home

Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:31:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

“Join the Army. Die in Iraq.” Lacking an effective recruiting slogan, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve both fell “far short” of their annual recruiting goals for fiscal 2005, ending this month. Despite offering financial incentives, appealing to patriotism, and asking Congress to raise the maximum enlistment age to 42 (soon AARP members will be asked to join), the regular Army will also miss its recruiting goals.

< Poll: Bush Bad | As the GOP Turns >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals | 24 comments (24 topical)
    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    ppj-soon they will be calling even you to come back, arthritis and all.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    He'll take a deferment. He has "other priorities" that don't include backing up his pro-war blather. He's the Yellow Elephant poster boy. The terrorists are sooo totally emboldened by these maggots.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#3)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    Nonsense, the terrorists take no pride in the fact that people are leaving the Army as soon as they're able while their Madrassas swell. What really emboldens them is Michael Moore movies!

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#4)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    We should never send our military personnel to fight and die for light and transient reasons. That is why the Army can't meet its recruiting goals. As a result of being undermanned, the Army has been forced to use National Guard and reserve units (40% of total in Iraq). However, being stationed in Iraq means that they are unavailable to respond to disasters like Katrina. If we pull these units back home and if the draft is not an option, how are we going to replace those that quit? The war in Iraq is unsustainable.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    Scar If you think MM is so powerful that means Bushbag and the entire military are useless. One movie is more powerful than all the lies Propaganda and mismanagement of Bushbag Rummy and the rest of the neonuts including all you wingnut cheeleaders combined. Wow! thats a better argument for getting our troops out that any left wing argument I have heard! One movie, gee lets elect MM to be president if he is so inspiring. He could then use all the power you give him to do a better job!

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Good Morning Lefties!!!!! It is so good to wake up alive, so many do not. It is especially good to read blather written by Squeak and Ernie. Neither will fight themseves, but love to make snide remarks. As I have remarked before, I did my 10, your turn boys and girls. Best I can tell, and what the poster left out, is that new recruits will exceed the goals, while re-enlistments in the NG and Navy reserve is way off. Not surprising. Perhaps when we have Universal Military Service you will have a better appreciation of what keeps us free. I can just see it now. Privates Squeaky and Ernie, peeling spuds at 4AM. And, of course, they will be available for disaster duty, so instead of complaining about how long it took the troops to get there, that can be positioned in advance. Hopefully not too close to the beach. scar - Obviously you have scant understanding of cause and effect. John H - Perhaps you have told us this before, but I don't remember. Did you oppose Kosovo? Ed B - The answer of course is that, like all propaganda, it isn't one thing, but the steady drip, drip, drip that does the job.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Good morning Jim. All those exclamation marks... You must be a few cups of coffee ahead of me. You wrote: Perhaps when we have Universal Military Service you will have a better appreciation of what keeps us free. This seems to suggest that you agree that the current trends in voluntary recruitment will not sustain a "stay the course" strategy in Iraq. You sound like you'd be in favor of a draft. But do you really think that that is the course that Bush will choose? This piece from Newsweek, entitled "Planning For a Pullout" seems to suggest otherwise:
    Newsweek Sept. 19, 2005 issue - Analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency have begun war-gaming scenarios for what might happen in Iraq if U.S. force levels were cut back or eliminated, say counterterrorism and defense sources.
    I think there might be few people who will be running for office as Democrats who would be very happy to see the President reinstate the draft.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    From the article: "...the part-time Army National Guard and Army Reserve ... will fall far short of their annual goals for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends this month. "The Army National Guard... appeared certain to miss its third straight annual recruiting goal. "The Guard missed its recruiting goal by 18 percent in August and was 12,683, or 22 percent, behind its year-to-date goal... "The Army Reserve... was 19 percent behind its year-to-date target. It will also miss its 2005 goal of 28,485 recruits." Sounds to me like a lot of kids are listening to their Moms and ignoring Bush. Smart kids.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Alas, I must confess. I have made a mistake. The goals are not "way off," but actually quite good, as shown in this link to the offical figures. And please note that the YTD figures do not include August which is a trending up month. (There is one area of concern, and that is Naval Reserve. Alas, Squeak and Ernie, I may have to return. Will you join me?)

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    PPj as usual you seem to be in lala land. Sorry Haliburton now peels spuds for the G.I.s. It is always inspiring to see all you wingnuts so busy supporting a war you or your kin won't fight in yourselfs. Will your join me now and sign a Petition demanding BUSHBAG send his Two daughters off to fight as well as every of age Repiglican and Democrat who supports this war. This is why no one is inlisting your Cannon fodder is wiseing up. It's your wingnut war you fight it. PPPj when you reply, you can talk to my Finger!

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Hey everybody PPj has just stated the Propaganda of the anti war movement is more effective than that of the entire Bushbag admin and all the War mongers combined! All we have to do is follow PPJ's instructions. "The answer of course is that, like all propaganda, it isn't one thing, but the steady drip, drip, drip that does the job."

