If You Really Care About Mercenaries

[Mr Manifesto]

...you still wouldn't want them in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1189395,00.html).

The last message Mike Bloss sent from Iraq was earnest but optimistic. The ex-paratrooper and the electrical engineers he was guarding were surrounded by gunmen. Escape seemed improbable. And yet the Welsh security guard sounded confident that he could shoot a way out.
"We are expecting to be overrun tonight," he emailed friends in Colorado. "We may have to fight our way to a safe haven. Unfortunately all the safe havens are already under attack ... We'll probably be OK! I'll email when I'm safe."

Mr Bloss didn't send another email. He managed to keep the assailants at bay long enough to enable the contractors he was protecting to escape. But he was killed in a gun battle - and with him a little more of what optimism is left in Iraq.


In the bloody turmoil of Iraq, it is private security guards like Mr Bloss who are most exposed. Mostly ex-soldiers hired at formidable costs of up to £1,000 a day to make Iraq safe for investment, they have no tanks or armoured helicopters to rescue them when things turn ugly.

Let's face it, when you're in a war-zone, only soldiers backed up with the sort of resources an army can provide will do.

[crackmonkey]

Jeezus! The guy was a bodyguard for some workers... he wasn't hired to undertake military operations, he was meant to scare off kidnappers and such. His death is unfortunate, and I would hope that any other bodyguards in the areas under insurrection would have long since whisked away their clients.
It is sad, unquestionably.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Let's face it, when you're in a war-zone, only soldiers backed up with the sort of resources an army can provide will do.

Mercenaries are soldiers in a (hired) army.

Which proves that the folks you are talking about aren't really "mercenaries".

But I can't really call you a Commie yet, because their line is that the US military, not being draftees, are mercenaries. Being proletarians they couldn't possibly have any national loyalty to the USA. :p

[Mr Manifesto]

Maybe I should have phrased it, "if you want security in a war-zone etc..."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Mercenaries are soldiers in a (hired) army.

Which proves that the folks you are talking about aren't really "mercenaries".

But I can't really call you a Commie yet, because their line is that the US military, not being draftees, are mercenaries. Being proletarians they couldn't possibly have any national loyalty to the USA. :p

A very interesting point. Many of the members of the US military are there not because they wanted to join, but because they wanted a job, or an education. The US is currently very worried that these people will bail out the first chance they get.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Many of the members of the US military are there not because they wanted to join, but because they wanted a job, or an education. The US is currently very worried that these people will bail out the first chance they get.

You are creating a phony mutually exclusive distinction here.

I joined the military because I wanted an education. It was just one of the reasons I wanted to join. If one wishes to get an education in the US, there are many options. Show me one person who could not get an education without joining the military. Just one.

In 8 years of military service, I don’t recall any one person that joined for a single reason. They all had more than one or two.

And even if those are the only reasons people did join, they still wanted to join. Nobody forced them.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Which proves that the folks you are talking about aren't really "mercenaries".

But I can't really call you a Commie yet, because their line is that the US military, not being draftees, are mercenaries. Being proletarians they couldn't possibly have any national loyalty to the USA. :p

It does not prove they are not mercenaries. It does prove that some mercenaries have ethics.

The negative connotations associated with mercenaries do not provide a definition for who is and is not a mercenary. If you were to subscribe to that kind of a definition, then a Catholic priest who does not molest children is not really a priest.

This man died protecting a group of people in his charge. They were his responsibility and he did not abandon them. That is a good example of someone that kept his word and paid a high price for it. That is all that you can ask of a human.

Try talking to some veterans some time. In the end, they don’t fight for money or patriotism. They only reason people do not run away from a battle is that they do not wish to betray those they have bonded with. I suspect that this dead mercenary got to know the people he was protecting. Or at the very least, he was friends with his fellow mercenaries.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doubt


You are creating a phony mutually exclusive distinction here.

I joined the military because I wanted an education. It was just one of the reasons I wanted to join. If one wishes to get an education in the US, there are many options. Show me one person who could not get an education without joining the military. Just one.

In 8 years of military service, I don’t recall any one person that joined for a single reason. They all had more than one or two.

And even if those are the only reasons people did join, they still wanted to join. Nobody forced them.

I think the most famous one was Jessica Lynch. She wanted to be a kindergarten teacher, but couldn't afford to do the course.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A very interesting point. Many of the members of the US military are there not because they wanted to join, but because they wanted a job, or an education.

Fair enough. But it hardly comes as a surprise to anyone capable of benefiting from such an education that in wartime, your "education" may be interrupted for actual duty.

