Are They In the Army Now? Cries of shortfall, exhaustion, and overstretch.

NRO ^ | 6/21/05 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Figures on U.S. military recruitment just released for 2005 show that the Army missed its monthly announced goal, achieving only 75 percent of its anticipated enlistments for this May. The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve also missed their desired monthly targets. Stories in the press followed, claiming that the Pentagon is lowering Army standards to pull in new recruits and address the fallout from the depressing news from Iraq.

Recent dips in Army enlistments also fueled a new conventional wisdom: that the U.S. military is almost dangerously undermanned, exhausted, and overstretched. An unpopular war, domestic opposition, televised casualties, extended service, divorce and social dislocations, an improving economy, and supposed disparity in the sacrifices made by troops of different races and classes have all, it is said, conspired to cut recruitment to the volunteer army and reserves to alarming levels.

In turn, fears of undermanned armed forces have prompted existential questions about who should serve and the nature of U.S. foreign policy. Opponents of the war in Iraq also make the argument — perhaps legitimate in its own right — that our options are limited in dealing with Syria, Iran, and North Korea because we are overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such critics also know that the cover of an exhausted military means they will never be called to spell out their exact position on the future use of force elsewhere.

Behind most critiques, oddly enough, is the promise of the draft. Some critics of the current war profess support for a return to conscription — both to address the purported manpower shortage and to ensure less military action abroad in the future. If a broader cross-section of the population serves in the military, it is argued, won’t we all be more careful how it is used? And isn’t the present system making inordinate demands on minorities, the poor, and the undereducated?

We might ask how accurate is the current picture of military disarray. . . .

[2banana]

Interesting that the Marines do not have a shortfall - is it really "fear of combat" or something else...?

[Alia]

bookmark. VDH is asking the right question. There is far more going on than meets the eye. Much of it has to happen, this way, in order for the military to achieve their newer goals of "reorganization". IMHO. Wish I could ping Elaine Donnelly. She'd have a good take on what I'm on about, and why recruitment in re Marines is not down. It's not that new recruits AREN'T showing up. I think it has to do with current "soldiers", some of which are going for various chapters...

[zarf]

is it really "fear of combat" or something else...?

From what I hear, it's something elese.
The Army is pussified and PC.

Outside of the Rangers and Special Ops, real men don't want to be a part of "This Woman's" Army any more.

[gregwest]

"And isn’t the present system making inordinate demands on minorities, the poor, and the undereducated?"

That stupid argument is so lame! I want to bust every time I see it. I don't see the elites getting their sons to volunteer for service to their country. If the military is over-represented by minorities, the poor, and the undereducated, it is because it's a way up and out of those bad situations. Would minorities, the poor, and undereducated be better served if they avoided military service and remained poor and undereducated?

The stupid libs try to make the military seem so unfair, like it exploits the poor and stupid. What's their solution? A draft? The rich and well-connected would simply use their influence to avoid service anyhow.

Meanwhile, the "poor and uneducated" are doing things like maintenance on Stealth bombers, advanced radars, and other weapons systems. The liberal press is so full of prejudices against the military they have no clue about the professionalism and dignity of our troops.

[Tolik]

Victor Davis Hanson:

...The problem is not just absolute numbers, then, but the growing perception after two years of Iraqi reconstruction that our dead were not lost in a war of national survival, or that such deaths are incompatible with a contemporary society that no longer believes force is desirable or necessary to maintain its security. In that case, the problem is not a military one per se. Going 7,000 miles across the globe, toppling two fascistic governments and establishing democracies in their places, and doing so at a cost (albeit a painful one) of less than 2,000 soldiers, is, by historical standards, an unprecedented military achievement.

Arguments persist over the proper troop levels in Iraq. But given the nature of the insurgency, more conventional troops do not seem to offer solutions, especially when the more critical task is lowering the American profile and working in the shadows to support and train a new Iraqi military. Rather, the controversy is really a political challenge of explaining the nature of the American sacrifice in Iraq, putting it in a historical context, and convincing the American people that such brave soldiers have both made Americans far safer and given the Middle East a future.

...Our current debate is not properly a military one, since the American armed forces are performing exceptionally well in Iraq and probably have enough aggregate strength to re-deploy to meet foreseeable crises elsewhere. Given our size, material wealth, and underutilized resources, we could easily expand or contract our military as we see fit. Rather, the rub is one of perception: The real question is whether Americans wish to continue their efforts to establish democratic states to replace deposed Middle East autocracies, and in general whether we wish to use forces abroad at all in wars that may require messy occupations and reconstructions that follow rapid and successful conventional victories.

See the complete article at Benador Associates

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out

[L98Fiero]

"Meanwhile, the "poor and uneducated" are doing things like maintenance on Stealth bombers, advanced radars, and other weapons systems. The liberal press is so full of prejudices against the military they have no clue about the professionalism and dignity of our troops."

Well put! The Navy is what got me into technology. Ultimately, thanks to the Navy, I am no longer "poor and uneducated". I seriously shudder to think where I would be had I not joined.