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    punisher - A few cups ahead? Well, among other things. ;-) It was a play on a fairly well known movie among the anti-military types. No fun if I have to explain'em. Draft? No. I am for Universal Military Service. Everyone at age 18, or upon graduation from high school, does two years in some branch. Most of it would be in training. Upon completion they are then transferred into the Ready Reserve and/or NG, depending upon the need for an additional 12 years. During the first four they would have monthly weekend training and two weeks annually. For the next four they would have bi-monthly sessions and two weeks annually. For the next four they would have quarterly sessions. At the end of 12 years they would be placed into the inactive reserve for an additional 10 years. My belief is based on several things. First it would improve society by helping install self discipline in many young people who have none. It would also add maturity to them and help them be focused and ready to go into college, or other fields. It would also give the general population a better understanding of the military. And it would allow the regular military to do what it does best - fight - while being supported by a large number of well trained support people. It would also provide a broader base from which the military leaders of tomorrow can be drawn. I think this is very important because we cannot afford to have a military organization that, long term, is insulated from the general population. It didn't work well for Rome, and it won't for us. As you may guess, I don't like Clinton. But I was disgusted when I heard some active duty officers criticizing him while he was President. If you have scanned the actual numbers, you will see that the military is doing well in new recruits. And, given that many who joined the Reserve and NG did so because it was a social thing with the added benefits of being paid and a retirement at the end, I am quite cheered by the 80% number. I find it very interesting that the Marines are at 100% and the Air Force is 113%. A friend opined that you don’t join the Marines unless you want to fight, and you join the Air Force because you won’t have to fight. Aviators excluded. ;-) As for War Planning, I pay no attention to stories about that. It goes on all the time and I have no doubt that somewhere there are people working on plans to invade Mexico to secure the return of Southern California to the US. You wrote: I think there might be few people who will be running for office as Democrats who would be very happy to see the President reinstate the draft. Please note that Universal Military Service isn’t a “draft.” It takes everyone, with the only exceptions being severe medical problems or pregnancy. But yes, there are many Demos who would be happy to see the President have problems with a draft. Which is why many of us ex-Demos won’t have a thing to do with this new bunch? They have no concern over the defense of the country. Like Rome, they think we are too big to be taken down. They are wrong.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    PPJ-No, but just to show you where my heart is I will relentlessly fight to get you back alive from the neocons illegal and unjust Iraq war. If you want company ask some of the 101st keyboard chickenhawk reserve ( Jonah Goldberg, Christopher Hitchens, Charlie et.al.), who all believe it is a war well worth fighting....that is, fighting as long as others are doing the fighting for them as they are way too important to be doing such menial work.
    Alas, Squeak and Ernie, I may have to return. Will you join me?
    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    PPJ: A few cups ahead? Well, among other things. ;-) Ouch. PPJ: It was a play on a fairly well known movie... No fun if I have to explain'em. Sorry Jim, the joke just didn't work. You'll have to fit some more context into the set-up next time. Then you won't have to explain it and it'll be more fun for you. PPJ: As for War Planning, I pay no attention to stories about that. It goes on all the time... Noone's disagreeing with you on this. But discussions are ongoing about how to proceed in Iraq. GOP gains in 3 branches of Gov't have been at least in part related to aggressive political strategic thinking. So if drawing down troops looks good in terms of 11/2006, there will be pressure on the President from within his party to do some of that. It would make Dems very happy if he would focus on "staying the course" or increasing recruitment by draft or UMS in Iraq and US elections be darned. PPJ: Please note that Universal Military Service isn’t a “draft.” I think that UMS will do equally well for the Dems. Like W said, "Bring it on!"