If this is the best you can do to knock the all-volunteer status of the US military, then I'm afraid you'll need to do much better than "the syllabus wasn't what they were expecting."

The US is currently very worried that these people will bail out the first chance they get.

Source?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think the most famous one was Jessica Lynch. She wanted to be a kindergarten teacher, but couldn't afford to do the course.

Got us, AUP. It's a sad fact that no one in America can make a career on their own or fund their education without the military. This is due to the absolute impossibility of working one's way through school, securing grants or special low-interest loans from the US Dept. of Education, learning a trade on the job or winning a scholarship. None of those avenues are open to us poor dumb Americans. Is it any surprise that some would take the unfairly exploitive course of the GI bill? The horror. THE HORROR!


You're right, we should just wave the magic wand and make everyone's dreams come true without any obligation or responsibility.

Are you SURE you're not a communist?



Edited to add: By the way, AUP, this poor dumb American used all the above listed means, to some degree or other, to secure a quality education and an upwardly mobile career. I think most Americans here will have a similar tale.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A very interesting point. Many of the members of the US military are there not because they wanted to join, but because they wanted a job, or an education. The US is currently very worried that these people will bail out the first chance they get.

Who is worried? Where did you hear it? How do you know why people are there?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko



Edited to add: By the way, AUP, this poor dumb American used all the above listed means, to some degree or other, to secure a quality education and an upwardly mobile career. I think most Americans here will have a similar tale.

And get permanently crippled for life.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And get permanently crippled for life.

You want to try making sense and contribute to a discussion or throw some bullsh!t around?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Maybe I should have phrased it, "if you want security in a war-zone etc..."

Indeed. But that blows big holes in your original propaganda point.

To say that the USA is handling security all wrong is perhaps defensible. But talk of "mercenaries" has a different emotional charge, and you know it!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Who is worried? Where did you hear it? How do you know why people are there?

One of many articles

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/fallows.htm



Some reservists and active-duty soldiers no doubt thrive on unexpected assignments. But for the military as a whole, the stepped-up "ops tempo," or pace of operations, is hard to sustain with a volunteer force. Since the elimination of the draft, in 1973, the military has had to compete with the rest of the U.S. economy for manpower. It has done so in material ways, by increasing pay and benefits, and with its traditional appeal to those seeking challenge, service, and personal growth. But it has also offered volunteers a certain amount of control over their destiny, because they could always resign if they chose. And although recruiters would never put it this way, the enlistees of the 1990s could reasonably assume that the greatest physical danger they would face would come during training exercises, not from roadside bombs in a place like Baghdad or Fallujah. Guard and Reserve members could, within certain limits, assume that their lives would remain normal.

Last fall, two years into the emergency, numerous indicators suggested that Americans were beginning to vote with their feet. Guard units across the country fell short of their recruiting targets, and the Army Reserves reported a shortfall in re-enlistments. An un-scientific poll of U.S. troops in Iraq conducted by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes in October found that nearly half planned not to re-enlist. "We are expending the force and doing little to ensure its viability in the years to come, years we have been assured it will take to win the war on terrorism," retired Army General Frederick Kroesen wrote in a military journal on hearing that reservists would be mobilized for a second year. "It might be prudent now to ask the managers who decreed the current second-year Reservists' extensions what they plan for the third year."

An overworked military can function very well for a while, as ours has—but not indefinitely if it relies on volunteers. "We are in serious danger of breaking the human-capital equation of the Army," Thomas White, a retired general and a former Secretary of the Army, told me last year. "Once you break it, it takes a long time to put it back together. It took us over twenty years after Vietnam."

The second problem is that America has so many troops tied down in so many places that, for all its power, it is strangely hamstrung. Despite our level of spending and our apparent status as the world's mono-power, the United States has few unused reserves of military strength. Sending troops in a hurry to the Korean DMZ—or to Iran, or the Taiwan Strait—would mean removing them in a hurry from some other place where, according to U.S. policy, they are also needed.

The military press has been abuzz with the news that four divisions, representing nearly half the Army's active-duty strength, are now officially in the two lowest readiness categories, because of their service in Iraq. These divisions—the well-known 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, 1st Armored, and 4th Infantry—will spend six months this year repairing machines, restocking supplies, and resting soldiers before returning to fully ready status. During the 2000 presidential campaign George W. Bush said, "The next President will inherit a military in decline"—in part because under the Clinton Administration two Army divisions were classified as unready because of their service in the Balkans. In a pinch all these units could of course fight and win. But throughout America's era as a world power, governments under both parties have wanted the country to seem overprepared—extra-formidable—so that our adversaries will know the United States has the means to do almost anything it chooses. Now America is over-extended. The limits on U.S. power are more apparent than they were before we committed troops in Iraq.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You want to try making sense and contribute to a discussion or throw some bullsh!t around?

