Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

New hope for Rush Limbaugh!

Military Recruitment standards low standards

  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#101 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:35 PM

And I see words but no action.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#102 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:41 PM

Rather than continuing to derail a thread that has become, in my opinion, far too derailed already--post your concerns in the AQG or PM a mod and we'll discuss them further then.  However, please bear in mind that both mine and CJ's last posts have occured within the past hour and a half or so, and this is a message board, not a chat room.

We apologize for the delay, but this is not the best venue for instant communication.

. . . and now back to your regularly scheduled OT thread . . .

-Nick

#103 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:42 PM

I will now provide an indepth analysis(for a listing of all troops strengths and all equipment for some of these nations please see my military threads)

1. India 980,000 (8/98)[quote]India is a massive nation with its own concerns, namely potential war with Pakistan where most of its military is stationed along as well as dealing with a potential Chinese incursion in the North. That being said it does have the sealift and other naval assets to move a few thousand troops to Iraq but then you have the issue of Hindus policing a muslim state when relations between Hindus and Muslims aren't that great in thier own nation and have grown worse because of Kasmir and the seeping of religion into politics. That being said India did not contribute to the first Gulf war either.
2. Korea, North 923,000 (6/98)[/quote] As I detail in my thread the North Korean miitary is a "one throw of the dice" force designed with the sole purpose of invading and subduing the south. It has no long-range air or sea transport and from thier prepared statements most of the upper echelon would love to see the US fail and die.
3. Korea, South 548,000 (8/98) Yet SK has only 3,600 troops in Iraq.[quote]They have to leave most of thier military at home to deter an attack from the very North Korea you just mentioned. They also have no long-range sea or airlift capability.
4. Turkey 525,000 (8/1/98) Turkey provided bases during the first Gulf War but didn't this time due to political wrangling and bad diplomancy on the part of the American administration. Turkish troops were never a serious option because of the fear that they would try to annex Kurdistan or try to deal with thier problems with Kurdish insurgency permanently by attacking thier safe zones in the former Northern No Fly Zone.
5. Pakistan 520,000 (8/98)[/quote] See India.
6. United States 479,400 (8/98)
7. Vietnam 412,000 (8/98)[quote]Vietnam has no long range transport or sealift capability and has not taken part in any multinational forces wether UN manadated or not. As it is the US-Vietnam relationship, while vastly warmer than the 1980s isn't up to this sort of joint operation even if thier troops could be equipped to a useful standard.
8. Iraq 375,000 (2001E)
9. Taiwan 240,000[/quote] Taiwan's entire military structure is based around the idea of repelling a mainland invasion. Thier forces are deployed for that and they have no long-range air or sealift capability.
10. Germany 230,600 (8/98)[quote]Germany could have provided troops
11. Indonesia 220,000 (8/98)[/quote]Indonesia was and is a basket case, seething with ethnic and religous insurgencies that the Indonesian army is hard pressed to put down as it is. They also have no long-range sea or airlift capability.
12. France 203,200 (8/98)[quote]France could have provided troops.
13. Brazil 195,000 (8/98) Brazil has no long-range sea or airlift capability and at the time its one carrier was a wreck on the way to the breaker's yard.
14. Italy 165,600 (8/98) Yet Italy has only 3,200 troops in Iraq
15. Japan 151,800 (8/98) Yet Japan has only 500-600 troops in Iraq[/quote] Read the article in this link, it has all the information you need.
[url="http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2005/0605japan.asp"]http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2005/0605japan.asp[/url]
16. Thailand 150,000 (8/98) [quote]Thailand did send troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan. My Thailand military thread details thier Afghanistan commitment.  That being said they also have several insurgencies to deal with at home.
17. Israel 134,000 (1998E)[/quote] This would have been a spectacularly bad idea. The hated "Zionist Entity" occupying a muslim nation with some of the Shias holiest sites. This would have incensed millions of Muslims who already hate Isreal and probably caused another Arab Isreali war on its own.
18. Mexico 130,000 (8/98)[quote]Mexico could have sent troops, although it would have had to have been via charter, airline or US transport since they lack long-range sea and air transport equipment.
19. Colombia 121,000 (8/98)[/quote] Columbia is busy fighting the drug war and three Marxist insurgencies on its own soil and has no long range sea or airlift capability.
20. Greece 116,000 (8/98) [quote]Greece could have sent troops.
21. United Kingdom 113,900 (8/98) Yet The UK has Only 8,100 in Iraq
22. Angola 106,000 (1999E)[/quote] Angola is in impovrished African nation whose army has next to no training, a bunch of ex Soviet junk that looks just like Iraq's exSoviet junk and no sea or airlift capability beyond some helicopters and launches and they are still rebuilding from the civil war.
23. Algeria 105,000 (1999E)[quote]Algeria has been involved in a very bloody civil war ever since the secular government voided a vote that would have put an Islamic government in power in 1992. They also have no sea or airlift capability beyond a few helicopters and a few old Soviet landing craft.
24. Bangladesh 101,000 (8/98)[/quote] Bangladesh is dirt poor nation whose military has little equipment and next to no training and uses the aforementioned ex-Soviet junk. They also have no sea or airlift capability. Thier warships don't even have surface to air missiles.
25. Jordan 90,000 (8/98)[QUOTE] Jordan could have been a great help. Not bringing them in was another diplomatic failure, as it was only Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE supported the US in this. Kuwait with bases and supplies and the same with Qatar while the UAE sent a flight of Apache attack helicopters to defend Kuwait.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#104 dec55

