Skip to comments.Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents
Posted on 06/02/2005 11:39:05 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I am sorry but I am not aware of Cuba attacking the US directly as Saddam did numerous times? Or do you think the attack on the USS Cole, the WTC attack of 93 and training terrorist to take over Airlines with Forks and small knives as just marginal mischief?
We are on different wavelengths. Because they know they must win Iraq, because if a free society is achieved in the Middle East then it is just a matter of time that other countries follow. Why does that matter? Because sharia law and freedom can not co-exist, that would mean the destruction of Islam as they know it. If we win this fight I believe this fight against the Middle east that has lasted for thousands of years will finally see an end.
Personally I believe the terrorist will attack the US when they have finally lost in Iraq. That will be the day when I know we won in Iraq.
When did Saddam attack the US directly? I know that Osama did, but when did Saddam do so?
So your idea of a military "strategy" is to pull up the drawbridge and let the poison fester on in the Middle
I'm beginning to think our enemies are right. We don't have the stomach to fight, all they have to do is outlast us.
To achieve the level of securty that Isrial does would make us a closed socity. Ship containors for example could not all be checked for weapons without a police state type of security.
The war on terror is a threat to national security, but the level of threat at this point in time isn't enough to warrant a police state (during WWII it was a locked down police state.)
I agree with you we should be doing more at our borders but don't kid yourself if we do anything to stop illegal we will not be for national security against terrorist (not at this point in time.)
Let me put it in a different way. Think of a traffic signal it was put there because someone most likely died in a traffic accident. Same with the boards once a nuclear weapon does go off only then will we close the boards. The WTC was bad but not bad enough to warrant a police state.
I stated a few in the post you quoted from.
Read post 81 that is our strategy. Our strategy is 'freedom.' Trust me it is a very powerful weapon.
why aren't more children of the country's political leadership, in uniform in Iraq?
There actually are quite a few--they tend not to advertize it 'cuz it makes the children bigger targets. Besides, like yourself, you do not have to have military experience to oppose or favor a military action in a democracy.
Also, the fact there were no WMDs has to have made a lot of people question this never-ending war.
There were some types of WMDs found and a recent story out of the UN that some 'dual-use' systems are missing. It is not never-ending, you naysayers military-virgins said that about Afghanistan.
Full disclosure: I've been against the Iraq invasion from the beginning (I was for concentrating more manpower and firepower against al Quada in Afghanistan; when Bush said Osama "dead or alive," I cheered - - but everybody's forgotten about the guy who did 9-11.
No one has forgotten about OBL at all. What better way to fight an enemy than to fight him on several fronts. Notice we invaded Africa to get to Sicily to get to Italy to get to France to get to Germany. Was Operation Torch a sideshow to the war in Europe?
I suspect a lot of these hostile parents have come around to my way of thinking; they don't want to lose their kids for such a dubious military adventure.
Nonsense. They know the stakes here....
AND DON'T TELL ME I'M NOT A CONSERVATIVE
You are not a conservative, just a paleocon with a dislike for jews I'll wager....
'Cuz there are still plenty of guys like me who serve to prevent that kind of thing....
"I'd feel better about it if some kids of our national political leaders, of either party, were over there in uniform."
"Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not 'count' for Moore's purposes."
I've heard numbers as highs as 5 or 6, actually, but can't verify them quickly. Even so, that's three children out of 535 folks. That's about .6%, or about the same representation as the population at large.
Remember, too, that US Representatives and Senators tend to skew a bit older than heads of households as a group, and are much more likely to have grandchildren than children who are at the age of typical enlisted personnel.
What do you mean, "prevent THAT KIND OF THING"? "That kind of thing" -- women in the military in Iraq -- is a FACT. It hasn't been PREVENTED, it's happening; one niece of mine - through wife - is going soon (air force). Another - niece through sister's family - may be going.
So the Bush daughters should serve 'cuz you heard about a couple of very distant female relations volunteering to go?
The Bush gals have no more duty to volunteer than anyone else. Enough guys like me serve to prevent them and those like them from being compelled to join.
Why do you favor compulsory military service?
thank them for us would you?
Recruiting for the ARMY is in a slump. The Navy and the Air Force are continuing to exceed their goals. The Air Force just in the last year forced out 20,000 airmen because they were overmanned. Retention in the AF is at an all-time high.
That's because the Chair Force is easy. Hardly any chance of fighting up-close and personal (aside fromt their excellent special ops folks) Us Army grunts (yes, and Marines) have to do all the real fighting.
It's interesting that those who spoke out against Clinton's "war" in the Balkans weren't branded as military-hating, anti-American Milosevic sympathizers. Now that a Republican is in office, however, things are different. The people who opposed our attack on the Serbs are the same ones who say that you can't support the troops without supporting the mission. I call that hypocrisy.
I didn't agree with the war against the serbs, I am not saying he doesn't support our troops. I believe he just doesn't understand the threat.
It would be very diffcult to understand this war when one doesn't understand the threat.
"When did Saddam attack the US directly? I know that Osama did, but when did Saddam do so?"
They tried to assasinate Bush 41 in Kuwait.
They fired on the "no fly zone" patrols that were protecting the Kurds that he hadn't already exterminated.
He trained terrorists at Salman Pak on hijacking, explosives, and assasination. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
He tried to establish a relationship with al Qaeda, and Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad, among other terrorists. You know, the guy that murdered Americans including Leon Klinghoffer and tried to kill Oliver North.
He financed and trained various Palestinian terrorists who later murdered Americans in Israel, and paid bounties to their families.
You sure have a short memory.
"To achieve the level of securty that Isrial does would make us a closed socity. Ship containors for example could not all be checked for weapons without a police state type of security."
Israel also has 1/30th the population of the US, and is smaller than New Jersey. It's also a police state with far less civil liberty than the US.
"The people who opposed our attack on the Serbs are the same ones who say that you can't support the troops without supporting the mission."
Why don't you name names?
Your argument against "those people" falls flat.
Methinks the argument is that this is a war worth supporting, while Kosovo was not.
Iraq was a threat to us. Serbia wasn't.