Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Tomorrow's Army: at your Recruiting Station Today

It's even worse than we thought. Not only did our Army miss its annual recruiting quota by the largest shortfall (7,000) since 1979, but look at the compromises (recruiting waivers) they made to come this close:

Serious criminal misconduct: 630 in FY-2005, up from 408 in FY-2004.

Misdemeanors (not necessarily serious): 4,587 in FY-2005, up from 3,667 in FY-2004.

Alcohol and illegal drugs (failing test during enlistment processing): 737 in FY-2005, up from 650 in FY-2004. [A waiver is required to wait 45 days to try again.]

Total enlistments: 73,000 in FY-2005 and 77,000 in FY-2004.

Any one of these waivers is not necessarily a problem. Like President Bush, many good soldiers, when they were young and irresponsible, were young and irresponsible. Cumulatively, however, one should be very worried. As a group, soldiers who earn high school diplomas and have no crime or drug problems are more likely to complete their enlistments successfully.

It is those quality soldiers recruited over the last ten years (through FY-2004) who have accomplished great things for our nation.

Today's recruits will make up the noncommissioned officer corps starting around 2010 and throughout that decade. And, with all due respect to the patriotism of today's recruits, including the 90+% without waivers, these trends aren't looking very good.

So, where is our governing party in all this? Will they fulfill their national leadership responsibility to set a good example for the rest of us? How about you, Henry Hager? Don't you really want to Serve America, while Supporting The President?

Hat tip to AmericaBlog's Chris in Paris.

PS. Well, as long as they aren't homosexual, we can count on our Army to maintain good order and discipline, right?


At 14 February, 2006 10:45, Blogger Cabe said...

If the Afghanistan, and Iraq wars were over...what would become of this blog?

At 14 February, 2006 11:37, Blogger Karl said...


We'll still be encouraging the future leaders of our governing party to enlist to fight against Iran.

At 14 February, 2006 15:35, Blogger Cabe said...

Would you support a war against Iran?

At 14 February, 2006 16:26, Blogger Karl said...

Only if we are able to win it. And I don't think we are in a position to do so now.

At 15 February, 2006 00:05, Anonymous Samwise Galenorn said...

A war against Iran? Why? Based on intelligence that they might be developing a nuclear bomb?
Like the boy who cried 'Wolf', the Bush administration lacks credibility in intelligence information on Iran. He was wrong about Iraq, he was wrong on Afghanistan, but now he's right about Iran?
Cabe, would it be too much for you to fire off a few brain cells and try to ascertain if the intel information about Iran was correct or not? OK? Could you please be just a bit intelligent for once?
Why don't we consult with CIA officers assigned to this project? Oh wait, we can't. Because THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OUTED HER!!!


At 15 February, 2006 05:06, Blogger Cabe said...

He was wrong on Afghanistan?

So you follow Michael Moore?

Fire off a few brain cells? I was asking questions and not stating opinions. I'm trying to learn from you folks...but I keep getting insulted for asking questions. Karl is very polite, you are not.

At 15 February, 2006 17:15, Anonymous Samwise Galenorn said...

Cabe, cabe, cabe,
Runsfeld talks about underground bunkers used by Al-qaeda: Yes, watch Michael Moore's movie for the interview Rumsfeld did on the news. US invades Afghanistan and does a wild goose chase for these so called underground bunkers, which don't exist, and were based on intelligence created by the Bush administration.
Michael Moore uses facts. Bush uses lies. I can't explain it more simply than that. And if using the truth to explain things to you is being rude, then put me in the rude column.
If you wish to counter, then use facts based on the truth. Please, go ahead.

At 15 February, 2006 18:30, Blogger Cabe said...

"Michael Moore uses facts."

Anyone else on this blog agree with that statement?

At 15 February, 2006 21:18, Blogger Sadie Baker said...

Yes. Moore does use facts. Sorry about that. You should watch Farenheit 9/11 for yourself and you'll see what I mean. You may not like the way he presents his facts, but it doesn't change the fact that they are facts.

But actually I came here with a recruiting lead:

Tennessee State Representative Stacey Campfield (R) has reportedly raised only $27 for his re-election campaign. Looks like he may soon be looking for a new line of work. He looks to be a healthy, fit, and heterosexual young man, too.

At 16 February, 2006 16:37, Blogger Cabe said...

Moore uses facts? Like we only went to war in Afghanistan to further an oil pipeline?

At 16 February, 2006 17:14, Blogger ariadne said...

He never said only--just that it was part of the motivation.

Have you bothered to read or watch anything Moore does, or do you merely parrot the opinions of other people (who likely haven't read or watched for themselves)?

Do your own scholarship. You might not like what you find, but at least you can present your own informed opinions.

At 16 February, 2006 17:41, Blogger Sadie Baker said...

I think what happens is, people on the Right assume Michael Moore is just our version of Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is always lying, he says things like "Vince Foster was killed in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton" (he said that only months ago). Wingers think, "oh Moore says thing just like that only he says them about Republicans."

He doesn't though. See for yourself, I dare you.

At 16 February, 2006 18:19, Blogger ariadne said...

Yikes, Sadie--I don't know if I'm up for the challenge. Sounds positively nauseating.

