The False Recruiting Crisis

So, I guess the only way to support the troops is to blindly follow "King George", don't question the Pentagon, in fact don't question anything. Any less than marching lockstep with far right wackjobs and you are a communist who wishes the demise of the US? This is the typical mantra of the Neocons. Question the so-called truth from the pentagon and by god you are not for the troops. Also, villify all those who disagree with policy. Just more Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity style of cherry picking statistics and twisting the truth to attack anything left of the current ongoing facism of the current administration. I can't wait to hear Gen Petraeus' assesment of the Iraq war in the coming weeks. Considering all of the generals that were dismissed or retired for not giving the expected favorable info to GWB, I assume all is good in Iraq and everything is working just peachy.

Maybe you are not the same person as "Forward Deployed" website – I don't know. In that case, you did not cherry pick the AP article, "Forward deployed" (FD) did. I did not see anything in the AP article that was derogatory toward the military. The reporter reported statistics given by the pentagon. But, as most hard core right wingers will do, FD took each part of the article that did not meet his criteria of "flattering one and all" and bashed it as the author was "Sneering" etc. You see, I listen/read many, many news sources (Including FOX and talking heads from the right) and the one thing that is common with all of them, is that if anyone criticizes the current administration or any part of the military, the label of "Anti-American or against the troops" comes out faster than the guns of quick-draw-McGraw. Just to clarify my position. I'm retired military, have a son in the military in the Mideast, and absolutely agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan (Not in Iraq's civil war). I believe we should build up the military, but I don't like the constant hype that "everything is going great", when I hear different from within the military. However, nobody has the balls to pipe up and tell those calling the shots at the top, "Things ain't-a-goin-so-good". To top it all off, the MAJORITY of American people want us out of Iraq, as do I. But, the person who has the power to make it happen has basically flipped the bird to the wishes of the MAJORITY. As far as your reference to the Daily Kos crowd, I can only surmise that you are an avid Rush fan and are just repeating what he said after dedicating almost a week of his show to bashing the Daily Kos but never said a word about the same type of inflammatory statements made by Ann Coulter. As far as me being spiteful, I'm not. In order for me to be spiteful I'd have to have Ill will or hatred toward something. I don't. I think we need to have a right wing to keep the left from becoming too powerful and to keep them in check and vise-versa, which is why the pendulum started to swing to the right in 1994. But as the left screwed up previously, so has the right presently and I'm thankful the pendulum is swinging back toward the left. Also, No mockery intended by me – I just like political discussion/debate.

So are the statistics and facts in that article wrong? I looked at your posted statistics and yes there is a rise in middle-class recruits, still the bulk is coming from lower-middle class families. Also, those were all inclusive recruiting statistics they were not broken down by branch. The Navy and Air Force are downsizing and as a result the have the option to be more selective in who they recruit which means more middle-class recruits. The Army and Marines are expanding which means they have to be less selective in who they recruit if they want to make the numbers.

The Army is trying to bribe people to join. Retention bonuses, signing bonuses, and other monitary means to attract enlistees as well as basic amenities that are not offered in the civlian world such as health care. If the Army wasn't hurting for people then why would they have to offer so many recruitment tools to bring in more people.

I like reading your site because for the most part you are pretty non-biased, but when it comes to this issue, you seem to not want to look at it from an objective view point. Instead you only want to promote how great the current level of enlistees are. Sadly, they still aren't that great. Most people still view the military as a last resort for a better life, or because, they aren't capable of making something of themselves in the civilian world, but they know they can join the military.

Posters like "Goout" says he likes debate, but he strikes me as a selective thinker favoring the left. The list of conservative politicians and activists (who he clearly detests) rolls from his tongue and he subscribes to liberal assumptions.

Leftists will commonly deride those who support / defend conservative causes (I suppose the military and recruiting policies is one of them) as "blindly following George Bush" and playing stooge to the establishment. They demonize their conservative counterparts as narrow minded bigots who FOAMS at the mouth everytime someone is even slightly against "America" or the "Bush administration" Goout was clearly ready with this line of attack, and when confronted, he played the expected role as a patriot who stands up to the government. Same old, same old.

Of course, you only have to read a few of his blogs to realize that GI Korea is pro military, and mostly on the "Red" side on certain issues. He has lashed out at leftists before. But he's not Michael Savage or Limbaugh. Believe you me, I know Neo cons can be just UNPLEASANT as their leftist foes. Generally speaking I find that his defense of the miliatry is fair and his criticism to be on point. The army definitely gets the "Michael Moore" treatment from media sometimes.

As for the recruiting practices, I'll fault the army if they commit any of these following –

If they pay non whites less.

