RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,182930,00.html

quote:

If prime candidates aren't showing up at recruiting stations, it's for a reason.

This reason is pretty simple: The vast majority of Americans (let alone the rest of the world) do not believe that the incumbant administration justifiably committed armed forces to battle in Iraq, and knew it at the time they did so (there were 935 documented lies told by this administration prior to going to war in this case). Hence the reluctance of our best/brightest to enlist (also note that many parents have been discouraging their children from enlisting for this reason).

No real American has any problem with going to war if it is truely in the interests of national security, and there is (was?) real support not only from the American people but NATO as well prior to starting operations in Afganistan against the Taliban/Al Queda.

However, since the economy is having severe problems, enlistments have been increasing. Whether they have been increasing enough I don't know).

well at least there is the Marine Corps.

quote:

This reason is pretty simple: The vast majority of Americans (let alone the rest of the world) do not believe that the incumbant administration justifiably committed armed forces to battle in Iraq, and knew it at the time they did so (there were 935 documented lies told by this administration prior to going to war in this case). Hence the reluctance of our best/brightest to enlist (also note that many parents have been discouraging their children from enlisting for this reason).

No real American has any problem with going to war if it is truely in the interests of national security, and there is (was?) real support not only from the American people but NATO as well prior to starting operations in Afganistan against the Taliban/Al Queda.

935 lies, if you BS long enought or read it people tend to believe it. What were the "Documented lies" and if there were that many, Congress would have impeached him? Personally I could care less about what the rest of the world thinks of us. We protect most of these cowarly Nations because they do not have the will or capacity to defend themselves and we have been doing that for over 60 years. NATO is a disfunctional group of Nations and who cares about their corrupt organiazation. That is unless you like the rape their troops do in African nations to protect (?) those people. So I guess with your BS, Go Tell it To the Marines. Then they will rip your head of and Skull F you.

We don't need a draft to get our recruits. It was bad enough I spent most of my time counseling troops who at least volunteered to join the military; I wouldn't want to know what it would've been like dealing with those that were drafted. I heard the horror stories of flunkies from the 70's smoking dope and doing other drugs while on duty.

This author fails to see the opportunity that leaders have to make a positive impact in someone's life and maybe turn them around. It may be the only chance that person ever had to make something of themselves.

Sure we don't want the dregs of society and there standards should be in place, but getting a GED or losing some fat shouldn't disqualify them from their patriotic yearning to serve with the world's best military.

You play the hand you're dealt.

Our Army is doing the right thing and as always, I have full confidense in their abilities to train our recruits.

I completely agree. While the Army is having trouble meeting their recruiting goals the Marines are not. And the Marines are tougher. It is the Armed Forces job to have a trained and professional fighting force. If that means tightening up and getting less people, then so be it. Quality over quantity.

The Army has a much greater demand for troops. The military competes for recruits from a finite pool of applicants. The Army has the greatest manpower need so it will naturally have the most trouble filling its quotas.

The whole "football player" thing is a bad joke. Fat is fat. Pat Tillman may not have met the Army's height/weight standards, but I'm willing to bet Pat could have beaten most of those who did on the PT test. Fatties on the other hand aren't incredibly muscle-bound atheletes; they're fat.

quote:

Originally posted by USMCNinja:
I completely agree. While the Army is having trouble meeting their recruiting goals the Marines are not. And the Marines are tougher. It is the Armed Forces job to have a trained and professional fighting force. If that means tightening up and getting less people, then so be it. Quality over quantity.

Why don't you shut your ****ing mouth pull that E-1 **** off you profile your not even a nasty little recruit.

and as for the Army, y'all just need to whip there arses into shape

I entered the Army in 1986 at Ft Jackson. While that was a long time ago the standards then were to be fit physically and not be moved along to a unit just because. Well, i got out of the service in 1993 then re entered the force thrut he reserves in 2001. Love it but was there a difference in the quality of recruits coming in. While I was older and still am what is the most sad is the level of disipline and fittness continues to regress. Standards MUST be upheld so as to keep a true line of sucession of qualioty leaders in the armed forces. I pray that the incoming leaders look long and hard at the issues this is causing and not just at how to make the "new blues" work.

Pretty soon we won't be able to "discriminate" against gays from joining so why should we "discriminate" against fat people who want to serve? Hell we should just open up the military to anyone! Why have any standards at all? If you have standards you might be offending someone! We don't want to offend someone or some group because everyone is equal! Think of the future Army, gays, fatties, transgenders etc... etc...

Gays already can join...

Not openly...

I am a former Marine who is only familiar with the Army from meeting some soldiers. The author makes valid points. Standards are there for a reason and should only be relaxed for exceptional circumstances. A famous Marine Corps general stated - "Its NOT how many show up for the fight, its who they are." That saying has been proven throughout history. The "fat camp" should be abolished, it'll be abused and a DUMB, DUMB idea. High School graduates have proven themselves, if nothing else that they sat on their butts and attended class. High school graduation is NOT tough by any measure you use.

