Army Recruiting Up, Meets July Targets

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

(08-10) 17:24 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The active-duty Army hit its recruiting target in July for a second straight month, but the summertime rebound may not be enough to make up for a long-term shortfall, according to figures the Pentagon provided Wednesday.

The Army National Guard, meanwhile, missed its goal again, recruiting only 4,712, or 80 percent, of its July target of new members, spokesman Bryan Whitman said. The Guard has hit its target only once in the past 19 months and remains far from its yearly goals.

The U.S. Army Reserve also fell short of its target, recruiting 2,131 new reservists, 82 percent of its goal, Whitman said. The Reserve also is behind is annual goal.

The Pentagon has blamed the recruiting shortfalls in part on an economy that's providing other opportunities to high school and college graduates. Opinion polls also show young people and parents are turning away from Army service because of the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army and Marines have suffered the bulk of the casualties there.

Whitman called July a "pretty good month" for active-duty recruiting but said the active-duty Army remains below its year-to-date recruiting goal. So far, 55,207 new recruits have enlisted, 89 percent of its year-to-date target of 62,385.

For July, the Army recruited 8,085 new soldiers, 109 percent of its goal of 7,450.

The Army measures its annual goal from October 2004 to September 2005, which coincides with the federal budget year. The Army is trying to enlist 80,000 by the end of September. Officials are not confident they will make up the shortfall by then, although they have made progress during the summer, considered the high season for recruiting as recent high school graduates look for work.

The Army also has increased the number of recruiters, and augmented incentives for those signing up.

"They're largely meeting their quotas in the midst of an increasingly unpopular war," said Loren Thompson, a military expert at the Lexington Institute think tank. Still, he said, "They're barely pulling in a handful of people in a country of 300 million. What these numbers show is the average recruiter is bringing in one recruit a month. That's not a great performance."

Officials say the shortfalls in recruiting won't constrain Army operations in the near future, but it does pose long-term problems, particularly if the U.S. military must maintain the current force of 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for several more years.

"The big question going forward is how intensive the military commitment to Iraq remains," Thompson said. "If it stays at current levels, then the Army is facing a recruiting challenge every month for years to come."

The active-duty Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are at or slightly ahead of their year-to-date goals, Whitman said. The Marine and Air Force reserves have also met or exceeded their goals, but the Air National Guard is behind, he said.

Whitman said the military is generally meeting its goals for retaining current soldiers. Officials credit that to a desire on the part of the troops to finish the mission of making Iraq a stable democracy.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...84504D96.DTL___

With the war in Iraq and the economy having an impact on Army recruitment, there may be a finite level that can be reasonably achieved and the current goal of 80,000 maybe beyond that limit. IN FY 1999, the goal of the Army was 73,000 recruits and it fell short by over 6,000. One then has to wonder if the efforts of some Democrats to further increase the size of the Army, as discussed in the following link, is a pipe dream.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=34207

If there is a limit to the number of recruits the Army can be expected to sign up in any given time, then there is going to be a limit as to the size of the Army itself.

Thats just one armed force others are down. Overall the scene is down. Its been all over C-SPAN.

Methinks you might wanna check again , eh?I believe only the Army and its reserve components are down, while the Marines, Navy and Air Force have met or exceeded their recruitin' goals to date.

You might wanna actually read the story Sandra cited in the initial note in this thread. Methinks that might better prepare you to comment on it, eh?

I hope this puts to rest the fear mongering that a draft is upon us.

DoD won't resort to draft or sacrifice quality to boost numbers
Submitted by: American Forces Press Service
Story Identification #: 200561315327
Story by - Donna Miles



WASHINGTON (June 10, 2005) -- Despite recruiting shortfalls for the active Army and all reserve components except the Air Force Reserve in May, defense officials strive to fill the ranks with the highest-quality recruits possible and have no intention of supporting a draft.

The Defense Department released May recruiting and retention statistics for all four services today, providing a departmentwide manpower picture.

The Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force all met or exceeded their May recruiting goals, but the Army fell short by 25 percent. During May, the Army had hoped to recruit 6,700 new members but missed by mark by 1,661 recruits, DoD officials said today.

