Sam, you can probably guess how hard it's been to not bring that up. The times... they are ironic beyond belief. Keep D&D Civil!!
Or by the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/n...4801296c&ex=1275192000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The number of troops needed is certainly open for debate. Whatever happens, it will be without a draft, unless there is a dramatic change in the situation. It's rather unfortunate that we have such a small military compared to 20 years ago, but that's where we're at right now.
There will never be enough troops in Iraq. Iraq doesn't need our army, they need police force. Our army isn't trained for this type of job.
Army bonuses may rise to $40K The Army wants to double the top cash bonus for new recruits to $40,000 in an effort to stem a continued recruiting shortfall in the midst of the Iraq war. As another incentive, the Army is proposing a pilot program to provide up to $50,000 in home mortgage help for recruits who sign up for eight years of active duty, Lt. Col. Thomas Collins said in an interview Thursday. Congress must approve both plans. The $40,000 bonuses would apply only to a limited number of hard-to-fill and still-undetermined jobs, Collins said. The Army raised bonuses for some jobs to $20,000 in 1999. It has steadily made more jobs eligible for bonuses this year as the recruiting shortfall has deepened. Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey first raised the proposals during an appearance Tuesday, Collins said. They have not been sent to Congress. The incentives have surfaced as the Army confirmed an account in The New York Times this week that it fell about 25% short of its May goal of 6,700 recruits, the fourth consecutive month the service has failed to meet its target. The Army is running about 17% short of its annual recruiting goal of 80,000. At that pace, it will fall almost 14,000 recruits short for its fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. Initial congressional reaction was positive, although Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said the proposals would not fix a "chronic" recruiting problem. Graham, a former Air Force officer who serves on the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon needs a comprehensive strategy on recruiting and retention. That would include more troops, better benefits for Army National guardsmen and reservists and a more focused pitch to potential recruits that military service is vital to the winning the global war on terror. Without them, Graham said, "we're in a world of hurt." Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he would favor increased bonuses but believes they will help "minimally." Skelton said he believes the Army will fall short of its year-end recruiting goal. Army spokesman Paul Boyce said a busy summer will help the service meet its recruiting goals. As U.S. deaths in Iraq approach 1,700, the Army has also offered enlistment hitches as short as 15 months. Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, last month described the recruiting environment as "the toughest ever faced by the all-volunteer Army." The Pentagon will release May recruiting figures for all military branches today. Army National Guard and Reserve recruiting is behind as well; each was about 20% short of its goal at the end of April, Harvey said. The Army also said Thursday that it will ease requirements for new officers by accepting older candidates and being more tolerant of past minor crimes. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto.../20050610/ts_usatoday/armybonusesmayriseto40k
If we were asking them to be WWII or Korean vets instead of Viet Nam vets, we might see a different pattern.
I'm starting to believe that Invading Iraq might not have been the most prudent course of action, that going to war is a serious thing that should only be used as a last resort and that President Bush might not always be correct on every issue.
Ya think? BTW has anyone read Novak's latest CNN OpEd? Basically already calls Bush a lame Duck George W.'s problem WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- The decline in George W. Bush's political fortunes fits the cyclic pattern of all presidents except for one constant that troubles Republicans. In nearly four and one-half years, President Bush has not progressed in handling Congress. He seems as much at a loss in dealing with the legislative branch as the day he entered the White House. Bush is the only Republican president since the 1920s to enjoy protracted control of both houses of Congress by his own party. Yet, he seems less able to direct the legislative branch than Republican predecessors who had to handle a Democratic-controlled Congress. With Congress in its lengthy Memorial Day recess, GOP legislators and lobbyists tabulated the scorecard on items large and small. The House passed a stem cell research funding bill marked by Bush for his first veto after GOP leaders made a deal with liberals to bring the measure to the floor in return for their votes on the budget. The Senate's highway bill exceeds the president's overly generous spending limits, peppered with pork projects earmarked by individual senators. Senior Republican senators cut a deal on judicial confirmations that threw overboard at least two of the president's nominees. Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio delayed and broke the momentum for confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, preparing a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, has put a hold on the nomination of longtime Bush supporter Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) because of her abortion activism. CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) ratification is in deep trouble and will need more effort than shown so far by the White House. The president's top legislative priority, Social Security reform, is becalmed. What the president wants cannot pass either chamber of Congress. This dreary overview suggests the second-term blues for any president because of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution that established presidential term limits. But being a lame duck may be a special burden for Bush. "I don't believe the president understands that though he never again will run for any office, we have to run every two years," a leading House Republican told me. That lack of rapport reflects coolness between a conservative Congress and a conservative president. Only Jimmy Carter as president was more of an outsider than Bush. In my first interview with then Gov. Bush, he told me how he disliked Washington. He acts as though the city today -- especially Congress -- is less attractive than ever. Bush never has been able to find a Washington facsimile of the late Texas Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, the old guard Democrat who was Bush's invaluable partner during his governorship. He has found congressional Democrats to be in the mold of Rep. George Miller of California, who was the president's partner briefly in passing the 2001 education bill. Miller and his colleagues, Bush has learned, are liberal, partisan and combative. Nor is the president adept at turning around Republican strays. When the House Republican leadership on occasion has given the president a list of recalcitrant members to rope in on a specific bill, he never has delivered. Whether he has tried very hard is debatable, but George W. Bush is no Lyndon B. Johnson in dealing with members of his own party. The president, in truth, cannot take credit for all of his legislative accomplishments this year. He benefits from a well-oiled Republican organization in the House. But the major bills passed this year -- reforms governing class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy -- were lobbied to passage by "K Street" (the business lobbyists). They, not the president, were responsible for 73 House Democrats crossing over on a vote to make bankruptcies more difficult. As a Nixon speechwriter long ago, William Safire stressed to me the cyclical nature of presidential fortunes with this aphorism: "The gloom and doom will lift when the cherry blossoms appear." There will be better times for President Bush, but there is reason to suspect that he never will feel comfortable on Capitol Hill. His leadership of Congress is a continuing problem. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/09/bush.problems/index.html
