Is it just me, or is it feeling a bit Drafty in here?

[Clashman]

They won't be able to keep on doing this forever. They're having a hell of a time holding on to the people they have now, not to mention recruiting additional troops. There's going to be some pretty significant troop shortages that they won't be able to cover with voluntary recruitment. Unless the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq take on some incredibly radical direction, (not to mention anywhere else we may choose to engage ourselves), I would say a draft is imminent.

Don't expect to see anything about it before the elections, though. An issue that big might just be enough to prevent Bush from buying his way back into office, regardless of how flaccid any eventual competition from the Democrats turns out to be.

 

[Natoma]

*cough*

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9636

 

[Clashman]

To start a completely unrelated topic onto the same headline, damn is it cold right now!! It's just been frigid the past several days. I live in Minneapolis, and I believe our high temperature today was something like -1F, (that's -18C to the rest of the developed world), and it is windy as hell, too. And my appartment leaks heat like a sieve. Winter sucks.

 

[pax]

Dunno about us forces vs private sector but in Canada a guy in my job description could make 50% more in the forces than in the private sector. Wages and benefits have def improved a lot in the last few years in the forces...

 

[Clashman]

Well, if this is anything to go by, better pay doesn't neccessarily equate to a strong impetus to be enrolled in a job with a high death rate.

 

[MfA]

If Bush wins the election, do you really think he and the conservative party leadership can force through a draft to wage another war without the government being toppled?

 

[Natoma]

There are a lot of people in the armed forces who are apparently displeased with this war and the recent actions that are forcing them to stay. If this keeps up for a few more months, Bush won't win in November, my dream of dreams. Is it any wonder they pushed the timetable for us to hand over everything to the Iraqis up to June?

 

[Clashman]

If Bush wins the election, do you really think he and the conservative party leadership can force through a draft to wage another war without the government being toppled?

Who said anything about waging another war? They're probably going to have to with what they've got. Either that or completely pull out with their tails between their legs. They could always pick up Rangel's legislation so that blame would be placed on the Democrats as well. And hey, if it comes to civil war, they've got the NRA and the guns on their side, (not serious).

 

[Vince]

There are a lot of people in the armed forces who are apparently displeased with this war and the recent actions that are forcing them to stay.

I don't believe this. AFAIK, the 4th ID (which arguably has delt with the worst hand of an operational unit that size; between missing out on the invasion and subsequently bearing the brunt of the post-war resistence) presently has the highest reenlistment rate it's ever had. Add to this high reinlistment rates in the 101AB which recieved much publicity, and I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Are people pist they're in Iraq and not with their families? Obviously! But just because some soldier is interviewed on CNN and says that he wishes he was back with his family doesn't mean he wouldn't stay and won't volentarily come back - which they're doing.

If there are "a lot of people" truely displeased, they sure aren't talking or showing it. Hell, it must be "opposite day." Then again, you never were one for proof.

If this keeps up for a few more months, Bush won't win in November, my dream of dreams

Under the table and dreaming.... as usual. 1972. 1984.

Who said anything about waging another war? They're probably going to have to with what they've got. Either that or completely pull out with their tails between their legs.

Between this and the Gun Issue, where do you get this stuff? This is blatently false. "Pull out with their tail between their legs"... What a joke. This troop shortage argument just won't die as it needs to; it just evolved from the proven wrong stance that we needed more troops during the fight to needing more after.

 

[Clashman]

Retention rates are high, but that's misleading. Retention rates are high because they aren't letting anyone leave until 90 days after their TOD is over with. And for most Army Units, their tours don't end until sometime between March and May.

 

[Clashman]

It's based on the fact that the U.S. won't have enough troops to continue to rotate into Afghanistan and Iraq in a year or so, because noone, (figuratively) will be reenlisting. We're already seeing this start to happen, as elements of the 82nd Airborne that just got back from an 8 month tour in Afghanistan 4 months ago are already beeing sent out into Iraq. That wouldn't be happening if there were enough troops to fill the gaps.

 

[Vince]

Retention rates are high, but that's misleading. Retention rates are high because they aren't letting anyone leave until 90 days after their TOD is over with. And for most Army Units, their tours don't end until sometime between March and May.

I must have stuttered.

101st Airborne Division soldiers reenlist at Army's top rate[/url]]
by Pfc. Thomas Day 40th PAD MOSUL, Iraq (Oct. 15, 2003) - The 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) scored a three-peat this past fiscal year as the division landed the highest number of reenlistments of any division in the Army. The division also reenlisted the most soldiers in the Army in both the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 fiscal years.

Incredibly, the division's success seems to have come because of the ongoing war on terrorism, not in spite of it. The 101st reenlistment strength stands at more than 140% for the 2002-2003 fiscal year - surprising numbers as the division has been deployed to Kuwait and Iraq for nearly eight months.

The 101st hasn't just exceeded retention objectives, they've destroyed them. The division had hoped to reenlist 917 soldiers who had been serving their first enlistment; they signed 1,236 (135 percent) as of Sept. 30. The objective of 610 enlistments of "mid-career soldiers," usually junior-grade non-commissioned officers who have served more than one enlistment but no more than 10 years, was easily met as 758 mid-careerists re-up'd (124 percent). Career soldiers, those who have served more than 10 years, beat the objective 423 to 382 (111 percent).

