Here Today... Gone To Hell!

WASHINGTON - The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.

Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger ? perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million ? in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service.

Officials insist the slump is not a crisis.

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the recruiting shortfall this year does not matter greatly ? for now.

"The bad news is that any shortfall shows how hard it would be to increase the Army's size by 50,000 or more as many of us think appropriate," O'Hanlon said. "We appear to have waited too long to try."

The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. A gap of 7,000 enlistees would be the largest ? in absolute number as well as in percentage terms ? since 1979, according to Army records.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.

The active-duty Army had not missed its target since 1999, when it was 6,290 recruits short; in 1998 it fell short by 801, and in 1995 it was off by 33. Prior to that the last shortfall was in 1979 when the Army missed by 17,054 during a period when the Army was much bigger and its recruiting goals were double today's.

Army officials knew at the outset that 2005 would be a tough year to snag new recruits. By May it was obvious that after four consecutive months of coming up short there was little chance of meeting the full-year goal.

A summertime surge of signups offered some hope the slump may be ending. An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, said that despite the difficulties, recruiters were going full speed as the end of fiscal year 2005, Sept. 30, arrived.

"We have met the active Army's monthly recruiting goals since June, and we expect to meet it for September, which sends us into fiscal year 2006 on a winning streak," Hilferty said. He also noted that the Army has managed to meet its re-enlistment goals, even among units that have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there are compelling reasons to think that Army recruiters are heading into a second consecutive year of recruiting shortfalls.

The outlook is dimmed by several key factors, including:

? The daily reports of American deaths in Iraq and the uncertain nature of the struggle against the insurgency have put a damper on young people's enthusiasm for joining the military, according to opinion surveys.

? The Army has a smaller-then-usual reservoir of enlistees as it begins the new recruiting year on Saturday. This pool comes from what the Army calls its delayed-entry program in which recruits commit to join the Army on condition that they ship to boot camp some months later.

Normally that pool is large enough at the start of the recruiting year to fill one-quarter of the Army's full-year need. But it has dwindled so low that the Army is starting its new recruiting year with perhaps only 5 percent "in the bank." The official figure on delayed entry recruits has not been released publicly, although Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, has said it is the smallest in history.

The factors working against the Army, Hilferty said, are a strong national economy that offers young people other choices, and "continued negative news from the Middle East." To offset that the Army has vastly increased the number of recruiters on the street, offered bigger signup bonuses and boosted advertising.

Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., said in an interview that the Army would attract more recruits if it could offer shorter enlistments than the current three-year norm.

As it stands, the Army faces a tough challenge for the foreseeable future.

"The future looks even grimmer. Recruiting is going to get harder and harder," Moskos said.

I just hope that, if a slump continues, they don't reopen the draft.   

But i thought Republicans loved the war? - surely they should be rushing to join this noble cursade against America's legitmiate enemies :hihi: :rofl:

No one wants to fight and die in an illegal war against an enemy like that...that so few are joining the ranks is testament to even moron's abilities to see an absurd war when they see it.

All we have to do is pull troops out of where we don't need them at this point. How many troops do we really need in Germany? The cold war is over.

It cracks me up when people call it an Illegal war. Saddam violated UN mandates and we enforced them. This isnt even bringing the WMD fiasco into it.

so what you are saying is that anyone who is for the war (like myself and others on this board), are lower than a "moron"???

nice insult.

The anti war left is all about pointing fingers and being extremely critical, maybe they should come up with real solutions instead of complaining because they are so partisan.

next on spin factor........

First of all, the story is misleading.  The Army is getting just as many recruits as it has in recent years.  If you read the story it talks about how they are trying to increase the size of the army by 50,000.  The army is not reducing in size, it is getting larger.  Maybe their goals were too optimistic? 

Second, I have heard that the rest of the armed services have more than met their numbers.

Third, the US economy has a very low unemployment rate.  It doesn't surprise me that many won't join the military in an all volunteer army when they have jobs and are doing OK in private employment.

Finally, even if it is as bad as some may be alleging, it is understandable.  I understand the war was not the best option, but all anyone hears is negative, negative, negative things about the war and those that served.  They are dying for nothing? They are brainwashed?  I think it is understandable that the numbers would decline, but I am not sure that this is what is actually happening.


I am not exactly sure how this war is illegal?  However, most in the military believe in the cause.  Just because one is not holding a weapon doesn't mean they can't be in support of the war.  I am saying this as someone that thinks the war was a big mistake.

all fine and true, but if recruiting numbers are down they are down no matter if you are just tring to mathc attrican rates, expansion be left on one side basic recruiting numbers are down, recruiting figures/ goals, are set to match the attrician rates of the military so that there were always be someone coming in to fill voids left by departing members. so if your low your low, add in a 50k expansion ....... its going to take canada 5-10 yrs to do a 15k expansion of reg force, and our recruitment numbers are up. we jsut cant train them fast enough to make it faster. i would say to fill 50k new slots with numbers slightly above standard, ud be looking at 5yrs or more for teh us to fill them out.

again the story doe mis lead to a point but it does say that recruitment numbers are down to their lowest point since '79, and that they are tring to expand by 50k, so everything is there, you just have to look at it

Yea, places like Lousianna.