dec55
  • Islander
  • 121 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:20 AM

Call Me Robin, on Jun 8 2005, 11:40 AM, said:

Pew Research Center is an independent organization.  Do you have direct links to the Pew Research survey?

Direct link to the survey report.:

http://people-press....p3?ReportID=214


Journalist survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

http://www.stateofth...rc.asp?media=10



Quote

There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).


RuReddy1, on Jun 8 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

interesting that when asking for links from dec55 to which she was siting her information and when they are provided, they don't meet standards. Nice to know we can expect all links provided in the future to unbias since this statment has been made.


The the PEW survey group is pretty much a standard that is accepted by both sides......

Edited by dec55, 10 June 2005 - 02:08 AM.


#105 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 01:36 AM

Editing to be on topic, Rush Limbaugh posted this news story yesterday:

http://www.latimes.c...-home-headlines

Quote

June 8, 2005 latimes.com : World Single page   Print   E-mail story   
THE WORLD
Rain Forest Myth Goes Up in Smoke Over the Amazon
By Henry Chu, Times Staff Writer

REMANSO TALISMA, Brazil — The death of a myth begins with stinging eyes and heaving chests here on the edge of the Amazon rain forest.

Every year, fire envelops the jungle, throwing up inky billows of smoke that blot out the sun. Animals flee. Residents for miles around cry and wheeze, while the weak and unlucky develop serious respiratory problems.


When the burning season strikes, life and health in the Amazon falter, and color drains out of the riotous green landscape as great swaths of majestic trees, creeping vines, delicate bromeliads and hardy ferns are reduced to blackened stubble.

But more than just the land, these annual blazes also lay waste to a cherished notion that has roosted in the popular mind for decades: the idea of the rain forest as the "lungs of the world."

Ever since saving the Amazon became a fashionable cause in the 1980s, championed by Madonna, Sting and other celebrities, the jungle has consistently been likened to an enormous recycling plant that slurps up carbon dioxide and pumps out oxygen for us all to breathe, from Los Angeles to London to Lusaka.

Think again, scientists say.

Far from cleaning up the atmosphere, the Amazon is now a major source for pollution. Rampant burning and deforestation, mostly at the hands of illegal loggers and of ranchers, release hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the skies each year.

Brazil now ranks as one of the world's leading producers of greenhouse gases, thanks in large part to the Amazon, the source for up to two-thirds of the country's emissions.

