40,000 US Troops Have Deserted Since 2000

Thousands of Troops Say They Won’t Fight

By Ana Radelat, Gannett News Service

Saturday 05 August 2006

Swept up by a wave of patriotism after the US invasion of Iraq, Chris Magaoay joined the Marine Corps in November 2004.

The newly married Magaoay thought a military career would allow him to continue his college education, help his country and set his life on the right path.

Less than two years later, Magaoay became one of thousands of military deserters who have chosen a lifetime of exile or possible court-martial rather than fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"It wasn’t something I did on the spur of the moment," said Magaoay, a native of Maui, Hawaii. "It took me a long time to realize what was going on. The war is illegal."

Magaoay said his disillusionment with the military began in boot camp in Twentynine Palms, Calif., where a superior officer joked about killing and mistreating Iraqis. When his unit was deployed to Iraq in March, Magaoay and his wife drove to Canada, joining a small group of deserters who are trying to win permission from the Canadian government to stay.

"We’re like a tight-knit family," Magaoay said.

The Pentagon says deserters like Magaoay represent a tiny fraction of the nation’s fighting forces.

"The vast majority of soldiers who desert do so for personal, family or financial problems, not for political or conscientious objector purposes," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the Army.

Since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, the Pentagon says. More than half served in the Army. But the Army says numbers have decreased each year since the United States began its war on terror in Afghanistan.

Continue to read:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080506X.shtml

United States Marine Corps

Press Release
Public Affairs Office
American Forces Press Service; Jim Garamone


Contact:

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

Release # 0811-06-0934
Services meet or exceed active duty recruiting goals for 14th straight month
Aug. 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- All active-duty military components met or exceeded their July recruiting goals, Defense Department officials announced today, marking the 14th consecutive month the services have met or exceeded their goals.

The Army exceeded its goal of 10,450 recruits; it signed up 10,890 new soldiers, for 104 percent of its goal. The Navy and Air Force both came in at 100 percent, with 4,043 and 2,121 recruited respectively, while the Marine Corps hit 112 percent of its July goal, with 3,197 recruits.

"It demonstrates that men and women of military-service age are finding that they want to contribute in significant ways to this global war of terror and to protecting the freedoms that everyone in this country enjoys," DoD spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

On the reserve-component side, three of the six components made their goals, but all save one are on track to meet fiscal year goals. The Naval Reserve is at 84 percent of its goal for fiscal 2006. Navy officials said the service is having difficulty meeting the reserve mission. Part of this is because active-duty retention is so high. The Naval Reserve gets most of its people from those leaving active duty. Those people who normally go into the reserve are just not getting out of the active-duty Navy, officials said.

All the active-duty components are projected to meet their retention goals for the fiscal year, Whitman said. "Retention is so high, it is inconceivable that they wouldn't make their goals across all the services at this point," he said.

Officials said it is still a very difficult recruiting environment. The economy is doing well, with the unemployment rate being around 4.7 percent nationwide. Standards for enlistment remain high, and those that do not meet the standards do not enlist, officials said.

Role models who influence young men and women to enlist are more inclined to tell them to wait and see if conditions in Iraq change before enlisting, officials said.

Still, young men and women are volunteering to help their country in this time of war, Jeff Spara, chief of recruiting policy for the Army, said today. More recruiters are on the streets, and bonuses and incentives that Congress has given the military are kicking in.

No one is complacent, Spara told reporters in the Pentagon. "While this is a good news story, it can turn quickly," he said. "We can't let that happen."


-30-

Sounds like good news. But they forgot to tell you that they enlist mental cases, gang members and criminals. For example Mr. Green who raped and killed the Iraqi girl was a mental case with a criminal record. In addition they raised the maximun age for enlistments. Like in the Vietnam war, any warm body will do in Bush's Army.

Please back up such broad accusations with a link to facts.

Only in counterpunch David.

Raising the age was done because they had so many volunteers wanting to get in who were otherwise excluded.

The Army Raises Enlistment Age To 42
Staff Sgt. Stacy L. Pearsall
FORT KNOX, Ky. (Army News Service, June 22, 2006)The Army has raised the enlistment age to 42, made possible under provisions of the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act.

The Army raised the active-duty age limit to 40 in January as an interim step while it worked out the additional medical screening requirements for recruits ages 40 to 42. Before January, an applicant could not have reached his or her 35th birthday. The Army Reserve age limit was raised from 35 to 40 in March 2005.

Raising the maximum age for Army enlistment expands the recruiting pool, provides motivated individuals an opportunity to serve and strengthens the readiness of Army units. More than 1,000 men and women over age 35 have already enlisted since the Army and Army Reserve raised their age limits to age 40.

