The Cold War Against Recruiters
Military — By Joe Carter on March 25, 2008 at 12:14 amFor the past few weeks Michelle Malkin has been documenting the attacks–in both word and deed–on America’s military recruiters:
Ideas have consequences. Inaction has consequences. For the past several years, I’ve chronicled the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters-and the apathetic, weak-kneed response to it. In Unhinged, I devoted a sub-section of my chapter “They Don’t Support Our Troops” to the organized campaign of harassment against recruitment offices on college campuses nationwide. The anti-recruiter thugs have thrived thanks to a combination of public indifference, law enforcement fecklessness, and left-wing ideological apologism.
While it’s encouraging to see Malkin and others take up this cause, there is a greater concern that is largely ignored. The biggest challenge for military recruiters is not the heated battles with Code Pink protesters but the cool indifference of mainstream Americans.
If you want to see the contrast between what people say they believe and how they live, spend a day with your local military recruiter. You’ll be amazed by the number of people you’ll encounter who go out of their way to tell you how much they “support our troops” and how they appreciate our service. Then you casually inquire about their son or daughter and when they will be stopping by the recruiting station to learn more about serving their country. The reaction is palpable: their spines stiffen, they smile blankly, and a coldness comes over them. If they are quick-witted they will find a way to jokingly dismiss the question. More often, though, they will simply blurt out honestly that there is no way they’d let their own child enlist.
Since I spent my years as a Marine Corps recruiter in Aberdeen, WA — the hometown of Kurt Cobain — I had hoped my experience was an isolated case. But then I talked to others who told the same tales about being brushed off by school counselors and dismissed by parents. Often times, when I would call a student’s house and tell the parents I was with the Marines they would hang up on me. Imagine how different the reaction would be if I told them I was a recruiter for Harvard.
If Americans valued and respected the institution and the troops as much as they claim the military would be more difficult to get into than any Ivy-league school. We wouldn’t be able to take everyone who wanted to enlist. The “elite” would be lined up around the block, letters of recommendation in hand, hoping to serve in the greatest military in the history of the world. Rather than having to bribe “scholarship mercenaries” with a generous college fund, recruiters would be forced to turn away highly qualified applicants.
But for all the talk, most Americans are willing to support the troops only insofar as they are not expected to add to their ranks. We are more than willing to leave our country’s defense to the “military types” and lower classes who need the employment. We have other priorities: advanced degrees to pursue, careers to build, money to be made. Besides, we pay our taxes. What else should we be expected to do?
Yes, Americans support our troops and respect their service. We just don’t want our own sons and daughters to be the ones to serve. And if, like the citizens of Kyrgyzstan, we have to pay out of our pockets to keep our children out of the military we’ll have just one question — “Who do we make the check out to?”
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
107 Comments
Mike,
I would eagerly volunteer to engage a Code Pink activist in a debate. You could serve as the judge.
My only concern is that the activist might get so upset as to become physically ill.
I do agree with you, however, that if I am wrong, then I am likely guilty of evil consequences myself. That is the paradox of taking moral action in an uncertain world.
I converted the numbers to constant 1984 dollars. Here is how military spending breaks down:
$107.86 **** 1980
$139.90
$174.38
$203.58
$229.52
$263.73
$290.88
$311.15
$333.49
$365.55
$378.64 ***** 1990
$357.25
$402.38
$402.43
$398.07
$395.33
$397.11 **** 1996
$414.57
$416.95
$435.16
$484.05 **** 2001
$513.94
$597.02
$712.29
$824.55
$925.92
$1,006.59
$1,098.49 **** 2007
$1,234.38
$1,419.90
Here’s some averages:
1980-1992 the average was $273.72B. I assume this would have been the level necessary to have maintained existing equipment & tech. development without any major conflict going on (treating Gulf War I as a bit of a blip).
1993-2000 the average was $417.96B. There was a bit of a dip, in 1992 the budget was $402.38 and by 1995 it slipped to $395.33 but 1988 it was $333.49.
2001-2009 the average was $925.90B Again over a doubling of the defense budget.
Ucfengr might be correct about aging equipment but there’s little evidence the problem is lack of funding. In real terms funding has been going straight up even through the Clinton years. In 2001 Bush was already spending enough money to make up for any ‘procurement vacation’ and in order to fight a short war and long occupation he more than doubled the budget. In real terms we are on track to spending 14 times more than in 1980 when supposedly we were fighting the second largest superpower ever to walk the earth.
“Yes, Americans support our troops and respect their service. We just don’t want our own sons and daughters to be the ones to serve.”
No paradox here, folks. I support my janitorial staff and respect their service, but I don’t want my kids to be janitors. Of course, soldiers face more risk and hardship than janitors and don’t earn much more money, but they do receive good benefits and the potential for very early retirement with a nice pension. Most military guys my age are retired, whereas I’ll be working for 17 more years.
Any position in which one serves others is honorable. When one’s service entails great risk and personal hardship, one’s service is especially honorable.
As a parent, I want my children to make use of their considerable abilities. I don’t see them self-actualizing in the military.
To be honest, I am horrified that we humans need armies at this point in our development as a species. It is awful enough that we devote so much human and material resources to the business of blowing each other up. The only thing that could make it worse would be for my kids to be part of it.
I suppose I am also a bit resentful that my tax dollars and the children of my fellow citizens are being so freely expended in what I have always seen and continue to see as a stupid war.