"It's not the lungs of the world," said Daniel Nepstad, an American ecologist who has studied the Amazon for 20 years. "It's probably burning up more oxygen now than it's producing."

Edited by Ogami, 09 June 2005 - 01:33 PM.


#106 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:02 AM

meh, never mind

Edited by Godeskian, 09 June 2005 - 02:02 AM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#107 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:16 AM

Ogami, on Jun 9 2005, 06:36 AM, said:

Eskaminzin wrote:

Stand firm, RuReddy. Let no one bully you for daring to have a different opinion. I hear a lot about tolerance and diversity from the other side, and again, I'd like to see more of those principles in practice.

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


My college had a reunion this year, but I didn't go.  The last one I went to was disorganized and not a lot of fun.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#108 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:20 AM

dec55, on Jun 9 2005, 05:20 AM, said:

Call Me Robin, on Jun 8 2005, 11:40 AM, said:

Pew Research Center is an independent organization.  Do you have direct links to the Pew Research survey?

Direct link to the survey report.:

http://people-press....p3?ReportID=214


Journalist survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

http://www.stateofth...rc.asp?media=10

Quote

There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).

In other words, liberals are not exactly a majority of national news journalists any more than conservatives are.  Over half of them are self-proclaimed moderates.

Meanwhile, there are undeniabely news outfits like Fox which are clearly mouthpieces for the GOP.  There are also right-wing columnists who have been paid by the government (with tax money) to promote their agenda.  Not to mention all those television spots that the US government produced; these later ran on TV as "legitimate" news spots.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#109 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:43 AM

Returning to the original topic of the US military's recruiting crisis, how bad have things gotten when we're seeing the return of the Press Gang?

http://seattlepi.nws..._paynter08.html

Axel's father, a Marine Corps vet who served in Vietnam, died when Axel was 4.

Clearly the recruiters knew all that and more.

"You don't want to be a burden to your mom," they told him. "Be a man." "Make your father proud." Never mind that, because of his own experience in the service, Marcia says enlistment for his son is the last thing Axel's dad would have wanted.

The next weekend, when Marcia went to Seattle for the Folklife Festival and Axel was home alone, two recruiters showed up at the door.

Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, "Not interested," the sarge turned surly, snapping, "You're making a big (bleeping) mistake!"

Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the LaConner Brewing Co., the restaurant where Axel works. And before Axel, an older cousin and other co-workers knew or understood what was happening, Axel was whisked away in a car.

"They said we were going somewhere but I didn't know we were going all the way to Seattle," Axel said.

Just a few tests. And so many free opportunities, the recruiters told him.

He could pursue his love of chemistry. He could serve anywhere he chose and leave any time he wanted on an "apathy discharge" if he didn't like it. And he wouldn't have to go to Iraq if he didn't want to.

At about 3:30 in the morning, Alex was awakened in the motel and fed a little something. Twelve hours later, without further sleep or food, he had taken a battery of tests and signed a lot of papers he hadn't gotten a chance to read. "Just formalities," he was told. "Sign here. And here. Nothing to worry about."

By then Marcia had "freaked out."

She went to the Burlington recruiting center where the door was open but no one was home. So she grabbed all the cards and numbers she could find, including the address of the Seattle-area testing center.

Then, with her grown daughter in tow, she high-tailed it south, frantically phoning Axel whose cell phone had been confiscated "so he wouldn't be distracted during tests."

Axel's grandfather was in the hospital dying, she told the people at the desk. He needed to come home right away. She would have said just about anything.

But, even after being told her son would be brought right out, her daughter spied him being taken down a separate hall and into another room. So she dashed down the hall and grabbed him by the arm.

"They were telling me I needed to 'be a man' and stand up to my family," Axel said.

What he needed, it turned out, was a lawyer.

