Forum Discussion

Oops, I did it again.

What would you like me to say?

That Army/Navy/Marine are failing to meet their quotas? That to try to make up the difference Category IV recruits are now accepted at double/tripple rates that they were.

--sidebar--
Just for those who do know what Category IV recruit is its simple:
When you are inlisting you are given an apptitude test test, with the highest possible score of 99 points. Category IV recruits are people who scored between 16 and 30 points on that test. Basically those who failed it. Its always been a policy to have as little as possible of Category IV recruits for obvious reasons. It is like hiring the worst people for he job.
--sidebar--

Or would you like me to tell you that the number of soldier that reenlist is dropping at rate never seen before.
--snip--
According to a Pentagon 136 page draft report, as reported in the Post yesterday, the U.S. Army cannot sustain such a commitment. The report says the Army is "...in a race against time...", risking, "...a catastrophic decline...in recruitment and re-enlistment."
--snip--

Anyhow, you can probably sit there and claim that I want us to fail in Iraq that I am gloating ove the problems.
But I am not. It makes me really sad to see how Bush has pushes the Army and the country onto a sinking ship.

You can also say that we do not know how many Democrats and Republicans reenlist, that you bet more Republicans than Democrats do. For one I'd ask me to show the proof (Actual proof, nto your conjecture). And even assuming its true it does not matter as much. When you are on a sinking ship and there are more Reps than Dems its still sinking.
Now just in case you are unclear, here I refer to the valiantly struggling Army who has been betrayed and marched onto this sinking ship by Bush, Cheney and the rest of that ilk.

Anjoy the article: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/01/25/missions_in_iraq_afghanistan_straining_army_a_study_warns/
I'd provide you the link to the report but alas:
--snip--
While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.
--snip--

There is nothing wrong with serving your nation with your voice rather then a gun. I'm sure a few of you would say that about Bush. Besides the only reason why some had or even decided to reenlist is because of the war. No war, no need to reenlist. Of course that�s just my opinion. Oh and thank you Good Will for citing your information, I really appreciate it!

I agree with the both of you (Good Will and Ashley) you have to prove it with numbers not opinions. And sometimes using your voice is better, saves more lives sometimes.

Some items of interest:
I was looking at the supposed crisis our military is in as far as manpower and missing recruiting goals and I see that this was a problem back in 1999 which was prior to the Iraq War and President Bush. Interesting.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/hodes20020823

Then again, maybe things are as bad as what our media would like us to think...........
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051212-110459-3810r.htm

I don�t think the issue of when (as in now or 1999) are army started to get strained is the issue. But I could be mistaken. I think the issue is in what kind of condition the United States is in when the army�s numbers go down. We were not at war in 1999, so the issue of small numbers wouldn�t have been that big of an issue. Now that we are in a war, we need a large army. Besides if our numbers were low, then we didn�t have any business starting a war. If Bush was looking at the numbers he might of see that issue.

I just realized I need a Thesaurus. Note to self use issue only once.

I guess I don't follow your reasoning. It seems to me that Bush is taking a lot of heat for the military's inability to meet quotas due to the war. What I was pointing out is that the inability to meet quotas started before we were attacked. I joined the military at the end of the Reagan presidency and left it during the Clinton presidency. I personally witnessed an enormous drop in morale when Clinton became CIC and am not surprised that quotas were not being met in the 90's. The drop in numbers was in fact a huge issue. We had US Navy ships that were not able to be manned properly due to the low numbers.
As for Bush's decision to go to war......we were attacked and he responded as he should have. It makes me feel even better knowing that George W. Bush was the President and not Albert "I invented the Internet" Gore.

I understand that the low numbers were a problem in 1999, and that it�s a problem now.
I�m saying it doesn�t matter what our numbers were in 1999. You can�t compare then and now when we are at war. Its like comparing an apple to an orange. Of course your experience and bias help in your point of view even though I think it only �clouds� your opinion. You have to look at the facts. So the morale went down when Clinton was in office, that�s an issue for a debate over which president makes the army feel better. In my opinion it�s a bigger problem to have a smaller army in time of war then in 1999.

"Let him who desires peace prepare for war" Low numbers in the military are *always* a problem, even if we were in the midst of a decade-long Pax Americana (which we weren't in the 90's). Clinton may have simply hoped we wouldn't have to use the military, and thus let it lapse, but hoping doesn't make it so... and I wonder if that's one of the factors that made him wait so long to intervene in the Bosnian genocide...

I disagree completely when you say it's a problem now. Re-enlistments are high and the army is the only branch that has not met some of its quotas. I would also have to question your assertion that the army is smaller now than in 1999. Do you have any numbers to support that? Also, are you generalizing when you say "army" and really mean the entire military? (I ask that only for my own clarification.)
Anthony: Clinton is actually very anti-military and that was a very big part of the drop in morale while he was CIC. As for intervening in Bosnia.....we should have never gone in there in the first place.

When I said:
�In my opinion it�s a bigger problem to have a smaller army in time of war then in 1999.�

I was pointing to my view that in time of war having a smaller army is a bigger problem then let�s say in 1999. I didn�t say that the army was smaller in 1999, only that it�s a bigger issue now that we are at war. Oh sorry for putting �army� yes I mean the entire military. I wasn�t generalizing.

>It seems to me that Bush is taking a lot of heat for the military's inability to meet quotas due to the war.

Given how he is the Commander in Chief, I am not really surprized. Are you?

>I disagree completely when you say it's a problem now. Re-enlistments are high and the army is the only branch that has not met some of its quotas.
Did you read the part about Category IV recruits? or just skipped it?