Bush policies harming the Military

1

Zoomba

on May 03, 2005

Sources?

2

Moderateman

on May 03, 2005

bushes policies... or just FEAR OF WARTIME? jaysus gene not all things come from bush.

3

Reiki-House

on May 03, 2005

It's true Bush's policies are hurting the military and sometimes even killing them. It's more bitter when it's a draft dodger sending them to their collective deaths. But the coming draft will not be limited in scope. It will wisely be sold to the public that way though. Think about it. No one on team Bush are talking about this issue. It's obvious to me that their silence means there is a plan to fix the problem. That they have no need to publicly discuss the most important item on a military agenda, specifically reinforcements, because they know when the time comes they will get the new fodder trained and deployed. All we need to do is debate how and when this event will occur. I was speaking about this on my site. Here are my scenarios.
1. North Korea. This is to me the most unlikely for the simple fact they're well armed and able to defend themselves while simultaniously mounting offensive actions. The nuclear factor, if true, is enough to deter an American attack. Maybe the North will attack the South. The US would have to make a decision in that case. Would America do whatever it would take to maintain possession of the South? To me the answer is no. It would be hard to sell the draft and more warfare simply to hold hold South Korea. It would be too difficult. All in all, the nuclear deterrent is paramount.
2. An unfriendly Saudi Arabia. This would have to be one of the more likely situations in my opinion. Most Americans have no clue about the politics in this country, except that it's a loyal American ally in the Middle East. The reality is that Saudi politics contains huge anti-American sentiments and many Saudi's openly support supposed terrorist factions. Al-Queda militants have strong support and strong logistics in Saudi Arabia. Put it this way. In general, Saudis dislike America and many royals hate them, but the oil wealth nullifies their sentiments. Saudi Arabia is the main producer for America. No question about that. If the oil valve were to shut America would come apart after a couple months. No argument there. To keep receiving the same amount of oil from an openly Anti-American Saudi Arabia, force would be required. Maintaining an oil supply is something Americans would want and they would support war to maintain it. The US will attack Saudi Arabia with the usual round of bulls**t we've all heard before. "We must bring freedom back to Saudi Arabia" and the like. And to me this is the most likely possibility, but there are others.
3. A WMD attack on the USA. Possible, and we know the government has had success with this in the past. We need only look to the WTC 7 anomolies for the evidence. But polls indicate a restless angrier America, and many are finally waking up to reality, that they've been lied to and cheated, so I think this one pretty unlikely. Americans would demand answers without redwhiteandblue glasses on, and that's a marked contrast to the response and shock after 911. The more likely WMD scenario, to me, is the following:
4. An unconventional attack on US forces in Iraq or elsewhere. This is pretty possible perhaps. It would be a political masterpiece. Imagine it. Two birds with one stone. Not only would a WMD attack on US troops get Americans to support a full scale draft and a Hitleresque Total War campaign, it would prove to most people that Iraq did have WMD after all. A political masterpiece that would be.
5. An insurrection or natural disaster in America. Let's face it. There aren't enough National Guard left in the US to make the nation guarded. They're all over in Iraq. A major natural disaster and the following uncoordinated relief efforts could make it clear the US needs more national guard reserve troops on hand. Also, the Republican political rallies are protected by 10,000 policemen. There is clearly a need in America for large amounts of security a.k.a. guys carrying high caliber rifles. Think for a second. One Watts-style riot in LA would render martial law ineffective. There simply aren't enough troops in the US to defend itself. And that's also a clue as to why there have been no attacks on the US since 911. Maybe some people high up already know there is no need for large numbers of guard troops on US soil. Anyways that's my thoughts and predictions on the matter.

4

COL Gene

on May 03, 2005

Moderateman

Not all things are Bush's fault but this on is his problem. He acknowledged in 2000 the Army and Marines were understaffed and did nothing to fix the problem. Then he started the war in Iraq and created huge problems in terms of having enough replacements to maintain the troop levels. He called up reserves longer than anticipated and then held him beyond their expected release. He is rotated the active components much more rapidly then in the past and extended their tours of duty because of insufficient numbers of the Army amd Marines. He is not only the commander-in-chief but also responsible for the budget and recomming the troop levels. This one is 100% on the plate of George W.

