Bush's Brain in the superbar?

[Murffieus]

Mvaile---you are correct on Malicky being a "putz" and also on his wanting to advance his shia power base----but you aren't patient enough on the political gains------it took the continental congress 5-6 years after the revolutionary war (surge gains) to make political gains ( a constitution)----then it took the states another two years after that to ratify it!

IMO there has to be religious reconciliation prior to political reconciliation in Iraq----read my post under the "Interesting Article" thread----it's in the works!

[77ncaachamps]

NCAA----all soldiers are volunteers----any way you look at it they are ALL volunteers----now they may differ as to their reasons for doing so----but they are all volunteers----as opposed to the draft of years gone by.

Something is wrong with your example of the 18 year old who volunteered because he supposedly couldn't get federal aid for college -----I mean EVERY student qualifies for a federal backed loan so joining the armed forces wasn't his only alternative as you make it out to be.

When one volunteers for the military they are aware of the negatives----the money is an incentive to look past that-----alos you talk like the military is falling apart (not being able to replenish)----the truth is that one short time span (month or quarter) they came in under quota by a little bit and the liberal news media jumps all over that----as if to say, "see what Iraq is doing to the military"!

Most of the soldiers i hear quoted after being wounded say they want to go back----that "they can't wait to get back"-----that shows me that (unlike the Dems) they are in it to win!!!!

I disagree. They receive a paycheck, therefore they are NOT volunteers. Since you and I (assuming you still work) receive paychecks, do we "volunteer" for the companies we work for? Therefore the misuse of the word "volunteer" erodes much of the impact in your above arguments.

Almost anyone can QUALIFY for a government loan, but in my case, because my parents were making too much money for the government's threshold it would not have paid for college by itself. Therefore, joining ROTC is a way to pay for the $25k yearly tuition at Marquette!

Another point: Media is media - whether it be left, right, up or down - they will twist words for their own purpose. But look at the facts:

- Black recruit numbers down, but the incentives are buoying the decrease:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/washington/22recruit.html

- They maybe on their way, but 1) a projected increase from 65,000 to 547,000 in 5 years will not happen and 2) a recruit is just that: a recruit - he/she still needs to qualify and not many are meeting the threshold so...
http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1357645.html

- ...maybe that's why they're "lowering the standards" of becoming a soldier.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-12-recruit-education_N.htm

- ...or the lowering numbers of qualified recruits may have solved our immigration problem: serve and you can become a citizen!
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2007_311/news/12678-1.html

(More on the DREAM Act: The DREAM Act and American Dream Act would make certain undocumented students eligible for a six-year conditional permanent resident status upon high school graduation. These students could then apply to have the conditional basis of their permanent residence status lifted after completing at least two years of higher education (read: Junior college or tech college or beauty college doesn't count)or serving for at least two years in the U.S. military.)
http://www.janispetersonlord.com/Updates.jsp

- This could help: Instead of raising the bar, raising the AGE but also LOWERING the bar.
• Raising the enlistment age to 42.
• Enlisting recruits who don't meet weight standards if they trim down their first year.
• Giving a $20,000 bonus for joining by Sept. 30 and going to boot camp within a month.
• Increasing the number of waivers given for failed drug tests.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/08/10/0810recruiting.html

- Congress should act, says McCaffrey. Why? One reason is because their recruitment numbers are not where they should be and it's taking a toll on the current soldier numbers. The FACTS are outlined for you by a NON-Liberal.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,149957.shtml

Finally, according to you, you say soldiers state that they "can't wait to get back." This is the mentality of soldiers who do not want to abandon their friends. I understand that mentality and commend as such, but do not confuse it for "I can't wait to serve another year away from my family so that the Iraqi government can get settled." Conversely, you cannot deny that there are many who'd rather be home, just like my buddy, a MU grad and Marine, who's training for another deployment to Iraq (this time it's a year and he just had his 6 month "break") - his 3rd in 5 years and 4th or 5th overall (incl. Afghanistan).