The Navy enlisted 1,947 members in May; the Marine Corps, 1,904; and the Air Force, 1,049.

On the reserve component front, the Air Force Reserve surpassed its recruiting goal for the seventh consecutive month, enlisting 682 recruits. And while the Army Reserve, Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve brought aboard more recruits than in any month since October, all fell short of their goals for May, officials said.

The Army Reserve met 82 percent of its May recruitment goal, enlisting 2,269 soldiers. The Naval Reserve brought aboard 1,074 sailors, reaching 94 percent of its May goal; and the Marine Corps Reserve met 88 percent of its recruiting goal, recruiting 955 Marines.

While recruiting numbers for May were lower than hoped - something defense officials acknowledged was expected during the slow spring recruiting season - every service met or exceeded its retention goals for the month.

That's positive news, because military readiness depends on both recruiting and retention, and success in one can help offset shortages in the other, Bill Carr, acting Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, said during a joint interview with American Forces Press Service and Pentagon Channel.

"Retention has overachieved, and that has helped the underachievement in some parts of the recruiting effort," Carr said.

While acknowledging that all the components "had another tough month" recruiting in May, Carr said he's optimistic that rates will pick up during the summer, when new high school graduates begin enlisting.

Despite the pressures recruiters are up against - a strong economy, higher recruitment goals and lack of support by many parents and other people who influence a person's recruitment decision - Carr said the military won't drop its standards to fill its ranks.

The Defense Department requires that 90 percent of recruits have high school diplomas and that at least 60 percent of them get higher-than-average scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. All active components met these standards in May.

Carr said neither requirement can be easily compromised. High school diplomas represent "a stick-to-it-iveness and ability to follow through," he said, a strong indicator of whether a recruit will successfully complete an initial enlistment.

In addition, there's "a direct, compelling correlation" between recruits' aptitude test scores and their productivity and job performance, Carr said. "High aptitude translates into performance," he said.

Similarly, Carr said the Defense Department has no interest in resorting to a draft. "There is zero chance that the department is going to a draft," he said.

Today's weapon systems demand an environment in which experienced noncommissioned officers work hand in hand with junior members so they can develop their skills before advancing in the ranks, Carr said. And that's a dynamic the conscription system simply doesn't promote, he said.

"We need more people beyond their first term of service, and we don't want 'shake and bake' sergeants holding control over lethal systems," he said.

"Conscription is fatal to our performance," Carr said. "It's not a social thing. It's a performance thing."

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf...84?OpenDocument

I find it a little amusing that the Army didn't make its goal, just on a personal level. (I am sorry for people who are on long duty in Iraq and Afganistan as a result).

I had a roommate who couldn't get in due to the body mass index rule (measured neck against torso). He had a pencil neck and a barrel chest/stomach. When he lost weight on his stomach, his neck kept getting smaller too. This was despite living on a very very restricted diet for and working out. We could see he was getting thinner, though not drastically, and he couldn't get in.

But the next time he went, the index had gone up a few points and he got in no problem. He is currently in Georgia for boot camp now.

If you have to comprimise your physical requirements to recruit and then still don't make the quota, I'd say thats a real concern.

The Navy has such a measurement scheme for awhile when I was in. They dropped it because of problems such as guys who had thick necks passed even if they had a big gut while those with pencil necks ended up on physical fitness programs even if they were not actually overweight.

Back when I joined the Marines the joke was the Army's physical requirement test; warm and breathing, at least recently.

My brother has ALL kinds of jokes about the Army too Marines think they are all that and a bag of chips. Course, as my brother points out, he is!

To be honest I did a literature review and this is what I found. Recruitment is down reinlistment is up. This is overall not just one month. The numbers fluctuate and just a while back the numbers were down. This is nothing to sing about. Reinlistment is not the same as recruitment this means the armed forces are not growing. To be honest they are closing bases.

Me checked it out they are closing bases.

