Skip to comments.The NY Times We Don't Need
Posted on 01/04/2005 3:48:02 PM PST by swilhelm73
Is it still fair to bash the NY Times? Have they been declared "too easy" by the blogosphere for 2005? Should we establish a rule like "only brand new bloggers can pick on the NY Times, it's just too damn easy?" Honestly, sometimes I'm reluctant to point out the foolishness that passes for news and commentary there. It's becoming increasingly akin to correcting my children - an exercise I also find I sometimes can't resist. In the kid's case, however, I still have hopes they'll learn something from the experience. The Times? They already know everything there is to know about everything. Forgive me for shooting the sitting duck, the fish in the barrel, but under the headline "The Army We Need" the Times has written an editorial calling for the Army they need.
The Pentagon is beginning to resemble a desperate farmer who feeds his starving family the seed corn meant for sowing next year's crop. To keep enough boots on the ground now, it is sacrificing the ability to retain the leaders of tomorrow. As overdeployment has become chronic, promising young officers are opting not to re-enlist. When new crops of young people graduate from school, they will be less willing to combine their civilian careers with service in the Army National Guard; recruitment is already down almost 30 percent. The Regular Army is hurting too. Despite enlistment bonuses, it has had to speed up its reporting schedules, sending new recruits straight into basic training. It's an editorial, so these folks are entitled to their opinions, but a few factual matters could add a bit of weight to their arguments:
1. Officers don't enlist. Enlisted members enlist. Hence the term "enlisted".
2. All new recruits go "straight to basic training" - hence the term "basic" training. Skipping basic training would be the sign of an Army in a hurry.
Now, more than half of the Regular Army's fighting forces have either served in Iraq, are currently there or can expect to be on their way soon, along with a substantial fraction of the Marine Corps and historically high proportions of the Army National Guard and Reserves. Really, only "more than half" of the Army has been in Iraq, is in Iraq, or will soon be in Iraq? I've got to say it's amazing what half an Army can do. (Albeit when aided by substantial fractions of Marines.)
By the way, did you know that 100% of the Army has been through some sort of basic training?
I've debunked the more recent "demoralized military" claims here and will refrain from doing so again. See that post if you're upset about the "points" the Times makes in this exercise in silliness.
Imagine a day when the Times recognizes that the army it needs is an army of readers, and wonders where they went.
And lest I be accused of tramping on the rights of free speech of the NY Times editorial board, I state here and now for all the world to see that I have no problem whatsoever with people who are utterly ignorant of the military writing editorials for the NY Times. It's their right as Americans.
It's what we fight for.
um....why can't officers enlist ?
Try going to your local recruiter and asking him if you can sign up as a Second Lieutenant. He'll tell you why you can't.
Absolutely! I reserve the right to bash ANY member of the so-called, self-professed "MainStream Media" that engages in either stupidity or dishonesty in its reporting.
What's the alternative? To accept false reporting as truth? No way.
It ain't kicking 'em while they're down. All they have to do is to resort to honest, factual reporting and there's nothing to call them on. And we might even, im time, start believing them again.
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.