How George Bush Broke The United States Army

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Apparently, Americans don't want to die in Bush's Iraq war anymore. We've been reduced to hiring mercenaries (offering bribes to potential enlistees) to try bolster our fast depleting military because of Bush's personal grudge match with Iraq.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Sun, Oct. 16, 2005
Army needs years of repair
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

‘Armies are fragile institutions and, for all their might, easily broken.”

Remember those words? They were written here, in this column, at the end of September 2003. I laid out the recipe for how to break a magnificent Army that had taken nearly two decades to rebuild itself in the wake of the Vietnam debacle.

In that early fall two years ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was still running victory laps, and the words of his boss, President Bush, were still ringing: “Bring ‘em on!”

Sadly, those two were, and still are, in charge.

Now they’ve broken the Army, and after this administration is history, it will take 12 or 15 or 20 years to repair the damage inflicted on an institution that our country desperately needs in a century as dangerous as this one.

Both political parties, though, have failed the American voter by offering up candidates for high office who, in simpler times, would barely have qualified for tar and feathers and rides out of town.

How can I say this about the Army when just a week ago, at the Association of the U.S. Army convention, Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey and a veritable galaxy of stars were declaring, under orders, that everything in the Army was just fine; better than good; never better?

I say this because we in journalism don’t jump when Mr. Rumsfeld yells frog, and I look at the evidence that accumulates day by day. I hear this from other generals, active and retired: The U.S. Army is utterly broken and in need of immediate repair.

It’s not just recruitment, though that’s bad enough this year and looks as if it will be a great deal worse in fiscal 2006. The Army fell more than 7,000 bodies short of recruiting the number of soldiers it needs this year. Some say that shortfall will become 15,000 or 20,000 during the next 12 months, even though the Army hopes to throw lots of money at the problem.

If Congress approves, the Army plans to double its $20,000 enlistment bonus for trigger-pullers to $40,000. And if a young enlistee further agrees to be sent to one of the divisions bound for Iraq or Afghanistan in the next rotation, he’ll get an extra pay raise of $400 a month for 36 months.

Has it come to that? Must we now acknowledge that the only way we can attract young Americans to protect and defend us is to buy them? The Army has already relaxed its once-sacred standards so that twice as many recruits who score in the lowest category on mental aptitude tests can enlist, along with many more high school dropouts and other borderline candidates.

Now Secretary Harvey has laid out how, without increasing the Army’s strength, he’ll beef up what he calls “the operational Army,” the Army that kills people and blows things up, without increasing the long-term permanent strength of the Army by even one soldier above the hopelessly low total of 482,400.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/7wlpc

[enjolras]

While in principle I agree with the article.. a stupid war at the wrong time has completely and utterly devestated our military, the conclusion is completely stupid.

The military (I've been around it my whole life) IS a business. Our military is a paid military.. has been for a very long time. Just like any other business, when recruiting gets more difficult you have no choice but to sweeten the pot. You have to ATTRACT people to your business.. that's what they are doing and I see nothing wrong with that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by enjolras

While in principle I agree with the article.. a stupid war at the wrong time has completely and utterly devestated our military, the conclusion is completely stupid.

The military (I've been around it my whole life) IS a business. Our military is a paid military.. has been for a very long time. Just like any other business, when recruiting gets more difficult you have no choice but to sweeten the pot. You have to ATTRACT people to your business.. that's what they are doing and I see nothing wrong with that.

I'd say Mr. Galloway has some knowledge about the military also.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Galloway, a native of Refugio, Texas, spent 22 years as a foreign and war correspondent and bureau chief for United Press International, and nearly 20 years as a senior editor and senior writer for U.S. News & World Report magazine.

His overseas postings include tours in Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Singapore and three years as UPI bureau chief in Moscow in the former Soviet Union. During the course of 15 years of foreign postings Galloway served four tours as a war correspondent in Vietnam and also covered the 1971 India-Pakistan War and half a dozen other combat operations. In 1990-1991 Galloway covered Desert Shield/Desert Storm, riding with the 24th Infantry Division (Mech) in the assault into Iraq.