Still, if the nation’s situation were so dire that the service of every able-bodied adult was critical, I would be proud if my children would put my concerns aside and embrace their patriotic duty.
Boonton,
You’re looking through the wrong end of your telescope. You’re supposed to scale the budget numbers after 1984 down, not up.
If a young man or woman is recruited into the military at this time, they will most likely sent Iraq. This, along with the deceptive practices of recruiters and the fact they prey on people with limited options, is reason enough to protest recruitment centers.
Saying you “support the troops” sounds like honorable patriotic thing to do, but it seems to imply that you also support a war and occupation built on lies.
I converted the numbers to constant 1984 dollars. Here is how military spending breaks down:
I think you’ve made a math error, Boonton. Drawing numbers from the 2006 Green Book (the DoD Comptroller’s Official Budget Book) in constant 2006 dollars the 1990-2004 Defense Budget is as follows (from Table 6-8)
1990–$439B
1991–$399B
1992–$397B
1993–$369B
1994–$339B
1995–$338B
1996–$329B
1997–$326B
1998–$319B
1999–$336B
2000–$341B
2001–$354B
2002–$384B
2003–$473B
2004–$495B
That’s quite a bit different from your numbers and I think validates my point.
ucfengr, your dishonesty and stupidity blaze forth once again in your argument that “indifference to the military” is a problem that “didn’t begin with the Iraq war”. “Indifference to the military” is not a problem, it is a false issue that Joe made up. There is not any general obligation for people to serve in the military if they don’t think it’s the right choice for them, or to encourage their children to serve if they don’t think it’s the right choice for their children. If the government wants people to serve in the military, let it spread the burden among the general population by increasing pay and benefits, and let it manage its affairs so that the burden on those who serve is not excessive.
Wow, talk about dishonesty and/or stupidity, sheesh. I make an innocuous comment pointing out that indifference to military service didn’t start with Bush or Iraq and you blow that up into a deranged rant about how I think people have “a general obligation..to serve in the military”. Wow, that’s a pretty big leap. Might I suggest you lay off the hallucinogenic drugs or at least cut back on your caffeine intake.
Most military guys my age are retired, whereas I’ll be working for 17 more years
Assuming retirement at age 65, that makes you somewhere in your mid-late 40’s; as someone who works with a lot of military folks, let me assure that military retirement is not enough to retire on. Most of these guys have started second or even third careers, and will be working as long as you will, many because they want to, but nearly all because they have to. A 20 year retirement translates to roughly 40% of your base pay (base pay makes up about half of an active duty soldier’s pay).
I think you’ve made a math error, Boonton.
I did, I multiplied when I should have divided. I thought I posted a correction and it got caught in the spam filter, since I don’t see it yet I’ll repost it after this one:
Thanks Matt, I fixed the formula in my Excel sheet and it looks like the story is now almost back to where we began. Also it looks like my alarm at seeing our spending 14x higher than in 1980 was likewise wrong.
$158.86 **** 1980
$169.31
$187.25
$205.22
$212.61
$227.79
$242.15
$241.11
$238.29
$237.74
$221.65 **** 1990
$192.58
$204.42
$192.73
$181.24
$170.21
$161.31
$160.93
$156.93
$156.78
$163.24 ****** 2000
$163.86
$184.51
$210.48
$231.07
$242.75
$247.67
$255.52
$275.45
$298.66 ****** 2009 (est)
Average from 1980-1992 $210.69
Average from 1993-2000 $167.92
Average from 2001-2009 $234.44
We still nearly doubled our spending (going from 163 in 2000 to nearly 300 in 2009 and counting). Now that thanks to Matt the numbers seem finally right it’s interesting to look at the % change each year:
6.58% ***** 1981
10.60%
9.59%
3.60%
7.14%
6.31%
-0.43%
-1.17%
-0.23%
-6.77% ***** 1990
-13.11% ***** 1991
6.15%
-5.72%
-5.96%
-6.09%
-5.23%
-0.23%
-2.49%
-0.10%
4.12%
0.38%
12.60% ******* 2002
14.07%
9.78%
5.05%
2.02%
3.17%
7.80%
8.43%
The most dramatic cuts came, it seems, under Bush. with 1992 oddly bucking the trend (then again that was an election year and gov’t spending often goes up during election years). The trend looks like it continued for the first few years of Clinton and then tappered off and reversed.
No more numbers for me tonight. Thanks to Matthew for catching my error
Thanks Matt, I fixed the formula in my Excel sheet and it looks like the story is now almost back to where we began. Also it looks like my alarm at seeing our spending 14x higher than in 1980 was likewise wrong.
$158.86 **** 1980
$169.31
$187.25
$205.22
$212.61
$227.79
$242.15
$241.11
$238.29
$237.74
$221.65 **** 1990
$192.58
$204.42
$192.73
$181.24
$170.21
$161.31
$160.93
$156.93
$156.78
$163.24 ****** 2000
$163.86
$184.51
$210.48
$231.07
$242.75
$247.67
$255.52
$275.45
$298.66 ****** 2009 (est)
Average from 1980-1992 $210.69
Average from 1993-2000 $167.92
Average from 2001-2009 $234.44
We still nearly doubled our spending (going from 163 in 2000 to nearly 300 in 2009 and counting). Now that thanks to Matt the numbers seem finally right it’s interesting to look at the % change each year:
Thanks Matt, I fixed the formula in my Excel sheet and it looks like the story is now almost back to where we began. Also it looks like my alarm at seeing our spending 14x higher than in 1980 was likewise wrong.