The military is also reviewing 1/3 of veterans of post tramatic syndrome 72,000
of them to yank benifits. They say the system is flawed in the way they do it and they can save money.

In febuary of 2005 this is what Rummy said." The U.S. military is clearly stressed."

Now they are closing bases.

RUMMYQUATE

Actually retention beats the hell out of recruitment. When you get a man or woman already trained in the way the military does things it saves the cost of teaching a new man or woman the system. If I got a radioman fresh out of comm school it will take me the better part of a year to get him to the point where I'd be comfortable letting him work on his own. If I get a radioman who had just re-upped he's in the game the next day.

As far as growth goes if retention exceeds expectations by 20% and recruiting is short by 10% the military just grew by 10%.

Base closing has nothing to do with manpower, it has to do with where the dollars are spent.

Depends on the actual numbers. But I agree with your comments about prefering to have an experienced guy rather then a newbie right out of boot camp and school.

Let's Play War: How Militarism
Is Marketed To Children

By Lucinda Marshall

13 August, 2005


My friend Loretta is hopping mad about the mail that her nine year old grandson is receiving. While military recruiters cannot 'recruit' children under seventeen years of age, there is nothing stopping them from waging a marketing campaign to win the hearts and minds of much younger children such as Loretta's grandson. She tells me that he just received a mailing from the Marines labeled "Required Summer Reading" that offers him limited edition posters. As any parent well knows, anything labeled as 'limited edition' is irresistible to kids of that age.

Parents are becoming more aware of the presence of military recruiters in high schools because of the No Child Left Behind Act which requires schools to turn over contact information on students to the military unless the students request that their records not be shared. While this is an easy way for the military to obtain information on prospective recruits, it is only one of many ways in which the military can make a sales pitch to children.

Each branch of the military runs its own JROTC (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps) programs. The Air Force alone runs 746 JROTC programs throughout the U.S. with plans start more this year. The programs enroll more than 100,000 students. According to the American Friends Service Committee, each program costs school districts an average of $76,000, effectively putting cash-strapped schools in the position of subsidizing the military. It is important to note that JROTC programs routinely bring weapons into schools (and teach children how to use them) and there are numerous reports of JROTC-related violence, including murder.

The programs claim that they are not geared towards recruiting, that their purpose is to teach leadership and discipline. But as former defense secretary William Cohen told Congress in 2000, JROTC is "one of the best recruiting devices we have." (1)

When now Vice President Cheney served as Secretary of Defense, he summarized the purpose of the military quite accurately, "The reason to have a military is to be prepared to fight and win wars. That is our basic fundamental mission. The military is not a social welfare agency, it's not a jobs program." Yet recruiters and JROTC programs as well as television ads routinely hawk the educational and job benefits of joining the military.

What they do not tell prospective recruits is that 57% of military personnel receive no educational benefits and only 5% receive the maximum benefit. The military frequently boasts about the great job training it provides, but according to the Army Times, only 12% of male veterans and 6% of female veterans report using job skills learned in the military. According to the Veterans Administration, veterans earn less, make up 1/3 of homeless men and 20% of the nation's prison population. (2)

The military's presence in schools is not limited to high schools. The Middle School Cadet program at Lavizzo Elementary School in Chicago is one example. Youngsters wear uniforms and are taught how to carry guns, a skill distinctly at odds with the policies that virtually every school has banning weapons on school property. (3)

The Navy also offers a program geared at middle-schoolers, the Navy League Cadet Corp, designed for children ages 11-14, in addition to their Naval Sea Cadet Corp which is geared towards high schoolers. The Navy offers 300 such programs reaching 11,000 children.

Another tool the military uses is to send military recruiting trucks to visit U.S. high schools. The trucks use high tech media and eye-catching graphics to whet students interest. The Army describes its Special Operations Van this way,

"The SOF incorporates several exhibits. One can experience the excitement of flying a helicopter, test your skills and landing accuracy in the Airborne parachute simulator, or improve your driving or marksmanship (sic) in the Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV) system."