General H. Norman Schwarzkopf has called Galloway “the finest combat correspondent of our generation---a soldier’s reporter and a soldier’s friend.”

He is co-author, with Lt. Gen. (ret) Hal G. Moore, of the national bestseller We Were Soldiers Once…and Young---which has been made into a critically acclaimed movie, We Were Soldiers, starring Mel Gibson. We Were Soldiers Once…and Young is presently in print in four different editions which have sold more than 1.2 million copies. He also co-authored Triumph Without Victory: The History of the Persian Gulf War for Times Books.
On May 1, 1998, Galloway was decorated with a Bronze Star Medal with V for rescuing wounded soldiers under fire in the Ia Drang Valley, in November 1965. His is the only medal of valor the U.S. Army awarded to a civilian for actions during the Vietnam War.

Galloway received the National Magazine Award in 1991 for a U.S. News cover article on the 25th anniversary of the Ia Drang Battles, and the National News Media Award of the U.S. Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1992 for coverage of the Gulf War. In 2000 he received the President’s
Award for the Arts of the Vietnam Veterans Association of America. In 2001 he received the BG Robert L. Denig Award for Distinguished Service presented by the U.S. Marine Corps Combat Correspondents Association.

He is a member of the advisory boards of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the nonprofit organization No Greater Love founded to assist the victims of war, the 1st Cavalry Division Association and the National Infantry Foundation.

http://tinyurl.com/a4k4r

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by enjolras

The military (I've been around it my whole life) IS a business. Our military is a paid military.. has been for a very long time. Just like any other business, when recruiting gets more difficult you have no choice but to sweeten the pot. You have to ATTRACT people to your business.. that's what they are doing and I see nothing wrong with that.

Bingo.

I wonder if the Left is attempting to deride the concept of an all-volunteer professional army so they can fulfill their social-engineering schemes by bringing back the draft.

It all depends on what the purpose of the military is - is it the sharp end of US foreign policy, i.e., designed and built to fight wars and win, or is it to represent an equal sharing of some societal burden? I prefer the former, the left prefers the latter. I want the best soldiers, which means volunteers. Period.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Bingo.

I wonder if the Left is attempting to deride the concept of an all-volunteer professional army so they can fulfill their social-engineering schemes by bringing back the draft.

It all depends on what the purpose of the military is - is it the sharp end of US foreign policy, i.e., designed and built to fight wars and win, or is it to represent an equal sharing of some societal burden? I prefer the former, the left prefers the latter. I want the best soldiers, which means volunteers. Period.

You want the best soldiers and you are condoning LOWERING standards and increasing bribes to LURE individuals into taking chances they can grab the cash without actually having to go to war. Brilliant!

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

You want the best soldiers and you are condoning LOWERING standards and increasing bribes to LURE individuals into taking chances they can grab the cash without actually having to go to war. Brilliant!

I don't care for the lowering standards part, but if the military, as enjolras said, needs to sweeten the pot, so be it.

Is it a "bribe" when any employer increases the pay for a given position to widen the pool of applicants?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I don't care for the lowering standards part, but if the military, as enjolras said, needs to sweeten the pot, so be it.

Is it a "bribe" when any employer increases the pay for a given position to widen the pool of applicants?

It is when the risk reward includes possible maiming for life and or death.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It is when the risk reward includes possible maiming for life and or death.

I think the enlistees understand the risk Beerboy. Not all of them are stupid idiots like you leftist punks love to point out. Hell my younger brother whos in hs cant wait to become a seal. He understands what hes getting himself into.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It is when the risk reward includes possible maiming for life and or death.

And this potential exists only in the military?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

I think the enlistees understand the risk Beerboy. Not all of them are stupid idiots like you leftist punks love to point out. Hell my younger brother whos in hs cant wait to become a seal. He understands what hes getting himself into.