$158.86 **** 1980
$169.31
$187.25
$205.22
$212.61
$227.79
$242.15
$241.11
$238.29
$237.74
$221.65 **** 1990
$192.58
$204.42
$192.73
$181.24
$170.21
$161.31
$160.93
$156.93
$156.78
$163.24 ****** 2000
$163.86
$184.51
$210.48
$231.07
$242.75
$247.67
$255.52
$275.45
$298.66 ****** 2009 (est)
Just to expand on my point about the “procurement holiday”, From 1990 to 2000, in real dollars, the procurement budget (budget used to buy planes, tanks, ships, etc.) went from $107B to $54B (from the same source), essentially being cut in half. At the same time, O&M (operations and maintenance, i.e. fuel, spare parts, etc) budget went from $135B to $129B. So the military had less dollars to operate and maintain an aging fleet. As aircraft, tanks, etc. get older, maintenance costs go up (think of the difference between a 15k service for your car and a 100k one), so know you see what I am talking about when I speak of the downward spiral Rumsfeld inherited.
“We are more than willing to leave our country’s defense to the “military types” and lower classes who need the employment.”
This is absolutely true, and I don’t have any real ideas as to how to correct it shy of a radical reformation in policy. An all-volunteer force means that only those who want to be, and those who have to be (for economic or other reasons), are servicemembers. The ruling monied elites, conspicuously, are nowhere to be found. It is their involvement that is needed; but they are leaving military service to those who occupy the lower strata of society.
I most definitely don’t agree with Chollie Rangel’s solution to this problem by attempting to draft everyone into support of the state. This is worse than what we have right now.
Perhaps we should take a page from Heinlein and make military service a condition to bestow citizenship.
Mumon wrote:
“Sorry, but we support our troops by wanting the commander in chief brought to justice for the laws he has broken. We support our troops by not wanting them to get dead in boondoggles whose only purpose is to bring booty for oil companies and Halliburton and KBR.”
Perhaps you should read this article in Monday’s Washington Times and decide if actions such as those you describe are really consistent with “supporting the troops”.
Boonton wrote:
“We have a President who essentially asked most of us to ‘contribute’ to the war by going shopping and extending his tax cuts.”
Right. I am still astonished at how, 5 years hence, our country is still not mobilized for war. How can this country be expected to take the fight seriously if we’re on neither a fiscal or moral war footing?
“Now also might be a good time to remember Lawrence B. Lindsey. He was the guy who Bush fired for daring to estimate that the Iraq war might cost closer to $200B rather than $50B.”
Don’t forget Shinseki who was canned for publicly disagreeing with Rumsfeld that the force in Iraq was undersized for the task.
Finally, I agree with some here that rejection of a recruiter’s appetite for your children does not necessarily ipso facto indicate lack of support for the troops or hostility to the same. I would not be very receptive to a recruiter looking for my kids either, and I am very pro-military and respect recruiters for the difficult job they have these days.
There are many other reasons why you wouldn’t want you children to go immediately to Iraq or Afghanistan (like JohnW correctly writes) to fight a war which a majority this country doesn’t really take seriously and doesn’t think we should be there.
Elusive Wapiti :
Your link doesn’t work, and even if it did, I’d have to still comment that normal people don’t quote the Washington Times.
It’s owned by Sung Myung Moon you know.
You know who he is, right?
Convicted felon.
Thinks he’s Jesus Christ.
Famous cult-leader.
IOW:
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.
Elusive
This is absolutely true, and I don’t have any real ideas as to how to correct it shy of a radical reformation in policy. An all-volunteer force means that only those who want to be, and those who have to be (for economic or other reasons), are servicemembers. The ruling monied elites, conspicuously, are nowhere to be found. It is their involvement that is needed; but they are leaving military service to those who occupy the lower strata of society.
Should it be corrected? It’s never nice to put people down for doing their jobs but is a pealer working in the bowels of a ship’s kitchen doing a ‘upper class’ job simply because he is doing it in the military and not doing it in a french fry factory in Iowa? Yes he should get credit for being in the service and it should be recognized that he is putting his life in a degree of danger and should he perform a heroic act he should get all due credit for it. Nevertheless, as honorable as he is it doesn’t alter the fact he is in a ‘low class’ job that can and will often be filled by “lower classes who need the employment”.
Contrast that with the ship’s captain or admiral who (hopefully) achieved his position with a high degree of education and extensive experience resulting in a well educated, well experienced leader. If we jump too much on the “everyone who serves is the greatest American hero” bandwagon we ignore the fact that like any other field there are careers of higher and lower prestige in the military and there needs to be.
Perhaps you should read this article in Monday’s Washington Times and decide if actions such as those you describe are really consistent with “supporting the troops”.
I couldn’t go to the link you are trying to reference but:
1. The Washington Times is pretty untrustworthy as a newsbreaker.
2. The left is not a monolith. People are responsible for their own actions. If some hippie somewhere spit on a solider the entire Democratic Party doesn’t have to apologize for him.
Right. I am still astonished at how, 5 years hence, our country is still not mobilized for war. How can this country be expected to take the fight seriously if we’re on neither a fiscal or moral war footing?