“Experience has shown that older recruits who can meet the physical demands of Army service generally make excellent Soldiers. They are mature, motivated, loyal and patriotic, and bring with them a wealth of skills and experience to our Army,” said Col. Donald Bartholomew, U.S. Army Recruiting Command Assistant Chief of Staff, G5.

“We certainly do not expect for this change to result in a large increase of recruits, however it will allow for those individuals who have the passion for service, but for whatever reason could not serve earlier in their lives, the opportunity to serve the nation now, when the time is right for them,” he added.

All applicants must meet eligibility standards, to include passing the physical standards and medical examinations; however those 40 to 42 will be given additional medical screening.

For Shannon D. Morris, 36, of Shreveport, La., enlisting in the U.S. Army was a dream-come-true. She said she had wanted to join since she was a teenager but she didn’t get the chance.

“My brother was in the Army and it was always something that I wanted to do,” she said. “My father encouraged me to do it, but I became a mother at a young age and that took the priority.”

Morris thought she had lost her chance, but learned that the Army had raised its age limit when her son, Robert McLain, began talking with an Army recruiter. She said the more her son talked about his decision, the more interested she became in doing something for herself.

“When Robert told me I might still be young enough, the wheels started turning and I thought this might just be my last opportunity to get the benefits for my education and see the world.”

Morris said her family was surprised she wanted to enlist and serve, but they are supportive of her plans. Her mother thought it was a great idea and her husband Rick, a district fire chief who will retire this summer, encouraged her as well.

“My brother thought I was crazy,” she joked. “But he also thought it was great that I was doing it, and I couldn’t believe how supportive everyone was of me. It made me proud to know that they were all behind me.”

Morris, who will be a petroleum lab specialist, left for basic combat training May 25 and McLain followed May 30 to Fort Benning, Ga., where he began training to become a Ranger.

Recruits of all ages are eligible for the same enlistment bonuses and other incentives based on their individual qualifications.


http://www.army.com/news/item/2076

Maybe you can show us in the regulations where it is ok to enlist criminals, gang members, or mental misfits David. I can't find it, point it out to us.

Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction

A. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA1. Entrance Considerations. Accession of qualifiedindividuals shall be a priority when processing applicants for theMilitary Services.2. Eligibility. Eligibility shall be determined by theapplicant's ability to meet all requirements of this Directive, toinclude obtaining waivers. Applicants shall not be enlisted,appointed, or inducted unless fully qualified.B. BASIC ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA1. Agea. For service in the Active and Reserve components,the minimum age for enlistment is 17 years and the maximum age is35 years (See 10 U.S.C., 510, reference (a)).)The maximum agefor a prior service enlistee is determined by adding theindividual's years of prior service to 35. The Secretaries of theMilitary Departments concerned shall establish age standards forenlistment in the Reserve components (10 U.S.C., 510, reference(a) 1 .b. Age limitations for appointment as a commissioned orwarrant officer normally depend on the Service concerned. Inprescribing the age qualification for appointment as a Reserveofficer, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned maynot prescribe a maximum standard of less than 47 years for theinitial appointment of a person who will serve as a medical,dental, or nurse officer in a specialty designated by theSecretary concerned as critically needed in wartime. (see DODInstruction 1205.1 (reference ().)c. By law (10 U.S.C. 532, reference (a)), personsappointed as commissioned officers must be able to complete 20years of active commissioned service before their 55th birthday inorder to receive a Regular commission.The Secretary of theMilitary Department concerned may defer the retirement for certainhealth profession officers on a case-by-case basis (10 U.S.C.,1251 reference (a)).2-A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2. Citizenshipa. To be eligible for enlistment in the Regular Army orAir Force, an individual must be an American citizen, or lawfullyadmitted to the United States for permanent residence (10 U.S.C.3253 and 8253, reference. (a)). There is no equivalent statutelimiting enlistment in the Regular Navy and Marine Corps, but theyusually apply the same citizenship requirements as those requiredfor the Army and Air Force.b. To be eligible for enlistment in the Reservecomponents, an individual must be a citizen of the United Statesor lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence(10 U.S.C., 510, reference (a)).C. To be eligible for appointment as a commissioned orwarrant officer, U.S. citizenship is required except for Reserveappointment where an individual must be lawfully admitted to theUnited States for permanent residence (Sections 532 and 591 ofreference (a)). For regular appointment, when tendered, U.S.citizenship is required. Law requires National Guard officers tobe U.S. citizens (32 U.S.C., 313, reference ©).d. Citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia orthe Republic of the Marshall Islands also are eligible forenlistment in the Active and Reserve components (see the Compactof Free Association (reference (d)).)3. Educationa. Possession of a high school diploma is desirable,although not mandatory, for enlistment in any component of theMilitary Services. Section 520 of reference (a) states, "A personwho is not a high school graduate may not be accepted forenlistment in the armed forces unless the score of that person onthe Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the thirty-first percentile; however, a person may not be denied enlistmentin the Armed Forces solely because of his not having a high schooldiploma if his enlistment is needed to meet established strengthrequirements." Alternative credential holders (i.e., GeneralEducation Development Certificates and certificates of attendanceand completion) and nongraduates may be assigned lower enlistmentpriority based on their first-term attrition rates.b. Educational requirements for appointment as acommissioned or warrant officer are determined by each MilitaryService. Generally, a bachelors degree is a required prerequisitefor a commission or appointment. In addition, special occupations(e.g., physician, chaplain) may require additional vocational2-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
credentials, which are determined by the Secretary of the MilitaryDepartment concerned.4. Aptitudea. Overall aptitude requirements for enlistment andinduction are based on applicant scores on the Armed ForcesQualification Test (AFQT) derived from the Armed ServicesVocational Aptitude Battery. Applicant scores are grouped intopercentile categories. Persons who score in AFQT Category V(percentiles l-9) are, by law (10 U.S.C., 520 and DOD Directive1145.1 (references (a) and (e)), ineligible to enlist. By law (10U.S.C., 520, reference (a)), the number of persons who enlistduring any fiscal year who score in AFQT Category IV (percentiles10 to 30) may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of personsenlisted.The Secretary of Defense delegates to the Secretariesof the Military Departments the authority to specify morerestrictive aptitude standards for enlistment.b. Generally, for officers and warrant officers, nosingle test or instrument is used as an aptitude requirement forappointment.5. Physical Fitnessa. DOD Directive 6130.3 (reference (f)) establishes thestandards for entrance under the authority of 10 U.S.C. (reference(a)).b. The pre-accession screening process should bestructured to identify individuals with any medical condition thatdisqualifies an applicant for military service. Specifically,each applicant shall be independently evaluated by an authorizedphysician or a physician at a Military Entrance Processing Stationto ensure the applicant is:(1) Free of contagious or infectious diseases;(2) Free of medical conditions or physical defectsthat would require excessive time lost from duty or would likelyresult in separation from the Service for medical unfitness;(3) Medically capable of satisfactorily completingrequired training;(4) Medically adaptable to the militaryenvironment;(5) Medically capable of performing duties withoutaggravation of existing physical defects or medical conditions.2-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
6. Dependency Statusa. Title 10 U.S.C.(reference (a)) does notspecifically address eligibility requirements for Single parents.b. The Military Services may not enlist marriedindividuals with more than two dependents under the age of 18 orunmarried individuals with custody of any dependents under the ageof 18. However, the Secretary of the Military Departmentconcerned may grant a waiver, for particularly promising entrants.c. The Military Services shall specify thecircumstances under which individuals who have dependents maybecome commissioned officers or warrant officers; variations inpolicy are affected by the commissioning source (e.g., ServiceAcademy vs. ROTC or Officer Candidate School; ROTC scholarshipstatus, etc.).7. Moral character. Persons entering the Armed Forcesshould be of good moral character. The underlying purpose ofmoral character enlistment standards is to minimize entrance ofpersons who are likely to become disciplinary cases or securityrisks or who disrupt good order, morale, and discipline. TheMilitary Services also have a responsibility to parents who expectthat their sons and daughters will not be placed into closeassociation with persons who have committed serious offenses orwhose records show ingrained delinquency behavior patterns. TheMilitary Services are responsible for the defense of the nationand should not be viewed as a source of rehabilitation for thosewho have not subscribed to the legal and moral standards ofsociety at large. Moral standards of acceptability for serviceare designed to disqualify the following kinds of persons:Individuals under any form of judicial restraint(bond, probation, imprisonment, or parole).b. Those with significant criminal records. Section504 of 10 U.S.C. (reference (a)) states that, "no person...who hasbeen convicted of a felony, may be enlisted in an Armed Force.However, the Secretary concerned may authorize exceptions inmeritorious cases, for the enlistment of...persons convicted offelonies." (1) Persons convicted of felonies may request awaiver to permit their enlistment. The waiver procedure is notautomatic, and approval is based on each individual case. One ofthe considerations in determining whether a waiver will be grantedis the individual's ability to adjust successfully to civilianlife for a period of time following his or-her release from 2-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
judicial control.(2)In processing waiver requests, the Military'Services shall require information about the "who, what, when,where, and why" of the offense in question; and a number ofletters of recommendation attesting to the applicant's characteror suitability for enlistment.Such letters must be fromresponsible community leaders such as school officials, ministers,and law enforcement officials.c. Those who have been previously separated from theMilitary Services under conditions other than honorable or for thegood of the Service.d. Those who have exhibited antisocial behavior orother traits of character that would render them unfit toassociate with military personnel.8. Provision Related to Homosexual Conducta.Sexual orientation is considered a personal andprivate matter, and homosexual orientation is not a bar to serviceentry or continued service unless manifested by homosexualconduct. Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or inductionshall not be asked or required to reveal their sexual orientation.Applicants also will not be asked or required to reveal whetherthey have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independentevidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in suchconduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he orshe is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.Applicants will be informed of separation policy.(Section 654 ofreference (a)).b. Homosexual conduct may be grounds for barring entryinto the Armed Forces. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, astatement by the applicant that demonstrates a propensity orintent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage orattempted marriage. Propensity to engage in acts means more than an abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexualacts; it indicates a likelihood that a Person engages in or willengage in homosexual acts.(1) An applicant shall be rejected for entry intothe Armed Forces if, in the course of the accession process,evidence is received demonstrating that the applicant engaged in,attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a2-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
homosexual act or acts, unless there is a further determinationthat:(a) Such acts are a departure from the applicant's usual and customary behavior; ( Such acts, under all the circumstances, are unlikely to recur;© Such acts were not accomplished by use of force, coercion,or intimidation, and;(d) The applicant does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.Such a determination will be made in the course of the normalaccession process.A homosexual act means (i) any bodily contact,actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires, and (ii)any bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand todemonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act describedin subparagraph (i).(2) An applicant shall be rejected for entry if he or she makes a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words effect,unless there is a furtherdetermination that the applicant has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has apropensity to engage in,or intends to engage in homosexual acts. Such a determination will be made in the course of the normalaccession process.(3) An applicant shall be rejected for entry if,in the course of the accession process, evidence is receiveddemonstrating that an applicant has married or attempted to marrya person known to be of the same biological sex (as evidenced bythe external anatomy of the persons involved).c. Nothing in these procedures requires rejection forentry into the Armed Forces when the relevant Military ServiceCommand authority determines:(1) That an applicant or inductee made astatement, engaged in acts,or married or attempted to marry aperson of the same sex for the purpose of avoiding militaryservice, and(2) Rejection of the applicant or inductee wouldnot be in the best interest of the Armed Forces.2-6

