I’d trust those Georgians to guard the border
Georgia will be sending 1200 troops to Iraq to patrol the border with Iran to beef up the effort to keep weapons out.
No, not that Georgia. This Georgia:
This makes it the third largest coalition force there, after the US and the UK. Georgia is making a bid for NATO membership and wants to prove its bona fides, and at the moment the Georgian population is actually in favor of sending these troops.
I’m in favor of it, too; those Georgians know a thing or two about weapons. I’m unable to post the following directly on my blog because that function has been disabled for this particular video, but go to You Tube and take a look for yourself. I suggest you enlarge the screen the better to see what’s actually happening, and begin watching at minute 3:20—that’s when things get good.
And stand back; you don’t want to get hurt.
But, but, don’t they realize the war is lost? The lefties tell us the rats are leaving the sinking ship, one by one. The Georgians are boarding? Don’t they realize it’s over? Don’t they realize their soldiers are just being thrown away, and will make them less safe at home?
Thanks, Mike—the post wasn’t much without the visuals. Fixed.
Bush needs to throw out the UN, keep the NATO membership, and then create a parallel organization and alliance centered around America. Georgia is only joining NATO because of American firepower. They sure as hell ain’t joining cause they think they can depend on the Europs to transport anything useful. The Europeans NEED the United States heavy lift to get anywhere.
An alliance where you subsidize your “allies” defense so that they can constrain the primary fighter with rules and international courts while at the same time being useless in a real fight, is an interesting historical development. Might even be unique, at least on this scale.
Great dance. I sure hope the owners of the auditorium were aware of the dance they were planning on doing 🙂
Bravo. Nice touch.
Wiki says:
“Georgia has a long history of religious harmony within its borders despite the historical conflicts with the surrounding nations. Different religious minorities have lived in Georgia for thousands of years and religious discriminations are virtually unknown in the country”
On a sour note, the Kos kids are reveling in the assassination of the man they call “Bush’s Golden Boy”
Bigpharaoh blog post
Aside from choreography not being the use of weapons, they did have nice work in mobility.
I’ll say that is lost bet. Georgians are notorious for theatrical posturing and lack of sincere interest in real achivements. They are poseurs par excellence. When confronted with real adversary, like Abkhas guerillas, they lose miserably. They also are notorious for unusially high percentage of criminals and insane cruelty.
This is a nation of narcissists, very good in dancing and singing and any kind of show buisness, but hardly in anything else (except organized crime of the most malignant sort). A good half of the most heinous crimes in Moscow is performed by Georgian etnic mafia structures.
I wonder what the motive of Georgians is in helping Iraq. Perhaps they understand
living in a rough neighborhood.
sergey: They do seem rather insane in this dance. I wouldn’t want to be standing nearby when those knives start flying. But it certainly makes sensational theater.
Balanchine was a Georgian.
Wasn’t Stalin a Georgian?
Good call, Roy. He was indeed.
Hmmm—Stalin and Balanchine. Quite a spread. And the video here captures both—the wonderful dance ability and the sharp knives.
They also are notorious for unusially high percentage of criminals and insane cruelty.
Do you mean you don’t want them inflicting such on terrorists? I thought you were for harsh measures against terrorists.
Harsh, but legal. And they simply can not obey any law except their will. This is, I think, has something to do with national tradition of children upbringing: every Georgian boy is rendered as a King, nothing is forbidden. Georgian men do not understand the word “No”, from women too. As a result, there is unusually high numbers of sociopaths with sadistic tendencies. The memory they left in Abkhazia is such that no Georgian national can appear there without being lynched at spot.
Josef Stalin is not the most hated man in Russia: the most hated is his fellow countryman and henchman, Lavrentij Beriya, the chief of secret political police (NKVD). He was organizer of labour camps (GULAG) where dozen million Russians perished. Talented and artistic, and absolutely immoral. Not a fanatic, though. He had no principles at all. Nikita Khrushchev organized a coup against him, and he was killed.
My scant knowledge suggests that sergey is right. There is some thought that there is some mild improvement in the attitudes of the younger generation since the fall of communism, but mafia-style crime is still their strong suit.