While the military claims that vehicles like this are for educational purposes, their own regulations indicate otherwise, stating that the vehicles are to be sent to schools that recruiters are trying to target, and that recruiters must stay with the trucks while they are open to the public. The purpose of the trucks is to "Ensure that exhibits create a favorable image of the Army and current Army enlistment opportunities." (Section 1-5.a.) (4) (5)


The Department of Defense has been quick to understand that video games are an excellent marketing tool. On the America's Army website, you can play all manner of war games, although as Sheldon Rampton points out in his article "War is Fun as Hell", the games are a, "sanitized, Tom Clancy version of war."

Not only that, but the website sexes up their offerings, providing what Rampton aptly describes as a "babes-and-bullets fantasy", by employing a group of young attractive female gamers known as the Frag Girls to market the games. (6)

As one woman gamer describes it,

"Lord knows you wouldn't want someone that was a real gamer and a wife and mother. What would the drooling masses have to drool over? Certainly it wouldn't be a young attractive SINGLE female that they might think they had a chance with right?" (7)

And just to make sure there is no doubt as to what a Frag Girl is, they have their very own website which offers these illuminating definitions:

"frag /frag/ n. & v. · n. 1 number of kills. 2 a fragmentation grenade. · v. 1 to eliminate other players in multiplayer shooters (fragging).

rag·doll physics {buzzword} /ragdol fiziks/ n. 1 a program allowing videogame characters to react with realistic body and skeletal physics.

frag·doll /fragdol/ n. 1 a female gamer with the skills to dominate in multiplayer shooters. 2 a lady with the sass to use the laws of physics to her incontestable advantage."


As concerned as many parents, schools and communities are about the impact of No Child Left Behind, the Pentagon's recent announcement that it intends to assemble a much more comprehensive database is far more worrisome. According to the Pentagon, the database will contain some 30 million records of data about youth ages 16-25. The data kept will include name, gender, address, birthday, email address, ethnicity, phone number, education records including graduation dates, grade point averages education level and military test scores. Parents, educators and privacy rights activists have raised a number of objections to the planned database, pointing out that it violates the Privacy Act and the DoD's own regulations about the collection of information on citizens.

Misleading advertising is always reprehensible. But when we allow our military to target children, leading them to believe that war is a game and fighting is fun, one has to wonder if the next logical step is camouflage diapers? (8)

-------------------------

Notes:

(1) "Air Force Plans To Invade: 48 High Schools Set to Start AF JROTC". Based on research by Peacework intern Jamie Munro and materials on JROTC from the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors and the American Friends Service Committee Youth and Militarism Program. Compiled by Sam Diener.


(2) "Why Question the Military's JROTC Program?", Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.

(3) "The Children’s Crusade" by Jennifer Wedekind, In These Times, June 3, 2005.

(4) "US Army Makes Surprise Claim: We're Endangering US High Schools",
Peacework Co-Editor Sam Diener previously served on the staff of the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors. Bill Sweet, an AFSC and GI Rights Hotline volunteer, contributed research to this article.

(5) "Army's New Special Operations Van Invading US Schools", American Friends Service Committee.

(6) "War is Fun as Hell" by Sheldon Rampton, Alternet, August 2, 2005.


(7) "The Fragtastic FragDolls" by Danielle "Sachant" Vanderlip.

(8) There are several excellent organizations that offer more information about military recruiting and marketing to youngsters. They include:

American Friends Service Committee.

Center on Conscience and War (NISBCO).

Leave My Child Alone (has downloadable forms to opt out of having a child's contact information given to the military and to opt out of the new Pentagon database).

Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the Founder of the Feminist Peace Network, http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org - Her work has been published in numerous publications in the U.S. and abroad including, Awakened Woman, Alternet, Dissident Voice, Off Our Backs, The Progressive, Rain and Thunder, Z Magazine , Common Dreams and Information Clearinghouse. The author can be reached at moderator@feministpeacenetwork.org

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-marshall130805.htm

Report finds lifting gay ban could ease military recruiting crisis
By Dawn Wolfe Gutterman
Originally printed 8/11/2005 (Issue 1332 - Between The Lines News)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - With enlistment lagging way behind the estimated need, the U.S. military is easing standards, considering raising the enlistment age and even resorting to tactics that have brought recruiters under fire for abuse.