And maybe the problem is that Iraq is not the war we should be fighting. We’ve been ’sold’ on it with the political equilivant of the subprime mortgages that are causing us so much trouble now. Our ‘teaser rate’ was “go shopping”, “now’s not the time for a tax hike”, “no attempt to reduce the use of oil”….now the teaser period is coming to an end and we are seeing high gas prices, inflation combining with a budding recession, a falling dollar and a financial crises/bailout every other week. Just like many subprime victims who would have never signed up if they knew their mortgage would jump a grand we wouldn’t have signed up for this if we knew the true cost.
ucfengr
so know you see what I am talking about when I speak of the downward spiral Rumsfeld inherited.
My impression is, though, that Rumsfeld was also an advocate of using fewer troops and more tech. This wasn’t just a creative way to deal with a limited budget.
I suggest ucfengr respond to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_Doctrine,
The Rumsfeld Doctrine is/was not just a response to smaller defense budgets but an attempt to remake the US military into, essentially, a cheap form of nation building with limited ground forces using precision air strikes to accomplish what would have normally been done with massive ground forces in the past.
The idea, IMO, is not entirely bad but the diaster was caused by pushing a good idea too far. Experienced people tried to object and tried to explain why it wouldn’t work in this case but they were essentially told to shut up or lose their job.
ucfengr, if there is no general obligation to serve in the military (which there is not), then “indifference to the military” is not a “problem that preceded Bush,” because it’s not a problem at all. Some people wish to serve in the military and some don’t. You point to the lack of desire among some Americans to serve in the military, call this “indifference to the military,” and dishonestly portray it as a “problem” because you want to deflect attention away from Bush’s failings – for example, involving the U.S. in a war that doesn’t serve our interests, overburdening the soldiers, wasting money on contractors.
It’s Bush who has damaged the military. It’s not Clinton and it’s not the population of America. It’s Bush. I understand that you don’t want to address that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
The Washington Times is almost as untrustworthy as the New York Times.
Darius,
You are wrong, the Wash Times is a crap newspaper whose only claim to fame is it’s ability to generate stories for the right wingosphere whose half-life (before debunking) is longer than the typical media/spin cycle.
Mike Toreno
I think Joe is just saying that he wishes Americans in general were so attracted to military service that the military wouldn’t need to resort to a draft or high benefits to attract recruits and there would be so many applicants that their biggest problem would be turning people away.
This sentiment, I think, is not very conservative and doesn’t really fit much with a nation founded on liberty. The reason parents are excited by a call from a Harvard recruiter and not from an army recruiter is because the Harvard guy usually has a better deal. People, in other words, look out for their self interest. You don’t have to be an Ayn Randist to think that’s a good thing. Should parents put the interest of the state ahead of their kids? That sounds like something out of 1984 or Maoist China rather than America to me.
My impression is, though, that Rumsfeld was also an advocate of using fewer troops and more tech. This wasn’t just a creative way to deal with a limited budget.
Number one, your link doesn’t work. Number two, that is a simplification of the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which was really an implementation of the Revolution in Military Affairs, which is something a lot of countries are looking at. In essence it is a way of using technology to integrate all forces in a theater.
It’s Bush who has damaged the military. It’s not Clinton and it’s not the population of America. It’s Bush. I understand that you don’t want to address that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
Well, since I have spent the last 2 decades either in the military or working for the military, I suspect I have a little more insight than you on the matter. I hope you will forgive me for dismissing your rant as the ravings of a lunatic and not as something I need to address.
Boonton, are you saying you actually give credence to the New York Times, a thoroughly discredited rag? That is the newspaper that published national secrets (TWICE!) merely for political gain and tried to discredit McCain on a bogus charge of marital infidelity with no evidence.
ucfengr, NO, it’s a fact because he says it’s a fact. Who needs evidence?
And even when Boonton published evidence, it actually CONTRADICTED their “blame Bush” mantra.
Everybody,
It doesn’t make any difference if somebody cites a particular news story in either the New York Times or the Washington Times. Either the story is true, or it’s not. The only way to determine a story’s correctness is to read it and fact-check it.
Now both newspapers have a lot more vested in publishing accurate facts (for example: libel laws, their reputation for reliability) than anyone commenting on this thread.
That doesn’t mean that they both don’t make a lot of mistakes – they do – but it does mean that it is a copout to assume a news article should be presumed false until proven true, especially if one hasn’t read it yet.
Number one, your link doesn’t work.
I didn’t make a hyperlink, it’s just “Rumsfeld Doctrine” on Wikipedia.
Darius
Boonton, are you saying you actually give credence to the New York Times, a thoroughly discredited rag? That is the newspaper that published national secrets (TWICE!) merely for political gain and tried to discredit McCain on a bogus charge of marital infidelity with no evidence.
Indeed, I take those negatives into account. Instead of the NYT being 100,000 times more credible than the Wash Times, it is only 99,998.
Your attempt to defend the Wash Times is typical of many on the right. You’d rather try to shift the debate to another newspaper. I don’t blame you.
Number one, your link doesn’t work.
I didn’t make a hyperlink, it’s just “Rumsfeld Doctrine” on Wikipedia.
Darius
Boonton, are you saying you actually give credence to the New York Times, a thoroughly discredited rag? That is the newspaper that published national secrets (TWICE!) merely for political gain and tried to discredit McCain on a bogus charge of marital infidelity with no evidence.
Indeed, I take those negatives into account. Instead of the NYT being 100,000 times more credible than the Wash Times, it is only 99,998.
Your attempt to defend the Wash Times is typical of many on the right. You’d rather try to shift the debate to another newspaper. I don’t blame you.
