While I'm browsing USA Today, it's worth noting two articles that show some of the problems Bush and Rummy's handling of the Iraq War are causing:
Fewer soldiers re-enlist Army sees dip as war increases need USA Today 04/16/04
Through March 17, nearly halfway through the fiscal year, the Army fell about 1,000 short of meeting its goal of keeping 25,786 soldiers whose enlistments were ending or who were eligible to retire. That works out to a 96% retention rate.
Last year, the retention figure was 106% because more soldiers stayed than the Army had planned. The retention goal assumes that not all eligible to stay will remain. ...
There are 137,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Plans called for the military to reduce its troop levels to about 105,000 this summer, but Rumsfeld said Thursday he could make no guarantees about future troop levels.
That troop level is the highest that I recall in Iraq. But it's a long way from the 500,000-600,000 that are likely needed to accomplish the gradiose goals Bush and Rummy set out to accomplish there.
Soldiers' wives frustrated by delays in Iraq USA Today 04/16/04
''We're all disgusted,'' said Bryan, of Henley, Mo. She said this is the second time the Guardsmen have seen their tours extended.
''We're to the point now where we're exhausted,'' she said. ''We need this to be over. But we don't want it to be over until it's completed, because it would make the past 10 months a waste.''
Bryan, the support group leader for 20 families, had to call the wives Thursday to tell them that they'd have to wait a while longer for their husbands to come home.
Notice that this woman is echoing the Bush Administration's official position on the war about sticking it out until the war is "completed." But ever her view of the recent extension of enlistments is, "We're all disgusted."
Mark Shields on a PBS Newshour segment that I don't believe was ever made available online recently described the extension of tours of duty as a de facto draft. Bush isn't ready to go to the country and say straightforwardly the Army is too small to do all he expects them to do. So instead, he goes to those who volunteered for service and have already spent a year in Iraq and extends their time. This approach is not likely to change the phenomenon reported in the previous article in a direction that Bush and Rummy would prefer.
2 comments:
What we have here is media spin, Bruce. I hadn't even seen your post when I had posted how military numbers are increasing, not decreasing. Looks like USA Today and the Virginian-Pilot need to combine their 50% Fact-checking Departments to see if they can't come up with 100%. Thier stories were printed only two days apart, yet they reach different conclusions.
In defense of the Virginian, however, recruiting has been consistently above projection and if 3 of 4 eligible soldiers re-enlist now and only 1 next year, then the total number hasn't /really/ dropped. Over-simplified, but this is the case for Retention numbers carrying over from the previous year.
Bottom Line: Retention and Recruiting in the military remain ABOVE projections. I'm even waiting until I re-deploy just so I can re-enlist "down range." And, an exception - no doubt, but not one soldier has left my unit after returning from deployment to OIF.
http://journals.aol.com/armandt/sense/entries/175
I haven't had time yet to see the article you referenced. But total numbers and reinlistment targets are two different things.
But we're unlikely to see any serious plan soon to provide 500,000-600,000 thousands US troops for Iraq, which is more what would have to be there to expect a successful counterinsurgency war and nation-building campaign to succeed. - Bruce
Post a Comment