But one tactic alone may result in 41,000 new recruits, and it's one the military isn't allowed to consider - letting openly gay men serve.

That's the conclusion of Gary J. Gates, a Senior Research Fellow at the Williams Project, UCLA School of Law, in a report issued July 25 by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Using a combination of U.S. Census data from 2000 and commonly accepted figures for the percentage of gay men in the overall population, Gates estimates that by eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the U.S. military could stand to gain approximately 41,000 more recruits in the active and reserve forces combined.

"If 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' were lifted, it could be there would be no barriers to gay men serving and they would be just as likely as other men to serve," Gates said. "What that means in a statistical sense is that the proportion of gay men serving in the military should be similar to their proportion in the adult population."

Gates estimates "that about 1.4 percent of men in the military are gay," because given the restrictions of the current law, "gay men are less likely to serve than other men." Gates said that approximately 16,000 gay men are currently in uniform.

Gates said that it is commonly estimated that between two and seven percent of the adult male population in the U.S. is gay, so "for this report I used the assumption that four percent are gay."

If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were to be repealed, Gates said, "What that means is, instead of 16,000 gay men, it would mean there would be ... an additional 34,000. If you include the National Guard and Reserves, you end up with the 41,000 total."

Gates said it isn't possible to measure the increase in the number of lesbians who would serve if the restrictive law were repealed.

"The thing with lesbians is that even with 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' they're four times more likely to serve than straight women," he said. "I have no way of estimating how many more [lesbians would serve] because their service rates are already so much higher than other women."

There is a possible solution on the horizon. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill to repeal DADT and allow gays to serve openly, is currently pending in Congress. The bill currently has 93 bi-partisan supporters and according to SLDN has been endorsed by eight retired military officers.

The bill would not affect the ability of transgender citizens to serve. While DADT does not address transgendered individuals, according to the military's medical regulations, trans men and women are unfit to serve. SLDN is also involved in the struggle to end the military's medical discrimination against transgendered individuals.

In the meantime, reports of the military's desperation to meet recruiting goals are mounting. According to a July 24 New York Times report cited by SLDN, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's top personnel officer, has predicted in testimony before Congress that the Army would miss its recruiting goal this year - the first time the military has missed its enlistment quota since 1999.

And, according to a June 4 report in the British paper The Guardian which cited an internal military memo sent to senior commanders, "The U.S. military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy."

The Army recruited only 73 percent of its target in February, 68 percent in March and 57 percent in April, according to The Guardian. In addition, according to the report, recruiters have come under fire for allegedly giving advice for cheating on the military's entrance drug test and one recruiter even reportedly threatened a twenty-year-old prospect with arrest unless he came into the office for an interview.

According to a June 3 United Press International report, "At least 90 investigations are pending about recruiters who have allegedly used unethical and sometimes threatening measures to fulfill quotas of at least two new recruits each month."


Speak OUT!

Contact your U.S. Representative and Michigan's U.S. Senators and tell them that a military facing a recruitment crisis can't afford to discriminate against LGBT citizens. Ask them to co-sponsor and support The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal DADT and allow openly gay and lesbian citizens to serve. Then ask them to consider legislation to outlaw medical discrimination against transgender individuals who want to serve our country.

Senator Carl Levin - 269 Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-2202. Call 202-224-6221. Email Senator Levin by visiting the Contact Center on his website at http://www.senate.gov/~levin.

Senator Debbie Stabenow - 133 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510; Call 202-224-4822 or TTY: 202-224-2066 or e-mail senator@stabenow.senate.gov.

To find your U.S. Representative, visit Project Vote Smart at www.vote-smart.org or call the U.S. Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=15333

Local Marine Recruiter Accused of Child Porn Posession
Jeff Thelen


Police say a search of 30-year-old Sgt. Anthony Farisa's home computer turned up sexually explicit pictures depicting child pornography.