Says the Bush boot licker who WON'T go fight Bush's grudge match.
So why haven't you signed up and grabbed the money DBchild?

Originally Posted by W*GS

And this potential exists only in the military?

Being maimed or killed in combat? Pretty much.

EDIT: I guess civilians in countries that are attacked, invaded and occupied by other countries face this danger too.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Being maimed or killed in combat? Pretty much.

Gee, the "in combat" part changes your original quote:

"It is when the risk reward includes possible maiming for life and or death."

Just a wee bit.

A job in the military involves some degree of risk. So do lots of other jobs, including maiming and death.

Pity you feel the need to deride those who choose to join the military as imbeciles who aren't aware of the risks.

Why?

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Says the Bush boot licker who WON'T go fight Bush's grudge match.
So why haven't you signed up and grabbed the money DBchild?





Being maimed or killed in combat? Pretty much.

Goodness. Im astonished you guys actually use this pathetic notion that since I support a war, I am there-by obligated to join and fight in it. I guess its easy for you pansy left to say that since you wouldnt be caught fighting any war if it meant to protect this country. Face it, you guys are only good at b****ing and moaning about every little thing in this country. Dont you see that every day you are in this room posting more of your articles from progandaRus.com. You have not brought one good and optimistic idea into this room. The only thing you guys have is the small hope that you can somehow indict every person in Bush's administration. Even that will prove to backfire on you guys one day.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Army Headed to Recruiting Shortfall
"It's like having a persistent drought," said Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the private Lexington Institute. "At some point when you have drought conditions you have to institute water rationing, and that's what you potentially face in the military if it goes on long enough. You would get to a stage where you don't have enough people to staff your organizations."
Read More...

Military Finds Itself in Twilight Zone
Most senior officers recognize that Bush's adventure in Iraq has put the military in a precarious state. Not only have retired officers, such as the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni, been the most outspoken critics of the war, but even serving officers have voiced subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle warnings about both the prospects for success in Iraq and the implications of being tied down there indefinitely.
Read More...

Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements
The U.S. Army, facing recruiting woes and a reorganized force, will relax requirements for new officers, welcoming older candidates and allowing more tolerance of past minor crimes, officials said on Thursday.
Read More...

Declining Enlistment: The Challenge of Recruitment
The Army's needs are real, but the measures it's using are not only unlikely to fix the problem, but can be a mistake that will hurt the military for several decades to come, argues Edwards, who retired from the Army in 1997 after 37 years of service, including two tours in Vietnam.
Read More...

National Guard stretched to the limit
The Army National Guard is hanging on by its fingertips. Internal Guard documents tell the story: All 10 of its special forces units, all 147 military police units, 97 of 101 infantry units and 73 of 75 armor units cannot, because of past or current mobilizations, deploy again to a war zone without reinforcements. "One can conclude," said Brig. Gen. Bill Libby, commander of the Maine National Guard, "that we're going to run out of soldiers."
Read More...

http://tinyurl.com/cpqw2

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Goodness. Im astonished you guys actually use this pathetic notion that since I support a war, I am there-by obligated to join and fight in it. I guess its easy for you pansy left to say that since you wouldnt be caught fighting any war if it meant to protect this country. Face it, you guys are only good at b****ing and moaning about every little thing in this country. Dont you see that every day you are in this room posting more of your articles from progandaRus.com. You have not brought one good and optimistic idea into this room. The only thing you guys have is the small hope that you can somehow indict every person in Bush's administration. Even that will prove to backfire on you guys one day.

I see, you only support the Iraq invasion as long as you don't have to fight in it?
Only the last few remaining Bush boot licker's believe attacking Iraq was protecting America.

And to add to your limited information pool, I've offered many ideas on many subjects, whether they are good are optimistic or not is up to the individual, but when you call someone an idiot and part of the left fringe without knowing who that person is and supporting Bush's failed policies in the process, expect at least, to lumped in with the Bush boot licker's.

