 150,000 citizen soldiers mobilized for up to a year, has seen retention rates "going through the roof," said Guard spokesman Maj. Robert Howell.

"Mass exodus has not been the case in the Army National Guard," said Howell, deputy chief of the Strength Maintenance Division at the National Guard Bureau in Washington.

The Guard was prepared to lose up to 18 percent of units returning from lengthy deployments, but it has averaged just 16.6 percent, with some as low as 12.6 percent, Howell said.

The Guard fully expects to again reach its recruiting goal of 56,000 members this year, to maintain its total strength of 350,000.

The Guard's goal for first-term re-enlistments , for those with less than six years of service, had been 65 percent this fiscal year but has rocketed to 141 percent - which indicates that additional members re-enlisted early, usually to take advantage of bonuses.

The goal for second- and third-term enlistments, or those considered "career" soldiers, was set at 85 percent in the Guard but has come in at 136 percent, Howell said.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all met or exceeded their year-end recruiting goals for fiscal year 2003, which ended Sept. 30. The figures continued to climb in the first half of fiscal year 2004, which was reached March 31.

The Army is at 100.1 percent of its "active duty mission," said spokesman Douglas Smith, reviewing numbers current as of March 29. Smith said 34,593 soldiers had been enlisted for the active Army and 8,331 for the Reserves. The Army has been ahead of its goal every year since 2000 and every month this year, Smith said.

The Navy is meeting all recruiting and retention goals and has cut the number of new recruits this year to the lowest target in 30 years.

Instead of bringing 41,200 new recruits into the service this fiscal year, the Navy will cut it off at 40,450, said Lt. Bill Davis with the Navy Personnel Command in Millington, Tenn.

"Thus far, through March, we've recruited 15,636, but this is normally our slow period," Davis said. "Things kick up in the summer with high school graduates. Where we've been getting 2,000 a month, we'll jump to 4,000 a month in the summer."

Navy re-enlistment rates are at an all time high, with 62.3 percent of first-term sailors signing up for additional service. That compares with a targeted goal of 56 percent. The rate has grown each year since 2000, when 48.2 percent of the first-term sailors re-enlisted.

For those with six to 10 years of service, the Navy re-enlisted 74.1 percent; its goal had been 70 percent. For those with 10 to 14 years of service, 88.7 percent re-enlisted so far this year; the goal was 85 percent.

The last time the Navy missed its recruiting goal was in 1998, Davis said.

In the Air Force, new recruit contracts are coming in at 104.2 percent of goal in fiscal year 2003 and reached 102.6 percent of goal through March.

The Air Force is retaining 67 percent of its first-term enlisted members, 75 percent of its second term, and 98 percent of its career enlisted .

Like the Army, the Marine Corps has been in the thick of combat in Iraq, yet the Marines have exceeded their monthly recruiting goal every month for the past 106 consecutive months, or for nearly nine consecutive years.

From October to December 2003 - the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 - the Marines recruited 9,201 potential members, surpassing their goal of 8,729.

Even the Coast Guard, which has grown by more than 10 percent to 40,000 since the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is keeping its members .

The Coast Guard has lost 7 percent to 8 percent of its force through attrition each year. In 2001 the rate was 7.65 percent; in 2002 it was 7.9 percent, said Chief Petty Officer Paul Rhynarb, at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington.

But in 2003 the rate fell to just 2.68 percent, Rhynarb said.

Chief Petty Officer John Hoesli, who heads the Coast Guard's recruiting station in Chesapeake, responsible for recruiting from Williamsburg to Cape Hatteras, has never seen recruiting so good. His office has been the most productive in the past four years and was named the best throughout the Coast Guard in 2001.

"Whether it's patriotism, or defending the nation by keeping the fight here and keeping terrorism out of here that draws people, I don't know," Hoesli said. He suspects those are some of the reasons, along with an economy that is sending more people into the service .

While the Coast Guard aims its sights mainly at the 18- to 20- year-old recruit, Hoesli said he is seeing older, more experienced candidates in their mid- to late-20s, many with college degrees.

[OklahomaTuba]

this sentence says that record re-enlistment proves that Morale of the troops is high. You make no mention of the other factors contributing to the numbers. Thusly, you are insinuating that the record numbers are attributable to the high morale of the troops.

don't backpeddle away from something as simple as this.

No, this is not what I said, its what the people (experts) in all the articles have said, that morale was high and people are re-upping at a record level in 2004.

And, according to the USA today story from 2006, its just as strong/even stronger.

Again, this is proof that our military's morale is not so low, as you seem to want it to be for some reason.

[OklahomaTuba]

exceeding goals and setting records are definitely two different concepts.

Of course they are. And I understand that.

However the military says several times they are having record re-enlistments in 2004, and the numbers from USA today show it is still just as strong/stronger.

[OklahomaTuba]

Here you go

Ok, I know your having some sort of problem pulling all this information together while on this jihad against me. So, let me try spoon feeding this again to you, since you don't seem to "get it".

Article I posted saying record re-enlistments is from 2004. Economy was recovering in 2004, but not booming.

USA today article from 2006, while economy is booming, shows that re-enlistment is still up and is strong/stronger. It even includes numbers that you should be able to read in it.


The Army has met or exceeded its goals for retention for the past five years, records show. It was 8% over its goal for 2005, and 7% ahead of its targets for 2004. The number of re-enlistments has exceeded the Army's goal by a larger margin each year since 2001.

2006 = exceeding goal by 15% so far.

[JohnnyMack]

No, this is not what I said, it what the people (experts) in all the articles have said, that morale was high and people are re-upping at a record level in 2004.

And, according to the USA today story, its just as strong/even stronger.

Again, this is proof that our military's morale is not so low, as you seem to want it to be for some reason.