Lets look at why we need to relax the Army standards.

quote:

Originally posted by ryerye13B:
Not openly...

So what? They still suck #$%^ don't they? What's the difference?

Wow, the word filter seems to have loosened up since I was on last.

While the story is about meeting recruiting goals its main objective is to describe the types of people being recruited and the effects upon the current and future status of the Army. Describing the types of recruits and the prognosis for the future of Army readiness is what is at stake and it does not look good based upon all relevant evidence.

As for comments regarding the Marine Corps, they also have reduced recruiting standards to attain their recruiting goals. Some claim their standards are even lower than that of the Army.

The bottom line is, historically a volunteer military has been a disaster. Whenever a nation decides to reduce its pool of eligible people for their military it always ends up impacting a very small percentage of the population and consequently enlistment standards have to be lowered to meet recruiting goals. And usually the pool originates with people who are desperate for a job, unemployment drives more less qualified toward the military as a way out of being employed as a stop gap measure to avert economic ruin and to obtain benefits they no longer have by being unemployed.

Additionally, many people who opt for service in an all volunteer military arrive with baggage, namely a family. This type of recruiting leads to money being expended on dependents and all of the costs associated with dependents instead of the money being spent in more productive areas of the military. With a draft, this type of situation would be reduced dramatically.

But most important, an all volunteer military does not reflect the society as a whole simply because recruits are drawn from a limited pool and the pool usually consists of people from the middle-middle class, lower middle class and poorer classes of citizens. Being realistic, why would an educated individual who's family and themselves probably have spent thousands of dollars on an education opt for military service? It just doesn't happen in the numbers required to meet recruiting goals so we are left with reducing enlistment standards.

The only way to assure a strong military is to make sure we have a large enough pool of recruits to draw from...and the only way to do that is to have a draft where the military can be more selective about who wears a uniform of our Armed Forces.

S/F Gordon

I guess thats what homos do but maybe you missed the sarcasm in my post?

"If the idea is that all we need are bodies, then we should re-institute the draft."

The author understandably feels that a draft is the answer, without considering the arguments for a volunteer army, nor the history surrounding it. It is precisely because of the volunteer aspect that enlistees and soldiers have more benefits as compared to warriors from the past. In fact I would argue, the very welfare of the troops has always been at the forefront, of the public debate, something that General Abrams, the man who created the all-volunteer army wanted. Abrams from his time as the commander of MACV in Vietnam and later as the Chief of Staff, clearly understood the positive implications of an all volunteer army, and his vision has been borne out.

Certainly standards are being lowered, but that is because policymakers have refused to address the ramifications of surging to nowhere. However, how bad are the current recruits relative to the entire armed forces? I would hope not a large percentage. Ultimately this is a speed bump, for with the deteriorating economy, the caliber of recruits will increase. Most importantly, the verdict of an all volunteer military is one of success, for they have carried the sword to the enemy's face with great courage, sacrifice and determination.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rockriver04,

There's much talk of resuming the Draft here. I'd say we never should have left it. (In fact I wrote a high school paper on the subject.) The notion of mandatory national service is not unique--many nations (free or not) employ it. (They even include the majority gender in that requirement, a fact the President Elect has noticed also.) The argument during Viet Nam was that we should allow citizens to choose the Peace Corps. That has merit. If they want to visit RPG Alley alone and unarmed, then so be it. (Social workers in peril should soften the Left towards military intervention.) Seriously, we really do need fully staffed efforts on the international and home fronts. It is sad that we worry about freedom in other nations without worry about our own freedoms and the materialistic opportunity for pursuit of happiness. Organizations like Homeland Security, FEMA, Job Corps, and even a renewed Conservation Corps (Bite forest fires before they bite us?) deserve focused consideration. Most of all, I've enjoyed individuals such as Charles Rangel. They might have something--why chew up qualified volunteers and sap their dedication thru a reverse Draft only to allow others to practice dissolution avoiding Public Service? I'd go as far as to say empty the jails--send Sheriff Joe's (Maricopa County, Arizona) Pink Underwear brigade to the front! :-)/:-(

Regarding the nature, nobility and/or righteousness of the present conflict (the war leading to the occupation), I'm missing something. Did we, or did we not, have a treaty with Baghdad that they violated? And, what exactly is heart-warming about any war? In fact, are you sure that it was not the first "Gulf" war that was unrealistic? After all, we left the offensive tyrant in place--with all his important marbles. Our allies-in-the-field were left to his slaughter. I mean, come on, just how do you justify a sporting event, say a SuperBowl, if you never intend to reach the goal? :-)/:-(