[Murffieus]

Well you're the first person I've heard yet describe the current US Army as NOT being made up of volunteers. The concept of volunteers goes back to the Revolutionary war-----history has considered them volunteers as there was NO draft back then either and they got paid. Anytime someone hasn't been conscripted (drafted) into the armed forces, he/she is considered a volunteer whether they get paid or not----always has been the case----always will be the case!

Most anyone who wants a college education can qualify for a student loan----so your example is bogus----at best your example covers a very, very small segment of potential students (so small it would fall into the category of an exception and there are exceptions to everything).

NCAA----if our soldiers were as disillusioned as you say----- they wouldn't be making the huge progress they have made in the past 3 months establishing security in Iraq. Obviously morale is very high or such progress would be impossible!

BTW---check out the dictionary definition of volunteer ----"given of free will and without compulsion"-----in otherwords----"not forced or coerced"!

[77ncaachamps]

So let me see, I decide to work for my company. They put me through interviews and deem me worthy. Then, they pay me a monthly check - sometimes a bonus - and sometimes don't pay me for the duties I do. IF that is volunteering, then we're ALL volunteers. Ask a soldier if he'll do what he does without getting paid.

I think you're getting confused with the use of the term volunteer. It means:

"a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, esp. for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army."

Henceforth, volunteers do so with NO intention of being a member of the regular or permanent army. I would agree with you that this applies to the reserve and national guard units, but not to the "career soldiers".

I love the fact that you say, "Most anyone who wants a college education can qualify for a loan" because that was my only agreeable point with you. But the fact is going to Marquette is $25k and that government loan wouldn't have helped. You lost the impact of the quantity and quality of the loans to today's secondary schools' tuitions: for state school students, it helps in all cases, but for many, it's just a small dent.

I think it is dangerous to imply that ALL soldiers are disillusioned, but you can't help but to think that there are scores upon scores who would rather be at home. Has there been progress in Iraq? Sure. Enough to warrant us being there for another 1, 2, 3,(how long does Bush want us there again?) years? Not really, but that's part of the debate. And morale cannot be "very high" because of the progress...it's for the simple fact of defend or be killed. Survival is #1, then progress/mission is #2.

I am, again, in no way saying recruits are "forced or coerced" - but if you dangle enough of a big steak in front of someone, I guess you can call that "gentle persuasion". TRUE volunteerism is when someone does it without "strings attached" - no kickbacks, just the pleasure of doing it. You know, rebuilding your neighbor's house after a tornado, etc.

Want to test if these recruits are TRUE volunteers? Take away the bonuses and any financial aid and tell them that the only reason they're doing it is for their homeland. If anyone steps up, I applaud them. But obviously the government doesn't think that will happen because the advertisements and calls "dangle the purse".

I will agree with you, if you agree with me too, that many new recruits are volunteering for the money and the bonuses...and not to defend their country.

In the recruitment of the modern army, you cannot separate the two.

[77ncaachamps]

And to emphasize the last point, here is Staff Sgt. Kevin Gordon on the Army's "Quick Ship Bonus":

The $20,000 bonus can be enticing, especially to those who lack a steady job, languish in debt or are worried about their future. Staff Sgt. Kevin Gordon, a recruiter in Glen Burnie, said a majority of the people who come into his office have already decided to join the service and then jump at the chance to leave now.

"They have school loans, mortgages, they have family concerns," said Gordon, whose three recent recruits all took the bonus. "It's a great incentive because something like that leaves families in a good financial posture, and they feel a little more comfortable knowing their bills will be taken care of."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20453080/

I don't see defending the homeland up there as a primary reason to "volunteer" for the army.

The romanticism of being in the military has worn off since the Vietnam War. It's becoming now more of a necessity: need to do something in their life, need to pay bills, need to add to the resume (especially politically), need to add skills, need to double dip in pensions, etc. Not to say any of those reasons are not valid ones, but defending America is not up there.