The type of society in Georgia is the same, as in Sicily or Corsica: large extended patriarchal families, where the head of the family is absolute despot, and his will is the law that trumps all other laws. See Godfather as illustration. Post-tribal, may be, but pre-feodal. In this setting the head of the state may be called President, but actually he is “capo del tutti capos”, nothing else. European facade, behind which lies bottomless morass of premodern savagery, crime and corruption.
Correction: it reads “capo di tutti capi”
Good news.
Sergey,
The term for this is “amoral familism” which was first used by the sociologist Edward C. Banfield in The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, 1958, and was based on his field research in Southern Italy.
it should’ve been American Georgians…as a fellow southerner, our motto is “we don’t play” as well as “yeah we still hold a grudge” 😉
Are these other countries bound by the same ethos as the American Military Code of Justice? I wondered this today after reading about Blackwater’s license to work in Iraq has been revoked. I assume that coalition soldiers are all bound to it, but private contractors not.
I suggest that the type of moral code expounded by R. Kipling is close to it. But hardly it holds now in modern Britain.
May be, Australia and New Zealand? What I have read about ANZAC performance in WWI makes it plausible. And they still celebrate ANZAC Day there and cherish this tradition as a nation backbone.
Good that other nations are standing up. If we can get more on board, then our guys can take more of a break between deployments. Gates has said he recommends a veto on a bill that would guarantee rest between deployments, saying that they don’t have enough troops to do that; stretched too thin
Laura asked:
“Are these other countries bound by the same ethos as the American Military Code of Justice? ”
Someone asked Bush this same question 10 months ago and he laughed it off, saying he had no idea. I wonder if he has a better answer now?
You can see his response here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VvvPzVdP-DM
Unk, do you still have an obsession over bush as if he was your crazy brother and you had a duty to make him look bad to your parents?
OverGourd Says:
Funny. The topic has come up twice now, when over the course of Neo-Neocon, she nor her commenters have said anything about. Perhaps it is the times
The time of revolution and civil strife.
Neo, do you have any views on amoral familism you would like to share?
Yarm: Is that the term of the week for your blogs? I mean, really. It’s like you just learned this new big term and want to swing it around and look sort of important. This isn’t a Sociology class.
Here is what you posted someplace else:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/iraq-pulls-blackwaters-license-after-shooting#comment-91560
sounds like amoral familism is a one size fits all argument? hmm
As opposed to what? Laura’s constant harping about how unfair it is that her son doesn’t get any time off?
Yamar, the importance of this topic is clear: we must clearly understand how backward societies function before we can hope make any improvements or avoid strategic blunders in relations with them. Most Islamic societies are backward, and many Latin American too. This also relevant to immigration policy: immigrants from such communities tend to self-segregate and form ethnic criminal gangs. They are like cancer growth in modern societies, that lack necessary mechanisms to control it. FBR was created with special purpose do deal with Al Capone types; no such institution was necessary in purely Anglo-Saxon protestant society, British common law and municipal police was enough. Importing backwardness, we not only importing crime, but compromiss our freedoms by necessity to indroduce inherently non-democratic institutions to tackle it. The same apply to terrorism.
Correction: I meant FBI, of course.
Lee: MY SON is fine. This is not what I continue to press. My concern is for the overall health of the functioning military itself, all soldiers. They can’t possibly be all family.
My concern is from a national security perspective. Long deployments with short two week R & R in the middle of those deployments are not enough. Most soldiers don’t want that two weeks because it’s too hard to go from the foyer to hell and home and back in such short time frames. Most feel very conflicted during that two week stint.
Having at the very least one year home, critical to just retraining, not to mention reconnections to family and community structures, allows them to be able to effectively do the job.
Can you address that?
The conversation for all conservatives about the concern for our military must be had before the 2008 elections. The “perfect storm” scenario that may well put Hillary into the White House should be an opportunity for conservatives to counter effective talking points with their own counter to that; and that does not include attacking her message, that IS resonating within the military. Gop contributions are down and Dem are up within the military. It begs the question, who will be able to convey that message and acknowledge the strain that exists and will only get worse if not addressed? Whoever can do that convincingly by redefining the issue, rather than treating it like a tennis ball, will have a real shot at leading in 2008.
I think this would be a really good topic to discuss.
Thanks
Bravo Laura, an admirable attempt on your part to try to bring some level-headedness to this group.
Unfortunately though, by even proposing the idea that everything might not perfectly fine with our invincible military, you will be seen by the regulars here as expressing doubts which will be read and interpreted by the enemy as weakness on our part, therefore you are on their side and are guilty of treason, and should probably be imprisoned if not taken out and shot outright.
