The Young Turks

The armed forces met their goals for two reasons, neither of which reflect well on the current administration.

1) Recession- when the economy turns to shit, enlistment goes up.  There are gonna be a bunch of former private sector folks all the sudden wanting to be teachers too.

2) Lowered expectations- taking a page from the life of George Bush, the military appears to have just reduced the number of people they say is the goal.  Last year the Army was hoping for 8,000+ a month and getting a little over 5,000.  They couldn't meet those goals so now the goal is a little over 5,000.  So let me get this straight, they were running 3k deficits all last year, casualty rates in Iraq are spiking, war with Iran looks possible and the tours of duty are about to be cut singificantly shorter and the army is telling us they need LESS people????

Its disgusting that all the Bush adminstration and the soulless flunkies he has staffed our government, courts and military with care about is making a nice headline. 

Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand on our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies... Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions.

Equipment used repeatedly in harsh environments is wearing out more rapidly than programmed. Army support systems, designed for the pre-9/11 peacetime Army, are straining under the accumulation of stress from six years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies

The Pentagon changed their retention goals to lower standards for recruits and threw larger bonuses at current troops.

AND the Army is losing captains (a crucial rank in the Army at an alarming rate).

Which DoD officials have already mentioned is a detrimental to the overall readiness of the military.

http://www.armytimes.com/ne ws/2008/04/gns_waivers_0407 08/

From the Army Times

According to the data provided to the Committee, the Army and Marine Corps significantly increased the number of waivers they granted for enlistees with felony convictions from 2006 to 2007. Army waivers increased from 249 waivers in 2006 to 511 waivers in 2007, while Marine Corps waivers increased from 208 waivers in 2006 to 350 waivers in 2007. Both branches increased the number of waivers they granted for almost every type of felony offense.

In addition, the new data provided to the Committee shows for the first time some of the offenses for which the Army and Marine Corps have granted waivers. In 2007, the Army and Marine Corps granted 87 waivers to enlistees who had been convicted of “[a]ggravated assault, assault with a dangerous weapon, [or] maiming,” 248 waivers to enlistees who had been convicted of “[b]urglary,” and 130 waivers to enlistees who had been convicted of “[n]arcotics or habit-forming drugs; wrongful possession or use (marijuana not included).” The Army and Marine Corps also granted small numbers of waivers for the crimes of “[r]ape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, incest, or other sex crimes,” “[i]ndecent acts or liberties with a child, molestation,” and “[t]errorist threats including bomb threats.”

I understand that there can be valid reasons for personnel waivers and recognize the importance of providing opportunities to individuals who have served their sentences and rehabilitated themselves. At the same time, concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/