For the umpteenth time, what were the lies, and where did they originate?
Actually, I never read the magazine, and am I certainly not defending or criticizing it. I was just trying to make a joke that some on this thread are too daft to get I guess.
Your attempt to defend the Wash Times is typical of many on the right. You’d rather try to shift the debate to another newspaper. I don’t blame you.
Your attempt to smear the Wash Times is typical of many on the left who can’t stand that a conservative leaning paper would dare try to impose itself upon the monopoly the far left currently enjoys in the print/broadcast media. Your assertation that the NY Times is infinitely more “credible” than the Times is patently absurd on its face. The NY Times is so obviously partisan in its reporting that its readership has diminished to such a large degree that only those on the far left consider it a “credible” source of news.
I personally don’t read the either Times on a regular basis as I am familiar with the biases each paper brings.
Actually, I never read the magazine, and am I certainly not defending or criticizing it. I was just trying to make a joke that some on this thread are too daft to get I guess.
The joke being the NY Times is as bad as the Wash Times? Blahahaha, he’s the next Chris Rock fellers, and you say him here on Joe’s blog first!
Marvin
Your assertation that the NY Times is infinitely more “credible” than the Times is patently absurd on its face. The NY Times is so obviously partisan in its reporting that its readership has diminished to such a large degree that only those on the far left consider it a “credible” source of news.
See, when the NYT messes up it is actually newsworthy and people talk about it. The Wash. Times is only a step above the old National Enquirer (of “Space Alien endorses Clinton for President” fame), it’s failures are rarely noted.
See, when the NYT messes up it is actually newsworthy and people talk about it. The Wash. Times is only a step above the old National Enquirer (of “Space Alien endorses Clinton for President” fame), it’s failures are rarely noted.
Ah…I see. You base credibility on the number of “mistakes” made. I base credibility on the ability to report without bias, which the NY Times as no ability to do, at all.
On either front the Wash. Times fails compared to the NY Times. If conservatives really value an unbiased news source then they should create one. Instead they seem to pretend that simply screaming CNN or NYT magically elevates their outlets (Fox, Wash Times) to that level. It doesn’t.
If conservatives really value an unbiased news source then they should create one.
You are joking, yes? You think that if we “created” an unbiased news source, that you all on the left would agree that it is infact unbiased?
BTW, I never claimed that Fox News or the Wash Times was unbiased. I acknowledge thier right leaning tendencies. It would be a cold day in hell though before liberals would admit to the far left leaning tendencies of the NY Times, the Wash Post, MSNBC, CNN, LA Times and 90% of the other MSM outlets.
ucfengr, you want to blame the “problems with the military” on Clinton, so you invent imaginary problems and ignore facts.
First, it is important to realize that reducing military expenditures do not constitute damaging the military. The military is a tool, used to meet the needs of the country. It is not entitled to, and does not need, unlimited resources. Instead, the resources devoted to the military should be balanced with the mission it is given, and the foreign policy of the country should be managed so as to properly manage the burdens placed on the military. Clinton devoted enough resources to the military for it to carry out its mission. Bush expanded the demands placed on the military, but was unable to sufficiently increase the resources devoted to it because the demands placed on the military were not directed to the safety and welfare of the country. It was not politically possible, or economically sustainable, to increase military resources sufficiently to carry out a mission that did not benefit America, but harmed America, which is what the Iraq war is doing.
Second, as you seem to have admitted, “indifference to the military” is not a problem. If the military finds it difficult to attract recruits, the country needs to examine what it is calling on soldiers to do, and what resources it is devoting to their support and welfare, and to reduce the burden and increase the support until it obtains enough recruits.
The reason the military is not attracting enough recruits is that the burdens placed on soldiers by the policies of the Bush administration are not sustainable. The failure of recruiting is the result of deliberate choices made by the Bush administration.
Your problem is that you work backward from your desired conclusion to facts which, if true, and reasoning which, if valid, would sustain your conclusion. This is the wrong way to approach the problem. The right way to approach the problem is to establish the facts and to use valid reasoning to determine what conclusions are demanded by these facts.
Your claims of special insight are irrelevant if you do not engage in valid reasoning from known facts. You are arguing from authority, with yourself as the authority. But acceptance as an authority requires you, at the very least, to provide some evidence that you are not the stupidest person in the world, and you have not done this. Quite to the contrary, earlier, when you wanted to demonstrate that conservative policies do not cause degradation and squalor, you decided that you wanted the infant mortality rate in San Francisco to be greater than that in Alabama. All you managed to do was to prove that you were too stupid and illiterate to read a page of statistics.
Any claim you make of special insight must be evaluated in the light of your known stupidity and illiteracy.
Mike Toreno:
Clinton devoted enough resources to the military for it to carry out its mission. Bush expanded the demands placed on the military, but was unable to sufficiently increase the resources devoted to it because the demands placed on the military were not directed to the safety and welfare of the country. It was not politically possible, or economically sustainable, to increase military resources sufficiently to carry out a mission that did not benefit America, but harmed America, which is what the Iraq war is doing.
Most of this is true, but I’d like to stipulate that the US is at present the most militarized country on earth, and for what?
No other country is any where near us in our military capability; this has been true since the end of WWII.
The US has traditionally used this as a massive badly-implemented form of Keynesian economics, because basically, since WWII (or Korea, if you will) there has been no country that posed a conventional military threat to the United States, unless you think the MAD doctrine wouldn’t work (and you’d have been wrong).