This is all based on actual prior comments to others like yourself from folks like trigimestus, yammer, r. aubrey, etc.
So best of luck to you! 🙂
Yarm: Is that the term of the week for your blogs?
Think of it as unintended consequences.
You are not Kevin, are you? Just checking.
sounds like amoral familism is a one size fits all argument? hmm
Do you have an argument you wish to make, or are you simply displeased because you disagree with something?
It’s like you just learned this new big term and want to swing it around and look sort of important. This isn’t a Sociology class.
You are absolutely correct. It is a “Laura is displeased class” instead.
What is important Laura, is you and your pet issues. That is what is important. Do you believe the military is a one size fit all issue? Do you believe the military does not have 1 year waits between full deployments for units? Just what do you believe, that is different from simply being disagreeable?
If anecdotal evidence is what you base your beliefs on, and it is apparently true that you do, then why can’t you make arguments based upon what they have said rather than what you have paraphrased them as saying? Is it a valid argument to pick and choose different portions of what other people have said, to benefit yourself?
yark says:
Do you have an argument you wish to make, or are you simply displeased because you disagree with something?
Yes sir, I do. And, I have. When you have discussions about the war, and don’t include in those discussions issues and difficult issues related to troop deployments, morale, training and schedules and don’t forget numbers, and all you do is say “yeah, that’s right, we’re winning rah rah”, and those “lefties” are defeatists (bs) rhetoric, then all you do is take up space and waste the air we breathe, because where I am standing buddy, you aren’t addressing these critical issues. All you are doing, is finding some socio-speak to attach to an argument in order NOT to address that.
But, I guess that’s all you really are interested in though, as seen in your next response about how this is my “pet issue”. Another lame attempt to not address the issue of the military.
This is not a left, right or center issue Yarm. This is an American issue, that speaks to HOW you expect to be safe in the next several years, how we maintain the Global War on Terror.
I am very clear. You can’t be realistic in this argument and discussion about the war without addressing this and SUGGESTING, got that, SUGGESTING recommendations on HOW TO MAKE it better.
Well, according to Laura, the only soldier in the entire army who can cope is her great and glorious son. It’s everyone else who doesn’t have such a gifted mother as her that is breaking down. Must be great to have such a wonderful and selfless mom as you. And if you weren’t so chock full of yourself(read crock of shit), your constant droning might actually get listened to around here. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: NO ONE has seen as much suffering as you claim. Florence freaking Nightingale herself, huh? BS!
We can’t go forward until Laura’s issues are addressed, huh? Well, guess what? We are moving on, whether you like it or not.
Sure seems like the “greatest generation” went from Pearl Harbor to Okinawa without a break and did just fine. Maybe you shouldn’t have raised such a GD baby!
Lee, blow harder and you might just be able to move that bowel obstruction.
And from where I;m standing, you know, the bar the other guys talked about where you were the loud one at the end with way too much to drink and nowhere to go? I’m the pretty one at the end that’s ignoring you.
all you do is say “yeah, that’s right, we’re winning rah rah”
Since when, Laurel? You sure you aren’t making this up from someone else’s arguments?
those “lefties” are defeatists (bs) rhetoric
You beg the question of what is a leftist then. That’s obviously different from person to person. Do you believe you can communicate with precision by applying different meanings to the word “Leftist” than the meaning your counter-part assigned to the word “Leftist”?
All you are doing, is finding some socio-speak to attach to an argument in order NOT to address that.
Are you carrying (Hayden) Kevin’s and Moveon’s water then? Why don’t you let them say their piece. They seem capable. Why do you treat them as if they are 100% disabled, and requiring you to represent them?
So allow me to recap. Since you didn’t like the arguments I used with someone else, this means that I was not addressing the views you found important, is that just about right, Laurel?
One might say that to use logic, it would follow that if I am speaking and writing on another topic, then the coverage of my issues will not be up to the standards to which you hold your pet issues, Laurel.
You brought up amoral familism to me, Laurel. I didn’t bring it up to you. Rememeber that, since it is important. In short, communications from you to me emphasizes amoral familism to a higher degree than the emphasis put on amoral familism when I communicate with you.
