Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents

NYT ^ | June 3 05 | Damien Cave

[churchillbuff]

Two years into the war in Iraq, as the Army and Marines struggle to refill their ranks, parents have become boulders of opposition that recruiters cannot move.

Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many see as unnecessary and without end.

At schools, they are insisting that recruiters be kept away, incensed at the access that they have to adolescents easily dazzled by incentive packages and flashy equipment.

A Department of Defense survey last November, the latest, shows that only 25 percent of parents would recommend military service to their children, down from 42 percent in August 2003.

"Parents," said one recruiter in Ohio who insisted on anonymity because the Army ordered all recruiters not to talk to reporters, "are the biggest hurdle we face."

[Steve Van Doorn]

"It's the border, stupid!"

I know, I know. I keep spelling boards when I it is border. Wish I could edit posts Haha.

[churchillbuff]

There's a bloody mess in Iraq, the countrys' elected leaders are pro-Iran (a great victory for us, that), and our borders are open to nuke-armed terrorists.

It's you who's ignoring reality - - - and proving it by resorting to name-calling. Sorry if you can't stand that someone doesn't agree with you, but there are a lot of us who've looked at the facts objectively.

[churchillbuff]

So your idea of a military "strategy" is to pull up the drawbridge and let the poison fester on in the Middle East? """

That's pretty much what we did to defeat the Soviet Union. Agressive anti-Soviet security at home and in Europe, but didn't invade Russia; and Saddam (who didn't even have an air force) was a titmouse, in terms of threat to us, compared to the warhead-bristling USSR.

[adam_az]

"There's a bloody mess in Iraq, the countrys' elected leaders are pro-Iran (a great victory for us, that), and our borders are open to nuke-armed terrorists."

What gives you that idea?

They just passed a liquor license law in Iraq, for hecks sake.

We have 150k troops in Iraq - Iran only has a few terrorists who are killing Iraqis. There is no love lost between the 2. Cite some sources!

As for the borders, see my Tagline. On that note, our borders are huge. We have an open society. Nuclear materials are obtainable in the US, you don't have to sneak it in over the border. And then what do you do about the coastline? We have lots of it.

Additionally, the 9-11 terrorists came legally on visas, they didn't sneak in over the border. So did Richard Reid. What makes you think that closing the border will deter terrorists?

[AlGone2001]

This happens after every war.

Many kids sign up to attain a technical background, get a degree or tread water.

This doesn't mean that they are using our tax money, just that they see an opportunity.

I was raised to be very patriotic but I must admit that my prime reason for enlisting was to receive job skills for the future.

The DOD will probably have to bring back the good reenlistment bonuses to retain the troops. Retention is the biggest problem. Not getting new troops.

[adam_az]

"That's pretty much what we did to defeat the Soviet Union. Agressive anti-Soviet security at home and in Europe, but didn't invade Russia; and Saddam (who didn't even have an air force) was a titmouse, in terms of threat to us, compared to the warhead-bristling USSR."

Bravo Sierra.

We fought hot proxy wars against them in Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Central America, the Carribean, South America, and in the Middle East through our proxy, Israel. We also overflew their territory with spy planes quite a bit.

Finally Reagan crushed them through economic warfare.

He got the Arabs to produce more oil and South Africa to produce more gold, driving down the price of both... which were the USSR's chief sources of hard cash. With that plus a military buildup they couldn't match, we beat them in economic warfare

[Steve Van Doorn]

"the countrys' elected leaders are pro-Iran (a great victory for us, that), and our borders are open to nuke-armed terrorists."

If you mean by Pro-Iran that they communicate with Iran. Then that makes our job a lot easyer.

If you don't understand what we are doing then you will have no idea what I am talking about.

For being a freeper all these years I am very disappointed in you. Really I am.

[Steve Van Doorn]

If the Soviet Union was blowing up our military ships and blowing up our buildings in different cities we might have seen a full scale war with the Russians during the Cold war. Don't you think?

[sheltonmac]

Why don't you name names?

I did. Read the article I linked to in my post.

[adam_az]

Just perused, and your article is full of false premises.

Example:

"Notice how all who oppose the war are considered part of "the left."

The Rush quote doesn't say that at all. He's talking exclusively about the left in that quote.

"The caller to whom Limbaugh was responding never used the words "left," "right," "Democrat," "Republican," "liberal" or "conservative.""

You didn't post what the caller asked, and based on your initial misrepresentation, I'm not just gonna take your word for it.

[WoofDog123]

"No. 1: Border control. The 9-11 guys were here on expired or irregular visas. A "war on terror" that leaves our border open is a joke. Like fighting crime in the hood by going a block away for a rumble, while leaving the windows and doors of your own house wide open."

The fact that the establishment (both parties) apparently wants open borders while putting stuff like the patriot act and its proposed successor into law makes me automatically distrust their intentions in demanding such powers.