Was pretty tempted, but methinks I'll pass. Instead I'll just ask if a former IRS agent with petrochemical holdings farts in the woods does anybody hear it, eh?

I hate coming back from a brisk (but very good) election period to read stuff that I have to go look for, please post a link.

A Dept. of Defense (is it real I don't know, I didn't check the DoD files or even know if I can)

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/...P607170349.html

Looks to me, even going by this chart that there is LESS desertion in the past 4 years than the years previous. Of course, I can't see the numbers prior to 2000 - which would be a better comparison.

The story about military desertion has been hitting the blogs and anti-war sites regularly for the past three years. The anti-war people in desparation think the American public will fall for their shell game if they use enough smoke and mirrors.

I had people desert or go UA on me. 99% of the time it is because of some personal crisis in their life, i.e. Mom had a stroke or Suzie sends a dear John letter.

Most the time they got leave available and if they'd asked they'd got permission to go no problem. Even if they didn't have leave available, if they'd asked it would have been no problem.

They get bad news and they take off without thinking. They know if they was there they could make it right. Once they get there they realize they went UA and then they are afraid to deal with it.

I wonder why the anti-war movement relies so heavy on fraud and humbug. Must be the nature of their message, eh?


Military desertion rate drops drastically since 9/11
8,000 desert during Iraq war

8,000 during the Iraq war sounds real bad, but let's try something different for a change and put it into perspective:

Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.
Although a lot of people probably don't know it, desertion isn't an uncommon problem in the military and there are a lot of reasons people desert besides war.
"The last thing they want is for people to think ... that this is like Vietnam," says Tod Ensign, head of Citizen Soldier, an anti-war group that offers legal aid to deserters.
Besides a bit of curiosity to know what's behind that "...", I would like to point out that a big reason the military doesn't want people to think this is like Vietnam is because it isn't like Vietnam. Isn't this quote a bit like finding someone who says "The last thing they want is for people to think that Fallujah was like the battle of Antietam."?

At least the article has the decency to point out that the Army's desertion rate was 3.4% during Vietnam and that the entire military's desertion rate in 2005 was 0.24%.

And, lest anyone try to claim that the headline isn't misleading, there's this:

There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq.

Marine,

That's the part that angers me. We can't get the truth out of either party, right or left, to save our souls. I'm anti-war, pro-military, pro-truth. When either side spins it so badly to try and shed a better light on their arguement, they hurt everyone.

I've done more poking in the desertion data, talked to my dad this morning about it - and it appears, just as you stated the numbers are way down the past 4 years.

Of course, now you'll have others screaming - But they love to kill or some other such silly nonsense.

while putting americans out of work.

hum, someone who should assume responsibility and command as ... Saddam Hussein ?

Do flys hang around in the woods smelling farts? Sounds like you have been reading the Bush Fart joke book. You know, the only book available in the Bush beach house is a fart joke book. They are big on farts. Sounds like the joke is on you sence you seem to like the same material and buy the Bush administration propaganda that victory is just around the corner if we just stay the course. And by the way we should attack Iran also. Thats part of the program. Fortunately 60% of Americans are starting to see the truth that we are led by morons who are not capable of winning any war. I belong to that majority.

Well terra, you will probaly never find a group of people more against war as the professional warrior. We witness first hand what a mess it is.

War is a failure, war is a waste, war happens when the diplomats can't work things out. Don't jump on the bandwagon and make the assumption it's always the American diplomats who fail, sometime's it's the other guy's fault.

I served under six different presidents 4 republicans and 2 democrats. Somehow I ended up voting for the one who won everytime except for Carter in 1980 and Al Gore in 2000. So my guy lost a couple of times, I put it behind me and know this country is a whole lot bigger than who happens to be president right now. Everyone in the military takes that attitude, be glad because if we didn't we'd be having a coup or attempted coup every four years.