I do not believe that re-enlistment rates during a time of war have a direct correlation to overall troop morale. But I'm not an expert in that field and was hoping that someone with some experience with that could comment instead of our flag-waving sousaphone player screeching at me and telling me how I hate puppies.

[etouffee]

I do not believe that re-enlistment rates during a time of war have a direct correlation to overall troop morale.How could they not?

[Hatfield]

No, this is not what I said, it what the people (experts) in all the articles have said, that morale was high and people are re-upping at a record level in 2004.

And, according to the USA today story, its just as strong/even stronger.

Again, this is proof that our military's morale is not so low, as you seem to want it to be for some reason.


normally i just let you off the hook, but your delusion this morning is more than i can take at the moment.

Your words:

If the Morale of the troops in Iraq is low, where is the proof? Record re-enlistment would prove this to be false.

your sentence...that you provided....indicate that troop high troop morale is why we are experiencing record re-enlistment.

You say record reenlistment proves that troop morale is high.

morale is a factor, yes. it isn't the only factor, so your insinuation is incorrect.

really not that big of deal just be a man and admit your misstatement.

and by the way before you criticize anyone else's ability to read you might want to reread my thread that holds my position on the military's moral before explaining to me again that i hate troops and hope they are unhappy.

[Hatfield]

How could they not?

just speculating since i don't study this stuff, but a soldier with a low morale might still be compelled to reup so as not to leave his buddies to fight on without him.

that could be one explanation where morale doesn't play a part.
they could really need the money from the reup bonus, morale wouldn't play a part if the decision was based there.

just my thoughts.

[JohnnyMack]

How could they not?

Because I think during a time of war individuals are more likely to re-enlist as they don't want to leave the rest of their platoon doing a job while they go home. There seems to be a sense of need to finish the job and/or stick by your buddies. I don't think that necessarily translates to high morale.

[etouffee]

Because I think during a time of war individuals are more likely to re-enlist as they don't want to leave the rest of their platoon doing a job while they go home. There seems to be a sense of need to finish the job and/or stick by your buddies. I don't think that necessarily translates to high morale.Actually, both morale and loyalty to the unit play a role.

[OklahomaTuba]

your sentence...that you provided....indicate that troop high troop morale is why we are experiencing record re-enlistment.

You say record reenlistment proves that troop morale is high.

morale is a factor, yes. it isn't the only factor, so your insinuation is incorrect.

No, your assuming that I think that morale was the only reason, and it is not. Again, I have never said it was THE ONLY REASON. Infact, I have stated this a few posts back if you care to actually read it.

Nevertheless, its not as nearly as delusional as your assertion that the only reason our troops are re-upping is cause our economy is so bad.

[Hatfield]

I am curious, and don't know the answer or where to look, if when the service calls up its retired or discharged members back into active service if those numbers are included as re-enlistments?

[etouffee]

Probably. Are we currently recalling retired/discharged vets? Nobody's called me yet.

[Hatfield]

No, your assuming that I think that morale was the only reason, and it is not. Again, I have never said it was THE ONLY REASON. Infact, I have stated this a few posts back if you care to actually read it.

Nevertheless, its not as nearly as delusional as your assertion that the only reason our troops are re-upping is cause our economy is so bad.

have you ever had an honest discussion in your life? quote where i said the only reason our troops are re-upping is "cause" our economy is so bad.

[OklahomaTuba]

I do not believe that re-enlistment rates during a time of war have a direct correlation to overall troop morale.

Well, you seem to be one of the few that hold this belief.


"Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-09-army-re-enlistments_x.htm

[1stTimeCaller]

Ok, I know your having some sort of problem pulling all this information together while on this jihad against me. So, let me try spoon feeding this again to you, since you don't seem to "get it".

Article I posted saying record re-enlistments is from 2004. Economy was recovering in 2004, but not booming.

USA today article from 2006, while economy is booming, shows that re-enlistment is still up and is strong/stronger. It even includes numbers that you should be able to read in it.



2006 = exceeding goal by 15% so far.

but NONE of that is 'record setting retention'. I just want you to understand that. It's not that difficult

[OklahomaTuba]

have you ever had an honest discussion in your life? quote where i said the only reason our troops are re-upping is "cause" our economy is so bad.

Oh lookie, pot meet kettle.

Irony at its finest.

[Hatfield]

Probably. Are we currently recalling retired/discharged vets? Nobody's called me yet.

yes we have called back to service both active and guard who have completed their contractual service (which is legal since their contract provides for that)

[1stTimeCaller]

No, this is not what I said, its what the people (experts) in all the articles have said, that morale was high and people are re-upping at a record level in 2004.

And, according to the USA today story from 2006, its just as strong/even stronger.

Again, this is proof that our military's morale is not so low, as you seem to want it to be for some reason.

This is what you had to say about one 'expert'.


Ahh of course. Cause we all know the economy is in the ****ter.

The "poor economy" with a 4.6% unemployment rate (full employment in many economic definitions BTW). Laughable at best.

Maybe you should stop getting your "facts" from people like Abbas and his drunken translator?

[Hatfield]

Oh lookie, pot meet kettle.

Irony at its finest.

so you can't quote the lie you attributed to me? is that what i am to take from that?

[OklahomaTuba]

but NONE of that is 'record setting retention'. I just want you to understand that. It's not that difficult

Do you have some numbers to back that statement up???

[OklahomaTuba]

so you can't quote the lie you attributed to me? is that what i am to take from that?

So now you are denying you said this? Thats awesome!

Keep digging hat.

[etouffee]

1TC, you yourself quoted this statement a few posts back:

Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

Then you keep insisting there's no record setting re-enlistment. I'm a little confused as to where you stand.:confused:

[1stTimeCaller]

yes we have called back to service both active and guard who have completed their contractual service (which is legal since their contract provides for that)

to be fair here. I could be wrong but IIRC Officers are subjest to lifetime call back and enlisted peersons are only obligated for a total of 8 years. After 8 I'm pretty sure that enlisted folks can't be called back.

