Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (123331)	7/5/2005 4:45:38 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793913

The challenge is huge. Our military is quite small. Something has to be changed. We are going to have to expand special ops soldiers. If that means a "second tier" of training, so be it. We are wasting money keeping rows and rows of artillery troops at Fort Sill. Everybody does not need to be of the quality and have the same training as Green Berets to operate abroad. There are just not enough people of that quality available no matter what we do. We can take some SF trainees who don't make it through and use them instead of transfering them all back to regular army. I know this idea grates on you, but you should give serious thought as to how to implement it.

To: unclewest who wrote (123331)	7/5/2005 9:17:02 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793913

"The challenge is huge. Our military is quite small. Something has to be changed." On this we agree Mike. I think you have identified part of the problem regarding the clinton administration. Remedying that is only part of the equation if your numbers of muslim millitants capable of suicide bombing are borne out. So in addition to what you want to do domestically to increase the forces, I would suggest we consider the following: 1. buring the hatchet over iraq on both sides and somehow getting the euros to accept the threat for what it is. This will take alot of time, perhaps too much. 2. We also need to strengthen ties with russians and chinese on this issue as well. For instance we have some conflicted policies regarding all the stans including the old soviet ones. Support democracy yes, but dont get fooled by islamic extremists playing the democracy card. 3. Assuming 1&2 either fail or take forever or even if they succeed, we need some assymetric warfare of our own. Maybe along with special forces to do some of the fighting and prep for fighting, we do not rule out the use of nukes anymore? Even jihadists have families and the threat of nukes would be jarring. Perhaps a fireworks display of our own might have some merit down the road. I am throwing this all out for discussion. I have certainly not thought out #3 fully. I was thinking of a time where the enemy has used a wmd somewhere first or suicide bombings were becoming a worldwide phenomena killing thousands a year. How far would we/should we go to save our civilization? Mike

To: unclewest who wrote (123331)	7/5/2005 10:32:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793913

Donald Sensing, a retired Army Officer whose son is a Marine Cpl, wrote a couple of good comments in his blog about Army Recruiting. Chickenhawk” works both ways by Donald Sensing @ 10:49 am. Filed under Domestic affairs, Federal, Military Armed Liberal points out that the “chickenhawk” argument is being raised yet again, this time by Duncan Black (Atrios), who cites the BalSun, THE ARMY can’t find enough recruits. Could there be a clearer expression of Americans’ disenchantment with the war in Iraq? … … Certainly, the sons and daughters of the unimpeachably idealistic neoconservatives who prayed for the war and brayed for what they stupidly supposed was victory back in 2003 are staying as far away from it as they possibly can. Gosh, where to begin? Let me start with the spurious argument that the Army is having dificulty meeting recruiting goals (true) principally because young Americans oppose the war in Iraq. If that is true, why are the Marines - who suffer a higher casualty ratio than the Army (though lower absolute numbers) - meeting their goals much more easily? It isn’t simply that the Marines need fewer recruits than the Army. One big reason is that the Army has never changed its recruiting methodology from peacetime to wartime. Army’s bad recruiting strategy means low recruiting by Donald Sensing @ 5:45 pm. Filed under Military, US Army Recruiting numbers are low enough for the Army to cause real concern at the high command. The Army’s recruiters are no worse than any other service’s - the problem is (I think) the Army’s recruiting strategy with its heavily civilianized marketing influences. Hence this email today from reader Matt Holmes: I was considering joining the Army and know just about nothing about that, so I went to the goarmy.com website and filled out the “Request Info Pack” form on the main page. At the end of the form, the last entry was the following: (8.) I am most interested in (check all that apply): ( ) Money for college ( ) Skill training ( ) Travel and adventure Where is “Serving my country”? And what’s up with “adventure”? I was looking at the site because I am tired of wanting to do something and feeling like I wasn’t doing enough, and I’m presented with these options that made me feel like even the Army doesn’t care. I thought you might find that interesting. Yes, it mirrors my own son’s experience with the local Army recruiter. That’s why he is a US Marine lance corporal. At least the Marines don’t hide what they’re about. The Army recruiter here - no kidding - told my son that their monthly meetings before going to basic training would feature pizza parties. I wrote more about our personal experiences with Army and Marine recruiters two years ago. "Marines v. Army - recruiting This week my eldest son, Stephen, my wife and I talked for two hours with two Marine recruiters. We had already talked with the Army recruiter. There is no question which made the deepest impression on Steve - and on us. As my wife said after the Marine recruiters had left, "If I wasn't forty-five, I'd join the Marines myself!" There is an old cliche about salesmanship, "Don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle." The Army recruiter talked about steak, and the Marines talked about sizzle. The Army talked about money - enlistment bonuses, GI Bill, College Fund, pay and allowances. The Marines talked about character, devotion, commitment, service, achievement. After almost two weeks, the Army recruiter has not phoned as a follow up. The Marines scheduled the time for a follow up before they left. Steve hasn't made up his mind yet, but it's pretty clear who is ahead, way ahead. One anomaly. Every prospective enlistee takes a battery of tests called the ASVAB, Armed Services Standard Vocational Aptitude Battery. It is scored in percentiles, with 99 being the highest. The Army recruiter told me that his enlistees average about 67, the Marines told me their enlistees average in the high forties. That doesn't click. Steve's score was 99. The Marine recruiters told us they had never seen a 99 before. donaldsensing.com