Why does your pet issue revolve around amoral familism to the degree that you are bothered enough by it to bring it up more than once? Why should I know. That’s not one of my issues.
This is an American issue, that speaks to HOW you expect to be safe in the next several years, how we maintain the Global War on Terror.
I’ll take that to mean that you particularly dislike amoral familism as an argument, even as an argument to people you don’t know but call Americans. Regardless of your dislike for the concept, you cannot come up with a reasoning of why it is factually wrong or flawed in operation. That seems apparent.
You can’t be realistic in this argument and discussion about the war without addressing this and SUGGESTING, got that, SUGGESTING recommendations on HOW TO MAKE it better.
Reality is not just what you see and have your eyes agree on, Laurel. Is this your idea of an American unity matrix?
And ignoring someone means “ignoring” someone. Pointing out to the person you intend to ignore is not “ignoring” them, it is “engaging” them.
But that’s fine with me. I’m just as comfortable talking “about” you as I am arguing “with” you. In the end, you read my posts just as much as anyone else’s.
Got that?
Besides, the women I’m interested are under 40.
“Beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone.”
Yarm, I’m not saying that they are 100% disabled; what I am saying is that they are stretched thin and very stressed because of the number of deployments and because certain troops (guard and reserves) in particular face tour after tour and again without end. Stressed in the mechanical and yes human sense. Who is going to do the work Yarm?
Wait, I thought you were of the party that was “pro military” right? The yellow magnet doesn’t do squat.
“The yellow magnet doesn’t do squat.’
And neither does Laura(other than propaganda and disinformation) But here’s some real military moms:
http://mothersofmilitarysupport.momsservices.org/index.html
Notice that while they may cry from time to time, they don’t do it all day.
http://rockymountainmilitarymoms.org/about.html
David R. Segal is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland and the director of the Center for Research on Military Organization, which conducts research related to the military, war and peace. In a recent interview, he shared his thoughts on how the Iraq war differs from previous U.S. military conflicts.
Question: It seems that even though we’re at war, most of us go about our daily lives as if it is not happening. Is the “disconnect” between military families and the general population as extreme as it appears?
Answer: Yes. The big difference is the American military has gone to war and the country has not. In past wars everyone was asked to sacrifice, whether it was through taxes, bonds, rationing – even bringing in peach pits and rendering fat – and most importantly, sacrificing sons through conscription. Now, the sacrifice has been placed solely on military families.
Q: How has this affected the public perception of the war?
A: If you think back to Vietnam, there was a tendency to be against the military. But that is no longer happening. In a way, the public is more sophisticated now. The public knows the Army does not decide what wars to fight. Americans have not abandoned their people in uniform.
Q: In your research, have you found that men and women in uniform feel they have support, or do they feel like they are on their own?
A: They feel alone to some degree. … I’m afraid they feel victimized by the American government. The feeling is well placed. The government has abandoned our veterans.
Q: How so?
A: The men and women in uniform swear to support the Constitution and they take an oath to do what the government sends them to do without making judgments of rightness or wrongness. What is first and foremost on the military’s mind is keeping alive.
However, the men and women in uniform feel their contract with the government should require that they get what they need to prosecute the war it sends them to fight and help them when they come home.
When soldiers got to Iraq, many felt they weren’t given what they needed and asked their own families to do what they could. There wasn’t enough body armor. Soldiers were writing home to their wives and asking for flak jackets. Families shouldn’t have to do that.
Take all the IED attacks on Humvees that were not built to withstand this. IEDs are not new. The Vietcong used IEDs in Vietnam; they have been around for decades. They are made from unexploded ordnance. We should have anticipated that (they) would be used against us and we should have had vehicles that were equipped for them.
Q: It seems the American public as a whole is pretty quiet about this war. Is that an accurate perception?
A: Yes, and quite frankly, an interesting aspect of this war is that there is not a huge anti-war movement among the general public. During Vietnam, for example, there were huge protests in college campuses. Now, there is no draft and college students are not at risk. … The families that are risking the most are the families of servicemen. And the anti-war Web sites are now military families’ Web sites.
Reservists bear especially heavy burden
Q: What are some of the issues that our servicemen and women and their families are dealing with as the rest of us go on with our lives?
A: First of all, there are differences among military families. This is primarily a ground war, so it mostly affects the Army and Marine Corps and their families, and less so the Navy and Air Force. The Marine Corps is a much “younger” service. So the bulk of the families affected by the war are Army families.