Every military (Army at least) contract is for 8 years for enlisted people when the first join. They might split it up as 4 years active and 4 on the IRR or 6 in Reserve or Guard and 2 in the IRR. You could actually do 8 in the IRR or 1 active 1 Guard 1 Reserve and 5 in the IRR or any combination of Active, Guard, Reserve, IRR as long as it toatls 8 years.

[Vaevictis]

I suggest you stick to questions like that instead of posting blogs by leftists pretending to be some poor abused iraqi whose biggest problem in the world is the US and our "utterly incapable" troops who seem to just go around killing and raping the innocent whenever possible.

If our troops aren't incapable of stopping the attacks, how is it that we've had quite a few attacks (I think nearing double digits) this week already?

Is there some general at HQ, leaning back in his chair, smoking a cigar and thinking, "Nah, I don't feel like sending people out to stop the attacks today?"


As for your question, I am not sure if Yugoslavia would fit that mold, but it may come close. Afganistan would not, as of yet, but such is the case with Afganistan. Its nearly as bad as Washington D.C.

LIC pretty much as a rule requires at least one side to not field any regular forces. Given that we were fighting what is generally described as the "Bosnian Serb Army", Yugoslavia was not so much an LIC.

Afghanistan would count as an LIC, but it's early yet to say "lasting victory."

[1stTimeCaller]

1TC, you yourself quoted this statement a few posts back:

Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.

Then you keep insisting there's no record setting re-enlistment. I'm a little confused as to where you stand.:confused:

I just want to see the data and which records are being broken. Are we talking all time records? Since last year? This decade? What record exactly are we talking about?

Kinda like when people say, 'They said...' I want to know who 'they' is. When people say 'Polls indicate...' I want to know which polls we are talking about.

[Hatfield]

So now you are denying you said this? Thats awesome!

Keep digging hat.

again should be easy enough for you to quote where i said that....but strangely you haven't.....

[etouffee]

If our troops aren't incapable of stopping the attacks, how is it that we've had quite a few attacks (I think nearing double digits) this week already?

Ok, they're incapable of stopping 100% of attacks. Whoop-de-f*cking doo. To expect them to stop ALL violence is unreasonable, and frankly stupid. Cops are capable of stopping crimes; do you expect them to stop 100% of all crimes?

[OklahomaTuba]

again should be easy enough for you to quote where i said that....but strangely you haven't.....

You mean this quote?


poor economies generally provide for higher reenlistments.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Poor economy = higher reenlistment rates.

Well, we don't have a poor economy if you take your "I hate Bush and everything is his fault" glasses off for a sec. Its actually doing very very well.

So the bonuses are helping some, but according to the expert USA today is quoting:


Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet.

Not sure really what else you want? I would think this is something we should all be happy about.

[1stTimeCaller]

Do you have some numbers to back that statement up???

Not one article that you keep posting shows numbers that show 'record breaking retention numbers'. You made that claim.

I simply have been asking for the data that backs up your 'facts'.

I have no idea whether or not retention rates are setting all time records or not.

If you will look at the context in which I posted that, you will see that I was implying that none of your backup stories validate your claim.

If you took it that I am implying that retention rates are not setting records you could do so. It's a hunch that I have being as you cannot backup your claim and don't seem to understand the concept of why those do not backup your claim.

[OklahomaTuba]

Not one article that you keep posting shows numbers that show 'record breaking retention numbers'. You made that claim.

I simply have been asking for the data that backs up your 'facts'.

I have no idea whether or not retention rates are setting all time records or not.

If you will look at the context in which I posted that, you will see that I was implying that none of your backup stories validate your claim.

If you took it that I am implying that retention rates are not setting records you could do so. It's a hunch that I have being as you cannot backup your claim and don't seem to understand the concept of why those do not backup your claim.

Ok, so lets water this down for you, once again.

2004: Article by the military mentions "record" re-upping

2006: Article by USA shows DATA on re-upping from 2004 of 7%, and it is 15% in 2006.

So there ya go. Its not that difficult.

If you are going to claim that re-upping isn't breaking a record, as the military said it had, then lets see some proof?

[1stTimeCaller]

Ok, so lets water this down for you, once again.

2004: Article by the military mentions "record re-upping"

2006: Article by USA shows DATA on re-upping from 2004 of 7%, and it is 15% in 2006.

So there ya go. Its not that difficult.

If you are going to claim that re-upping isn't breaking a record, as the military said it had, then lets see some proof?

YOU, OUTuba, disputed that same author's credibility. Is he right or wrong. Please answer that.

[Hatfield]

You mean this quote?



Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Poor economy = higher reenlistment rates.

Well, we don't have a poor economy if you take your "I hate Bush and everything is his fault" glasses off for a sec. Its actually doing very very well.

So the bonuses are helping some, but according to the expert USA today is quoting:



Not sure really what else you want? I would think this is something we should all be happy about.

jesus christ it is like talking with a child.

the entire quote...not just the out of context sentence you pulled is


while morale is one indicator (which is a great thing); they also look at factors toward reenlistment as the increase in resigning bonuses and the condition of the economy. poor economies generally provide for higher reenlistments.

so you can see I am not saying we have a poor economy. I am saying that a poor economy is one factor that generally provides for higher reenlistments.

then when others asked about the poor economy...i clarified what i posted as this:


the study indicated that some factors that influence reenlistment are yada yada yada.....

and then I further clarified here

i understand what you are saying but when you look at the reenlistment rates for the last several years, the economy hasn't been where it is at currently so tangently it is related...maybe just not as relevant as say reenlistments from this year.

so again...show me where I said the economy was poor.
Don't show me where I said a factor that is considered in high reenlistment is the state of the economy with poor economy's showing higher reenlistment...and don't lift my statements out of context to spread your lies.

and quit with your holier than thou attitude that i want the morale to be low when i have said numerous times in this thread that isn't the case.