Five minutes and $250 after an attorney called the recruiters, Axel's signed papers and his cell phone were in the mail.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#110 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:51 AM

tennyson, on Jun 9 2005, 03:42 AM, said:

I will now provide an indepth analysis(for a listing of all troops strengths and all equipment for some of these nations please see my military threads)

(summary snipped)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Tennyson, I'd quarrel with a couple of points in your otherwise excellent summary.  Angola actually has probably the best military airlift capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, with a sizable fleet of Antonov transports bought with oil revenues.  They used airlift a lot during the civil war with UNITA because of how huge the country is and how bad the roads are.  Angola also airlifted a lot of troops and equipment to Kinshasa in the late 1990s to prop up their client, Laurent Kabila, against eastern rebels backed by Rwanda and Uganda.

Also, Bangladesh's military has actually been employed by the UN on peacekeeping missions in Liberia, Congo, and elsewhere in Africa, and while they've relied on other countries for airlift, they've performed very well on the ground in the kind of combat and stabilization missions that would have made them really helpful in post-Saddam Iraq.

See this excellent Economist article for the Bangladeshi army in action in Liberia:

http://www.economist...tory_id=3715904

Excerpt:  
Today, thanks to the world's largest UN peacekeeping force, Liberia is calm. Some 15,000 blue helmets are keeping the streets more or less safe. There are still road blocks, but not the old sort, where militiamen stretched human intestines across the road as a signal to motorists to stop and be robbed. The UN road blocks are typically manned by disciplined Bangladeshis, of whom the locals vocally approve.

“They are very nice,” says Richard Dorbor, an office assistant in Buchanan, Liberia's main port. During the civil war, rebels looted the town clean: Mr Dorbor points to the dark patch on the wall where the kitchen sink used to be. But then the Bangladeshis came, overawed them and disarmed them, without a single casualty.

“In any group, there are good boys and bad boys,” says Colonel Anis Zaman, the Bangladeshi commander in Buchanan, relaxing in cricket whites on a Sunday. “With the bad boys, you have to be firm. You say: ‘If you want to be funny, look at our APCs [armoured personnel carriers] and machineguns. We can be funny, too. So let's just put down the guns and talk.'”

Edited by MuseZack, 09 June 2005 - 12:09 PM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#111 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:55 AM

Just because a country with a large number of active troops has minimal sealift capability does not mean that their troops cannot get over to Iraq. We have a lot of extra sealift capability. We also have a lot of airlift capability. Plus, IIRC the Federal government has an agreement with our airlines for use of their jetliners.

Also, other allies of ours could contribute supplies and money to equip the troops and maintain the war effort. Also, they could help with infrastructure.

Of course, all that assumes that there actually is strong international support for our war.

Personally, I think that the Bush Administration should either
1) a) increase benefits or start a draft to at least triple the number of troops over in Iraq
b) train our troops in conduct that will do less to alienate the Iraqis and more to foster their support. Perhaps the British could help with this. Also, the Israelis have a training program that has helped lesson the ill feelings its troops engender in the Palestinians.
c) increase by several times the financial expenditures aimed at rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.

OR

2) We should admit we lack the will to get the job done, cut our losses, and get out of Iraq before more of our soldiers die a pointless death or lose their limbs. Why should our troops suffer in a military operation that seems increasingly designed for no other point than allowing Bush to weasel his way into saving face?

Of course neither of my two options are politically tenable so we will continue to let our troops get slowly killed and maimed through attrition.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#112 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:01 PM

Quote

Solar Wind: Of course, all that assumes that there actually is strong international support for our war.

Personally, I think that the Bush Administration should either
1) a) increase benefits or start a draft to at least triple the number of troops over in Iraq
b) train our troops in conduct that will do less to alienate the Iraqis and more to foster their support. Perhaps the British could help with this. Also, the Israelis have a training program that has helped lesson the ill feelings its troops engender in the Palestinians.
c) increase by several times the financial expenditures aimed at rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.

OR

2) We should admit we lack the will to get the job done, cut our losses, and get out of Iraq before more of our soldiers die a pointless death or lose their limbs. Why should our troops suffer in a military operation that seems increasingly designed for no other point than allowing Bush to weasel his way into saving face?

Of course neither of my two options are politically tenable so we will continue to let our troops get slowly killed and maimed through attrition.