What has regulations to do with anything? They simply lie and everyone accepts the lie to get the warm body. As for Mr Green his story was in any newspaper you care to read. He was discharged prior to the crime being investigated when the Army discovered he had mental problems. Gang members in the military are a problem. Use Google and you will find stories. The Army cannot make enlistment numbers using the same standards used prior to the Iraq occupation.

With all due respect, others take the time to provide links whenever possible when stating "facts." imho, that burden falls to the poster who is stating items as fact.

Lookin' at who started this thread and the lack of veracity in most stuff he posts I was just gonna let it lie, eh? I mean just the figure of 40,000 American military deserters in the timeframe described methinks is somethin' we've discussed and dispelled here a coupla couple times before. Just the same it got resurrected, so I hadda check out some stuff 'bout it. The mention of where the article's author says he went to boot camp kinda made me wonder if she's not really a former CGCSer from Boise who kinda tended to get stuff like that wrong too.

Looks kinda like there was one lonely story on Gannett’s News Service that got carried in a couple papers, then really took off on the anti war blogs, eh? Now this fella, who took off more'n a few months ago, seems to be the latest cause celebre of the radical anti war crowd. Methinks this site goes into that a bit more.

Besides repeatin' the Gansett story by someone who's past writin', if you bother to check it out, seems to be mainly anti American military stuff there really ain't much else out there. Did find an article dated May 01, 2006 from his hometown paper notin' he's gettin' no support or sympathy from his family. 'Twould seem from this Guardian article from June 18, 2006 that at least Cindy Sheehan believes he done right, eh?

Methinks he'll not be findin' any more success in gettin' permanent refuge in Canada than other American deserters have. This Calgary Sun column dated July 16, 2006 might give a bit of insight how many Canadians are startin' to view American military deserters runnin' up there.

When he gets hauled in front of a courts martial, as methinks eventually will happen, I'd be bettin' he'll not get off as easy as Pablo Paredes did or Army LT Ehren Watada will, but they both had the balls to stay home and press their positions. Not this guy!Hope you weren't inna hurry for that to happen, eh? Methinks you'll find he never backs up anything he says. Best just to ignore his less than erudite notes.

PIE...Read the newspapers like I do and you would know the facts. Its not my job to educate you. If you were really interested you could Google anything I mentioned.

See that Pie? Methinks the trend's not broken. Methinks 'tis kinda like what you'd hear from an IRS agent, no real explanation, just "'Cause I said so!", eh?

Ok read todays Wasington Post story on a GAO report on military recruiting. Those are just the recruters that have been caught. You cannot really blame the recruiters because they have the impossible job of selling Bush's war. The quality of recruits has to fall since you have to be really dumb to sign up for Iraq. The duty consists of driving around until someone blows you up.