[Vaevictis]

Ok, they're incapable of stopping 100% of attacks. Whoop-de-f*cking doo. To expect them to stop ALL violence is unreasonable, and frankly stupid.

Okay, so, now that we agree that they're incapable of stopping 100% of the attacks, let's go back to the original point, made after Tuba says (as if it's a good thing):


I mean, that must be why the insurgents are killing more Iraqis everyday than US troops.

To which I responded with the "utterly incapable" comment and:


Um, you realize that one of the primary goals of the terrorist is to convince people that the powers that be can't stop them, right?

Which is really the important (if less inflammatory) part of what I said. If we can't stop attacks from happening all over the place, multiple times a week, do you really think the local populace has confidence that we can protect them?

If you don't, then here is the unavoidable fact: The terrorists are achieving their strategic goals in Iraq.

(it is fact that one of the primary strategic goals of the terrorist is to convince the populace at large that the government cannot protect them)

Which brings me back to the point that Tuba's comment:


I mean, that must be why the insurgents are killing more Iraqis everyday than US troops.

Is unbelievably boneheaded.

[OklahomaTuba]

YOU, OUTuba, disputed that same author's credibility. Is he right or wrong. Please answer that.

How did I dispute the author's cred?

Are you still not getting this simple concept????!?

2004 = economy recovering

2006 = economy booming

And in 2006, the level of reupping was up.

Do you understand this? Please tell me you do.

[etouffee]

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/catfight.gif

[Hatfield]

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/catfight.gif

that's hawt

[1stTimeCaller]

a simple Google search shows that from Oct 1 '05 to Sep 30 '06 51,612 Army personnel re-enlisted. The year before they had 69,512 re-enlistments.

I guess I should ask you what year you are talking about when you say that retention is setting records?

[1stTimeCaller]

How did I dispute the author's cred?

Are you still not getting this simple concept????!?

2004 = economy recovering

2006 = economy booming

And in 2006, the level of reupping was up.

Do you understand this? Please tell me you do.

The only quote that you can find that mentions record setting retention is from 2004. I'm sorry, I thought you were were saying that the most current data shows record breaking retention rates. My mistake.

[OklahomaTuba]

so again...show me where I said the economy was poor.

Remember that insinuation charge you threw at me?

Yeah, that's what this is.

Again, pot meet kettle.

[1stTimeCaller]

BTW, I found the numbers that you asked for in about 5 minutes after you asked for them. Why is it so difficult for you to do the same?

[OklahomaTuba]

a simple Google search shows that from Oct 1 '05 to Sep 30 '06 51,612 Army personnel re-enlisted. The year before they had 69,512 re-enlistments.

I guess I should ask you what year you are talking about when you say that retention is setting records?

Oh good god...

Do you have eyes?

[SCOUT]

a simple Google search shows that from Oct 1 '05 to Sep 30 '06 51,612 Army personnel re-enlisted. The year before they had 69,512 re-enlistments.

I guess I should ask you what year you are talking about when you say that retention is setting records?

Does that date say through Sept 30 2006?

[1stTimeCaller]

Oh good god...

Do have eyes?

I need a translator for that last sentence.

Anyone?

[Vaevictis]

Is it just me, or is the merry-go-round the awesome-est ride on the playground?

[etouffee]

I think it's a dining suggestion frequently heard from waiters at authentic greek restaurants. But I'm just guessing.

[1stTimeCaller]

Does that date say through Sept 30 2006?

heh, let me step out of my time machine. :D


On October 11, 2005 the Army announced that the active-duty Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve exceeded Fiscal Year 2005 retention goals for the year, with annual recruitment numbers falling short of projected enlistments.

• The active-duty Army closed the fiscal year at 108 percent of its retention mission. The goal was to re-enlist 64,162 Soldiers and 69,512 Soldiers actually reenlisted.


http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/


Active duty recruiting from Oct. 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.

Accessions
Goal
Percent

Army
51,612
49,700
104

Navy
24,456
24,456
100

Marine Corps
21,103
20,875
101

Air Force
22,959
22,843
101

Active duty retention. All services are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.


http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060710-13413.html

[etouffee]

If we can't stop attacks from happening all over the place, multiple times a week, do you really think the local populace has confidence that we can protect them?

If you don't, then here is the unavoidable fact: The terrorists are achieving their strategic goals in Iraq.

Nonsense. I'll revert to my previous example of domestic cops. Do you think that because they don't stop 100% of crime, the public has zero confidence in law enforcement?

Further, being able to murder people in a cowardly fashion is not evidence that terrorists are achieving their goals in Iraq. Their goals, ultimately, are to stop a new government from forming, to stop the citizens from voting, and to stop the citizens from enjoying freedoms they wouldn't have under a dictator or an Islamic regime. Despite their attacks, they're failing at those goals.

[Hatfield]

Remember that insinuation charge you threw at me?

Yeah, that's what this is.

Again, pot meet kettle.

and again you are wrong.

I provided an informative sentence from a defense institute that revealed factors relevant to higher reenlistement.

when confusion arose I clarified.

You created a sentence that stated high reenlistment was proof morale is high.

then when confusion arose

you denied you insinuated that.

completely different situations.

[Vaevictis]

Nonsense. I'll revert to my previous example of domestic cops. Do you think that because they don't stop 100% of crime, the public has zero confidence in law enforcement?

If terrorists were blowing up road-side IEDs 5 times a week in say, Texas, with armed bands walking down the street on a weekly basis, shooting up civilians left and right, blowing up churches on a weekly basis -- and all this had been going on for a couple of years -- do you think the public would have confidence in the ability of law enforcement to control the situation?

[etouffee]

It's a matter of context. In Texas, no. In a country that had been recently invaded which was still struggling to establish itself, with multiple violent factions vying for power, I imagine people are willing to accept a higher level of risk. It may come as a surprise to you that the Iraqi people do not spend their days locked in their homes cowering in fear. They go out and go about their lives.