[bendog]

But wags, the reserves esp were never let in on the clause that they'd be doing mult tours of nation building. That was just sorta snuck up on em.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

A job in the military involves some degree of risk. So do lots of other jobs, including maiming and death.

Pity you feel the need to deride those who choose to join the military as imbeciles who aren't aware of the risks.

Why?

Some degree of risk? Over 100,000 causalities on W's watch and growing.
Why has recruiting fallen to levels that cause the greatest war correspondent of our time along with many military leaders to say we're in trouble?

I'm not "deriding" those who want to take a chance of grabbing the money and NOT fighting in a war. But you tell me, what kind of soldiers are they going to make?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Some degree of risk? Over 100,000 causalities on W's watch and growing.

If you count a "toothache" as a casualty, like one would use "casualty" to describe a guy who's lost both legs.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Why has recruiting fallen to levels that cause the greatest war correspondent of our time along with many military leaders to say we're in trouble?

Because (and sensibly so) the pool of potential recruits has noticed that Bush has made a mess of Iraq and American soldiers are unnecessarily dying and getting hurt. The "market" is responding exactly as one would expect.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I'm not "deriding" those who want to take a chance of grabbing the money and NOT fighting in a war. But you tell me, what kind of soldiers are they going to make?

Better than a military of conscripts.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This forum is nearly completely deviod of any legit discussion. Id there is any real discussion posted, people ignore it so that they can call the other people a "Bush boot-licker" or a "flaming liberal."

Why dont the mods turn this forum into a video game where you can just shoot your political opponent to death in a grudge match?

[bendog]

Wags, why is a volunteer force preferable to conscripted when the mission is nation building?

It's not hi tech, so we don't need the best of the working poor. Conscripts work cheaper. A draft could ensure all socioecon groups share the pain.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by bendog

Wags, why is a volunteer force preferable to conscripted when the mission is nation building?

Volunteers are always better than conscripts.

Originally Posted by bendog

It's not hi tech, so we don't need the best of the working poor. Conscripts work cheaper. A draft could ensure all socioecon groups share the pain.

Given what we know of Bush's avoidance of the draft, your last comment isn't true.

[gunns]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

I think the enlistees understand the risk Beerboy. Not all of them are stupid idiots like you leftist punks love to point out. Hell my younger brother whos in hs cant wait to become a seal. He understands what hes getting himself into.

Sure they understand the risk. If you're in the military you may be commanded by your commander in Chief to go fight for our freedoms in a war. Of course that may be why so many in our armed forces are now wondering what in the hell they are doing in Iraq then. The one thing those people didn't count on was a Commander in Chief with his own agenda and wanting them to fulfill that agenda.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Volunteers are always better than conscripts.



Given what we know of Bush's avoidance of the draft, your last comment isn't true.

My post was a draft "could" spread the sacrafice. And actually bushii's opt out scheme wouldn't work today, as back in my day the reserve was a cusshy place for kids with contacts to ride out the war in safety.

I suppose it's true that volunteers are more motivated than conscripts though. I see that pt. I think if we had a conscripted force, there'd be no way to maintain our involvement without mutiny.

But the volunteer force seems a bit costly in personnel terms when the mission is to drive around in a humvee, or chase ghosts.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by angryllama

This forum is nearly completely deviod of any legit discussion. Id there is any real discussion posted, people ignore it so that they can call the other people a "Bush boot-licker" or a "flaming liberal."

Bush boot licker was in response to "idiot" but I'm sure you just "overlooked" that
part of it, you being the staunch moderate you are.

[bronco_diesel]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Bush boot licker was in response to "idiot" but I'm sure you just "overlooked" that
part of it, you being the staunch moderate you are.

did you not see his comment about "flaming liberal" too? he's pointing out boths sides. grow up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I see, you only support the Iraq invasion as long as you don't have to fight in it.

Bingo.

He's just another chickenhawk whose walk doesn't match his talk.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Only the last few remaining Bush boot licker's believe attacking Iraq was protecting America.

And chimps like DBruleU are among that ever-shrinking fringe minority.