You mean be a soldier and it means you're a failure David?
http://www.armypays.com/
Who said the quality of recruits has fallen?
http://www.silanis.com/site/_media/static/...m_CaseStudy.pdf
And you have to be really dumb to go and fight in Iraq?
http://www.defendamerica.mil/downloads/fac...t_20050317.html
Yeah David, Grunts are dummies, eh?
http://www.alionscience.com/stories/index....tails&storyID=6

Even though our current commander in Chief has the last name Bush; I am not a member of a private militia belonging to or named BUSH.

You sir are really getting under my skin with this comment. The US (thats United States if you didn't know) Army has been around for a few centuries longer then any one President.

You don't know how many times I've not posted what I really thought SFC White, the edit speaks volumns and I know how you feel and since you are a gentleman I got a good idea what was edited off.

I disagree. Bush has been president for almost 6 years. Its his Sec. of Defence. Its his Sec. of Army. The generals in charge are all Bush chosen hacks who just say yes. Anyone with any intelligence has since retired or has been forced out. You see it is Bush's Army built to his likeing. I am currently reading FIASCO, a book about the Iraq war which describes the failures of the Bush generals and the civilians put in charge of Iraq. The results in Iraq speaks for itself. If you people cant handel the truth, to bad. I am with the 60% of the American people who has had enough. If anyone does not like it, thats your problem. Join up and go ride around until some one blows you up. Thats the Bush way (except for himself and his family of course). As to the quality of the recruits Mr Green speaks volumes. He would never made it into the pre Iraq Army. And yes you have to be an idiot to join up for Iraq. I would tell anyone wishing a military career to at least wait until Bush is out of office and we have proper leadership. Marine read the WP article about recruiting and try spinning that one.

You really are an obnoxious jerk, David!...You can delete this if you want, Cardinal. It just made me feel better to say it.

SFC White is active duty and guess where he is?
David, I'm afraid I'm going to have to award you this. You've earned it.

I can Mozart the truth, screw Handel! Yeah, some sociopathic punks are running things, but I've known top notch men who stick it out in times like these and the idiots who spit on returning vets don't help anyone except the shrinks!

Augh.... I remember you; the guy who invests in Exxon and then complains about the price of gas. I guess Bush's 6 years put my 23 years of service to shame and if I was some wishy washy don't get my way so I guess I'll quit punk I guess I'd do just that... Well I'm not.

News flash for you "DS"; I may be unhappy with whats going on as much as the next guy but without any clear alternative the 60% of the people either won't vote or vote for the "devil they know" so keep buying your Oil stocks so you can retire a wealthy but not so wise man...

Cardinal; I got back State side beginning of June; but I think Dave still should get his award, after all he has earned it.

I went in in 1973/'74. They...being the armed forces, took in all you say and more,,,,but MOST were weeded out during boot camp and AIT.

Stop talking about things you know nothing about. The military sucks, but bogus opinion as fact sucks even more.

Any opinion as fact sucks more! But that's only my opinion being stated as fact.

Sure David, you post a link and I'll go read it.

Until then my crystal ball is on the fritz so don't expect for me to try to figure out what you saw or try to go find it for you.

Methinks, as normal with him, you'll be waitin' a while, eh?

Actually General Officers are selected by Congress so you need to blame them


I Wonder how you came up with this, do you read minds??


Well just like people said about the book written by the Swift boat Vets, Dont believe everything you read. Have you been to Iraq?? Or do you beleive everything the reporters say??


Been there, Done that, got the scar to prove it.
David you really dont have a clue about things do you. To quote a line from "a few good men" that fits this part almost perfectly ( I cut out and changed a few small parts to make it as close to perfect as I can):



Again you have no clue, because the Marines Im seeing nowdays are better than I was 13 years ago.


Its Called standing up for something you believe in, maybe you dont think this country is worth it, but I do. If you dont think it is worth it, maybe someplace more sensitive to you needs will take you. I hear Iran and North Korea are beautiful this time of year.

When I think back about the first 3 years and nine months I spent in the Corps it amazes me that they let me re-up.

I think the Marine Corps encyclopedia still has my picture from back then posted next to the definition of $hitbird.

I would not go as far as saying today's Marines are better than those from year's past though. I can remember some old timers back in the 70's which in my opinion were my definition of the perfect Marine. We still had some WW2 vets around back then Noonanda, they were the been there, done that and wouldn't take crap off no one Marines.