[Vaevictis]

In Texas, that scenario results in people thinking the government is not in control, but in Iraq the same scenario results in people thinking the government is in control?

Insanity.

[etouffee]

It's not insanity. It's context. The government in texas has a higher degree of control than the Iraqi government currently has. This is not surprising, and it doesn't mean the Iraqi government is not in control, any more than Texas' crime rate means its government is not in control. It's a matter of degree.

[Vaevictis]

Just going to have to disagree on that one. If you're saying that it's not unreasonable that there's a lack of control in Iraq, I understand that...

But to say that people in Iraq should think that the government is in control under that scenario, but if the same happened in Texas, they shouldn't... to me, that's just bat-****, beyond-the-moon crazy.

[etouffee]

I guess I just don't live in an all-or-nothing, black-or-white sort of world where there's no sense of degree or context. Must be a lot simpler that way. I'm envious.

[Vaevictis]

Might just be that it's easy to say, "Yeah, they should feel like the government is in control under those circumstances" when you live 7000 miles away.

[etouffee]

If they didn't, why would they vote? Why would they recognize and abide by ANY laws? Why would they go about their day to day business?

[Vaevictis]

If they didn't, why would they vote?

In the hopes that it will get better? I'm not saying they've given up hope for the future, you know.


Why would they recognize and abide by ANY laws?

It looks like the bad guys aren't. And as far as the law abiding citizens are concerned, since when do the they need the police to make them do the right thing?


Why would they go about their day to day business?

Do people go about their day to day business ONLY when they think the government can protect them? Of course not. Think about London during WWII, for example. That place got bombed to hell and back, and the people knew the government couldn't really stop it.

[etouffee]

If the citizens did not feel the government could protect them to some degree (even if not to the degree it can in a place like Texas), nobody would open a shop. Looting would be rampant. It would be absolute chaos, because no one would fear any consequences for taking whatever they wanted and destroying whatever they felt like. MOST people there aren't behaving that way. Why? Because they don't want to be arrested.

[Vaevictis]

... or they might just realize that most everyone who owns a shop has a couple of Kalashnikovs and 2-3 pistols in the shops.

[etouffee]

... or they might just realize that most everyone who owns a shop has a couple of Kalashnikovs and 2-3 pistols in the shops.You have any evidence of this? Frankly, sounds more likely to be the case in Texas. I hear they've cracked down on guns in Iraq. "They" meaning the government that isn't in control of anything.

[Tear Down This Wall]

In Texas, we own and enjoy the use of firearms, so I doubt you'll ever see the day in, say, Texas where there are armed thugs roaming the streets. I'd bet that in every third house down here, there's a homeowner or store owner with a gun eager to enforce the law on his or her own. And, that's why we love it here :D

[Vaevictis]

On that, I'll point back to the blog, where the author at one point comments that the military is trying to pare people back to one Kalashnikov and a couple pistols per home.

(if that's not good enough, it's all I've got as far as "evidence" handy, other than the fact that culturally, it's pretty much expected for an Arab male to have a rifle or pistol of some kind, with the pistol being a luxury item)

[etouffee]

On that, I'll point back to the blog, where the author at one point comments that the military is trying to pare people back to one Kalashnikov and a couple pistols per home.And I'll point back to the laughably low probability that that blog is legit.

[Vaevictis]

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:T-GxWFtKs50J:www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IBO546927.htm%3F_lite_%3D1+Iraq+kalashnikov+househ old&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=15f92b95b8959613&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Not evidence that every shop has one, but evidence that they're pretty common. (fairly weak, admittedly, but it's what I can find right now)

I remember seeing a news article about one instance of gunmen on the street going down the wrong street and getting shot up by shopkeepers, but it looks like the AP has expired that article and you can only find leftovers of it on third-party sites.

(that first link is going to expire real soon, methinks, btw)

One thing to keep in mind is that Saddam actively encouraged people in Iraq to buy Kalashnikovs in case Iraq was invaded. They're just straight up common.

[colleyvillesooner]

this thing still chugging along huh?

[Fugue]

http://www.phog.tv/images/emoticons/popcorn.gif

[colleyvillesooner]

heh

[swardboy]

[/URL]
[URL="http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/"]Baghdad Burning (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) is a blog by a female -- college educated -- secular Iraqi. She's no religious extremist, and is not by any means vociferously anti-American.

Isn't "secular Iraqi" pretty much an oxymoron? Anymore.....

[Vaevictis]

Isn't "secular Iraqi" pretty much an oxymoron? Anymore.....

Only in the same way as "non-KKK southerner" is, I suppose.

(which is to say, nice stereotype)

[OklahomaTuba]

heh, let me step out of my time machine. :D



http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/



http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060710-13413.html

Good stuff to know.

Thanks for helping to prove my point on the strong retention numbers.

[OklahomaTuba]

and again you are wrong.

I provided an informative sentence from a defense institute that revealed factors relevant to higher reenlistement.

when confusion arose I clarified.

You created a sentence that stated high reenlistment was proof morale is high.

then when confusion arose

you denied you insinuated that.

completely different situations.

Heh, Its always great when you make up facts to make your point.


"Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet."

[1stTimeCaller]

Math isn't your strong suit either, is it?

[OklahomaTuba]

Math isn't your strong suit either, is it?

Please, explain.

[1stTimeCaller]

69,512 > 51,612

sixty-nine thousand five hundred twelve is a bigger number than fifty-one thousand six hundred twelve.

and when did your point go from 'retention was breaking records' to 'retention numbers are strong' ?

[mdklatt]

Please, explain.

HE'S SAYING YOU'RE NOT VERY GOOD AT MATH.