I don't get it. She wanted to be a kinder teacher, but couldn't afford to. (Not everyone wants to work double shift for their education, a night job, and study by day).

She joined the army. She is crippled for life and her best friend dead.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think the most famous one was Jessica Lynch. She wanted to be a kindergarten teacher, but couldn't afford to do the course.

That example does not even hold up to the simplest check on google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=jessica+lynch+kindergarten&spell=1

Here is one link from that search:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20031119.shtml


As most know by now, Lynch wanted to be a kindergarten teacher. Joining the Army was simply a way to see the world and secure her college tuition.


Funny which one is second. Here is a short lesson about getting a college education in the states. Financial aid:

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/aideligibility.jsp?tab=funding

The cold hard reality is that pretty much anyone can arrange a combination of grants and loans to go to college in the US. After my G.I. bill ran out, I finished my education using both grants and loans. There is no effective argument that a person has to join the military in order to afford college. It is just one option available.

It looks more like Ms. Lynch found an option that fit with at least one other goal in her life. I am quite sure that she met all of the initial requirements for aid:


# qualify for financial need (except for certain loans).
# have a high school diploma or a General Education Development (GED) certificate, pass a test approved by the U.S. Department of Education, meet other standards your state establishes that the Department approves, or complete a high school education in a home school setting that is treated as such under state law.
# be working toward a degree or certificate in an eligible program.
# be a U.S. citizen or eligible noncitizen.
# have a valid Social Security Number (unless you're from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau).
# register with the Selective Service if required. You can use the paper or electronic FAFSA to register, you can register at www.sss.gov, or you can call 1-847-688-6888. (TTY users can call 1-847-688-2567.)
# maintain satisfactory academic progress once in school.
# certify that you are not in default on a federal student loan and do not owe money on a federal student grant.
# certify that you will use federal student aid only for educational purposes.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


One of many articles

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/fallows.htm



Well that's a good opinion piece, but the facts are against you.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=68788&ran=164264

Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.
....
The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all met or exceeded their year-end recruiting goals for fiscal year 2003, which ended Sept. 30. The figures continued to climb in the first half of fiscal year 2004, which was reached March 31.

[subgenius]

Someone just had to start a second thread on mercenaries, right?

Forget trying to get an understanding, or forge a consensus.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And get permanently crippled for life.

Yes, AUP, all Americans are crippled by law in the third grade. You've found us out.

And apparently all Australian mothers are required to binge on rubbing alcohol in the third trimester, too.

Ass.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by subgenius
Someone just had to start a second thread on mercenaries, right?

Forget trying to get an understanding, or forge a consensus.

Of course, it's become just another soapbox for AUP to fling his own feces from. I feel dirty just for looking at it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Indeed. But that blows big holes in your original propaganda point.

To say that the USA is handling security all wrong is perhaps defensible. But talk of "mercenaries" has a different emotional charge, and you know it!

Uh... He is a mercenary. A mercenary, specifically, who isn't backed up by the US army like US soldiers are. If that has a negative connnotation to you, sorry to hear it, but that's the reality of it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


Of course, it's become just another soapbox for AUP to fling his own feces from. I feel dirty just for looking at it.

I didn't send a young woman around the world to fight a war under false pretences. I suggest you look elsewhere.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I didn't send a young woman around the world to fight a war under false pretences. I suggest you look elsewhere.

AUP, you couldn't convince a young woman to go home with you under false pretenses. But that's hardly the point.

I explained some of the dozens of ways that one can get ahead in America without volunteering - note that word, if you will - VOLUNTEERING for the US military. You countered with "she didn't want to try those means." Is that what constitutes a point on your homeworld? Because it sounds like pouting to me.

As to looking elsewhere, you toss the crap faster than a major league pitcher... just nowhere near as accurately. I know what I'm looking at when I'm look at your posts... I'm looking at something in desperate need of scrubbing with bleach.

[Jocko]

Oh, and AUP....


...I'm still waiting for your source for your claim that the US is worried about retention of current troops. Get out the plunger and see what you can find, m'kay? Thanks much babe.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko


AUP, you couldn't convince a young woman to go home with you under false pretenses. But that's hardly the point.