He's been removed from his Marine recruiting position on suspicion of possessing child pornography.

A state investigator says Farisa was located because his computer was traced to a known child porn Web site trade.

Farisa's preliminary hearing on eight felony counts of possession of child pornography is set for Friday (8/19/5) in Marathon County court.

A commanding officer says Farisa has been let go from the Wausau Marine Corps recruiting station

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/1663341.html

And what about mandatory stays is this fugured in. These are things I would like to get to the core of. I have not a clue. And how many do not make it through boot camp are those numbers deducted. And these numbers change everyday. In febuary they say this today they say a new thing.

What is the cost to America. How much do we pay for this war. How much a day. Couldn't we build some new mass transit to stop dependence on foreighn oil.People would spend less on gas and it may help the enviroment a tiny bit more subways in KC or Oklahoma or Texas etc etc. The money we spend on the war could be used to fight a war on poverty or disease like hepatitis.

So my question to you is this since this is your area. How many did we loose in bootcamp, suicide, acicidental death and casuality versus recruitment? Do you have a current link.

I figured base closings are a money thing. Where are the troops to go and what about the communities this effects.It's not worth going on and on about. The American people as whole do not like this war. I am with the majority.

revenge, what is the cost to America - how much we pay for the "SHRUB" fiasco?

Click on the banner to find out revenge!

As you can see this "SHRUB" fiasco based on lies and fraud costs beaucoup piaster revenge.

You ever hear of Entry Level Performance and Conduct
discharge, revenge?

Check this one out revenge - http://girights.objector.org/gettingout/en...acts.html#90265

Your questions are in need of a True and precise answer revenge -for sure.

Maybe a few of the PROFESSIONALS here can answer your questions revenge, truthfully without "SHRUB" propaganda attached!

This might help you out revenge for a little you are looking for.

DOD Iraqi GI War Dead Figures In Dispute

Although Pentagon denies under reporting deaths, independent researcher says more than 7,000 GI's may have died in Iraqi combat.

June 26, 2005
By Greg Szymanski

Some war critics say trusting the military to report an accurate GI death toll in Iraqi is like asking a mafia boss how many people he "whacked’ this year. One number, however, not in dispute is that President Bush hasn’t attended a single military funeral, something even the most cold hearted street bosses do out of respect for the families.

Of course no one really knows how many gangster "hits" end up in New York’s East River, but there is growing speculation that Pentagon brass are taking a page out The Godfather Trilogy, using it as a quick refresher course on how to hide the bodies.

The Pentagon denies any foul play or under reporting, a military spokesman last week placing the GI death toll in Iraq at 1,725 and 193 in Afghanistan, a figure changing daily due to increased violence.

In fact, rarely a day goes by when at least one soldier isn’t killed. But the question remains exactly how many? >>>--->>> Hit the Banner above and read more revenge.

If I dig up anything else on your #1 questions--I will surely post on them!

Hang Tough~

revenge, this might answer a few questions about the "SHRUB" fiasco.

The statistics of propaganda

By Carl Hitchens
Online Journal Contributing Writer

August 9, 2005—Recently, I received a forwarded email quoting statistics credited to the Department of Defense (DoD) on the state of conditions in Iraq—traversing a broad spread of topics from the Iraqi government, police and military units and training, to the building of schools and even cell phone usage. The anonymous email criticized the media for not reporting this positive information, while selectively covering the negative, with the intention of undermining U.S. world perception and support and discouraging American citizens. The anonymous reporter was pained by the lack of love for our country.

I am surmising that the DoD citing relates to the recent House Conference Report 109ﾖ72 accompanying H.R. 121268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Public Law 109–13, posted at the DoD's website. It is a 23-page report chock full of statistics and graphs on the American effort "toward a democratic Iraq." Reading it you get a real sense of what a prodigious undertaking it is to rebuild a nation destroyed by war.