I agree with you 100%, Solar Wind.

Edited by Spectacles, 09 June 2005 - 12:02 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#113 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:03 PM

Man, that is an awful story Zack!

I don't know if I would quanitfy that as the general behavior of all recruiters, or even most of them. Sounds to me like we have a bad apple.


One other thing that struck me as odd was the line about them coming to his work and him driving off with them before anyone really knew what was going on. The scenario as presented in the story sounds highly implausible. If they went to his work, why would he just stop working and hop in the car, particularly if he didn't want to go? I just can't imagine the scenario that happens the way it's being described. Something is missing.

#114 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:15 PM

HubcapDave, on Jun 9 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

Man, that is an awful story Zack!

I don't know if I would quanitfy that as the general behavior of all recruiters, or even most of them. Sounds to me like we have a bad apple.


One other thing that struck me as odd was the line about them coming to his work and him driving off with them before anyone really knew what was going on. The scenario as presented in the story sounds highly implausible. If they went to his work, why would he just stop working and hop in the car, particularly if he didn't want to go? I just can't imagine the scenario that happens the way it's being described. Something is missing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Dave, if you've been following what's been going on with recruiting, this is an extreme but not isolated incident.  Recruiters are under such pressure to make their quotas that there have been things like teenagers on bipolar medication being recruited and recruiters advising potential inductees on how to lie on their applications and fake drug tests.  It had gotten down that the Army called a national one day stand down in recruitment to educate recruiters on what is and isn't allowed.  

However you feel about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army and Marines, allong with their reserve equivalents and the National Guard, have serious crises in both recruitment of new personnel and retention of the mid-level officers and senior NCOs that form the backbone and institutional memory of a modern military.  And that's a problem which needs to be addressed, which is why I'm trying to get this thread back on track without making any Limbaugh jokes.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#115 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:44 PM

Thanks Zack, this is what I get for relying upon information I learned in 1996 and earlier as indicative of now. I thought the primary source of transportation during the civil war in Angola was an often cut railline and I wasn't aware of thier actions in the late 1990s. Bangladesh, while its forces wouldn't have been useful during the invasion would have been helpful in the aftermath, especially being fellow Muslims and all.
As for the situation with numbers of American forces I'm with CJ in that I think this whole manpower shortage is artifical and it could be dealt with by making the ground forces competitive with civilian jobs in pay and benefits. I've detailed ad nausseum why a draft would be a bad idea and in addition I just don't think it is needed and would make the situation worse not better. At least now the troops going in get some minimal cultural training and some idea what they're facing instead of the barebones "everyone is the enemy" indoctrination of the Vietnam era. Thier has been enough bad blood and strains between natives and troops as it is with the cream of the volunteer crop, the combination of the further lowering of standards and people who are thier against thier will would only further erode troop-Iraqi relations for a benefit that wouldn't showup for at the earliest a year from when the draft was instituted if they were actually going for militarilly useful trained soldiers.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#116 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 01:18 PM

^ Okay, so we agree that there is a manpower shortage in Iraq. What do you mean by increasing soldiers' pay to be competitive with the civilian sector? Competitive with what part of it? Even just doubling the number of troops and increasing their pay by 50%, coupled with the costs to train, equip, and supply them would be cost prohibitive, especially given the current state of the economy, federal budget structure, and the already enormous national deficit.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#117 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 01:34 PM

Quote

SolarWind: Just because a country with a large number of active troops has minimal sealift capability does not mean that their troops cannot get over to Iraq. We have a lot of extra sealift capability. We also have a lot of airlift capability.
We have enough sealift capability to move our own military and keep it supplied.  There is a reason why we took so long of a buildup to invade Iraq and why the lost of Turkey as a base took a division out of action for so long.  We really don’t have the excess sealift capacity to start hauling other militaries from all corners of the world into Iraq.  The same thing can be applied to our airlift capability.  Both of these capabilities were allowed to stagnate during the 1990s and no one in the government has proposed steps to recover to adequate levels.  