I explained some of the dozens of ways that one can get ahead in America without volunteering - note that word, if you will - VOLUNTEERING for the US military. You countered with "she didn't want to try those means." Is that what constitutes a point on your homeworld? Because it sounds like pouting to me.

As to looking elsewhere, you toss the crap faster than a major league pitcher... just nowhere near as accurately. I know what I'm looking at when I'm look at your posts... I'm looking at something in desperate need of scrubbing with bleach.

A lot of people don't like to go into debt, even for an education. The problem with a loan, for someone from a poorer family, is that you still have to pay it back, and kinda teacher pays pretty crappy. You are much surer of a post education income for doing other things, eg, buying a car and house, if you don't owe money. Not everyone gets a scholarship, by definition. Not everyone wants to work day and night. Many Americans do join the armed forces for reasons other than just defending their country, or because they are homicidal maniacs who just like to kill or bully legally. Either way, most americans who do join the army would join to defend their country. The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with defending the US. In fact, no one appears to know what it was about. Great reason for starting a war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
Oh, and AUP....


...I'm still waiting for your source for your claim that the US is worried about retention of current troops. Get out the plunger and see what you can find, m'kay? Thanks much babe.



General Myers' suggestion that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq until possibly 2006 was confirmed by recent comments made by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Speaking with BBC Radio this month, Straw said that he had no idea when British troops were going to leave Iraq: "I can't say whether it's going to be 2006, 2007. It's not going to be months, for sure."

While it was expected that contingents of U.S. troops would remain in Iraq for years after the U.S. occupation was completed, it was not expected that over 100,000 troops would be needed for this mission. The U.S. military, which is composed of an all-volunteer force, is not suited to handle large-scale missions -- such as this one -- for long periods of time. As U.S. Representative John Spratt of South Carolina warned late last year, "We are pushing the envelope. We are using our troops pretty much to their maximum utility."

A report released by the Congressional Budget Office recognized this dilemma, concluding that the active Army would be unable to maintain current troop levels in Iraq "beyond about March 2004 if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief." Indeed, the Pentagon will now be relying on reserve soldiers for combat missions rather than for their traditional combat support roles. This state of affairs has a broad array of implications.

For one, by having such a significant amount of its forces stationed in one country, Washington has less leverage to deal with other world developments that may require a deployment of U.S. troops. It also adds strain to U.S. deployments in other strategically significant states, such as South Korea and Afghanistan. Even though stationing troops in the center of the Middle East gives Washington significant influence in the region, the amount of troops currently needed, in addition to the losses that they are enduring, is not desirable nor sustainable.



http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=130&language_id=1

You can print all the links about the recruiting drives meeting numbers, the fact is, no one had targets that met the requirements needed to man Iraq for an indefinite number of years under combat conditions.



Washington policymakers have drafted a number of plans to combat the possibility of decreasing retention rates. One policy decision, which went into effect at the start of 2004, prevents active duty and reserve troops deployed to Iraq and Kuwait from leaving the Army before serving 12 months on the ground, plus another three months once they return from their tours. This order is aimed at preventing soldiers from retiring from the Army after they fulfill the duration of their initial commitment.

The other proposal that has been decided in Washington offers economic bonuses of up to $10,000 to soldiers who are willing to reenlist in the Army for an additional three years and serve in Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan.

While these proposals may alleviate troop retention concerns, they may prove to be largely ineffective. The decision to prevent active duty and reserve troops from retiring from the military at the end of their original commitment is, in a way, similar to forced conscription. This was highlighted by Ted Carpenter, an analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, who told Reuters, "Clearly, if large numbers of personnel have their terms extended against their will, that violates the principle of volunteerism. It also suggests just how strained the military is in trying to provide for the Iraqi occupation plus all the other U.S. obligations around the world."



Re-enlistment rates may be terrific. Is that because you have to sign on for an extended period of time?

[a_unique_person]

The Denver Post notes that while sign-up and retention rates for active-duty branches remain strong, the recruiting of reservists has fallen off. Last year the Army fell 7 percent below its recruitment goal. And in some states, the retention rate has fallen far below the desired 85 percent - In Colorado it has fallen to 71 percent.