The Marines coming in now days are definately smarter than I was. Things like computers, these kids got it down LOL. Overall these kids are no better or worse than anyone who has stepped on those yellow footprints, But these newer marines have done things and been in battles that rank up there with such hallowed places as Iwo Jima and Hue City. Afganistan, Bagdad, Fallujah and Ramadi are new entries into the GBBOFB (Great Big Book Of Famous Battles LOL) and have proven that even though society has changed, there are stillyoung men and women out there that have what it takes, that will not let evil men have their way, they will not do nothing. They have done the same thing that Previous Generations have done.
Oh dont get me wrong, am I gonna take crap from some young devildog, Hell no. But I do try to listen to new ideas and see if there is a beter way to do business.

Well being smarter is definitely true. Back when I started the only computers around was a glorified IBM sorting machine almost as big as a Jeep spitting out punched cards. When I retired everything in the Communications Center was computer based.

I believe the Marines who fought in Fallujah fought as tough a battle and have the same Marine spirit which was present at Bellau Woods, Guadalcanal, the frozen Chosin, or Khe Sahn. Thinking about them and the excellent job they did makes me mist up with pride.

I saw in another thread where they were stop lossing Marines, think they might reconsider taking me back? I can still hump a radio and I'd be humbled to be able to participate in the noble endeavor you just returned from.

I still want to know if the rumor that all 40,000 deserters are hiding in Roswell is true.

Why doesn't the Pentagon know about this? I demand an investigation!

My quote "just drive around until someone blows you up" was a response from an Army soldier as to what passes for Bush general's tactics in Iraq. Thats a stay the course action plan. Thats a dumb s..t I DONT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO plan. Thats being cannon fodder just for show and not accomplishing anything. Sounds like we are winning , right?

A call to support democracy in Iraq
By Samir Sumaida'ie, Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service

As the debate on Iraq rages on, we hear more and more voices that call for throwing in the towel and leaving the mess to Iraqis to sort out. A new and unexpected proponent of this argument is Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, who said in a recent column that it's time for "Plan B''. Only a few months before, he was arguing that it would be time for the United States to pack up and go only "when we don't see Iraqis taking the risk to build a progressive Iraq''.

Now, under the weight of bad news from Baghdad, he seems ready to abandon those very same brave men and women fighting valiantly to establish peace and justice in Iraq. I am an admirer of Friedman, who is generally thoughtful, well informed and supportive, but in this case he and many like him have gone dangerously off-track.

Plan B, advocated by Friedman and others, is to abandon the region to religious fanatics and Baathist terrorists. It is nothing but a declaration of defeat dressed up to look like a vision for the future.

Our enemies' strategy has never changed: creating mayhem and making Iraq ungovernable, thereby driving the Americans and their allies out and installing a Saddam Hussain look-alike to "make peace''.

Just as they kept to their strategy and adapted, we should do the same. In this context, "staying the course'' should mean being ready to adapt and learn while also standing firm for democracy and for a new vision for the country and the region. If we abandon our effort, our enemies win by default.

To argue that American withdrawal from Iraq would create a "huge problem for Iran'' is disingenuous. Iran is fairly secure within its borders. Any problems in Iraq will be for Iraqis to suffer. If there is a collapse and a civil war in Iraq, it is Iran's proxies who will do the fighting and when the dust settles these proxies will most likely end up with the oil-rich southern region of Iraq a significant strategic gain for Iran. There would also be the psychological impact of the perceived defeat for America. That would encourage all the enemies of the United States to be bolder and readier to challenge its interests everywhere. A new super-radical, geographically contiguous bloc would be born: Iran, Syria and a radicalised, totalitarian, fragmented Iraq.

Argument

As for the argument that the very presence of the foreign forces is a source of tension and that their departure would remove a prime source of violence: It may appear plausible at first glance, but it is in fact without merit. We need to understand precisely who is ready to fight to drive foreign forces out; it is only the Saddamists and the religious extremists (Al Qaida and the like).

Other Iraqis range from those who, while irritated by the foreign forces, would not go so far as to actually fight them to those people who know that there would be big problems for them and the country if those forces were withdrawn prematurely. This majority includes Sunnis as well as Shiites and Kurds.

The question that must be addressed here is what to do now in the face of the combined onslaught of insurgents, terrorists, criminal gangs and sectarian militias. A policy for success should include:

- Developing, with the Iraqi government, workable measures for reforming the security forces and making available the necessary resources to implement them.

- Supporting the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki in its efforts to disarm the militias. What is needed is a detailed multifaceted approach that encompasses political, economic and public information considerations as well as coercive measures.

- Applying maximum pressure on regional powers to refrain from undermining security in Iraq and to help stabilise it.

- Mobilising the people to oppose the extremists in their midst.

- Taking the initiative from our enemies by acting boldly and aggressively. Our posture should not be defensive. That is a recipe for defeat.

- Back here in the United States, where Iraq has become a divisive issue, working out a bipartisan understanding aimed at success; an attitude to win this war for America, Iraq and democracy. This item is for American leaders to achieve; the others are collaborative US-Iraqi endeavours.