Take note as the 101st is perhaps the most utilized division in the US's arsenal. Oliver North has recently stated that the 4th ID has exceeded it's projections, but all I could find so far (and is several months old) is:

We met the reenlistment NCO who told us reenlistment rates were about average with the pluses and minuses of deployment and combat balancing each other. He expected them to increase in the near future with the lifting of some restrictions. - ch oscar arauco. 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division. Tikrit, Iraq.

It's based on the fact that the U.S. won't have enough troops to continue to rotate into Afghanistan and Iraq in a year or so, because noone, (figuratively) will be reenlisting.

Um.. *looks up*... Yeah, that's it pal. You know what's going on alright, keep talking.

 

[RussSchultz]

Retention rates are high, but that's misleading. Retention rates are high because they aren't letting anyone leave until 90 days after their TOD is over with.

Those two things don't have anything to do with one another.

Retention rate is folks who re-enlist.

And strangely, combat duty actually increases retention rate. The Rand corporation/institute had an interesting report that detailed what affected retention in the military. Apparently, deployments increased retention rate, though combat deployments not as much as peaceful deployments. Regardless, both were above the baseline of no-deployments.

Of course, I didn't read it too thoroughly, so I dunno if they have any data that tracks re-enlistment while on a combat tour, or shortly thereafter.

Edit: Here's another statistical view of what happened after Desert Storm with reservists: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR943/

Mobilised units retention dropped by 5% from 65% to 60%, or thereabouts.

 

[Natoma]

Under the table and dreaming.... as usual. 1972. 1984.

Sort of like your "We will find Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just give our forces a year" prediction eh? Closing in on that one and no dice yet. Here's hoping you go 0-2.

p.s.: I never said anything about the soldiers not re-enlisting. I implied that unhappy soldiers make unhappy voters. And unhappy voters make for ousted incumbents. See California, and elections all around the country in 2002/2003 as prime examples.

 

[Vince]

Under the table and dreaming.... as usual. 1972. 1984.

Sort of like your "We will find Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just give our forces a year" prediction eh? Closing in on that one and no dice yet. Here's hoping you go 0-2.

Your totally correct, but I have another ~6months, so well see what happens. Maybe we've found no tangible WMD so far, but it's beyond a doubt that the regime was blatently covering-up programs and breaking UNSCR's. Not to mention the links subsequently found between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I stand by my comments regading the road to war as the correct course of action 100%. Just as you're the same way... just diemetrically opposed.

 

[Natoma]

6 months? Major combat operations ended in May according to George "Mission Accomplished" Bush. You've got 4 months Vince.

As for the road to war, I hate the means. I like the ends. They're both equally important imo, the former even moreso than the latter. After the White House's attempts immediately post-9/11 to paint Iraq and Al-Qaeda as definitively working together, which the CIA completely shot down as false rumor-mongering, I take this with a rather large grain of salt. I'm sure if this has merit it will be on all the news channels and published by the administration for the whole world to see. The same goes for the WMD.

 

[Babel-17]

Well, it seems certain to me that our troops have been laboring under a heavier load then our media generally reports or this administration likes known.

A few links from some very quick browsing hint at reasons why our troops have a lot to consider about reenlisting.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1587762

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1457

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/politics/06MILI.html

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1470

 

[Natoma]

Under the table and dreaming.... as usual. 1972. 1984.

Sort of like your "We will find Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just give our forces a year" prediction eh? Closing in on that one and no dice yet. Here's hoping you go 0-2.

Your totally correct, but I have another ~6months, so well see what happens. Maybe we've found no tangible WMD so far, but it's beyond a doubt that the regime was blatently covering-up programs and breaking UNSCR's. Not to mention the links subsequently found between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I stand by my comments regading the road to war as the correct course of action 100%. Just as you're the same way... just diemetrically opposed.

*cough*

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9765

As for the road to war, I hate the means. I like the ends. They're both equally important imo, the former even moreso than the latter. After the White House's attempts immediately post-9/11 to paint Iraq and Al-Qaeda as definitively working together, which the CIA completely shot down as false rumor-mongering, I take this with a rather large grain of salt. I'm sure if this has merit it will be on all the news channels and published by the administration for the whole world to see. The same goes for the WMD.

Pays to have patience there eh Vince? I knew the white house would eventually say something.

 

[Natoma]

Well, it seems certain to me that our troops have been laboring under a heavier load then our media generally reports or this administration likes known.

A few links from some very quick browsing hint at reasons why our troops have a lot to consider about reenlisting.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1587762

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1457

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/politics/06MILI.html

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1470

I watched Ret. General Barry McAffrey (sp?) last night speak about the impending problems of our military. 70% of our armed forces are deployed somewhere in the world today, with 5 divisions currently in Iraq. Apparently with the impending turn over in the spring time for our armed forces, we need an influx of roughly 75 thousand in order to keep our troop levels where they are right now, or we're going to face a draw down of roughly 30 thousand troops.

Probably why these mandatory stays are being enacted.

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

If Bush wins the election, do you really think he and the conservative party leadership can force through a draft to wage another war without the government being toppled?

I hope he doesn't win, but as for what I bolded: we can only wish.