If your solution was that simple, it would have been done already.

there's no "solution" needed. we have more than enough troops right now.

and as B-riot pointed out. this story tells us very little. the Army fell short of its goal by almost 7,000 in 1999 and will be about the same this year. but it doesn't say what the goal was in 1999, or any other year. so we're not getting an accurate comparison.

Thanks,

if you can't see the war for what it is and for the damage its done, then i don't think ur a a moron - but i do pity u

well good to see you backed off of your statement.

(obviously, only a fuckin pussy would stand behind that type of blanket statement.  afterall, i think we all agree that just because someone has a different viewpoint does NOT make them a moron).  : ok:

i was for invading iraq and taking out saddam years before this war started. so i was glad to see it finally taken care of. clinton threatened to do it. bush finally took care of it.

but there have been many mistakes made in the way and things have not been done effectively. that is disappointing and i expected a better plan and execution.

just curious but dont morons have viewpoints?

I did? ???



I'd be a 'fuckin pussy' for viewing anyone that was prepared to go to Iraq and get himself killed in an absurd war as a 'moron'? :hihi:

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

That recruiting figures have slumped indicates that behind America's flag waving right wing nonsense there is some sense - if u were all morons u'd be joining in the millions!


Wrong. If someone has a viewpoint that is absurd (i.e this wonderful war is worth a fraction of the deaths its caused) then they most likely are a moron



Ironically enough so was I. I saw the error of my ways about 10 mins after the first bomb dropped


Many mistakes eh?

Like, maybe - there being no WMD's? Or perhaps the fact that tens of thousands of civilians have died as a result of the violence. Wait - perhaps the mistake was turning the Muslim world from hating us to actively trying to kill us?

Or maybe the thing that hasn't been done effectively is the fact that a war for oil yielded us no economic benefit whatsoever......



No shit!

This rather poor 'battle plan' has turned a nation with a rather unpleasant leader into a bloodbath, opps ::)

Everything you said after this was ignored because this statement was so ignorant.  This is the dumbest thing I have read here in a long time.  Let me use your approach to describe this sentence.  If you think this war was about settling a score for Bush Sr. or for oil, then you must be a moron.   As the left likes to say all the time...show me a link.   ::)

total goal was 80k....... ways it right in the body of the article in plain english, looking at '79 the golas were about 160k and was missed by 17k..... FYI the us army size has not really changed since '97 so recruit goals would still be at around 75k higher personnel losses would make up for the 5k increase if there was one, i still think that 80k was a soild goal for the last 10yrs, the 30k increase in size will not start till next fiscal yr well now i guess, and the goal is not going to be 110k it will be more like 85k that would give a 6yr window to train the new recruits up and maintain the existing and exiting soilders

Do they ever.....

The oil link has been showed you more than once. But as usual, you are asking for it again.

Imagine that....

 :hihi:

Of course it wasn't for the oil ::)

Strange that North Korea with proven WMD capabilities was left alone and yet Iraq was hit!

I wonder why! Maybe...err....let's see.....oil? Settle a score for Bush snr?

Maybe it was all that evidence that showed the 9/11 bombers were from Iraq - oh wait, no, ithey were from Saudia Arabia!

Or maybe the war was to help those poor Iraqi's being repressed - which would kind of beg the question, why not Sudan? (I'd imagine u won't even know what I mean by that)

Maybe u can offer a reason why North Korea which has developed, and threatens to use, its weapons was ignored (and is still ignored) but Iraq was hit despite no reliable evidence of WMD's being there at all?

U can do it!

this post just shows that you really do not have an understanding of what is going on.

now try to have an open mind for a second, cause it actually makes sense.

the U.S. has not invaded north korea because they have cooperated. iraq did not cooperate. so the U.N. issued several Resolutions to force them to comly. (and these Resolutions, they're pretty serious stuff.)

and the Resolution promised force if not followed.

therefore, IT IS NOT STRANGE WE DID NOT INVADE NORTH KOREA!

I have to agree with Charity on this one.  Once this statement is made the rest pretty much gets ignored.  Talk about being ignorant or moronic.  This is the same as saying that the reason France and Germnay didn't support us is because they were involved in the oil for foods scandal and that these countries were doing pretty well "dealing" with Suddam.  For someone that I had seen make some intelligent posts in some other threads, I am dissapointed.

You are wasting your time.  I have learned that once these people have made up their minds there is no convincing them otherwise.

good.

Of course they have. Then they start making their weapons all over again. Then they cooperate. Then they start all over again.

Co-operation? Really?

Naive? Oh yes u r.

ya know...when sandman says cooperation i get the feeling that its more a threat than cooperation....

Disappointed? ?I'm text on a screen and u get disapointed by it? Hell if u ever got a girlfriend and she dumped u ur so emotional fragile i doubt u'd ever recover :rofl:

Getting ur self killed for a pointless war the rest of the world realised was such is moronic. But they did it for their nation, how noble! And yes, the 1940's want their attitudes back.

If the war's so just how come u haven't joined up?

How many more Iraqi's need to die before u turn against the war - do we need to hit 200,000 dead?