Quote

Solarwind: What do you mean by increasing soldiers' pay to be competitive with the civilian sector? Competitive with what part of it?
You would have to increase their pay to a level where it is competitive with what they could be paid, on at least the low end of the salary range, if they had the skills related to their rank and role in the military in the civilian sector.  That means allowing the troops and their families to live comfortably with some money to spare.  Anything else would be just continue the criminal pattern of abusing the enlisted ranks of the military by not paying them enough that both the Republicans and Democrats have endorsed.  

Quote

Solarwind: Even just doubling the number of troops and increasing their pay by 50%, coupled with the costs to train, equip, and supply them would be cost prohibitive, especially given the current state of the economy, federal budget structure, and the already enormous national deficit..
Sometimes you need to swallow the cost and national defense is one of those areas.  By cutting the pork in Congress, streamlining the procurement process for weapons system, and cutting useless weapon systems like the LCS would make up some of the money.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 09 June 2005 - 01:35 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#118 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:07 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Jun 9 2005, 01:34 PM, said:

Quote

SolarWind: Just because a country with a large number of active troops has minimal sealift capability does not mean that their troops cannot get over to Iraq. We have a lot of extra sealift capability. We also have a lot of airlift capability.
We have enough sealift capability to move our own military and keep it supplied.  There is a reason why we took so long of a buildup to invade Iraq and why the lost of Turkey as a base took a division out of action for so long.  We really don’t have the excess sealift capacity to start hauling other militaries from all corners of the world into Iraq.  The same thing can be applied to our airlift capability.  Both of these capabilities were allowed to stagnate during the 1990s and no one in the government has proposed steps to recover to adequate levels.
Are you saying that all of our sealift capability is tied up transferring our troops to and from Iraq, Afghanistan, and our other commitments?


Quote

Quote

Solarwind: What do you mean by increasing soldiers' pay to be competitive with the civilian sector? Competitive with what part of it?
You would have to increase their pay to a level where it is competitive with what they could be paid, on at least the low end of the salary range, if they had the skills related to their rank and role in the military in the civilian sector.  That means allowing the troops and their families to live comfortably with some money to spare.  Anything else would be just continue the criminal pattern of abusing the enlisted ranks of the military by not paying them enough that both the Republicans and Democrats have endorsed.
Actually, we probably would have to pay the soldiers quite a bit more than they could make in the civilian sector with equivalent skills and leadership experience since one also has to take into account hazard of duty and time away from families.


Quote

Quote

Solarwind: Even just doubling the number of troops and increasing their pay by 50%, coupled with the costs to train, equip, and supply them would be cost prohibitive, especially given the current state of the economy, federal budget structure, and the already enormous national deficit..
Sometimes you need to swallow the cost and national defense is one of those areas.  By cutting the pork in Congress, streamlining the procurement process for weapons system, and cutting useless weapon systems like the LCS would make up some of the money.
I question whether the U.S. economy, in its current state, is capable of shouldering the burden of swallowing this cost. The soundness of the economy has a much greater effect on national security than the war in Iraq has.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#119 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:09 PM

Actually producing the level of troop strength you advocate via tripling or more with a draft would cost just as much if not more than the plan I advocate because the infrastructure needed to process that many people into the military in one chunk simply does not exist now. Just to train them all to a limited standard would take reopening closed base facilities to deal with the overflow and would result in an inferior product to the level of soldiers in a volunteer force at the end of the process that wouldn't be available for at least a year after the required infrastructure was put in place.
The plan CJ advocates has the advantages of requiring next to no additional infrastructure or bureacracy and would allow the need to be met relatively quickly after the new benefit packages went into effect while maintaining troop quality.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#120 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:17 PM

You would have to process the same number of people into the military, regardless of whether the people are gotten through the draft or through better volunteer recruitment.

Also, I personally would send the draftees to Europe, South Korea, and other areas that are currently peaceful. This would free up volunteer, well-trained soldiers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Recruitment standards, low standards

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users