If they fail to properly inform the minority recruit of the risks involved.

IF they purposely romanticize the war experience to minorities to attract them, but NOT to whites.

IF they're selective in their deployment or treatment based on race(Like sending minorities to dangerous areas but not white)

If you deny anyone based on race.

Sure, we'd all like big corporations to target poor Latinos for 50 thou a job openings. Ain't gonna happen. If I were army recruiter I'd look to the poor and desperate, why not? It's not unethical to offer extravagant incentive to join, as long as it's for everyone and you admit QUALIFIED soldiers. If the army selectively recruits 20 year old Latino punks from the ghetto, duped into thinking the joining army is good way to make a quick buck, yeah, THAT would be bad. In fact, the military is under heat from recruiting GANG members from LA.

As a Korean, I actually find GI Korea to be voice of reason. Far from a closed minded right wing zealot. The only difference between him and Metropolitician is that the former tends to be conservative and the latter liberal (And GI Korea recommends Michael's links in many of his blogs). Otherwise these bloggers makes dead on observations through the Korean problems and utterly obssessive culture. (foreigner phobia, anti Japan sentiment, Dokdo, on) You'll probably find more relevant information about North Korea, US Korea relations, and ROK soldiers here than eleswhere.

Anyhoo, political polarization in America – NOT a good thing. I fancy myself as a conservative, but I'm turned off by hardcore right pundits who says things like "Deport all illegals" and "Guns for all". Not real keen on the death penalty either. But I'm also skeptical on people like Goout, for reasons explained. Independent thinkers might be against the Iraq war, butmay raise questions about the validity global warming. They might be for gay marriages but against socialized medicine. They may indict Bush for his mistakes, but defend him from ridiclous accusations. They follow no masters, toe no party line, and think for themselves.

You see so little of that in America, probably MUCH less in Korea. The Korean Netizens would CRUCIFY Goout if he said anything remotely negative about, let's say, their soccer team.

I don't serve in the military, so I don't if they nurture a dominantly conservative environment. Although, from what I've read and heard, the army marching more to the progressive beat nowadays. But I must defer to your opinion on the military on certain issues, because you were there, and I wasn't.

You mention right leaning threads, maybe I'm missing something. Usinkorea bashed Clinton in the first post, other than that, this is about the media's perception of the army. Perhaps you were involved with flame wars with neocons in some other site?

I usually don't approach or label any issue as "conservative or liberal" per se. When discussing abortion or other hot button topics, I don't jump into an ideology that qualifies as "my side of the ring" to square off with the other side. There are always some gray areas, intersecting points, and relevant positions that defy arbitrary political or persona lines. Problem is, most Americans are increasingly polarized to the far left and the right, and ironically enough, they each believe that they're "open minded"

John Stossel (the abc news anchorman) says he believes homosexuality is natural and prostitution should be legal. Two consenting adults are free to do whatever they want. He exposed schools that punished students that ate "hot dogs in an obscene gesture". But he's a outspoken advocate of free market and government deregulation, so liberals often label him as "right wing" and criticize him as such. You can expect the same treatment for the right if they found him advocating gay rights.

"Another opinion is “if the US withdraws from Iraq the jihadis will turn on each other inside Iraq along sectarian lines and start the Iraqi civil war in earnest. Fighting would continue for 5-8 years and in that time all parties inside would concentrate on victory over their enemies in Iraq and ignore outside conflicts such as Afghanistan or attacking European or American targets.”

That’s my opinion. It may be wrong. But it seems to me as likely or more than yours."

Everyone has opinion. That it might be wrong or right is almost a given. What matters is whether it's persuasive and plausible. Following your kind of logic I could ignore ALL your own opinions since I'm entitled to my own.

Yes, Jihadis will probably turn on each other when the US withdraws. But to me, there's no incentive to operate within a vaccum in Iraq where they're forced to consolidate all their powers and abandon their agendas abroad. If waging civil war was an uphill battle that required a total effort and resources, you'd probably ignore operations abroad. But if you could control Iraq more easily without American interference, why would suddenly give up AFG and other targets?

From what I understand, many terrorists cells are autonomous, indepently ran organizations that carry out their distinct agendas. IF you're terror cell in LA and your objective is to blow up a mall, you'll plan and execute that no matter what happens anywhere. They probably (?) won't rush to Iraq to sustain their civil war efforts.

If jihadists leave the rest of the world alone so they win Iraq, that might be good news for us. Without domestic terror threat as deterant(or them kidnapping our citizens to discourage military intervention), we could even back the Iraqi government more than before. Your scenario strikes me as counterintuitive.