British pulling out of Iraq

[JohnEyles]

Just added another statistic to my personal poll on the Iraq situation from
those who probably know best - the brave soldiers who are there. He was
a young man out rock-climbing in a local park, just back from a tour in
Fallujah. He didn't seem to want to talk about it much, but he basically
said that he thinks we should leave now and let the country go to h*ll if
that's what the Iraqis want to do. It was bad war, a lot of good people
have died for no good reason, and it was all about money, specifically the
interests (like Halliburton and the oil companies) who have some how
managed to turn the President and VicePresident of the United States
into their whores. A little more bitter than my first respondee (fellow
air traveler, IED finder in Baghdad) but same basic message.

Hardly a scientific sample, but it IS interesting to hear what those who
are/were there have to say, and not this us blowhards here.

[samclem]

I was in the USO lounge in Charlotte last week and the place was packed with soldiers. The TV was on (loud) and there was a talking head on CNN with the usual pessimistic portrayal of the Iraq situation. Max Cleland followed (more of the same, but more bitter), and then a pessimistic blurb from Pelosi. All through it I listened for reactions from the servicemembers. I thought I would hear either a "F**k you!" or an "Amen!" but the crowd was just not very interested it seemed. It surprised me, since even the commercials prompted comments and jeers.

I received the link to the site below from a friend, but do not know the guy who is writing the note (and apparently is in Iraq), so I am not vouching for its authenticity. I do hear folks who have returned from Iraq saying much the same thing, though. Like RustyShackleford, I don't have a scientific sample, but the majority of the servicemembers I talk to who have returned (and will be going back) appear to believe in the mission. They also don't think things will come to a quick conclusion.

http://www.whc.net/rjones/just_in_ca...t_in_case.html

[Retire Soon]

Our volunteer military sevice personnel were misled by our government. During the Vietnam war, troops were expected to serve one year only in Vietnam, unless they volunteered for an additional year. In Iraq, many of our personnel have spent two years over there and some have even been asked to serve a third year. With the precedent of a one year tour of duty being set in Vietnam, our current volunteer military has been deceived.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retire Soon Our volunteer military sevice personnel were misled by our government. During the Vietnam war, troops were expected to serve one year only in Vietnam, unless they volunteered for an additional year. In Iraq, many of our personnel have spent two years over there and some have even been asked to serve a third year. With the precedent of a one year tour of duty being set in Vietnam, our current volunteer military has been deceived.

?? Nobody in today's military has any excuse for believing that they'd only be asked to do one year in a combat zone, and I doubt that many folks really believed this. That rotational scheme only works if you've got a very big standing army and boatloads of draftees coming through the door every month--neither condition is the case today, nor was it the case when 90% of these soldiers signed up.

Having to return is not popular if you are the guy (or his family). From a larger perspective, it is better than a constant flood of new folks. Soldiers who are more experienced suffer lower casualty rates--they've already been through the steep learning curve of the first few months in the combat zone, and they only need a "refresher" based on how the threat may have changed since they were there last. Also, they are more effective, for the same reason: they know the region and they know the players.

One other point: The invasion f Iraq was nearly 4 years ago. Most service personnel presently on active duty enlisted or re-enlisted since that time. They've already "voted" in a very meaningful, personal way. Not a fluffy, counts-for-nothing "nonbinding resolution" for them.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem One other point: The invasion f Iraq was nearly 4 years ago. Most service personnel presently on active duty enlisted or re-enlisted since that time. They've already "voted" in a very meaningful, personal way. Not a fluffy, counts-for-nothing "nonbinding resolution" for them.

I find it interesting that during the early days of the war the big news outlets would talk about how it was very difficult for the military to hit it's recruiting goals. They were also quick to point out that some weren't hitting them. It has been a very long time since I've heard about the military not having enough recruits. This can only mean a couple things. A lot of the people, who are already in are not getting out. Or there are enough new people, who know they will go to Iraq signing up.

I know stop loss has effected some, but not all. Stop loss is devastating for morale. Since we are not hearing of the mass desertions, suicides, or general refusal to work, morale has not taken a huge hit, as would be expected by masses who want out being told they are staying indefinitely. I have seen the military take short breaks in stop loss to allow the most disgruntled out, to keep things like this from happening.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem ?? Nobody in today's military has any excuse for believing that they'd only be asked to do one year in a combat zone, and I doubt that many folks really believed this.

I live in a "base town" with fairly poor people all around. One major mall. They have a nice inside play area that Gabes pretty fond of, so we're there 3-4 times a week during bad weather. With a few hours of not much to do but keep one eye on him and the other on the general mall goings on, I get to watch the recruiters "working" the teenagers that look to be about the right age to sign up, have nothing to do and no reasonable job prospects.

I'm of the opinion that most of these kids, after getting the full pitch, think they'll be getting breakfast in bed every morning, served by a scantily clad Michelle Manhart.

Wow, free school, cheap loans, be able to buy that car they want, free housing, free medical care...and hey...that iraq thing isnt going to go on for a lot longer and they can go travel to lots of interesting places.

Same pitch the last couple of years.

So perhaps a smart older person sitting in their living room, filled with reason and with a well padded bank account doesnt have the very best grasp on what an 18 year old kid with nothing to look forward to thinks when he's being influenced by a couple of experts.