No number is going to make them turn against the war. They'll learn when they lose someone close. Till then it's all blah blah blah...  :P

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: ::)
Is that an attempt to take a shot at me?? I said I thought you had made some intelligent posts in the past, not funny ones.? Your attempt at humor bombed.?

I expect some people to spew the uneducated bullshit.? Others I expect a little more from.? I guess, from the few posts that I had read of yours, I placed you in the wrong category.? Sorry.?

Some people don't agree with you.? In fact, most of those that are serving and going to war for what they believe is in the best interest of their nation disagree with you.? I think it is disgraceful that you would dishonor their service and their willingness to serve their countries by calling them morons.

So we have finally crossed over from bad mouthing the administrations to bad mouthing the troops?

And Izzy, the 60's want their attitudes back.


I am not defending the war.? In fact, I think it was a mistake.? However, I realize that there are others that feel differently, including most that are actually on the ground.? I will not dishonor their service nor their willingness to do what I am not, and probably won't ever, by calling them morons.? Furthermore, just because I don't believe that the intentions of our country were to make revenge for our President's father nor to gain oil, doesn't mean that I think this war was right or just.? I would think you could figure that out.

How many will die once we leave?? After Vietnam millions were slaughtered.? I think this war was a mistake and wrong, but either way Iraqis are going to die, and in fact were dying before the war.  I think we should look to see what is best from the point where we are at now, not from where we were before the war.  As I have said before, I think it is hard to argue that waging this war was a good decision.

Not quite so cut and dry.

WE argue that we were within our rights to enforce UN Resolution 1441? via force according to UN Resolutions 678 and 687.

The UN, and member countries, argue otherwise.

Here's some good links on the subject:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

The claims the war are illegal aren't all that sensational or unrealistic....? The war MIGHT be legal, it might not be.? I doubt we'll ever actually get to hear arguements in front of the World Court on the issue, or in any other court, for that matter.?

Edit: Note that Isreal, FYI, is in violation of about 30 UN Resolutions...and in much more "serious" violation than Iraq was of 1441.  Just something I saw in one of the articles that I thought was interesting....

A war against the sovereign state of Iraq without the express authorization of the UNO is illegal under international law, running against the UN Charter and against the Resolution 1441.

Under international law, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter is clear:

?All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations?.

Article 51 spells out the right of nations to wage war:
?Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security?.

Since Iraq has neither waged an act of war against the USA or UK and since international peace and security is put at risk not by Iraq but by the USA and United Kingdom, the provisions for self-defence are not met.

Much is said by the warmongers about Resolutions 678 and 687 (1991), claiming that they allow a military attack to be launched against Iraq under the principle that their provisions were not met. However, the UNO does not enact ghost or voodoo resolutions, which are passed, acted upon, forgotten and resurrected twelve years later when the time is deemed right. If the context of the question is different, the Security Council has to deliberate a further resolution.

This was the case with 1441, which under paragraph 3, instructs Iraq to ?provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council?a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems?. Iraq subsequently provided a 12.000 page report.

Evidently, questions were asked about details and naturally, time is needed to reply. 12.000 pages and numerous weapons programmes involve a universe of materials and Iraq has complied consistently with the inspections teams.

Under paragraph 4, ?material breach will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below?. Material breach has not been reported to the Council, rather, the inspections teams have both stated that Iraq is cooperating and that they need more time to carry out their duties determined under Resolution 1441.

The ?immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access? guaranteed under Paragraph 5 of 1441 has been fulfilled by Iraq. Paragraph 10 ?Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates?.

The United States of America has not been forthcoming with this material, despite its many insinuations. There was even a ridiculous report presented to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell, who referred to foreign intelligence reports which turned out to be no more than a 1991 thesis copied from the internet by the British Intelligence Services and vague references, picked up by the biased western media, about links between Saddam Hussein?s Ba?ath regime and Al-Qaeda, never proved because they are untrue.

Under Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, the United States of America is hereby challenged to produce the documentation behind these allegations. Should this documentation not be produced, the USA is guilty of lying to the UNSC or is in breach of its provisions.

Under Paragraph 12, should the provisions of Paragraph 4 (failure to comply and cooperate fully with this resolution will constitute material breach, which is not the case) or Paragraph 11 (interference with the inspection process or failure to comply with the disarmament process, also not the case), not be fulfilled, the UNSC ?decides to convene immediately?to consider the situation and the need for full compliance of all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security?.

Fundamentally, Paragraph 13 continues, that ?In that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations?.

Not guilty. This has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and under the fundamental elements of international law, fundamental equality in human rights is a basic, guaranteed principle. What is evident here is that the jury has been tampered with (veiled threats about suspension of aid programmes and economic consequences if members of the UNSC voted against the USA), that the UN Charter and International Law have not been followed and that if there is military action in which any civilian dies, the US and British governments will be liable under international law for prosecution for war crimes.

I personally shall make every effort to this end here on Pravda.Ru to see that international law is adhered to and that the world is ruled on principles of multi-lateralism, equality of rights among nations, diplomacy, discussion and dialogue.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/index.html