For instance, "Progress toward the objectives of the strategy for Iraq includes U.S. Government objectives:

transitioning to security self-reliance;
supporting freedom and democracy;
providing essential services;
establishing the foundation for a strong economy;
promoting the rule of law;
maintaining international engagement and support; and
promoting strategic communications."
Political stability is summarized in this way: "The ultimate goal of the transitional political process is for Iraq to be governed by an effective and representative democratic system that is: supported by the Iraqi people; capable of exercising responsibility for managing Iraq's affairs, including security; accepted as legitimate by the international community; and committed to promoting civil society, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."

Security, that fleeting, ever changing on-the-ground dynamic there, is described as " the [goal] is for the Iraqis to take ownership of their own security. The Coalition is focused on these objectives:

increasing the capacity of Iraqi security structures and forces;
reducing the influence and effectiveness of insurgents; and
strengthening Iraqi rule of law capabilities—law enforcement, justice, and the corrections system."
As in Vietnam, the American military is besting their adversary across the breadth and length of the land they occupy. But if winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population, if breaking the back of the resistance, if dampening terrorism and making the world safer is the flash point of success, America is not there yet, if ever. And if the point of that email writer's message was to debunk the subject title: "Yep, we're losing that war," our government's own criteria indicates, at best, a work in progress.

We all know how statistics have a way of mutating according to need. (Remember the body count controversy of the Vietnam War?) But either way, true or false, the figures in House Conference Report 109–72 are not the real issue. And that is the sad reality of so many Americans latching onto various arguments that have nothing to do with the central question: Was this war predicated for reasons that make it morally right? It was not.

It was ostensibly launched because of a stated direct link between 9/11 and Iraq and the existence of WMD and delivery capability. We now know that there was no intelligence to support those allegations, aside from what was made up. So basically, all the statistics alleged in the email are irrelevant to the moral requirement of just cause.

But for those that want to play the statistics game, let us consider some facts: Even by the most deflated propagandist death count—which contradicts previous credible counts—the England-based Iraqi Body Count (IBC) puts Iraqi civilian casualties at between 22,838 and 25,869. (By consensual reality-mitigation policy, US-British war statistics omit Iraqi body counts [called inhumane].)

Now the IBC count is bad enough, but it's far worse when you consider two independent studies investigating the death toll of Iraqi civilians: The British medical journal, The Lancet, estimating the death toll at 100,000, mostly women and children, and Iraqiyun Humanitarian Organization in Baghdad reporting 128,000 killed (of those deaths, 55 per cent have been women and children aged 12 and under, according to Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, head of Iraqiyun). This data was compiled from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals throughout Iraq. (Global Research)

So much for schooling the kids.

And what is all of this fixing up after tearing down costing the US? How about $204.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005) (Cost of War) That's right, American taxpayers, on top of current US war deaths of 1,827 (Casualties), this tragic debacle is bankrupting us and mortgaging future generations to satisfy the geopolitical ambitions of neocon national supremacists and religious extremists. (Yurica Report)

Cell phones? How about water and basic electricity:

Over 18 months, American officials spent almost $2 billion to revive the capital ravaged by war and neglect, according to Army Gen. William G. Webster, who heads the 30,000 U.S. and foreign troops and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers known collectively as Task Force Baghdad. But the money goes for long-term projects that yield few visible results and for security to protect the construction sites from sabotage.
As a result, Iraqis have seen scant evidence of improvement in their homes, streets or neighborhoods. They blame American and Iraqi government corruption. (Common Dreams)
The media accused of not accentuating the positive is the same media that couldn't get enough of hanging on the administration's every lie and distortion. And, now, that the chicken hawks' chicanery in dragging us into a no-win occupation has come home to roost, with bloodshed escalating beyond a tolerable level, the former "cheerleaders" are now laughably being transmogrified by the right into the liberal press—for asking pertinent questions and scratching around the edges of investigative reporting.

As always, it will be the American troops who will catch the brunt end of an unjustified war. They will win every battle, but suffer ignominy, because of the hucksters selling democracy or some other ideal to cover a power grab. Oil production has peaked everywhere, ladies and gents. It's not about stealing oil, as some have alleged, it's about controlling it and its geopolitical reach over world geography and economics.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/08...05hitchens.html