who re-upped think that the USA is going to win the battle for democracy against the insurgents. Put that in your Zogby and smoke it.
The president could have no better poll.
Posted on 10/13/2005 5:15:13 PM PDT by SandRat
CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq (Army News Service, Oct. 13, 2005)-- Soldiers assigned to Task Force Baghdad are answering their nation’s call to “stay Army” by ending Fiscal Year 2005 with more than 4,000 re-enlistments.
In return for their continued service, they’re also earning a combined total of more than $42 million in tax-free re-enlistment bonuses.
“All re-enlistment goals set by the Department of the Army for FY05 have been met with overwhelming success,” said Sgt. Maj. Craig T. Lott, Multi-National Division–Baghdad retention sergeant major, and a member of Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division.
“The Army gives us a target percentage of what we need to obtain, for example it may be a goal to retain 20 to 25 percent of our initial-term Soldiers and 40 percent of our mid-term Soldiers … so whatever percentage we’re given is how we drive our goals,” Lott said.
End-of-year calculations show re-enlistment success in all three major categories of service members. Re-enlistments of initial-term Soldiers (those with less than six years in service) were at 127 percent of the targeted goal; mid-career Soldiers (six to 10 years) were at 134 percent; and career Soldiers (more than 10 years) were at 165 percent.
Master Sgt. Harl A. Marzan, senior retention career counselor from STB, said in the past eight months the National Guard component alone has re-enlisted more than 145 Soldiers who have received nearly $2 million in tax-free bonuses.
Marzan said although the Army National Guard will probably not meet its recruiting goal for FY05, the retention re-enlistments have been very successful.
Remarkably, most of the re-enlistment achievements of FY05 have been met in the last nine months. Many of the Soldiers were preoccupied with preparations for the deployment to Iraq during the beginning of the fiscal year.
“At first the mission seemed unattainable, but a lot of hard work and the bonus amounts have helped out,” said Sgt. 1st Class Matt J. Wickham, 3rd Inf. Div. retention operations non-commissioned officer-in-charge. “The success of the fiscal year does not go to one person; instead, it’s a combination of hard work from unit commanders, first sergeants, NCOs, officers and everyone involved in the retention mission.
“A lot of soldiers feel we withhold options, but that’s simply not true,” he added. “There is no reason for us to do that. I want to see them get every option for which they are entitled. We are always going to err on the side of the Soldier. We are always going to try to get them what they want whenever possible.”
Although FY05 has ended with positive results for all personnel involved in the retention process, leaders must now ensure that Soldiers who have already reenlisted receive everything they were promised on their contracts.
Lott said it is important to take care of the more than 4,000 Soldiers who re-enlisted the past year.
“If we made a commitment to them we need to make sure it’s honored and that the Soldier receives what he or she was promised,” he said.
(Editor’s note: Spc. Maria Mengrone is with the Task Force Baghdad PAO)
but,... but,.... but..... the LSM says the Troops are demoralized </sarc
Great Troops! The know the truth!
LOL. You said what I was going to say. May God bless them. We have never had such as these.
Outstanding news! Thank for posting, SandRat.
“The Army gives us a target percentage of what we need to obtain, for example it may be a goal to retain 20 to 25 percent of our initial-term Soldiers and 40 percent of our mid-term Soldiers … so whatever percentage we’re given is how we drive our goals,” Lott said.
But I also believe that if we are serious about "wining" it, we have to face the very real possibility that this will required 300-500,000 thousand troops on the ground for a decade or more, the expenditure of perhaps 500 billion dollars, and that even on such terms the chances of success are uncertain at best.
Now, I don’t see much evidence that the citizens of this country are willing to sign on up for the sacrifices needed to undertake such an effort, or that our “leaders” are even close to having the courage to ask for it.
And IMO if not, it’s criminal to utilize techniques such as stop-loss orders in an attempt to cobble up enough of an Army to stumble along hoping for something to turn up while forwarding the bill along to the next generation – we ether need to admit we are not up to the undertaking, or undertake the effort on terms with a reasonable chance of success.
Thanks for the ping!
Right you are BUT the battle for commitment to the cause in Iraq is being fought in the media for the hearts and minds of Americans.
I also think the war is right to stop the spread of Islamo fascism. If these fascists are successful the will link up in an axis of fascist countries between Indonesia and Turkey, and many nations in between.( It has happened before , Yes ?) They will eventually have the A-bomb and control of the worlds oil supply.
Do I think the war is worth fighting?
You bet. Or else we will later have a WW III that will make the last one look like playing in a sand box.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.