But it sure sounds like a "job".

[Murffieus]

I repeat------if defending America were not a major reason for enlisting in the military how were we able to defeat Saddam's army in 2 weeks when Iran couldn't do it in 8 years. How come the surge has all but stabalized the former Sunni Triangle aka "the Triangle of Death" just in the past 3 months and that with the temperature soaring to 125 degrees during the day. Then too in the gulf war----that was over in a few days. You don't accomplish all that with people who are "in it for the money" as you suggest----these are extremely job focused and motivated people!

After 9/11 enlistments soared!

[77ncaachamps]

I repeat------if defending America were not a major reason for enlisting in the military how were we able to defeat Saddam's army in 2 weeks when Iran couldn't do it in 8 years. How come the surge has all but stabalized the former Sunni Triangle aka "the Triangle of Death" just in the past 3 months and that with the temperature soaring to 125 degrees during the day. Then too in the gulf war----that was over in a few days. You don't accomplish all that with people who are "in it for the money" as you suggest----these are extremely job focused and motivated people!

After 9/11 enlistments soared!

#1 - Enlistments soared after 9/11 much like they did after Pearl Harbor, no doubt, because of the love of the fatherland. But you still are turning a blind eye to the "meat and potatoes" of being a soldier...er...volunteer: the pay, the bonuses, the benefits, etc.

#2 - Let's not clump ALL soldiers into the "doing it all for the money" because there are those who fight for freedom. But if you take their "volunteer check and benefits away or cut them, you're not going to see high morale.

Look at Shays' Rebellion...these were the people who fought for America's Independence and almost started a rebellion against the infant US government over not getting paid! I'm sure the U.S. military has learned that lesson and that's why they're burning at least $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq - a significant amount going to the companies that Chicos' outlined in another post.

#3 - I wonder what the recruitment numbers would actually be like without the bonuses. Moreover, I wonder what percentage of recruits actually make it to the "ready to ship" stage. I think it might be around 50-60%, but I'd love to know because the government cannot flaunt "high recruit numbers" just to get a smaller number in return.

#4 - The U.S. Soldiers are successful because of their training, weaponry, and dedication to the job. They are extremely focused and motivated...because they have to be. One bomb and it's over. If my f---in' life was on the line, you'd bet I'd be focused. My job is to kill the guy trying to kill me...that's my first instinct.

Re: Gulf War, we overwhelmed a weaker opponent. You want a real test? Try China.

#5 - What I love is how you ignore the previous links and say that I suggest the people are there for the money. Again, not all are there, but it's a HUGE part of being in the military. In addition, you haven't commented on each article's addressing the lack of troops needed for the military to relieve those currently there and add to the surge. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the definition of volunteer I shared with you that includes a discriminating aspect of being a "volunteer" in the military. Finally, you haven't refuted what McCaffrey points out as being a military in dire need of recruits.

Don't bunker down behind the progresses that have and are being made in Iraq, yet ignore the White Elephants in the room (tired, worn and stretched thin military; decreasing numbers of recruits; lack of progress towards the 547,000 readied soldiers needed in 5 years; the continuing cost of the war and its impact domestically and personally - think care of the soldiers' wounded and traumatized; lack of a long-term plan in Iraq - think how many years as an occupying force; etc.). It may help to remove the blinders.

[Murffieus]

Well of course the money is a big part of the all volunteer army----I mean the alternative is getting a job in the private sector so the military has to be competitive (supply and demand). I mean these people have families to support what do you expect that they let them starve?

The volunteer part is "of their own free will"----the money most of them could get anywhere----no one is going to get rich in the military!

As I've pointed out morale is very high to get the quality work we're getting out of these guys----and morale isn't high because of the money----that most of them can get anywhere-----don't listen to those media reports of "tired, stretched military"----if our military was so tired and stretched they wouldn't be making the HUGE progress they've made in the past 3 months-----I know you liberals hate to see that, but it's happened-----the money they get isn't the motivation allows them to put their ass on the line 24/7------if it was the money they would have chosen to be with their families working in the private sector in the first place!