So from perhaps Kennedy, at least, the US has sought to drastically outspend its strategic competitors for military items.
But Bushco’s mismanagement of our military is something different entirely, and is one of the reasons why the military increasingly views itself as a Democratic Party institution rather than the repugnant party.
Bush actually greatly harmed the military by “outsourcing” tons of work to for-profit contractors – a ridiculous “bidness” giveaway to his friends at Halliburton which was totally unnecessary, given the organization & logistics that were already present in the not-for-profit military.
The effect on the morale of the troops who were formerly doing the same job as those from KBR et al., who were making 5- 10X what the troops were making is obvious.
Daniel Briggs:
I missed this:
You say that President Bush has broken laws; which ones?
He broke:
1. The FISA law. Even admitted it.
2. The Geneva Conventions. Don’t give me any “the underlings did it” nonsense. He bears command responsibility for these acts in the same way Tojo did for the waterboarding that he authorized.
3. He is part of a criminal conspiracy that kidnapped and tortured innocent people. (At least two, one of which is Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.)
4. His “unitary executive” theory is a crime against the constitution.
5. And finally, yes, he still did obtain his office under what can only be described as outrageous, and illegal circumstances, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court make that kangaroo court ruling, it’s still illegal, and Congress could still legally impeach and convict him for it. See: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi
6. Obstruction of justice (attorney firing cases).
As noted above, Bush’s mismanagement of the military means it’s important to get him out of office, legally, as soon as possible.
What I’ve written above are the crimes of Bush that have come off the top of my head. There’s others to be sure, that we aren’t aware of.
First, it is important to realize that reducing military expenditures do not constitute damaging the military.
Would reducing your income damage your lifestyle?
It is not entitled to, and does not need, unlimited resources.
I never claimed it did.
Instead, the resources devoted to the military should be balanced with the mission it is given, and the foreign policy of the country should be managed so as to properly manage the burdens placed on the military. Clinton devoted enough resources to the military for it to carry out its mission.
No, he didn’t. He drastically cut procurement funds, reduced operation and maintenance funds, cut the overall manpower strength while at the same time increasing operational tempo. The 1990’s was not a time of peace and tranquility. Clinton initiated operations in Somalia and Bosnia, while at the same time maintaining the Iraq “no fly” zone and occasionally initiating operations against Iraq, such as Operation Desert Fox. I, personally was on alert twice for Iraq during the Clinton administration. Clinton used up the military, and like all overgrown teenagers, left the mess for the adults to clean up.
Bush expanded the demands placed on the military, but was unable to sufficiently increase the resources devoted to it because the demands placed on the military were not directed to the safety and welfare of the country.
He never tried to sufficiently increase the strength of the military; that’s his mistake, but Clinton set him up by not replacing the forces he used up on his adventures.
It was not politically possible, or economically sustainable, to increase military resources sufficiently to carry out a mission that did not benefit America, but harmed America, which is what the Iraq war is doing.
Would you really like to try and make the case that Bosnia and Somalia were more in our interest than Iraq?
Your problem is that you work backward from your desired conclusion to facts which, if true, and reasoning which, if valid, would sustain your conclusion.
No, that’s your problem. You start with the premise that it’s all Bush’s fault and then ignore any evidence to the contrary and when that doesn’t work you devolve to calling people who disagree with you stupid and dishonest.
Your claims of special insight are irrelevant if you do not engage in valid reasoning from known facts.
I’ve provided quite a lot of data to support my position and links for verification, you on the other hand have provided no data, but you are way over your quota in arm flapping, chest beating, and name calling.
I’ve provided quite a lot of data to support my position and links for verification, you on the other hand have provided no data, but you are way over your quota in arm flapping, chest beating, and name calling.
Oh, and I forgot general “asshole-ness”.
Marvin
BTW, I never claimed that Fox News or the Wash Times was unbiased. I acknowledge thier right leaning tendencies.
I didn’t say the Wash Times was right leaning, I said it was a crap newspaper. True to form your response is to scream NYT, CNN, Wash Post etc. as if that magically makes WT any less crap.
left who can’t stand that a conservative leaning paper would dare try to impose itself upon the monopoly the far left currently enjoys in the print/broadcast media
Blah blah blah. They really blazed the way for the Wall Street Journal. And to think they honor Rosa Parks.
Boonton wrote:
“Should it be corrected?”
Well, what do you think? Are you comfortable with only a portion of our society paying the bills? Are you comfortable with the same portion of society that doesn’t pay the bills ordering those who do into battle? As a lefty, isn’t your primary directive social justice?
“People are responsible for their own actions. If some hippie somewhere spit on a solider the entire Democratic Party doesn’t have to apologize for him.”
That would be true if the hippie were an isolated case; the Democrat party is chock full of those who behave like your expectorating hippie.
“Just like many subprime victims who would have never signed up if they knew their mortgage would jump a grand we wouldn’t have signed up for this if we knew the true cost.”
Baloney. Subprime “victims” knew exactly what they were getting into, as did the banks who loaned to those who were poor credit risks. And we as a nation knew that we were getting into a fight where the end was several years away. Can you predict what happens 10 years from now, or how high your bills will be then? It’s stupid to argue that something as fluid as warfare or statecraft is deterministic or predictable.
“Indeed, I take those negatives into account. Instead of the NYT being 100,000 times more credible than the Wash Times, it is only 99,998.”