At 16 February, 2006 18:32, Blogger Cabe said...

I've watched Fahrenheit 9/11.

I encourage you to watch Fahrenhype 9/11.

At 16 February, 2006 18:50, Blogger ariadne said...

So you watched it and concluded that there were no facts?

Could you demonstrate for the audience Moore's lies?

At 16 February, 2006 20:20, Blogger Sadie Baker said...

The worst part of Farenheit, for me, was the scene with the war profiteers yucking it up, drinking champagne to celebrate the war and all the money they would be making off of it. It's up to $2 trillion they've made so far. Makes my blood run cold just to think about it.

At 17 February, 2006 06:14, Blogger Cabe said...

I could go on all day about the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Btw Sadie baker...that profiteers part....AL GORE WAS IN ATTENDANCE....Bush even made a joke about him and he laughed. It is an annual event.

At 17 February, 2006 09:47, Blogger ariadne said...

Yet, you haven't named one lie, Cabe. Put up or shut up.

At 17 February, 2006 11:55, Blogger Pere Ubu said...

Alcohol and illegal drugs (failing test during enlistment processing): 737 in FY-2005, up from 650 in FY-2004. [A waiver is required to wait 45 days to try again.]

Well, if the VP is allowed to fire off his rifle while loaded, why should the troops be any different?

At 17 February, 2006 13:52, Blogger Sadie Baker said...

AL GORE WAS THERE .... and this means, what? I don't understand. Does this mean it's all right? Well not in my book. It was wrong, it was disgusting, and Al Gore seems to be the only one present to have figured this out.

And Ariadne's right, can you give us an example of Micheal Moore telling a lie, or not?

At 17 February, 2006 19:24, Anonymous Samwise Galenorn said...

The worst part of Fahrenheit 9/11 (because it actually occurred) was Donald Rumsfeld giving that interview on the news about the extensive underground bunkers that al-qaeda had. Mr. Rumsfeld had diagrams, layouts, and was trying to sound convincing that the garbage he was saying was true. Let’s get something straight: It was false. Even worse, is that he gave this information on made-up intelligence.
Rumsfeld is a liar. Michael Moore never forced Rumsfeld to lie.
The point I'm trying to make is that Bush lied, and Rumsfeld lied, and other members of the Bush administration lied and those lies are documented in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Fahrenhype doesn't attempt to counter the fact that Bush lied, or Rumsfeld's lied.

Fahrenhype is basically a right winged media sensation that does document the few misrepresentations given by Fahrenheit, but does nothing to acknowledge the vast amount of facts and accurate information given by the movie.

And if you wish to compare the two movies, I ask you: which one made more money?


At 17 February, 2006 19:42, Anonymous Samwise Galenorn said...

Another review of Farhenhype:

At 18 February, 2006 04:37, Blogger L.J. Abershawe said...

I feel that Cabe will not respond with an actual break down of the lies he says are in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Nor will Mr Fafinski respond with an article in the newspaper he works for about his recent enlistment in the Marine Corp. I could be wrong, but I have found that most of the conservatives who frequent the liberal blogoshpere rarely actually put up facts when put to task.

Come now Cabe, by all means suprise me and prove me wrong.

At 19 February, 2006 06:03, Blogger L.J. Abershawe said...

I guess ole Cabe decided to "shut up" HOOAH!

At 19 February, 2006 17:16, Anonymous Samwise Galenorn said...

My main problem is why Karl would support a war against Iran? On the basis of what?
Condoleeza Rice mentioned the threat from Iraqi, not on the basis of actual intelligence, but from idiot right wing hawks.
Now, the threat is from Iran, and their so called nuclear threat. But is it real?
Could we please do a proper intelligence investigation on Iran before jumping into the war mongering mentality?


At 20 February, 2006 11:58, Blogger Karl said...

samwise galenhorn-

Thank you for your comment. A slight clarification:

Being able to win a war (the Powell Doctrine) is, in my humble opinion, a necessary but not sufficient condition to starting one.

We are not able to win a war against Iran now, given our "other priorities," and that was my immediate response to cabe. I didn't want to take more steps into hypotheticals then.

Re my actual opinion on going to war against Iran, at this time I'm not convinced that our nation has no alternative. And, given the fiasco re Iraq, etc., I am extremely skeptical; I suspect you are, too.

While I am concerned about what Iran is doing, I think that even our own government knows that we must continue to use other elements of national power (diplomatic, etc.) in dealing with the situation.

At 27 February, 2006 15:38, Anonymous Airborne Stranger said...

"I want to be an airborne ranger...."

Army is starting to sound like a lot of fun... ice cream, mentoring, and then off to kill furners...

Doesn't matter if your a criminal, junkie, or lardball.

Does still matter if your not a US citizen, but I'm giving it a few more months, then I can sign up.

At 28 February, 2006 01:45, Blogger L.J. Abershawe said...

Airborne Stranger, I haven't a clue as to how long, but it has been a practice of many foriegn people seeking US citizenship to join the armed forces for some time.

At 28 February, 2006 12:18, Anonymous Airborne Stranger said...

You still need permanent residence status... ...the Army doesn't issue work permits. Yet.


Post a Comment

<< Home