:D

[OklahomaTuba]

69,512 > 51,612

sixty-nine thousand five hundred twelve is a bigger number than fifty-one thousand six hundred twelve.

and when did your point go from 'retention was breaking records' to 'retention numbers are strong' ?

Who cares if there are bigger numbers in 2005? That just means the goals changed, as you pointed out to me earlier, and that makes sense as troop levels change, budget, etc

That's not what we are debating, at least not what I am debating, its the retention rate, which is consistently over 100% year over year.

In any case, my entire argument was based on reports that the military (army) has had a record re-enlistment rate in 2004, and the USA today report which says its been just as strong/stronger year over year. I think I have typed this about a dozen times and you still do not seem to get it.

[1stTimeCaller]

because you still have not said what record was broken or given any data that backs up that claim. Was it the all time record for number of people retained? A decade long record that was broken? A three year record that was broken?

That's all that I want to know and have asked for at least once before. If you don't know, you don't know. Sheesh.

[OklahomaTuba]

because you still have not said what record was broken or given any data that backs up that claim. Was it the all time record for number of people retained? A decade long record that was broken? A three year record that was broken?

That's all that I want to know and have asked for at least once before. If you don't know, you don't know. Sheesh.

If I knew what type of record it was, I would have posted it. As I have said over and over again, the articles I have posted refer to this record, and then I presented what data I had time to dig up (USA today article) which your military websites back up, thus proving my point.

[1stTimeCaller]

I can clearly see where your point was proved, if it was that retention numbers are above the Army's goals.
Have a nice day.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well first of all...an Army Spokesman saying anything like Re-enlistment is up because of high morale or because soldiers are deeply gratified with the job they are doing isn't exactly an absolute truth. It is probably this guys job to sell the Army to the American Public...So to say something like 30% of our re-enlistments are because the soldiers are impoverished and signing up and saving money is better than going back to Flint Michigan and working at McDonalds doesn't sound quite as powerful as "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet"

Okay..let's try to end this.. Re-Enlistment is very strong, however we are way to lazy to look up and see where the ranking ranks in the all time anulls of pointless stats. Until they somehow manage to put an instant poll on every soldier's watch...we really don't know what morale is and to be fair, I bet morale is different with every person and from day to day. Btw comparing Secular Iraqi to KKK Southerner is a huge reach... I mean are you saying that there is tons of secular Iraqi's running around.

[OklahomaTuba]

69,512 > 51,612

sixty-nine thousand five hundred twelve is a bigger number than fifty-one thousand six hundred twelve.

BTW, are you sure you know the difference between recruiting and retention?

Cause your 69,512 number is retention, and your 51,612 is recruiting.

[1stTimeCaller]

yep. you might want to re-read the chart.

[mdklatt]

I can clearly see where your point was proved, if it was that retention numbers are above the Army's goals.


Does retention include stop losses and un-retirements?

What would the recruiting numbers be like if the military hadn't lowered it's academic standards?

[OklahomaTuba]

yep. you might want to re-read the chart.


Active duty recruiting from Oct. 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.

Accessions
Goal
Percent

Army
51,612
49,700
104


*Active duty retention. All services are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.




You mean this chart?

[1stTimeCaller]

Does retention include stop losses and un-retirements?

What would the recruiting numbers be like if the military hadn't lowered it's academic standards?

watch this Tuba. This is how you directly answer someone's question.

mdklatt. I have no idea. I also wasn't aware of the lowered academic standards but I do know that they have fluctuated in the past even when we were not at war. I'm assuming that the stop-loss numbers are not a part of this but they very well could be.

[OklahomaTuba]

watch this Tuba. This is how you directly answer someone's question.

mdklatt. I have no idea. I also wasn't aware of the lowered academic standards but I do know that they have fluctuated in the past even when we were not at war. I'm assuming that the stop-loss numbers are not a part of this but they very well could be.

Good, so answer my question then. Do you know the difference between recruiting and re-enlisting?

[1stTimeCaller]

You mean this chart?

yep. Don't let those letters and numbers scare you. Go all the way down to the bottom and tell me what it says.

TIA.

[1stTimeCaller]

Active duty recruiting from Oct. 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.

Accessions
Goal
Percent

Army
51,612
49,700
104

Navy
24,456
24,456
100

Marine Corps
21,103
20,875
101

Air Force
22,959
22,843
101

Active duty retention. All services are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.

CAN YOU READ THE FREAKING WORDS THAT ARE IN BOLD OR DO YOU JUST NOT COMPREHEND THEM?????

Tuba, I was in the freaking Army. Do you know that units have retention NCO's? Their job is to recruit current soldiers into staying. It is a fairly simple concept. Now this chart could be the actual recruiting numbers and not retention. I coud be reading the chart wrong and that they haven't posted actual retention numbers.

[OklahomaTuba]

yep. Don't let those letters and numbers scare you. Go all the way down to the bottom and tell me what it says.

TIA.

Good.

Now that you know the difference, did you notice the chart you gave says recruiting and no retention?

And as you requested...


Reserve forces retention. For June, Army National Guard retention was 122 percent of the cumulative goal of 25,239, and Air National Guard retention was 108 percent of its cumulative goal of 7,121. Both the Army and Air Guard are currently at 96 and 99 percent of their end strength, respectively. Losses in all reserve components for May are well within acceptable limits. Indications are that trend will continue into June.

To view a fact sheet on who is volunteering for the military, click here.

Detailed information on specific recruiting data can be obtained by contacting the individual military recruiting commands at (502) 626-0164 for Army, (210) 565-4678 for Air Force, (703) 784-9455 for Marine Corps and (901) 874-9048 for Navy. The reserve components can be reached at the following numbers: National Guard Bureau (703) 607-2586; Army Reserve (404) 464-8490; Air Force Reserve (703) 697-1761; Navy Reserve (504) 678-1240; and Marine Corps Reserve (504) 678-6535.

Keep digging...