But there are huge differences between active and reserve forces. For active forces, there is a recognition that the soldiers are called to do what they are paid to do. This is what you sign up for.
But this is not the same sentiment among the National Guard and the Reserves. Many train for one weekend a month and two weeks a summer … and now they are there in Iraq for a year or more. And their families qualify for the same entitlements as active soldiers, but they do not have the ease of access to receive help. For example, the Reserve families might not live near PXes or bases where they can get the supplies and the support they need, so the impact is much more severe.
So the reservists’ families are suffering more. They are the ones suffering significant losses of income. Many reservists make more on civilian jobs than they do in the reserves. This is different from the soldiers on active duty, whose base pay is the same if they are here or abroad, and actually goes up in a hostile zone. Compare that to a family doctor or a lawyer or a guy who runs men’s clothing store who has been in Iraq for over a year and has no one to run the business while they are away. They are the ones bearing the brunt of the war.
Q: Why do we do not hear more about protests coming from military families?
A: Frankly, their strategy is different. Unlike the college kids during the Vietnam War who wanted to mobilize the public, the military families want to mobilize the policymakers. They are going to their local congressman, for example, and demanding their loved ones get what they need.
Just eight days into his tenure, General George Casey was visiting Army installations worldwide to talk to soldiers and families about his priorities as the U.S. Army’s new chief of staff. Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis says one of those priorities is the welfare of service personnel’s families, as the hectic tempo of operations has strained the force.
“General Casey inherited an Army that is incredibly stretched in the number of people that are doing back-to-back rotations into Afghanistan and Iraq,” Maginnis notes. “The Army, of course, has been on 12-month tours — which now, for those that are within Iraq, has been extended to 15,” he says.
General Casey is concerned that retention could suffer as some soldiers embark on their fourth deployment, Maginnis notes. “After the first combat tour, retention goes up,” he explains. “After the second combat tour, retention is neutral; and after the third combat tour, retention goes down,” he says.
“What we don’t know,” the Pentagon advisor says, “is, after the fourth combat tour, does retention continue to go down, or does it go in another direction.” Meanwhile, he points out, the multiple deployments “also could hurt recruitment,” as parents and other influencers of possible recruits in many cases are not looking favorably on what is going on in the military.
With recruitment, “typically, you draw from part of the population that is keyed to patriotism, keyed to what their parents say and the influencers,” Maginnis contends. “And we’re finding today that they’re putting a thumbs-down on what’s going on in the armed forces,” he says, “so this is troubling to General Casey.”
The new Army Chief of Staff has made the welfare of Army families one of his top priorities, Maginnis adds. He says military planners want to know if the armed forces’ retention rate will continue to sink as some soldiers return from a fourth deployment overseas.
and
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG362/
From the US Army Strategic Studies Institute
The emergence of rogue nations, nationalistic sentiments of oppressed segments of
countries, international criminal and terrorist organizations, and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction all require a national security strategy capable guiding the vast national power of the
United States and leveraging the national power of other states against the root causes of
conflict and human suffering. “Patterns of conflict are changing in an era when nation states no
longer have a monopoly over super violence. …Over the next 25 years, it is expected that thelines between lawlessness, crime, disorder, terrorism and war will become blurred, challenging
governments to the limits in terms of managing and containing threats.”87 The current U.S.
National Security Strategy of selective engagement is an appropriate strategy for wielding the
various sources of national power during the 21st century as governments continue to “undergo
dramatic restructuring, accompanied by a wide array of economic, technical, societal, religious,
cultural, and physical alterations.”88 Although military power is usually the last resort, it is
essential that the Army carefully transform to the Modular Force concept.
As outlined in this SRP, the Modular Force will significantly change the Army’s
organizational culture. However, family and generational cultures also affect the ability of the
Army to sustain the Modular Force. Our leaders must account for these cultural influences on
soldiers’ willingness to serve in the Modular Force. Failure to completely account for cultural
issues and make appropriate accommodations will manifest itself in the coming decades
through unacceptable retention levels of mid- and senior-grade personnel, recruiting shortfalls of
married personnel, and a decline in the overall quality of experience and education of senior
leaders. The results of lower retention and an eroded Army profession will make it impossible to
sustain the force projection capabilities touted by transformation leaders. Although leaders tend
to “reduce much of the Army’s transformation to its technological dimension,”89 the proposed
fundamental change in employment of Active Forces towards the Modular Force without
acknowledging the changing family culture could undermine the Army’s future force projection
capabilities.