[ChicosBailBonds]

1977, what do you think will happen if we withdraw from Iraq? 

[mu03eng]

I repeat------if defending America were not a major reason for enlisting in the military how were we able to defeat Saddam's army in 2 weeks when Iran couldn't do it in 8 years. How come the surge has all but stabalized the former Sunni Triangle aka "the Triangle of Death" just in the past 3 months and that with the temperature soaring to 125 degrees during the day. Then too in the gulf war----that was over in a few days. You don't accomplish all that with people who are "in it for the money" as you suggest----these are extremely job focused and motivated people!

After 9/11 enlistments soared!

#1 - Enlistments soared after 9/11 much like they did after Pearl Harbor, no doubt, because of the love of the fatherland. But you still are turning a blind eye to the "meat and potatoes" of being a soldier...er...volunteer: the pay, the bonuses, the benefits, etc.

#2 - Let's not clump ALL soldiers into the "doing it all for the money" because there are those who fight for freedom. But if you take their "volunteer check and benefits away or cut them, you're not going to see high morale.

Look at Shays' Rebellion...these were the people who fought for America's Independence and almost started a rebellion against the infant US government over not getting paid! I'm sure the U.S. military has learned that lesson and that's why they're burning at least $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq - a significant amount going to the companies that Chicos' outlined in another post.

#3 - I wonder what the recruitment numbers would actually be like without the bonuses. Moreover, I wonder what percentage of recruits actually make it to the "ready to ship" stage. I think it might be around 50-60%, but I'd love to know because the government cannot flaunt "high recruit numbers" just to get a smaller number in return.

#4 - The U.S. Soldiers are successful because of their training, weaponry, and dedication to the job. They are extremely focused and motivated...because they have to be. One bomb and it's over. If my f---in' life was on the line, you'd bet I'd be focused. My job is to kill the guy trying to kill me...that's my first instinct.

Re: Gulf War, we overwhelmed a weaker opponent. You want a real test? Try China.

#5 - What I love is how you ignore the previous links and say that I suggest the people are there for the money. Again, not all are there, but it's a HUGE part of being in the military. In addition, you haven't commented on each article's addressing the lack of troops needed for the military to relieve those currently there and add to the surge. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the definition of volunteer I shared with you that includes a discriminating aspect of being a "volunteer" in the military. Finally, you haven't refuted what McCaffrey points out as being a military in dire need of recruits.

Don't bunker down behind the progresses that have and are being made in Iraq, yet ignore the White Elephants in the room (tired, worn and stretched thin military; decreasing numbers of recruits; lack of progress towards the 547,000 readied soldiers needed in 5 years; the continuing cost of the war and its impact domestically and personally - think care of the soldiers' wounded and traumatized; lack of a long-term plan in Iraq - think how many years as an occupying force; etc.). It may help to remove the blinders.

See this touches a nerve with me.  I think you are playing semantics with Volunteer.  Yes, they get money.  Yes, they get bonuses.  Yes, they get benfits like tax free goods when they purchase on base.  Because they get money that technically means they aren't volunteer, but they certainly aren't getting paid fair market value for what they do.