5

drmiler

on May 03, 2005

The Bush policies have been harming the military and again today the Department of the Army announced for the third month in a row they have failed to achieve their recruiting needs. At the present time, the Army is experiencing a 15% shortfall in its recruiting goal for this year. In addition to the problems that Bush has created for the active component, the National Guard and Reserves have likewise founded it impossible to meet their retention and recruiting goals. If the Department of Defense does not find a way to achieve their manpower needs, there may need to be some gut wrenching discussions about a limited draft to make up the shortfall.

More *col* gene BS! Here's the real answer.

from American Forces Press Service

Mar 14 2005

By Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service
Despite headlines to the contrary, there’s no crisis in the military’s recruiting efforts, the Pentagon’s director of accession policy told American Forces Press Service.

Alarm bells sounded after the Army missed its recruiting goal for February by 1,900 people, but Curt Gilroy said he and the Army leadership are “cautiously optimistic” that this is a temporary setback and that the Army will meet its end-of-year goal of 80,000 recruits.

The Army’s February recruiting shortfall -- the first time the Army has fallen short of its monthly recruiting goal since before Sept. 11, 2001 -- may not be the last before the anticipated upswing, Gilroy acknowledged. Spring months are typically challenging for recruiters, because the previous year’s high school graduates have already entered the military or chosen another career option, and the current year’s graduates won’t be available until June.

And although many high school students sign up for military service under delayed entry programs before graduating, military recruiters don’t count them against their numbers until they actually ship off for basic training. As important as it is to get would-be recruits to sign their names on the dotted line, they’re not considered “accessions” until they report for duty, he explained. “That’s the number that directly relates to readiness,” Gilroy said.

As it devotes more recruiters, advertising dollars and incentives to encourage young people into its ranks, the Army is refusing to sacrifice quality for quantity, Gilroy said.

The Army is keeping its quality standards -- measured by the percentages of recruits with high school diplomas and who score in the top 50 percent of the Armed Forces Qualification Test -- above DoD-established thresholds and its own self-imposed standards. So far this year, 91 percent of Army recruits were high school graduates, compared to the Defense Department’s 90 percent benchmark. Seventy-six percent of new recruits scored in the top half of the AFQT, compared to DoD’s 60 percent threshold.

“Quality matters,” Gilroy said, noting that higher-quality recruits are easier to train, perform better on the job, and generally have fewer disciplinary problems.

Working to draw more members into its ranks while keeping standards high is a considerable challenge, Gilroy acknowledged, particularly since the Army boosted its end-strength figures last year. The Army’s 80,000-recruit goal for fiscal 2005 is 3,000 higher than last year’s requirement and 6,200 higher than the previous year’s, he pointed out.

And the Army’s bottom-line requirement is far higher than that of the other services. The Navy, the service with the second-highest end-of-year mission, has a recruiting goal of 38,500, less than half the Army’s. The Marine Corps needs 33,050 and the Air Force, 18,900.

The Navy and Air Force, both in the midst of force drawdowns, are expected to have “no trouble” meeting this year’s recruiting requirements, Gilroy said. And the Marine Corps, while working harder to fill its ranks, is also expected to reach its year-end goal.

Gilroy dismissed concerns that the Marine Corps had come up short in its recruiting numbers. Although the service fell short of its goal for recruits signing contracts in January, it made its monthly accession goal, the number that matters most, he said.

What’s behind the shortfall in recruiting efforts is anyone’s guess, Gilroy said. It could be the result of a growing economy, views about the war, or the tendency of more students to go directly to college or two-year schools after high school. Another possible factor, he said, is the fact that many adults aren’t steering young people toward military service.

But regardless of the causes, Gilroy said he and the Army are confident that the setback is temporary.

“Some people argue that we are in a crisis,” he said. “There is no crisis.”