I have trouble figuring out this rabid hate that is displayed for who ever ends up being president. I saw it against Clinton and I see it against Bush. Sometimes I think some of these people would prefer to the the USA fail just to make whoever is president at the moment look bad.

Probably the worst thing you will ever hear me say bad about Bush is he ought to keep his mouth shut because he sure ain't a public speaker.

Good points Marine. I can respect that. But to me Bush43 is "special".

Bush 41 was qualified to be president of the US. Bush 43 did not know the difference between a Shia and a Sunni 2 years after he invaded Iraq. Its not just that he is not a public speaker. He is simply not qualified to be president and it seems never will be. He is the type of guy that will fight to last drop of YOUR blood. At least his father did not duck real military service.

Understood. It's the reason I'm feeling pretty protective of the US right now, because imploding the US, it's troops and our gvment is what many everywhere (not meaning anyone here in particular) would seem to prefer to prove they are right. Knowing it isn't enough.

I'mma keep working on 06, then on to 08.. and, hopefully we can find some people to put in place that will have enough sense to fill in the blank bubble of the cartoon. <g>

here here! To filling the blank bubble!

I like that avatar 1st Sgt. Now maybe we can pertition the powers at this board to get your user name up to date, Top White, what do you think?

Like this one, eh? Methinks Roger and David will especially appreciate this new bit of news!

Now methinks we just gotta find someone with friends in low places to help 1stSgt White get his moniker changed.

Here's another little item methinks Roger and David will especially appreciate:

Sep 9, 1:09 PM EDT

"Army Sees New Turnaround in Recruiting"

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army says its success in enlisting new soldiers this year, after a dismal 2005, is innovative salesmanship by a bigger team of recruiters and financial incentives like bonuses of up to $40,000.

The Pentagon announced Friday that the Army met its recruiting goal for August, which a senior Army official said makes it virtually certain that the service will achieve its aim of signing up 80,000 new soldiers for the full recruiting year, which ends Sept. 30. Last year the Army fell short for the first time since 1999.

"We're reaching out a lot better," said the official, Maj. Gen. Sean Byrne, director of military personnel management. The Army is making better use of the Internet, for example, to reach more young people, he said.

The Army also has put about one-third more recruiters on the street, and Congress approved new financial incentives for enlistees, including signing bonuses for some slots of as much as $40,000. The Army also began allowing people as old as 42 to enter the service; the maximum age previously was 35.

Through August, the active-duty Army had signed up 72,997 new soldiers, nearly 3,000 above its year-to-date target. The Army National Guard was about 200 below its target of 63,240, while the Army Reserve, which had a particularly weak performance in August, was almost 2,000 below its year-to-date target of 33,124.

For August alone, the active Army topped the 10,000 mark for the second month in a row. It was the 15th consecutive month the active Army has met or exceeded its monthly goal. It missed four months in a row in early 2005, and some questioned whether the Army had developed a chronic and debilitating problem.

The Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy all achieved their August goals and are on target to meet their full-year targets, the Pentagon said.

Summer is typically the strongest recruiting season.

The Army's ability to recruit is particularly important now because it is trying to grow in size, as part of a plan to build a larger number of combat brigades for use in Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially elsewhere. Without that growth, existing brigades would be rotating so often on overseas combat tours that the Army would risk alienating soldiers and their families, thus eroding their willingness to re-enlist.

Even now, after increasing the active-duty Army by about 10,000 soldiers this year, to about 501,000, soldiers generally get less than two years at home between one-year tours in Iraq.

Byrne said the Iraq war continues to be a drag on recruiting, and he said unpublished Army research surveys show people of enlistment age are increasingly disinclined to join. Similarly, adults who influence the choices of potential recruits - like parents, teachers and coaches - are less inclined to recommend military service.

