In the latest signs of strains on the military from the war in Iraq, the Army National Guard announced on Thursday that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the last two months and would offer new incentives, including enlistment bonuses of up to $15,000.
In addition, the head of the National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, said on Thursday that he needed $20 billion to replace arms and equipment destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan or left there for other Army and Air Guard units to use, so that returning reservists will have enough equipment to deal with emergencies at home.
Interesting, I actually expected the drop to exceed 30%. Apparently some folks really want the money bad enough to risk an Iraq deployment. Or perhaps they have enough patriotic fervor to think it their duty and not be hugely opposed to the idea of going to Iraq.
Yay, so much for conservatives thinking ahead. I guarantee most of this is due to stop-loss. People sign a commitment for X years, they don’t expect to have more time tacked on because, somewhere in their sign-up form, it says “X-178a” or something like that (Jon Stewart exposed this).
So now, the entire National Guard is being viewed as a scam.
Huh?
The rest of your post made sense, but that didn’t seem to connect to anything.
Well, traditionally at least - the impression that conservatives try to give is that they’re forward-thinking. You know, they don’t make band-aid solutions, aren’t always off on the holy crusade of the week, and aren’t prone to rash decisions.
Which really hasn’t been the case with this administration, IMO. Stop-loss was one of the most short-sighted moves ever.
Well, traditionally at least - the impression that conservatives try to give is that they’re forward-thinking. You know, they don’t make band-aid solutions, aren’t always off on the holy crusade of the week, and aren’t prone to rash decisions.
Which really hasn’t been the case with this administration, IMO. Stop-loss was one of the most short-sighted moves ever.[/quote]
Err, I’ve never heard of that quality being associated with any of the -isms. It’s a good quality for a leader to have but I don’t think it has anything to do with ideology.
Though I do agree the current administration does not seem to have managed things well or with excellent foresight.
Well, it’s just the impression I’ve gotten then.
only 30%? holy crap.
I am also surprised it is only 30%. I would have expected much more, given that the ‘one weekend a month’ committment is a thing of the past.
However, I’m not certain what that number means. They have fallen 30% short of their recruiting goal, but the article does not state how that goal compares to previous years. If the goal rose (which certainly seems possible), then the true decline may be well under 30%. I suppose it is also possible that the recruiting goal was lower than previous years, but that seems quite unlikely.
Whatever your personal feelings on the war, it should be noted that a significant part of the population supports it. There may not be much of an overlap between the demographics of ‘QT3 Regulars’ and ‘People Who Sign Up To Go To Iraq On Purpose,’ but the latter group certainly exists.
Jakub- Jon Stewart “exposed” this? This wasn’t exactly investigative journalism, every soldier signs a contract that specifies that they serve as much as the nation needs them. Stop-loss and activating people on IRR isn’t shady or dishonest, it’s just desperate.
Actually, every soldier signs an enlistment form that says “You’ll serve X, be reserve for Y”.
Somewhere on the form, it says “By signing, you hereby agree to the following:” with a list of stuff, including an alphanumeric designation which is actually an entirely new contract which means “we own your ass for life”.
So no, guardsmen don’t sign it.
Wait, so they don’t sign it or they do? Your last two sentences disagree with each other.
They sign the enlistment.
They don’t sign the form that’s referred to in the enlistment.
It’s sort of like signing a contract that says:
"I, Ben Benson, hereby agree to pick peaches for Farmer John for $5/hour, as well as the terms of ASDF45623.
[Ben Benson’s signature]"
ASDF45623, which he never sees (and, in fact, isn’t even as explicitly stated on the contract as it is in my example), says “Farmer John can collect all my wages back in exchange for my right to step on his farm.”
Of course, if you want to go to Iraq you get a better deal by joining the regular Army. Given that, I’m surprised the shortfall is only 30%.
Jakub- Uh, that’s how a lot of contracts work. Caveat emptor, you’re signing a contract that will dramatically effect your life over the next 8+ years. My sympathy level for someone who doesn’t read the whole thing is pretty small.
False dichotomy, bro. I know people who think it is their patriotic duty to serve despite their personal opposition to the current horseshit fuckup in Iraq.
In general, half of all National Guard recruits come from full-time service who are looking to keep some of the benefits of being in the Army now that their full-time contract is up.
Most of the 30% drop is made up of soldiers who’ve served in Afghanistan and Iraq and don’t want to go back now that the Reserves and National Guard make up 40% of the american forces in Iraq, and I’ve heard some claim that currently one out of every two full-time soldiers who would have signed on prior to the current situation are not doing it.
That’s the rub:
You DON’T get to see the fine print. You get to see a letter-code for a form which you are not shown.
Click on ‘F’d Troop’ for the daily show clip:
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_headlines.jhtml