What is clear is that any approach is fraught with risks and
uncertainties. To decide on an overall approach for the future will
require the nation to confront a number of trade-offs in terms of the
Army’s reliance on the AC and RC, on the risks it is willing to take in
terms of the Army’s ability to meet different types of future contingencies,
on what types of training of Army units will be required for
different types of operations, and on what resources are available for
transforming the RC and increasing AC force structure. Our analysis
suggests that the challenge is profound and that making the trade-offs
will not be easy.
Casey=McClellan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_mcclellan
George Brinton McClellan (December 3, 1826 — October 29, 1885) was a major general during the American Civil War. He organized the famous Army of the Potomac and served briefly (November 1861 to March 1862) as the general-in-chief of the Union Army. Early in the war, McClellan played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army for the Union. However, although McClellan was meticulous in his planning and preparations, these attributes may have hampered his ability to challenge aggressive opponents in a fast-moving battlefield environment. He chronically overestimated the strength of enemy units and was reluctant to apply principles of mass, frequently leaving large portions of his army unengaged at decisive points.
McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign in 1862 ended in failure, retreating from attacks by General Robert E. Lee’s smaller army, failing in the planned seizure of the Confederate capital of Richmond. His performance at the bloody Battle of Antietam blunted Lee’s invasion of Maryland, but allowed Lee to eke out a precarious tactical draw and avoid destruction, despite being outnumbered. As a result, McClellan’s leadership skills during battles were questioned by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, who eventually removed him from command, first as general-in-chief, then from the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln was famously quoted as saying, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.” Despite this, he was the most popular of that army’s commanders with its soldiers, who felt that he had their morale and well-being as paramount concerns.
General McClellan also failed to maintain the trust of Lincoln, and proved to be frustratingly insubordinate to the commander-in-chief. After he was relieved of command, McClellan became the unsuccessful Democratic nominee opposing Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. His party wrote an anti-war platform, promising to end the war and negotiate with the Confederacy, which McClellan was forced to repudiate, damaging the effectiveness of his campaign.
Q: Why do we do not hear more about protests coming from military families?
A: Frankly, their strategy is different. Unlike the college kids during the Vietnam War who wanted to mobilize the public, the military families want to mobilize the policymakers. They are going to their local congressman, for example, and demanding their loved ones get what they need.
Seems all Laura wants to do is come around here and bitch.
Excuse me Bartender, please ask that rather unsophisticated balding man at the end of the counter to stop sending me drinks. And, please tell him that I am just going to keep sending them back each time he tries.
Thank you ever so much
75% of service men and women in Iraq now, have said that our military is stretched too thin and that individual soldiers are experiencing extreme hardship.
No matter left, right or center, this has some teeth. It will be torn to shreds by anyone backing the president to a fault. It sends a message to the military and their familiies something that each and every conservative need to be alarmed about. Who is the party supporting troops? It’s a matter of principle.
http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/MOAAletterofsupport.pdf
My father was on the German front from 1942 to the end of the war. As everybody else, he has no home leave for 3.5 years, all the time in trenches, under enemy fire. Are Americans made from some other stuff that they can not endure more than one year combat?
Sergey, I value your Father’s service. It was indeed a very difficult war for many thousands of people all over the world. Part of the problem in this country is that the all volunteer army was and is not fashioned for multiple deployments with backup brigades from the National Guard and Reserves. Many brigades are in the third tour in Iraq and also in their fourth. They come home and need to really train. The first month, redeploy. Second, block leave. 3-5th recovery of equipment. New assignments. 6 month, individual and team training. Some redeploy. 7th month, plateoon and co training in field, 8th month command and control exercises in field. 9th month shipping equipment back. 10th month rehearsal (3 weeks gone) 75% full strength backfill. 11 month advance party personnel leave for theater. 12 month activate attachments and deploy. What many people in all of the corridors of the Pentagon fear is that by conintuing to use our forces in this way, we as a country will cause significant strain and will cause retention rates to go down as well as recruitment. Americans are made of great stuff indeed. The fine young men and women who have volunteered to serve are of stock you rarely see in young people today. But, the numbers are so low when you look at the overall number of people who are serving in our overall population compared to those in WWII. The same thing happened in the Korean war in terms of what the Webb Amendment offers.