Pffft. Your attempt to hold up the Gray Lady as an example of unbiased journalism is laughable. Besides, you are setting up a straw man. It wasn’t Moon’s WashTimes that is the source of the study in question, it is some of the academics at Harvard. WashTimes merely reported on it.
ucfengr, once again you resort to dishonest sleights of hand. It’s true that there were military operations during the Clinton administration. It’s true that the military was not completely idle. But the fact that the military was not completely idle does not mean that Clinton “used it up”.
The reason that Bush does not have a sufficient military to sustain the burden imposed by the Iraq war obviously does not result from Clinton’s “adventures.” Clinton did not subject the military to a grinding, interminable, unsustainable mission.
In addition, it is now 2008. The Clinton administration ended in January of 2001. The state of the military is worse than it was when Clinton was president, and it is getting progressively worse. This cannot be the result of Clinton’s actions because he is not president and has not been president for 7 years. If Bush were doing a better job than Clinton, he would have improved the state of the military from what it was when Clinton was president, but this is not happening.
Yes, of course I’ll argue that the actions in Bosnia and Somalia were more in our interest than Iraq. The Bosnia action was a total success, accomplished without a single American combat death. The Somalia action was cut short by Republican Congressional opposition before it had a chance to succeed, and therefore was not a success, but it did not result in the deaths of 4000 Americans, grind down our military, and wreck our economy, as the Iraq war has done.
I have not ignored the “evidence” that you have supposedly put forward. The only evidence you have put forward is irrelevant. As I said, there is not any obligation for Americans to be enthusiastic about joining the military if that doesn’t happen to be the way they feel, so any “indifference to the military” is irrelevant.
The data you put forward about decreases in expenditure are likewise irrelevant, because military expenditures should be based on the national security needs of the United States, not some notion that a larger and larger military is somehow desirable as a goal in itself, or that the military somehow “deserves” not to have its “income” reduced, or that military expenditures should be used as a welfare program for residents of conservative states.
My claim that Bush, who has been president for the last 7 years, is responsible for the ongoing deterioration of our military, does not result from some fixed notion that this cannot be Clinton’s fault. My claim is based on the inherent qualities of space and time. Bush is president NOW. Clinton was president OVER SEVEN YEARS AGO. Your claim that Bush is not responsible requires that we suspend universally accepted notions about the nature of time, and accept a theory that Clinton’s actions somehow skipped forward in time so that they are the cause of present conditions, while Bush’s actions over the last 7 years have had no effect.
This is certainly a novel theory. However, I believe that it is not based on any new insights on your part, but is instead based on the same failings that led to your inability to read a page of statistics. First, you are stupid and illiterate. Second, you don’t care about what is true, you only care about what will support what you want to believe.
Once again Mike, you’ve resorted to name calling, arm flapping, and general “asshole-ness”, with a few unsupported assertions thrown in for seasoning, rather than address evidence that disagrees with your premise. Typical.
In other words, I have demolished your arguments, but you’re not enough of a man to admit it.
Darius:
The Washington Times is almost as untrustworthy as the New York Times.
You don’t read many newspapers, do you? Or you misplaced your thinking cap.
The NYT is indeed “biased,” but not “liberal,” no siree, not by any means.
The idea that a paper that has published Judith Miller, James Sterngold, Jeff Gerth, Adam Nagourney and others, and that it pioneered the ridiculous “He said, she said” style of reporting that gives any bat*&* crazy conservative idea the same stature as normal, sane ideas shows that its bias is hardly in any way to the left.
Elusive
Well, what do you think? Are you comfortable with only a portion of our society paying the bills? Are you comfortable with the same portion of society that doesn’t pay the bills ordering those who do into battle? As a lefty, isn’t your primary directive social justice?
No I’m not but I am comfortable knowing that families and individuals look at the ‘deal’ offered by military recruiters with a skeptical eye. I am comfortable with individuals putting their family and their own needs before the state. I am also comfortable, even as a taxpayer, knowing that the military must offer people as good a deal as the market requires in order to get recruits.
That would be true if the hippie were an isolated case; the Democrat party is chock full of those who behave like your expectorating hippie.
I’ve never spit on a soldier nor have I meet anyone who has. I would expect many such spitting Democrats to be sporting broken jaws if this was true. I would say you’re stuck in the 60’s but I think its more like you’re stuck in a 60’s fantasy.
Re: Subprime mortgages and Presidents
- Yes you’re correct. We should have known better.
Mike
In addition, it is now 2008. The Clinton administration ended in January of 2001. The state of the military is worse than it was when Clinton was president, and it is getting progressively worse. This cannot be the result of Clinton’s actions because he is not president and has not been president for 7 years. If Bush were doing a better job than Clinton, he would have improved the state of the military from what it was when Clinton was president, but this is not happening.
I always like to pull out the magic trump card in these types of arguments (it also works for “Clinton didn’t do enough against bin Laden”). Bush came AFTER Clinton. On day 1 of Bush’s administration the total available knowledge was all of Clinton’s years plus 1 day. If the military was ‘used up’ then Bush should have known that from day 1. If he didn’t address it on day 2, 3, 150 etc. then the truth is either the military was not ‘used up’ or Bush’s failure was even worse than Clinton’s (it’s one thing to leave the next guy a ‘used up’ military, for the next guy not to even care to address it being ‘used up’ is even worse).
