PDA

View Full Version : Death Toll Rises for Military Reservists


Bronco_Beerslug
10-10-2005, 07:00 PM
Getting to the point that we're going to have to start thinking about using the draft to replenish our military that the Bush administration is depleting at an alarming rate.

------------------------------------------------------
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The National Guard and Reserves are suffering a strikingly higher share of U.S. casualties in
Iraq, their portion of total American military deaths nearly doubling since last year.

Reservists have accounted for one-quarter of all U.S. deaths since the Iraq war began, but the proportion has grown over time. It was 10 percent for the five weeks it took to topple Baghdad in the spring of 2003, and 20 percent for 2004 as a whole.

The trend accelerated this year. For the first nine months of 2005 reservists accounted for 36 percent of U.S. deaths, and for August and September it was 56 percent, according to
Pentagon figures.

The Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve accounted for more than half of all U.S. deaths in August and in September — the first time that has happened in consecutive months. The only other month in which it even approached 50 percent was June 2004.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20051010/capt.ny11410101815.iraq_reserves_toll_ny114.jpg?x= 380&y=224&sig=yLbdovhMWYa78YA6hqmoxg--
Honor guards, rest the coffin containing the remains of Staff Sgt. William A. Allers III, 28, of the Army National Guard's 198th Military Police Battalion, 75th Troop Command, Louisville, Ky. in a Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2005 photo, during a funeral ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va. National Guard and Reserve troops are suffering a strikingly higher share of casualties in Iraq, their percentage of total U.S. military deaths nearly doubling in the past year. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)


Casualties in Iraq have shifted toward citizen soldiers as their combat role has grown to historic levels. National Guard officials say their soldiers have been sent into combat in Iraq in numbers not previously seen in modern times — far more than were sent to Vietnam, where active-duty troops did the vast majority of the fighting.

Charles Krohn, a former Army deputy chief of public affairs, said the reservists are taking up the slack for the highly stressed active-duty Army.

"Decisions made years earlier made going to war in any significant way impossible without Guard and Reserve participation. But I can't imagine anyone postulated the situation we face today: We don't seem very anxious to bring back the draft and we can't get enough volunteers for a war that is not universally popular," Krohn said.

About 45 percent of all Guard and Reserve deaths since the start of the war — 220 of the almost 500 total — occurred in the first nine months of 2005, according to Pentagon figures. The deadliest month was August, when 49 Guard and Reserve members died.

The mounting casualties among reservists in Iraq has been overshadowed by the attention focused on a rising overall U.S. death toll, now approaching 2,000. It complicates recruiting for the National Guard and Reserve, which often attract people who think of the military reservists' role as something other than front-line combat.

Gone are the days when the National Guard and Reserve served mainly as "rear-area" support, far from the front-line fighting.

In Iraq the front line is everywhere — on rural roads where Guard and Reserve soldiers drive supply trucks, at urban checkpoints, in remote villages and at major supply bases. Some units also have been attached to active-duty units with the specific mission of conducting offensive operations.

The casualties have contributed to what has been the most challenging time for the Guard and Reserve since the military became an all-volunteer force in 1973. In addition to fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan and helping keep the peace in the Balkans, the Guard in particular was called to action in large numbers for rescue and relief from hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

At one point this year more than half of the combat forces in Iraq were National Guard.

"That's a first," said Army Maj. Les Melnyk, historian for the Pentagon office that manages the Army and Air National Guard. "The Guard can't claim that (level of combat) for World War II or World War I — the other major wars we fought in. Never more than 50 percent of the combat forces were Guard."
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/94sot

Bronco_Beerslug
10-10-2005, 07:02 PM
Army Faces Worst Recruiting Slump in Years
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Fri Sep 30,10:56 AM ET

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.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/7a7pd


.
<a href="http://www.extensionsmirror.nl"><img src="http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/logo/logo1.png" alt="The Extensions Mirror" title="Completing your XPIrience" /></a>

Play2win
10-10-2005, 07:25 PM
This is BUSH's Grand Plan to lower the Unemployment rate... ::)

SoCalBronco
10-10-2005, 08:55 PM
This is BUSH's Grand Plan to lower the Unemployment rate... ::)


That may or may not be true. But when the unemployment rate increases in a couple years because Matt Leinart is out on the street, you wont be able to pin that on Bush. Nyah!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-10-2005, 10:17 PM
Getting to the point that we're going to have to start thinking about using the draft to replenish our military that the Bush administration is depleting at an alarming rate.


The chances of a draft happening on the dry drunk's watch are slim to none. Such a move would be political suicide, and it's already painfully obvious that everything comes down to politics for the GOP and the bush crime family.

Bush will probably just continue to perfect the back door draft policies already in place and hire more "private contractors" with your tax dollars.

One thing's for sure, however: A draft would expose all the young republican chickenhawks and Iraq war supporters as frauds and hypocrites once and for all.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-10-2005, 10:52 PM
http://www.bartcop.com/number-2-14.jpg

W*GS
10-11-2005, 08:14 AM
Getting to the point that we're going to have to start thinking about using the draft to replenish our military that the Bush administration is depleting at an alarming rate.

Sigh.

The only politicians who have proposed a draft are the left-liberals in the Democratic Party (Rangel et.al.) and their intentions are not to boost the numbers, but to make the military some reflection of some sort of demographic statistics.

Personally, the fact that the military is having trouble with recruitment is a sign that everything is going just as it should.

Play2win
10-11-2005, 08:34 AM
That may or may not be true. But when the unemployment rate increases in a couple years because Matt Leinart is out on the street, you wont be able to pin that on Bush. Nyah!
;D

bendog
10-11-2005, 08:44 AM
Sigh.

The only politicians who have proposed a draft are the left-liberals in the Democratic Party (Rangel et.al.) and their intentions are not to boost the numbers, but to make the military some reflection of some sort of demographic statistics.

Personally, the fact that the military is having trouble with recruitment is a sign that everything is going just as it should.

I'm not with Rangal, in fact I'd want to shoot him if he was on my land, but imo, the volunteer force was based on an implicit promise/pact. No more bogus wars for bogus political reasons, and no long term occupation/nation building exercises. Rather when the US goes to war it will be for a specific purpose, and the means of waging war will be all out and fearsomely brutal but of short duration. And, for the best of the working poor who volunteer for this job, we will provide a first rate technical education, as well as decent working conditions, and help with accessing higher education after the term is up. And, to those guys who voluteer to continue on in the reserves part time, we will minimize the impact on the family.

IF this country is backing out of the promises we've made to the best of the working poor (the best of America, imo), then I'm for a draft.

enjolras
10-11-2005, 10:57 AM
In order to 'win' in Iraq, we need to double or maybe even triple the number of boots on the ground. That's something that seems to have widespread support among military decision makers.

To do that (instead of just spinning wheel like we are right now) we very well may need a draft. Its the simple reality of the situation. It may not be politically expedient, but as far as I can tell it may be the only way to salvage peace in Iraq.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-11-2005, 03:27 PM
In order to 'win' in Iraq, we need to double or maybe even triple the number of boots on the ground. That's something that seems to have widespread support among military decision makers.

The general who told Bush the same thing during the planning of the war got canned by the boy king and the chickenhawks in the misadministration for his trouble.

Nothing has changed since then.

When the alkie-in-chief gets his faith-based game plan for Iraq from the "man upstairs," no amount of facts on earth can change his mind.