Sadly, the Webb ammendment will become another tennis ball. Surely this is a very tough decision for each and every republican in the house and senate right now. many won’t vote for it because of pressure from above. it’s sending a really tough message to soldiers and families however.
To summarize all this honest assessment, I have to conclude that US Army in its present state is inadequate to Long Global War on Terror: it was devised for short term operations of limited scope, like Grenada, or, at best, like the First Gulf war. All other was supposed to be done by Tomohawks, B-2 or B-52 bombers. This does not reflect political and strategical realities of post 9/11 world, so what to do? Return to draft? Hardly general American public has a stomach for that. Unilateral disengagement from the present enemy is not an option, as we seen in Gaza: its fruit is too bitter to swallow. I remember now what Neo’s mother had said after hearing about 9/11 attack: “This will be worse than WWII”. She was right. It will.
The only possible solution I can propose is to create a Foreign Legion, a dedicated special task force used like French use theirs, in all bad places, with a prize, except salary, US citizenship after several years of service. There are wast human resourses in the Third World, especially in India and Africa, that can be mobilized that way, and they are of far better quality than Georgians. They also, after all military training, service and education in US laws, will make much better citizens than current immigrants, both legal and illegal.
Well, yes it is Sergey. The military structure was weakened during the Clinton years, and it requires some pretty quick re-tooling if that’s possible.
Since many of the traditional recruiting pools are drying up, in part because parents are not encouraging service, and in part because of American assessment of the handling of the wars so far…after multi deployments, soldiers opting out of re-enlisting, etc…I think we need to really rally young people to pick up the ball and go help their brothers and sisters. That’s what I was taught at home at least and that’s what I have taught my kids. Anyhow, the caliber of soldier desired are not the ones signing on.
Sergey, you would be shocked to know the number of Russian and Latin American soldiers serving now. A medic in my son’s unit worked towards citizenship that way.
Guess some people seem to think a drink thrown in their face is an attempt to schmooze them. Notice you’re on your knees lapping it up, too.
And don’t worry, Sergey, the military is loyal to the country, like your father’s. Not to whichever party it feels “supports” it better, despite desperate alchoholics thinking spilled drinks are advances. Which is why most military men and women are registered Republicans, who politically share their loyalty.
And while service from Eastern European nationalities is something “new”, those from Latin American countries has traditionally always been high, rather than “shocking”.
We don’t need a “foreign legion”, we just need less doting mothers.
Urra!
Anyhow, the caliber of soldier desired are not the ones signing on.
You don’t think people that take an oath to defend the US Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies in the Army and Marines, meet the desired caliber… that’s an interesting statement.
Caliber is one thing, and numbers another
Sergey:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/01/fewer_high_quality_army_recruits/
An Associated Press review of the increasingly aggressive recruiting offerings found the Army is not only dangling more sign-up rewards – it’s loosening rules on age and weight limits, education and drug and criminal records.
It’s all part of an Army effort to fill its ranks even as the percentage of young people who say they plan to join the military has hit a historic low – 16 percent by the Pentagon’s own surveying – in the fifth year of the Iraq war.
I wish she’d make up her mind…
Either you want more soldiers, or you don’t. “Aggressive recruiting”( by whose standards?) is a no-no, so you push for involuntary conscription, huh? Now, there’s a solution you can live with huh? No “aggressive recruiting” there.
Sheesh…
If you crash the US economy, Laura, that won’t be a problem anymore. Every proposed policy has negative consequences.
Yes Ymarsakar, I do know that. That’s why you will see the words “trade offs” in all scholarly journals written by military scholars and economists who’s work is about just that.
This blog seems to be full of nazis and biggots. First of all Sergei seems to have selective and very biased perception about crime in Moscow and in the rest of Russia. He seems to have not heard of notorious Russian mafia that has reached far beyond the Eurasian continent. Also, those of you that think that Anglo-Saxons are these perfect bunch, remind me please weren’t those the same guys that created death camps in Europe, plus what about the Irish organized crime in America. And what all of these has to do with Iraq?
So Darwin.. does calling someone a NAZI help you to avoid making an actual argument?
Or do you do it for the emotional high?