[Hatfield]

Heh, Its always great when you make up facts to make your point.


it literally is getting to the point where I don't think even you read what you write.

[mdklatt]

I also wasn't aware of the lowered academic standards but I do know that they have fluctuated in the past even when we were not at war.

They got rid of the diploma/GED requirement for recruits not too long ago.

[OklahomaTuba]

CAN YOU READ THE FREAKING WORDS THAT ARE IN BOLD OR DO YOU JUST NOT COMPREHEND THEM?????

Ok, so we have one bullet point that says recruiting, and one that says retention, correct?

Cause you yourself said you knew the difference.

[Hatfield]

watch this Tuba. This is how you directly answer someone's question.

mdklatt. I have no idea. I also wasn't aware of the lowered academic standards but I do know that they have fluctuated in the past even when we were not at war. I'm assuming that the stop-loss numbers are not a part of this but they very well could be.

in addition to lowered academic standards they also raised the cut off age for enlistment.

i am curious if the stop loss numbers are included in the re-enlistment numbers but have no idea where to look for that.

[1stTimeCaller]

They got rid of the diploma/GED requirement for recruits not too long ago.

Wow. You don't have to even have a GED to join the Army nowadays?

[1stTimeCaller]

Ok, so we have one bullet point that says recruiting, and one that says retention, correct?

Cause you yourself said you knew the difference.

Are you still looking for the data on your claim about setting records?

[1stTimeCaller]

Fact: John Kerry has spent more time in combat boots than OUTuba has.

John Kerry is a better American that Tuba. ;)

[1stTimeCaller]

and when did I request Reserve numbers? please find where I asked for that.

[Hatfield]

as it relates to lax entry standards, another unintended potential consequence (if this is true) is outlined in this story.

White supremacists are enlisting in military to prepare for race war

That's just great. As if American soldiers don't have enough to worry about, they now must fear whether a presumed comrade has actually pledged allegiance to some white supremacist group back home.

That's the alarm being sounded by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked domestic hate groups since 1981 and whose investigations and lawsuits have led to legal action against more than 40 individuals and nine major white supremacist organizations.

In its latest report, the SPLC says that racist extremists by the thousands have infiltrated the military, largely because the services, desperate to meet recruitment quotas during an unpopular war, have gotten lax about standards adopted a decade ago to keep out and weed out extremists.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, SPLC President Richard Cohen urged rigorous enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy.

"Hate group membership and extremist activity," he said, "are antithetical to the values and mission of our armed forces," and extremists in the military "pose an elevated threat both to their fellow soldiers and the general public."



The Southern Poverty Law Center's Web site reproduced excerpts from a Neo-Nazi Alliance publication that instruct "white supremacists wanting to enlist in the armed forces to enhance their skills."

"Light infantry is the branch of choice," it said, "because the coming race war, and the ethnic cleansing to follow, will be very much an infantryman's war…. When you go to the Army recruiter, tell him you want infantry and accept nothing else." Potential recruits are urged to lie and to "endure … a constant barrage of equal opportunity drivel."

That's bad enough. But what really got me was seeing the 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault divisions among those the white supremacists were being urged to join.

My nephew's dad, who was killed in Iraq in December, was attached to the 101st out of Fort Campbell. His death was attributed to a sniper, hopefully, not an American one.

Nevertheless, in the chaos of war, it's not impossible for an intentional act of fragging to be blamed on a foreign insurgent.

Then, as if the law center's report didn't raise my blood pressure high enough, I read on washingtonpost.com an article headlined "What's an Iraqi life worth?" in which the writer makes the case that the disparity in the value placed on Iraqi lives and American lives "is an important reason why the United States has botched this war."

Only recently, he said, have U.S. military leaders, "for internal purposes only," begun tallying Iraqi noncombatants killed by American bullets and bombs.

Americans may be divided over the war, but all of them should be troubled that, when researching their book Cobra II, Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor found racist stereotyping even in the highest levels of the U.S. command in Iraq. They cited a senior officer who said of Iraqis, "The only thing these sand ******s understand is force, and I'm about to introduce them to it."

I nearly fell out of my chair. Some will argue, of course, that the battlefield is no place for "political correctness" or claim that pelting enemies with ugly names is hardly new. In Korea and Vietnam, Americans commonly referred to "gooks" and, during World War II, called Japanese "yellow monkeys."

And, to be sure, every opinion writer has heard from old-timers who still talk like that.

But maybe that senior officer was a neo-Nazi or skinhead who managed to move up the ranks. And even if he wouldn't think of being part of such a group, his language screams out an attitude that would comfort them and that's dangerous in an integrated military.

That officer is a walking, talking, living, breathing morale problem. Such language may be why some low-ranking soldiers accused of atrocities in Iraq seem to believe that ill-treatment of their prisoners is not just justified, but condoned by higher-ups.

Betty Winston Bayé's columns appear Thursdays. Her e-mail address is [email protected].

[OklahomaTuba]

it literally is getting to the point where I don't think even you read what you write.

Well, it got to that point with you a long time ago, considering how loose with facts you seem to be.


You created a sentence that stated high reenlistment was proof morale is high.

So tell me, how did I create this statement when its from a military analyst quoted in USA today? hmm???

[mdklatt]

Wow. You don't have to even have a GED to join the Army nowadays?

Hmmm...according to this (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8653) the the Army is allowing an increased percentage in the number of recruits who have a GED.


The Department of Defense "standards on qualification tests call for at least 60 percent Category 1 to 3 (the higher end of testing) and 4 percent Category 4," the lowest end, Harvey said. "The other services follow that standard and the Army National Guard always followed it as well. But the active Army chose a standard of 67 percent in Categories 1-3, and 2 percent Category 4." It now would use the Defense Department guidelines, he said.

[OklahomaTuba]

Are you still looking for the data on your claim about setting records?

So I guess your going to keep on believing that your 51,612 number is a re-up number, and not a recruiting number like the chart YOU POSTED says?