"This year we have lost 49 soldiers, and that is bad news," said Master Sgt. Pat Valdez, a spokesman for the 2nd Brigade of the 91st Division of the Army Reserve, which comprises some 800 soldiers from Western Plains states. "They are getting out because of personal reasons, promotions at work ... and stress on family."
One result of this situation, The Washington Post reported earlier this week, is that the Army alone has blocked the departure of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and Reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year. Reuters quotes the Pentagon as saying that 187,746 National Guard and Reserve troops were mobilized as of Dec. 31, 2003. About 20 percent of the troops in Iraq are Reservists or Guard members but this proportion is expected to double next year. The Associated Press notes the number of military reservists called to active duty jumped by more than 10,000 in the past week, reflecting their new role in Iraq.
In order to accomodate the massive changeover between departing and arriving troops the next two months in Iraq, the Army this week issued a "stop loss" order to keep 7,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq from leaving the service at the end of their regular enlistments. But some defense analysts say stop-loss orders will discourage new recruits, bound to see many in uniform as no longer volunteers. "The reality is the stop-loss orders that are now in effect amount to a de facto draft," Charles Pena, defense analyst with the Cato Institute, said.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0109/dailyUpdate.html?s=entt

[Skeptic]

If this is the best you can do to knock the all-volunteer status of the US military,

Of course, for AUP, if the US Army is all-volunteer, it "proves" that it is made up of bunch of worthless egoists who only joined to get college tuition and will split the moment things get tough.

On the other hand, as his posts in the thread "USA gearing up to the draft!" show, if the US army was NOT all volunteer but had people drafted, it "proves" to AUP the evil US Army is destroying the lives of poor youngsters to fight unpopular wars.

As usual, if the US military is all-volunteer, that proves it is horrible, but if it isn't, that proves it's horrible, too. Then again, this being "A Unique Person", I can't say I'm surprised.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A lot of people don't like to go into debt, even for an education. The problem with a loan, for someone from a poorer family, is that you still have to pay it back, and kinda teacher pays pretty crappy. You are much surer of a post education income for doing other things, eg, buying a car and house, if you don't owe money. Not everyone gets a scholarship, by definition. Not everyone wants to work day and night.

Want... want... want... I'm looking for the "NEED" you implied. This BS is right back to the magic wand theory. Try again if you like, but this is a mini-manifesto for laziness and entitlement.

Many Americans do join the armed forces for reasons other than just defending their country, or because they are homicidal maniacs who just like to kill or bully legally.

Sigh... dare I ask again for a source for your claim? No, never mind. The Wizard of Oz has spoken and explained the mindset of the American soldier and it must be taken as gospel. Do not, repeat, DO NOT look behind the curtain.

Either way, most americans who do join the army would join to defend their country. The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with defending the US. In fact, no one appears to know what it was about. Great reason for starting a war.

No, it was about finishing a war. Read up on the terms of armistice behind Gulf War 1 and you might just learn something.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=130&language_id=1

You can print all the links about the recruiting drives meeting numbers, the fact is, no one had targets that met the requirements needed to man Iraq for an indefinite number of years under combat conditions.



Re-enlistment rates may be terrific. Is that because you have to sign on for an extended period of time?

Fair enough. I wish you could put the occasional evidence somewhere closer to your claims in the future, however. It's so hard to find the few gems among the mountains of manure you produce without sources.

[Skeptic]

A lot of people don't like to go into debt, even for an education. The problem with a loan, for someone from a poorer family, is that you still have to pay it back, and kinda teacher pays pretty crappy. You are much surer of a post education income for doing other things, eg, buying a car and house, if you don't owe money. Not everyone gets a scholarship, by definition. Not everyone wants to work day and night.

So, let's get this straight: your complaint is that in the USA, IF you want higher education and IF you don't get and a scholarship and IF you don't want to take a student loan and IF you don't want to work a night job... then you MIGHT consider joining the army.

Yup, the USA sure forces people into the Army, doesn't it? Makes the pressing gangs look positively benign...

Worse, the evil, disgusting, imperialistic American army MIGHT actually send them to fight--despite the fact that they were perfectly clear they only joined the Army for the money, and didn't expect to actually do this "fighting" thing.

That's not half of it, by the way. I heard that in America, IF you want a car and IF you have no money and IF you didn't win the lottery and IF you don't want to take out a loan, you are FORCED to get a job!

Worse still, the evil capitalistic bosses demand you actually show up, despite the fact that you made it perfectly clear you only took the job for the money, since you had no other way to get the car you wanted, and you never REALLY intended for the job to involve this "work" thing.

Opression of manipulation of this sort are endemic to American society, I am afraid. How awful.

[c0rbin]

The US is currently very worried that these people will bail out the first chance they get.

This is not a new senario for the US Armed services, or probably any country's armed services.