- Is all this achievable? We know it is. Iraqis are resilient. They thirst for normality and a chance to build a future in freedom and dignity.

The US cannot escape responsibility for the current situation in Iraq. Not only would abandoning Iraq to its fate now be irresponsible, it would almost certainly lead to disintegration and dictatorship, with a high risk of a wide regional conflict. It would be catastrophic not just for Iraq but also for the United States and for world peace and stability for decades to come. On the other hand, winning this war would be one of the best gifts the US could make to the world and to its own people.




http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10062213.html

Published: 08/24/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)


Iraqi forces 'will be ready to control most provinces soon'
Reuters



Baghdad: Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki yesterday insisted his forces would be ready to take control of most provinces within months, even though the US military has boosted troop levels in Baghdad to shore up his government.

The US Marine Corps announced on Tuesday it was calling up inactive service members to return to duty, possibly in Afghanistan and Iraq, to counter a steady decline in the number of such troops who volunteer.

"We will assume responsibility for security in one province this month and another next month. At the end of the year we will take control of most provinces," Maliki said.

Washington's strategy is to train Iraq's security forces to assume responsibility for the country's 18 provinces and pave the way for the withdrawal of US troops, but a surge in sectarian violence in recent months has frustrated that plan.

While the US military has been handing over control of more "battle space" in provinces to Iraqi forces it has been forced to send reinforcements to Baghdad to help the government take back the streets from sectarian militias and death squads.

It has boosted the number of its troops in the country from 127,000 to 135,000 as part of a major clampdown in the capital, which US officials say has already seen a sharp decline in violence in some volatile Sunni and Shiite neighbourhoods.

Al Maliki said that as Iraqi forces "gain in strength and become successful, the role of the Multi-National Forces will decrease and disappear".

The Iraqi security forces comprise 165,000 police and 129,000 soldiers, according to figures released by the US military yesterday, while 85 Iraqi army and police battalions have taken the lead in fighting insurgents across Iraq.

While Washington is keen to reduce the number of its troops, President George W. Bush insisted that talk about pulling troops out before Iraq was ready was "absolutely wrong".

With all due respect. This is the biggest bunch of bull I've ever seen. We (our glorious leaders) should have thought about the coming catastrophy before invading Iraq. We then created the militias by disbanding the Iraqi Army, and left the ammo dumps unguarded so they would have plenty of weapons. We created the chaos because Bush and Cheney and Rummy went in there to steal, and it's easier to steal when there is chaos. Billions of dollars are missing, and we are never leaving. The Iraqis know this, and they know we don't plan to leave their country ever. They see the permanent military bases and the Embassy the size of the Vatican. Foreign Companies control their resources and their so-called government hides behind walls protected by the invaders.

Until they see us on our way out they will continue to undermine the "government". Polls show that 80% of them want us out! The Neo-Con belief that we can give them our "Vision of Democracy" at the point of a gun has failed, and it's they the Neo-Cons, who have failed and been defeated! The American troops did all that they were asked to do. They were never trained to referee a civil war. The Iraqis are an old people. They will work it out, and they don't need us. It's far too late to worry about our reputation! That's gone because we "elected" the worst ever president ever!

I am old enough to remember "Vietnamization" of that war. That worked well did it not? The story of Iraq is too few troops, bad leadership and stay the course on all mistakes. If you read the book FISACO some military officers did the right things and then their tour of duty was up. They were replaced by the destroy it all and drive around until someone blows you up leadership. Everything that they accomplished evaporated. Todays military does not know how to fight an insurgency. Thats why we are loosing.

actually we do, and we are also making the Iraqis take over the job. After all it is their countrymen, and they are doing a damn good job. The iraqi unit I was an advisor for has made leaps and bounds, they are taking the initiative and taking the fight to the enemy. And unlike what you may read and believe, I actually was there and saw with my own eyes

On this forum I hear WE ARE WINNING talk. Too many people are dieing in Iraq for that to be true. The real test of wether we are winning or not is when US or Iraqi government personal can walk among the people without armored cars or in a troop formation. In other words when we do not need the GREEN ZONE anymore I will believe what you guys are saying. That was the condition for a few months after the fall of Bagdad when US soldiers could jog by themselves along the river. Then we disbanded the Iraqi Army and had too few troops to maintain order. The war was lost at that point. We pissed off people who knew how to use weapons and failed to provide security with enough US troops. This is the bad leadership provided by the Bush people that caused 2,600 deaths and 20,000 wounded of US troops. I am pissed about that. Why are all of you guys also not pissed off?

Well, this wasn't written by or for our glorius leader. It was written by an Iraqi who wants his country to succeed.

Too bad you don't care what happens to those folks.

Because Iraq is going to succeed David.

There are two elements required for "success" in Iraq.