Link

6

Moderateman

on May 03, 2005

Moderateman

Not all things are Bush's fault but this on is his problem. He acknowledged in 2000 the Army and Marines were understaffed and did nothing to fix the problem. Then he started the war in Iraq and created huge problems in terms of having enough replacements to maintain the troop levels. He called up reserves longer than anticipated and then held him beyond their expected release. He is rotated the active components much more rapidly then in the past and extended their tours of duty because of insufficient numbers of the Army amd Marines. He is not only the commander-in-chief but also responsible for the budget and recomming the troop levels. This one is 100% on the plate of George W.

ok I agree that george went into this war 1/2 assed, but its not his problem to MAKE PEOPLE ENLIST. period. enlistments go down in times of war {except ww2} when the sky rocketed.

7

COL Gene

on May 03, 2005

He has created an atmosphere that is not conducive to recruiting, retention or membership in the National Guard and Reserve. He has misuse the military because he failed to build the size force required for the mission it was given. He did so in spite of the fact the army chief said in General Franks in his Op plan told Bush it would take many more boots on the ground to do the job. As I said, this is a 100% George W. Bush screw up.

8

drmiler

on May 03, 2005

He has created an atmosphere that is not conducive to recruiting, retention or membership in the National Guard and Reserve. He has misuse the military because he failed to build the size force required for the mission it was given. He did so in spite of the fact the army chief said in General Franks in his Op plan told Bush it would take many more boots on the ground to do the job. As I said, this is a 100% George W. Bush screw up.

You "obviously" have not yet read reply #5.

9

Island Dog

on May 03, 2005

The col proved wrong again.

I just remembered, where is that draft that Bush was supposed to start?

10

Reiki-House

on May 03, 2005

To be fair to President Bush it should be noted that while he is at the top of the political arena at the moment and has ultimate responsibility for his administration's policies, he still has others dealing with these kinds of issues. He depends, and all president's depend, on particular departments or cabinets which deal with these issues. Saying Bush alone is to blame for the low enlistment rate is equal to expecting Bush to have his own face on posters urging enlistment. The only things Bush is solely responsible for are as follows....a) The infamous 'secret meeting' with congressmen and women where Bush told them he had evidence that Iraq was able to send a chemical warfare drone accross the ocean to the Eastern US coast and that such an attack was, in the intelligence world, considered to be 'imminent'. Bush sold the war to congress with that simple lie. Actually not so simple. How could Congressfolk be so dumb? The answer is that they can't be that dumb. Political gears were well greased for their propagandic duties, and the political wheeling and dealing was in command. Anyways

Bush's decision to edit out over 1/3 of Iraq's 10,000 page weapons-related armaments summaries. It's entirely possible that one or many of those pages contained information which could have easily averted the illegal war and US occupation of Iraq. Why true Americans aren't asking why Bush would do that is beyond be. Real and true Americans that is. The ones that believe in law and order and a moral international balance of power should be aghast. I don't think it's so simple as people would like to believe. I don't think Bush himself could simply fix any and all problems facing the military today.

11

COL Gene

on May 03, 2005

Five does not change anything. I said if the shortfall cannot be corrected there may need to be some other discussions about a draft. I further stated that enlistments were extended, people were sent to Iraq for several tours of duty and that the number of the military is too small which almost all the senior uniformed general's have acknowledged. In addition, the former army chief of staff didn't tell Mr. Bush he had significantly more military to do the job. The operations plan developed by General Franks called 300,000 military on the ground when the Iraq military fell. Number five is a good PR piece which does not refute the military is too small and recruiting and retention is down. Both the Marine Corps and the Army have not met their recruiting goals.

12

Moderateman

on May 03, 2005

I am done responding to your blatent Bush hating..

have a nice day!

13

COL Gene

on May 03, 2005

I do not like what Bush is doing to this country - do you?

14

Reiki-House

on May 03, 2005

Col forget it. It's over. And done. For ever. And ever. Amen.

15

COL Gene

on May 03, 2005

The issues that face this country will never be over until they are resolve. Today the chairman of the joint Chiefs, General Myers admitted that the military is stretched too thin.