A-U-P,

You should probably read 'The Red Badge of Courage' by Stephen Crane. Of course you can watch the movie version if you prefer your subtext in wide strokes.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


One of many articles

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/fallows.htm

"Last fall, two years into the emergency, numerous indicators suggested that Americans were beginning to vote with their feet. Guard units across the country fell short of their recruiting targets, and the Army Reserves reported a shortfall in re-enlistments. An un-scientific poll of U.S. troops in Iraq conducted by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes in October found that nearly half planned not to re-enlist."


I believe when I was on active duty, the reenlistment rate for first term enlistees was around 50 percent anyway. But that was active duty Navy, I don't know what the norm is for Army Reservists.

But lookee here. (http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/op-ed/ohanlon/19980327.HTM)

Arguing that strains on the military are becoming excessive, some policymakers have recently cried for relief.

...

The Air Force is losing pilots at an unsustainably rapid rate, and as a result expects to be about 700 individuals short of desired levels next year. Reenlistment rates for first-term troops are at their lowest in fifteen years. According to at least two major surveys, the fraction of military personnel envisioning a long-term career in the armed forces has declined some 10 percent this decade. As a House National Security Committee report described last year, some types of equipment are in less than ideal condition. For example, many aircraft mission-capable rates are now at an eight-year low. And as a Senate Budget Committee majority report recently pointed out, a number of units suffer serious shortfalls in personnel that have handicapped them in training exercises.

That was 1998! I believe I made a post here not long ago about Clinton not expecting a thank-you call from Cheney any time soon...

edited to add this. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870389295)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't get it. She wanted to be a kinder teacher, but couldn't afford to. (Not everyone wants to work double shift for their education, a night job, and study by day).

She joined the army. She is crippled for life and her best friend dead.

You roll the dice, you take your chances. I spent 4 years active duty and 2 reserve. The Army was a harsh teacher, and they worked me and my buddies very hard. It was not a picnic. I was in W. Germany when the Tehran Embassy staff was grabbed by "students"...we went on alert and it was a little scary for awhile there,...but then the training kicks in and you just focus on doing your job.

But OTOH, when I got out I had a skill and a good job to go to. I had an education fund, and I was able to buy a house with my VA no money down guaranteed loan. All in all, it's a good bargain for most people. But like anything worthwhile you have to work for it and take the risks associated with it.

Even in this era,...for every Jessica Lynch you show me there are tens of thousands who secure their military benefits without suffering so much as a scratch. Your focus on her suffering is a demonstration of the fallacy of small numbers.

From Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit:
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)


-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
[B]

Want... want... want... I'm looking for the "NEED" you implied. This BS is right back to the magic wand theory. Try again if you like, but this is a mini-manifesto for laziness and entitlement.

[B]

Sigh... dare I ask again for a source for your claim? No, never mind. The Wizard of Oz has spoken and explained the mindset of the American soldier and it must be taken as gospel. Do not, repeat, DO NOT look behind the curtain.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/04/12/sister.soldiers.ap/index.html



With three daughters serving in Iraq, John and Lori Witmer had a family Web site with photos from Baghdad, notes to home and messages of encouragement.

"Keep praying! They're almost home!" a recent entry says.

But the top notice, dated Sunday, carried grim news: "We regret to inform you that Michelle Witmer was killed in action April 9th. ..."

The 20-year-old private died when her Humvee was ambushed in Baghdad, making her the first woman in the Wisconsin National Guard to die in combat.

Her family is asking the military to stop her sisters from being sent back to Iraq after this week's funeral.

"I can't live another year like I've lived this one," John Witmer told The Associated Press. "The sacrifice that this family's made can never be understood by someone who hasn't gone through it... It's a burden I can't bear. My family can't bear it."

.......

Witmer said he worried about his daughters joining the military but felt at the time that duty with the National Guard would be relatively safe, especially with a military police unit.

"My daughters wanted the freedom of being able to call their shots with their education," he said. "They were using that to go to school."

[Doubt]

Once again there was a bit more to it than money for school. AUP's story does not make any exclusive statements about why the girls signed up. Older stories tell a bit more:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/dec03/191254.asp


Today is John and Lori Witmer's Christmas. They're celebrating out of necessity since their girls will be gone on Dec. 25. They're celebrating, nonetheless, because however briefly, they have their three daughters home together.

#snip#

The daughters joined the National Guard - in 2000, 2001 and 2002 - each for their own reasons. Future financial aid for education was a big one, as was a search for direction, their parents believe.


I still have yet to find a person who joined the military for only one reason.