I think this proves you have the reading problems.

[OklahomaTuba]

and when did I request Reserve numbers? please find where I asked for that.

You said to look at the bottom of the page. I copy and pasted it for you.

Maybe you should take some time off, you seem confused.

[1stTimeCaller]

yep. Please get your gazintas out and have a coworker help you out here.


Last year, the Army failed to meet its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 when it fell 8% short of its target of 80,000 new soldiers. The Army recruited 73,373 in 2005.


WASHINGTON — The Army exceeded its recruiting goal for June, staying on track to meet its target of 80,000 new soldiers this year, the Pentagon announced Monday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-10-military-recruiting_x.htm

[OklahomaTuba]

yep. Please get your gazintas out and have a coworker help you out here.





http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-10-military-recruiting_x.htm

You STILL do not get this recruiting vs retention concept?

Amazing.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

God DAMMMMM!!!! THIS IS ****ING PATHETIC!!!! ALL HE WANTS IS AN ARTICLE TITLED "AMERICAN TROOP RE-ENLISTMENT AT ALL TIME HIGH"
and then somewhere in the article it should say "AMERICAN TROOP RE-ENLISTMENT IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. THE HIGHEST IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE SUMMER OF 1984(or something like that). Then since the Liberal media is against...they will put something like "When Political analyst(i.e. douch bags) were asked about this record re-enlistment, they are convinced that (insert ****ty things about America that probably aren't true) THIS IS LIKE 6 PAGES OF UTTER BULL****

[JohnnyMack]

I'm even too tired to continue in this one. Let 1tc and the French horn duke it out until :dean: locks this one.

[OklahomaTuba]

God DAMMMMM!!!! THIS IS ****ING PATHETIC!!!!
I agree.

One would think it would be pretty easy to understand the difference between bringing in someone new to the army, and keeping people in the army that are already serving.

I guess this isn't as easy for some to understand, obviously.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Keep reading..that wasn't all ;) http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/sioncampus/10/27/west/t1_beard.jpg

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba. Please look at the actual number of people recruited from Oct 05 to Jun 06. What is that number?

Please look at the number of 51,612 that is from Oct 05 to Jun 06. Do they match?

[OklahomaTuba]

Keep reading..that wasn't all ;) http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/sioncampus/10/27/west/t1_beard.jpg

I know, but like I said, the articles don't give historical context, they just say its at record levels, and is strong.

And I wouldn't have dragged on for so long, but 1XC felt the need to come after me for some reason.

Obviously he wasn't able to keep up.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba. Please look at the actual number of people recruited from Oct 05 to Jun 06. What is that number?

Please look at the number of 51,612 that is from Oct 05 to Jun 06. Do they match?

Again, why do you insist on using RECRUITING numbers????

The discussion was about RE-ENLISTING.

[1stTimeCaller]

Again, why do you insist on using RECRUITING numbers????

The discussion was about RE-ENLISTING.

because you are trying to say that the 51k number is recruiting and I say that it's retention.

Comprende?

[OklahomaTuba]

because you are trying to say that the 51k number is recruiting and I say that it's retention.

Comprende?

So basically, you're saying you can't read a chart?

Well, glad we got that out of the way.


Active duty recruiting from Oct. 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.

Accessions
Goal
Percent

Army
51,612
49,700
104


Active duty retention. All services are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.

[1stTimeCaller]

How The F is 51,612, 92% of 80,000?

please answer that.


Last year, the Army failed to meet its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 when it fell 8% short of its target of 80,000 new soldiers. The Army recruited 73,373 in 2005.


WASHINGTON — The Army exceeded its recruiting goal for June, staying on track to meet its target of 80,000 new soldiers this year, the Pentagon announced Monday.

[IBTT]

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7239/mommy9sm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[etouffee]

http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/6039/afrodog.jpg

[49r]

I think it's time for the seizure robots (http://www.starterupsteve.com/seizurebots/)!

http://www.2bangkok.com/2bangkok/Simpsons/nelly.jpg

[Hatfield]

Well, it got to that point with you a long time ago, considering how loose with facts you seem to be.



So tell me, how did I create this statement when its from a military analyst quoted in USA today? hmm???


who created this sentence that we have been talking about?


If the Morale of the troops in Iraq is low, where is the proof? Record re-enlistment would prove this to be false.

the answer is you tuba you did. not a military analyst you did. the words came from your keyboard. contextually the military analyst was talking about the fact or morale.

your statement is more direct as it indicates that to show why reenlistment is in record number you need look no further than high morale.

i am saying no more on this subject.

[Harry Beanbag]

It's a little difficult to tell for sure, but I don't think this thread would be half bad without the retention/enlistment circle jerk going on. Geez people.

The only other thing I have to say is there is a hell of a lot of speculation, conjecture, and stating of "facts" regarding military service and the behavior of our men and women in uniform by people who have never (and would never) serve themselves.

[Harry Beanbag]

They got rid of the diploma/GED requirement for recruits not too long ago.


This is false according to the U.S. Army website. You have to have one or the other.

http://www.army.com/enlist/requirements.html

[NormanPride]

Man, I'm glad I'm a masochist. Otherwise this thread would not have been fun.

[Harry Beanbag]

in addition to lowered academic standards they also raised the cut off age for enlistment.

When I enlisted in the Navy 14 years ago the upper cut off age was 35. According to their website, it is now 34. If they lowered it markedly since I enlisted and then raised it again, I don't know. I also can't speak for the other branches.



i am curious if the stop loss numbers are included in the re-enlistment numbers but have no idea where to look for that.

I would highly doubt they would be since a reenlistment didn't actually occur. Good luck finding info to back you up on that one. That would be Enron type accounting practice.

[GDC]

I heard the Army will take you up to 42 yo now.

[etouffee]

it's 37, unless it's changed in the last year.