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    punisher - Maybe, but I think it is the audience. We have had lots of threads about the lack of humor by the Left. The movie, of course, was "Good Morning Vietnam!" And yes, I'm sure a discussion is on going, there should always be one. But, I suspect where I see situation normal, you see something darker. As for a draft, or UMS, we needn't worry our pretty little heads over that. No one will ever do it. Squeaky - No thanks, I wouldn't want to put you to any trouble. BTW - Do you obey only laws you agree with? And do you really think I thought you would fight? Good grief. Ed B writes:
    It's your wingnut war you fight it. PPPj when you reply, you can talk to my Finger!
    Gee Ed, I just can't resist this. Is that single digit your age or IQ? Ed, please try to read, or keep up in some manner. First, I did my 10. Secondly I am way too old to hump a pack. And third, I have never seen a war where everyone went. Unfair? Yes. Life is unfair. Now study hard, eat a lot of fish and maybe you can flash me the "V" sign next time.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    standard wingnut responses: 1) move the goal posts; change the target numbers and shazaam, suddenly you meet them! 2) change the subject, e.g. 'if you don't believe in the war why don't YOU join!?' 3) Make personal attacks, e.g. 'Is that single digit your age or IQ?' 4) blame clinton. It's so predictable and tiresome.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    PPJ: punisher - Maybe, but I think it is the audience. We have had lots of threads about the lack of humor by the Left. The movie, of course, was "Good Morning Vietnam!" I've seen the movie and I know the quote, but I didn't recognize it when I read it. As I said above, I was short on two things, either one of them would have helped: caffiene and context. As far as the generalizing a lack of sense of humor on the left, them's fightin' words and like they used to say in the old westerns, "You better smile when you say that." PPJ: And yes, I'm sure a discussion is on going, there should always be one. But, I suspect where I see situation normal, you see something darker. Depends what you mean. I probably see this administration as including political expediency as a much bigger function in its decision making than you do, so maybe that's the "something darker" that you refer to. On the other hand, I'm just not sure that I'd see it is a darker development (in terms of freedom, safety, and defense) if Bush did choose to make a smart political choice and draw down troops before November 2006. It would be darker for Democratic candidates though, I suspect.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    punisher - Heaven forbid anyone should disagree..... ;-) As for withdrawal, my guess it will start about next March, and will continue for about two years. But if Iran heats up, all bets are off.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#19)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    PPJ, Is the only way you can defend Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq is by pointing the finger at others. The justification for invading and occupying Iraq should stand on its own. I note that you didn't answer my criticism by actually providing a justification for invading and occupying Iraq. Is it too much of a brain strain at this point to think of a reason? I know you are trolling but I'll bite on Kosovo. I am not a pacifist. For example, I think intervening militarily to prevent genocide as we did in Kosovo is justified. By the way, this is one of the major reasons that Clinton gave for intervening, and unlike Bush, it happened to be the truth. By the way, how did American military casualties in Kosovo compare with American military casualties in Iraq?

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    PPJ-What laws are you talking about?
    Do you obey only laws you agree with?
    Or is this one of your rhetorical non question, trick questions?

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Sailor - Change numbers? Well, I did link to the official YTD and August numbers. How is that "changing' anything when the discussion is re-enlistment/enlistment? Your side brought the "why don't you join" subject up. See the first two comments in the thread by Squeaky and Ernie. So Ed B flips me the bird,
    "PPPj when you reply, you can talk to my Finger!"
    which is saying, "f you" and I am supposed to grin and bear it? Blame Clinton? I said I didn't like him. There is a difference between blaming and not viewing someone in a favorable light. Sailor, either you didn't read the thread, or you deliberately ignored part of it to make a snarky attack on me. Which is it? John H - The archives are full of what I consider justifiction. Remind me next open thread and I'll do it again. The Kosovo question is just to see where your head is. You write:
    I think intervening militarily to prevent genocide as we did in Kosovo is justified.
    I think that Kosovo was Europe's concern and we should not have done their job, which, BTW, we are still doing. I also do not believe that we are the world's policeman, unless the world is ready to do what we tell them. I did not think we should intervene, said so, told my Senators and Representative that in no uncertain terms. BUT, when the troops went in I sat down and shut up. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that when the debate is over, we all should follow the rules. Squeaky - See the above paragraph re "laws."

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#22)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    PPJ The reason that the Army is having trouble with their recruiting goals is that an increasing number of people think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is a mistake. When even those who support the war can't think of a reason for fighting, what do you expect? By the way, didn't you just violate your own rule about keeping your mouth shut? After all, aren't we still in Kosovo. I guess Kosovo doesn't seem like much of a war since there were almost no American combat casualties (as a matter of fact weren't there 0?). I don't recall the military having trouble with recruiting when we went into Kosovo either.

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    ppj, you're so vain you think every comment is about you. I wasn't responding to you when I listed the standard wingnut responses, it's just you always provide perfect examples. (BTW, #4 blame clinton, you managed to do that with your strawman about Kosovo.) IRT moving goal posts After Lowering Goal, Army Falls Short on May Recruits
    Early last month, the Army, with no public notice, lowered its long-stated May goal to 6,700 recruits from 8,050. Compared with the original target, the Army achieved only 62.6 percent of its goal for the month.
    From the WashPost:
    The Army will make a "monumental effort" to bring in the average 10,000 recruits a month required this summer, said Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, head of the Army's recruiting command.
    From the DOD July stats: Army: Accessions 8,085 Goal 7,450 So in June they say they needed 10,000/mo for the rest of the fiscal yr, in Aug they say they only needed 7k/mo. THAT"S moving the goalposts. By those standards, let's just declare victory and leave iraq. Once again pp, the post wasn't about you, it was about standard wingnut responses, but thanks for serving as a perfect example. I could use the 4 points on any post, with different examples from mr charlie, lww ... (insert your fav wingnut here.)

    Re: Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Sailor The the commeng re Ed B pretty well nails it, don't ya know? And I was the only person who was not following the bell cow. I was the only one who even mentioned Clinton, although you got that wrong. The "join up" was directed at me by Squeaky and Ernie. And your comment wasn't about me? I am LOL. You must have been great in dodge ball.

    Army Will Miss Recruiting Goals | 24 comments (24 topical)