As for lies by the administration--what's new? While quite a few people know Leonidas and his Spartans, who was Themistocles and how did he get a navy for Athens? Or for that matter, did FDR lie--while mothers protested singing "My Boy will Never Be a Soldier"? (Congress did investigate him for lies...after the War...& after he was dead . . .) I have more respect for those who may have bent truth to bring down a genocidal, enviro-criminal dictator than Chief Executives who cover up their employee's dress stains. "Rational negotiation and compromise" with the Butcher of Baghdad...would that have been peace, or a-ppease-ment? :-(/:-)

Luckily, we now have an alternative. Out of the openess of Chicago politics, from the multi-dimensional Ivy League definitions of "is", we'll have "Change in Our Time . . ." :-)/:-( Of course it was a hard search--we had to search fairly hard to find someone (without appreciable baggage/experience/military connection) who actually voted against this war. I still love Billary's statement at the time of the vote: "My husband saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusions."

Here's a further on-line excerpt from our new Secretary of State:
"Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people.”

She also stated that “intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members."

rockriver04:

Historically, an all volunteer military has always become a problem for a nation.

Regarding the reason a person rationalizes for joining the military; sorry, I do not want anyone next to me who did so just because they needed a paycheck.

America has always answered the call for service with a draft.

The law of large numbers works to the benefit of our military. Without a draft, we minimize the number of people available for service. If the entire male and female population of service age were available, the military could pick and choose between really qualified individuals instead of having to lower standards to attain their recruiting goals.

And most important; everyone has a responsibility to serve our Nation...end of story. One of the largest problems we have in America is due to the fact we have diminished our civic duty to our Nation...we have developed the attitude of let the other guy worry about it...and this is what destroy's a nation.

I served and fought with draftee's and they were damned good Marines.

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________


"If the idea is that all we need are bodies, then we should re-institute the draft."

The author understandably feels that a draft is the answer, without considering the arguments for a volunteer army, nor the history surrounding it. It is precisely because of the volunteer aspect that enlistees and soldiers have more benefits as compared to warriors from the past. In fact I would argue, the very welfare of the troops has always been at the forefront, of the public debate, something that General Abrams, the man who created the all-volunteer army wanted. Abrams from his time as the commander of MACV in Vietnam and later as the Chief of Staff, clearly understood the positive implications of an all volunteer army, and his vision has been borne out.

Certainly standards are being lowered, but that is because policymakers have refused to address the ramifications of surging to nowhere. However, how bad are the current recruits relative to the entire armed forces? I would hope not a large percentage. Ultimately this is a speed bump, for with the deteriorating economy, the caliber of recruits will increase. Most importantly, the verdict of an all volunteer military is one of success, for they have carried the sword to the enemy's face with great courage, sacrifice and determination.
[/QUOTE]

I think you have a good point, but I think the volunteer forces concept has been an overwhelming success. Of course if we need to truly spool up that has always been a given, as currently young males must register for the draft. The question whether we are there is debatable, but arguably we could be just shy of that tipping point. Certainly if we need to ramp up ops elsewhere we would need to, and depending on how Iraq goes, our inability to cut our forces there would probably raise that issue even more. Still, I think the probability of instituting a draft is not going to happen, rather more of a revamping of other venues for national service, --if we are able to draw down in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:
rockriver04:

Historically, an all volunteer military has always become a problem for a nation.

Regarding the reason a person rationalizes for joining the military; sorry, I do not want anyone next to me who did so just because they needed a paycheck.

America has always answered the call for service with a draft.

The law of large numbers works to the benefit of our military. Without a draft, we minimize the number of people available for service. If the entire male and female population of service age were available, the military could pick and choose between really qualified individuals instead of having to lower standards to attain their recruiting goals.

And most important; everyone has a responsibility to serve our Nation...end of story. One of the largest problems we have in America is due to the fact we have diminished our civic duty to our Nation...we have developed the attitude of let the other guy worry about it...and this is what destroy's a nation.

I served and fought with draftee's and they were damned good Marines.

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________


"If the idea is that all we need are bodies, then we should re-institute the draft."

The author understandably feels that a draft is the answer, without considering the arguments for a volunteer army, nor the history surrounding it. It is precisely because of the volunteer aspect that enlistees and soldiers have more benefits as compared to warriors from the past. In fact I would argue, the very welfare of the troops has always been at the forefront, of the public debate, something that General Abrams, the man who created the all-volunteer army wanted. Abrams from his time as the commander of MACV in Vietnam and later as the Chief of Staff, clearly understood the positive implications of an all volunteer army, and his vision has been borne out.

Certainly standards are being lowered, but that is because policymakers have refused to address the ramifications of surging to nowhere. However, how bad are the current recruits relative to the entire armed forces? I would hope not a large percentage. Ultimately this is a speed bump, for with the deteriorating economy, the caliber of recruits will increase. Most importantly, the verdict of an all volunteer military is one of success, for they have carried the sword to the enemy's face with great courage, sacrifice and determination.

[/QUOTE]