Now I'm sensitive to it because I'm a son a mother who was in the Navy and a father who was in the Air Force.  Both didn't get paid nearly what the could have gotten on the civilian market.  My mother was a nurse in the Navy was paid 1/3 of what she would have seen in the civilian world.  When my dad retired after 20 years, he got the same job in the civilian world that he had in the Air Force.  Doubled his salary, and you know what he had a desk job.  It wasn't like earlier in his career when he was flying covertly into Iran or dropping troops over Grenada into a hot drop zone.  Both joined up(volunteered not drafted) near the end of Vietnam, so yes they were paid, yes they had bonuses, but how do you put a price on being spit on or not being allowed to wear your uniform in Boston because the people there might attack you.  Thank god our troops don't deal with that kind of stuff now.  The point is not for me to beat my chest about how great my parents are....in fact its the opposite, I think they were just like every other individual that serves in the military.  Sure they get paid, sure they get benefits, but its not nearly what the could get in the civilian sector.  Factor in, constant danger, even in time of peace.  Moving at least every four years, being stationed overseas, etc.  You say they aren't volunteers because the money is a huge part of it.  I say bull$&@*, they are volunteers because the government is getting one heck of a discount because of patriotism and love of nation.  Maybe that doesn't make them volunteers by your definition but it does in my book.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well said ENG.  The bonuses, etc are great but some on the left like to imply that this is the only reason they join which is not true.

It's the nature of the world we live in today.  Incentives are part of the gig and were started long before Bush was even governor of Texas let alone President of the United States.

They are most definitely a volunteer military as there are plenty of other oportunities out there, especially in an economy with 4.5% unemployment to do something else and get paid without being put in harm's way.

[77ncaachamps]

Let's make this clear: soldiers are not rich. Hell no. But don't call them volunteers. Sure it's semantics, but what about the soldiers who make a "career" out of it. Would you say they're "career" volunteers? Are the 3-star generals volunteers? When do you draw the line? Better yet, how do you draw the line between "volunteer" and "career soldier"? Those generals are eating well, I can tell you that much.

I think it's worthless to debate the value of people. Soldiers are important as much as the teachers in this world. Hell, it pisses me off some stupid CEOs or ball players make such insane money. If you calculate the number of hours I work outside of my day, the burger flipper at In-N-Out makes more than I do per hour. Unfortunately, the world is what it is...if you're happy doing what you're doing despite the pay, hey, good for you.

And good for the soldiers getting pay...I have no intention to piss on the army - my granddaddy fought with the Philippine Scouts and was promised citizenship by the US Gov't but they didn't give it to him (talk about love of a country...that's not even yours) - but only to debate the status of soldiers as volunteers. Like I said, strip the bonuses and see if the 547,000 goal will be reached.

And you're right, Murf...money isn't the motivation they put their ass on the line. If you read what I had posted earlier, it's survival and love for their brothers/sisters in combat. That's why they return. That's why they don't mind serving a surprise extension of 6 months on their duty. They're with their own.

Chico, to answer your question, I don't know what will happen to Iraq. I do not possess the proverbial crystal ball or silver DeLorean. But this crappy plan of occupation is ticking me off because in no way was the government prepared for what was to come:
- vacuum of power in Iraq
- the waning support of the war at home
- the lack of resources dedicated to the injured coming back
- the extended use of national guard and reserve forces
- the cost of the war (and how to fund it)
- the length of the war and transition to occupation
- the difficulty of trying to implant democracy into a society where the idea is foreign
- the trials and tribulations of Iraqi figureheads who they supported to get the government going
- the need for more "ready" recruits
- how to assess progress (other than Bush saying it's going on)

I will end my participation in this thread knowing that we will agree to disagree on many topics. Furthermore, I am proud to be an American and love this country so, but it tears my heart at some of the actions it has taken. I support the troops and want them to be safe, but acknowledge that this is not going to be a quick exit, but a long, drawn-out and messy one. Lastly, I do not think that the Iraqis understand democracy and freedom as we do here in the United States, and since America has their fingerprints on this government, it will reek of corruption and distrust.

Furthermore, don't label me a Liberal as I am a registered Republican.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Then let's call it a vocational military.  They are getting paid, but they are choosing to be there for lower wages and often because they want to serve a greater cause.

They are not drafted and no one is forcing them in is the bigger and more salient point.

[Murffieus]

NCAA----if you're a registered republican, you're in the wrong party.

A definition of the word volunteer----is someone who does something of his/her own free will and not being coerced into the endeavor. Money is NOT coercion----it's an incentive!