The data you put forward about decreases in expenditure are likewise irrelevant, because military expenditures should be based on the national security needs of the United States, not some notion that a larger and larger military is somehow desirable as a goal in itself, or that the military somehow “deserves” not to have its “income” reduced, or that military expenditures should be used as a welfare program for residents of conservative states.
Two realities:
1. Terrorism != the Cold War, WWIII or WWIV no matter what the neocons say. The world became undeniably safter after the end of the Soviet bloc. Likewise military expenditure did and should have fallen.
2. A post Cold War military needs to look different than a Cold War one. To a degree we are still running a lot of Cold War machines and pork barrell politics still means we ‘invest’ in some equipment (nuke subs under the north pole) that have little expected use in the current world. When making a dramatic change one would expect to see budgets dip down before coming back up. Why? It is easier to stop spending on the outdated stuff than it is to come up with new stuff to invest in. The MX missile, for example, was clearly not needed in the late 80’s but it took us into the late 90’s and 2000’s to start to make serious use of unmanned drones and robots.
oclarki complained back in post 32 “However they are being replaced by systems that cost an order of magnitude more. The net result is while we are spending more, we have fewer planes in the inventory”. But if the new planes are an order of magnitude better, we don’t need the inventory that we used in the past. Precision bombs, for example, mean that a target can be taken out with one plane whereas 60 years ago you needed a fleet of bombers and even then there would be a good chance the target would be missed while sustaining heavy casualities.
Mumon, at the risk of wasting my breath, I will respond to your “Bush broke the law” points.
1) The illegality of the NSA wiretaps is still heavily debated, and courts have sided with Bush when they involve wiretapping of non-US citizens on our soil or anyone on foreign soil (which is what was happening).
2) You mention the Geneva Convention. It appears you’ve never read it though, since you seem to want to apply it to those to whom it doesn’t apply: independent terrorists. Go read it, then come back and explain how it applies to Al Qaeda operatives.
3) You blame Bush for others’ mistakes??? Do you think there were similar cases under Clinton? All governments, by their very nature, make mistakes. One or two examples hardly show a case of widespread excess.
4) A THEORY does not break laws… give us actual examples of ACTIONS that broke laws.
5) HAHAHA. You would charge him with a crime for winning the Presidency? And you quote a screed in The Nation as proof??? You are hilarious.
6) Umm, here’s a hint: U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the… wait for it… PRESIDENT! Clinton fired all 93 attorneys and no one complained, Bush let go 7 and the liberals are going batty.
You are living proof that to be a radical liberal is to be insane.
6) Umm, here’s a hint: U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the… wait for it… PRESIDENT! Clinton fired all 93 attorneys and no one complained, Bush let go 7 and the liberals are going batty.
Pretty pathetic. Clinton replaced all of the attorneys when he started his administion. The office is supposed to be apolitical. Bush fired attorneys who resisted the efforts to politicize the justice department. Furthermore, he supported his AG in perhaps the most blatent act of perjury in the last 100 years. Is that a crime? Probably not but it’s yet another ding against a tarnished President.
Then again, maybe he is just like Abe Lincoln but we just can’t see it yet.
Just so we’re clear, Abe Lincoln broke a lot of laws and did a lot of unconstitutional things to save the country from splitting apart.
In other words, I have demolished your arguments, but you’re not enough of a man to admit it.
I guess I need to add delusional to your list of faults.
1. Terrorism != the Cold War, WWIII or WWIV no matter what the neocons say. The world became undeniably safter after the end of the Soviet bloc. Likewise military expenditure did and should have fallen.
I disagree, the Soviets were well armed, but ultimately they were rational. They officially didn’t believe in an afterlife, so they were unlikely to throw their own lives away recklessly. That does not appear to be the case with our current enemies. That said, it is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Clinton used up the military because what uses up a military is being used, and operational tempo did not go down under Clinton, but procurement and O&M did, as did manpower strength. In other words, Clinton is like the friend who borrows your car and brings it back with the gas tank empty.
2. A post Cold War military needs to look different than a Cold War one. To a degree we are still running a lot of Cold War machines
Exactly, because procurement dollars went down. That means there was no money to buy the new stuff needed to replace the old Cold War stuff. I do, however find this criticism strange coming for you, because not too long ago, in this very post, you were extremely critical of the “Rumfeld Doctrine”. The “Rumsfeld Doctrine” was a plan designed to move the military out of the Cold War mindset and into a smaller and nimbler force that was better able to deal with smaller conflicts and non-state actors, like Al Qaeda. You should have heard the howls of anguish at the Pentagon when Rummy canceled Crusader, which was an artillery piece designed to stop the Russians in the Fulda Gap.
Mumon and Boonton,
In comment 82, Mike Toreno concluded his remarks by saying to Ucfengr:
Any claim you make of special insight must be evaluated in the light of your known stupidity and illiteracy.
Now, I’m not sure how closely you read Mike’s comments, but the above quote is pretty typical of his tone towards Ucfengr in this thread.
What is your reaction to his vitriol? Do you disapprove, are you indifferent? Would either of you like to take a moment to point out how uncivil Mike is being, or to ask him to behave properly?
If someone were polluting the atmosphere or the oceans, we would all respond vigorously. I believe that polluting this comment thread with nasty name-calling is just as deserving of condemnation on our part.
Debate shouldn’t be about shouting the next fellow down, it should be a respectful exchange of ideas. Both of you share my attitude, so perhaps a few words to Mike that he is violating good form would be helpful?
Thanks,
Matthew