But the Army has managed to overcome those negative factors by using more innovative techniques to reach young people, Byrne said. Recruiters, for example, are available at all hours on an Army Web site chat room. Those who indicate a strong interest are then offered a chance to meet face-to-face with a recruiter. That has proven more productive, Byrne said, than traditional tactics like waiting for people to walk into a recruiting station.

The Army also has accepted a larger number of recruits whose score on a standardized aptitude test is at the lower end of the acceptable range, and it has granted waivers to permit the enlistment of people with criminal records that otherwise would disqualify them. The Army says it does not grant waivers if there is a pattern of criminal misconduct or for convictions of drug trafficking or any sexually violent crimes.

When you do the math the United States military is not at all stretched thin like the anti war people want us to believe. On active duty their are over one and a half million men and women in the service of the United States, that is not counting the reserves or National Guard.

That would mean less than 10% of the United States military is on duty in Iraq. Where is the outrage amongst you guys about being lied to now? The anti-war movement is a fraud machine in perpetual motion.

If they aren't stretched thin why are so many getting multiple tours? Don't get me wrong, I think having experienced troops with exposure to the culture (and hopefully some personal friendships with locals) is the best way to go, it's just getting to the point of being a major strain on some divisions.

By the way, I think this war is showing how unwise some force level decisions were, too many specialties depend on reserve and guard, more needs to be covered by active duty.

Luck of the draw I guess.

Our two members on this board who went have only been once. My old unit, (well I always thought of them as home even though I left them in 1994) 2nd ANGLICO has only gone once.

I know there have been folks on their third trip. I'll give you a clue about that though, if they really didn't want to go they wouldn't be there.

I know if I was still on active duty I'd be busting a nut to go, I think what we are doing there is important and will make the world a better place. You know Tom, it gives a person a really deep down satisfaction to believe they are part of something which will make the world a better place.

And these guys are living that, I tried for a reinstatement but this old horse has been put out to pasture, guess they looked at my medical records, eh? Maybe all the broke bones and concussions weren't enough but I just know getting the clap in 1972 Amsterdam would come back to haunt me some day.

It seems the new military manual
on insurgency leans toward more troops
and less shock and awe.

I believe we do have enough troops...
if they were in Afghanistan like they should
be...it's the Iraq stupidity that required the
call ups of ready reserves, the multiple tours,
the stop-loss orders and the National Guard.

Also interesting to read that 40,000 immigrants got
legal by doing tours. I gotta salute 'em and tell
'em welcome home. But then, I ain't anti-war,
just anti-stupidity.

I don't accept desertion BTW...just ain't my way.

We never executed "Shock & Awe", the Iraqi army disintegrated before we had to.

No, where ever we have troops is where the Islamofascists are going to be. Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Iraq is a much better battle field.

Using that logic... if the troops come home that's where we'd find "Islamofacists" yes?

No, but I have a close business associate who has, a sergeant major with a CIB
on his Class As. Iraq a better battlefield? That's the old neo-con excuse for an
invasion that had nothing to do with 9/11. Good luck on your internship with the
American Enteprise Institute.

I think if you read any assessment prepared before the 10th of September, 2001 you would find complete agreement that in the Middle East the largest current threat facing the United States and the interests of the United States was Saddam Hussien's Iraq. The Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration adhered to this belief. Anyone who says they didn't is totally deluded.

On the 11th of September, 2001 the assessment of the greatest threat facing the United States and the interests of the United States became al Qaeda.

Does this mean all of the previous perceived threat from Iraq magically and mysteriously disappeared? The democratic party would like for us to believe in mystery and magic, eh? Like it or not the world's intelligence community almost universally believed Saddam Hussien's Iraq were continuing to pursue the development and acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Iraq was invaded because it was believed they had engaged in resurrecting weapons programs which if in the wrong hands would cause such a tremendous lose of life 9/11 would pale in comparison. Any other reasons stated as to why Iraq was invaded is playing politics and playing politics , I believe, has no place as long as there are American troops engaged on the battlefield fighting the enemies of the United States.