The first is a central government that meets the needs of the people and to secure their support and shows enough consideration for minority rights to win the loyalty of those minorities.

The second is an effective, highly disciplined military and security establishment that gives its allegiance not to various factions in Iraqi society but only to the central Iraqi government.

Both is happening David. This is a war of liberty against tyranny, and it's a war we are winning.

I'm not even close to convinced Iraq will succeed, I think that would take serious policy changes (such as getting rid of the corporate scams in the rebuilding and letting Iraqis get more jobs and business). I do agree we can't just pull out, especially from the Kurdish area.

Aug. 25, 2006, 6:50AM
U.S. generals: Baghdad violence curbed


By PATRICK QUINN Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A security operation was helping to curb an increase in violence in Baghdad in recent months after a surge of bombings and shootings, America's two top generals in the Middle East said. Still, there was more violence Thursday, with three car bombs in Baghdad and a series of bombings and shootings across the country that killed 16 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers. Another U.S. soldier was killed Wednesday, the military said.

On Friday, a police officer was killed in a drive-by shooting in downtown Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, police Capt. Laith Mohammed said.

U.S. authorities attributed the reported improved security situation in the city to a joint American and Iraqi operation to deal with violence in the capital. The U.S. military has said the operation, for which 12,000 troops were redeployed to Baghdad, aims at curbing mostly sectarian warfare.

Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the operation that began in early August was working.

"I think everybody has seen an improvement in the situation in Baghdad over the last weeks because of the operations of the Iraqi security forces supported by the American Army," he said. "And we're confident that we can sustain that."

Also Thursday, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said after meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that he did not believe the country had fallen into civil war, although there is a danger that it could.

"I think Iraq's far from it. I think that there's been great progress in the security front here recently in Baghdad," he said.

Abizaid said he and Casey were "very optimistic that the situation will stabilize."

Col. Michael Shields, commander of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, which has been helping in the Baghdad operation, said the operation was a success in the districts of Ghazaliyah in west Baghdad and Shula in the northwest of the capital.

"There was a marked decrease in murders and violence in both Shula and Ghazaliyah during this operation," he said in a statement released by the U.S. military command Friday. "We cleared over 20,000 buildings without incident, capturing several personnel, weapons and 15 caches."

The military command also said Friday that U.S. soldiers confiscated a weapons cache and arrested one suspect on Tuesday after searching a convoy of civilian vehicles. They seized 28 assault rifles, three machine guns, a sniper rifle and ammunition.

Although accurate casualty figures are not available and statistics have not been provided for violent deaths in August, an Associated Press count indicates a downwards trend. Reported deaths, however, are thought to be considerably lower than the actual number of people killed.

With one week remaining in August, the estimated number of Iraqis killed around the country was at least 605, according to an AP count. That number was about 60 percent of the estimated AP total of at 1east 1,015 killed for all of July.

But the government's count for the number of deaths in July was far higher at 3,500, including 1,500 in Baghdad alone.

Political and sectarian violence across Iraq increased after a Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque in the town of Samarra. Most of the violence has been sectarian, often involving death squads from the majority Shiites or minority Sunni Arabs.

"I think there's a large number of civilians that have been killed by various death squads," Abizaid said. "Certain militia groups have been responding in a way that's not in connection with the national government, and that situation is clearly not one that's good for Iraq."

He said the United States and its coalition partners want Iraqis to take control of security.

"Obviously, Iraqis being in control of their own future with their own national forces is what your country wants and what we want, and so we'll work together to help make that possible," he told Iraqi journalists.

____

Associated Press writers Sinan Salaheddin, Sameer N. Yacoub, Qais al-Bashir and Elena Becatoros in Baghdad contributed to this report.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4140915.html

I'll agree with you on that Tom. The Marshall Plan worked because it put Germans back to work.

What they need is a hardnosed General doling out the funds and demanding a strict accountability.

I always liked the phrase the Czar of Russia cautioned his Generals and Ministers with upon embarking upon WW1.

"Gentlemen.....no stealing."

Too bad they didn't listen to him.

Now that Iraq is in a free fall civil war, let's send in more American troops (backdoor draft?) and kill them there while Osama Bin Laden hides and plans the next US attack in Pakistan.

4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS!

A third of the Colonists were Loyalists to King George Marine. Just like today. Deja Vu all over again. That cartoon represents to me those who support an Un-American self proclaimed King, who has betrayed the Revolution Washington fought for!

The Iraqi security services you speak of are Shia death squads started by the same Americans who ran them in Central America. The Iraqi military could not opperate without American backup. We have the same Bush generals promising the same victory as was promised years ago. They say victory will occur after the next security sweep. I heard that in Vietnam years ago. I did not believe it then and do not believe it now. I do not care about what the Iraqis do to each other. Thats their problem. I only care about our soldiers in body bags and without arms and legs.