[bssc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I find it interesting that during the early days of the war the big news outlets would talk about how it was very difficult for the military to hit it's recruiting goals. They were also quick to point out that some weren't hitting them. It has been a very long time since I've heard about the military not having enough recruits. This can only mean a couple things. A lot of the people, who are already in are not getting out. Or there are enough new people, who know they will go to Iraq signing up. I know stop loss has effected some, but not all. Stop loss is devastating for morale. Since we are not hearing of the mass desertions, suicides, or general refusal to work, morale has not taken a huge hit, as would be expected by masses who want out being told they are staying indefinitely. I have seen the military take short breaks in stop loss to allow the most disgruntled out, to keep things like this from happening.

Interesting points. I have seen articles which have said that suicide rates for the Army have doubled. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901659_pf.html.

Most of the desertion cases, such as Darrell Anderson, Agustine Aguayo and Suzanne Swift, have different circumstances. I haven't seen anything general.

However, the February 2006 LeMoyne/Zogby poll of troops said that 72% of the troops thought that the US should leave by the end of that year. http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

And, 2006 was a banner year for the Army to recruit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092101233.html

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bssc . . . And, 2006 was a banner year for the Army to recruit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092101233.html

. . . The Army also has accepted a larger number of recruits whose score on a standardized aptitude test is at the lower end of the acceptable range, and it has granted waivers to permit the enlistment of people with criminal records that otherwise would disqualify them. . .

That doesn't sound comforting.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem One other point: The invasion f Iraq was nearly 4 years ago. Most service personnel presently on active duty enlisted or re-enlisted since that time. They've already "voted" in a very meaningful, personal way. Not a fluffy, counts-for-nothing "nonbinding resolution" for them.

I'm sure the soldiers [who were] on IRR, currently serving tours #2 or #3, will be relieved to know that.

[bssc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee That doesn't sound comforting.

Focus on the fact that they made their quotas and that there are no longer any articles on how recruitment are not meeting their goals.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee . . . The Army also has accepted a larger number of recruits whose score on a standardized aptitude test is at the lower end of the acceptable range, and it has granted waivers to permit the enlistment of people with criminal records that otherwise would disqualify them. . . That doesn't sound comforting.

This has been going on for some time a good friend of mine in high school was given a waiver for past criminal behavior. He stole a car. They are not talking about murderers adn rapist, they are talking about relatively minor crimes. You know the ones many people on here wish were off the books.

Didn't teh Army always accept the people on the low end of the of the acceptable scale. If they didn't would that portion be called "unacceptable"?

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny ... I get to watch the recruiters "working" the teenagers that look to be about the right age to sign up ...

Yes, I have a theory that military recruitment is basically child abuse. It is well-known
that young people, or at least young men, have no real internalization of the concept
of their own mortality until 25yo or so. Car insurance companies and car rental
companies. for example, are well aware of this. And the military is well aware of
it too. One documentary I saw said "older men can be taught to be soldiers, but
only younger men can be taught to love it". The military will say they need the
very young men because they are more physically fit, but that is BS. Physical
endurance does not decline significantly until well into the 30s (see Lance Armstrong).
I can hump a heavy backpack better now than at any time in my life (in my 50s).

We wring our hands about the child soldiers in the African hell-hole du jour,
but we're not that much better !

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny So perhaps a smart older person sitting in their living room, filled with reason and with a well padded bank account doesnt have the very best grasp on what an 18 year old kid with nothing to look forward to thinks when he's being influenced by a couple of experts.

Okay. But apparently, at least one "smart older person sitting in their living room, filled with reason and with a well padded bank account" figured he had a "grasp on what 18 year old kids(s)" think when he wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny I'm of the opinion that most of these kids, after getting the full pitch, think they'll be getting breakfast in bed every morning, served by a scantily clad Michelle Manhart. Wow, free school, cheap loans, be able to buy that car they want, free housing, free medical care...and hey...that iraq thing isnt going to go on for a lot longer and they can go travel to lots of interesting places.

Pot--meet the kettle.

[dumpster56]

If we are going to be the worlds police we may need the draft again and this time everyone goes.

Things really look ugly around the world. You know the world is not far from a real all out armed conflict.

Kinda like what an older guy told me once Patterns of Extinction, the human race is making all the WRONG CHOICES.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Sorry Sam, I have no idea what your post means unless you thought I was speaking well of the 'benefits'.

Justin, may I borrow your "this is sarcasm" line, if I dont charge you any royalties on the "Ding! Ding! Ding!" thing?

[laurence]

I think this thread has shown very clearly that there is a split in American views. The lines have been drawn internally as well as externally. The Dixie Chicks picked up 5 Grammies mostly because of support for them and the 1st Amendment, but meanwhile the country music stations have banned them for life for being traitors. At my work most people still believe Nixon was a great President, there is about 33% on each side which will believe their view is always right. That's why I am more comfortable with the middle third. Those who admit they might be wrong are the wisest in my estimation.

By election 2008, our presence in Iraq will be tiny, if anything. The country will still be a mess, and there will be enough anectodal evidence for both sides to sleep confident knowing it is the other side's fault we failed there.

And just like nobody's ancestors owned slaves or were for segregation, 50 years from now, there won't be anyone willing to admit their parents were for the ultimately wrong side of this debate.

[Elderdude]

That's it! I'm eating "Freedom Muffins" for breakfast from now on!

I personally wish Bush 41 had "pulled out" instead of begetting 43.

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elderdude That's it! I'm eating "Freedom Muffins" for breakfast from now on!

The HoR member from NC who proposed "freedom fries" also became
one of the first (Republicans, at least) to advocate withdrawal from Iraq.

[samclem]

Lawrence has done it again!

Pulled the pin, rolled the grenade into the crowded room, then walk in 5 seonds later and say "Wow, this place is a mess! Why can't there be more moderation!"

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Yep, looks like a bomb made a direct hit on an opinion factory.