1 Without question ... one hell of a beautiful post(Fort)! Best duty post I ever had! Campbell, Belvoir were nice but .... Carson was paradise!

2 Hondo I am surprised that you didn't find any anomalies in his discription of the oath.

3 You lost me John - what did I miss? 'cept maybe that shiny wood floor in the gym ... it needed some serious re-finishing last time I was there.

4 What's the problem John? Do you think there are limits to the actions we should take to defend our nation? Is defeat preferable to victory if the price is too great? What is too much? Please elaborate...

5 Thank you all, gentlemen! Their homepage

6 I don't think the national media is avoiding this story without cause. It is simply anecdotal. Data is not the plural of anecdote. It would be equally unfair for the national media to focus on a unit that had an unbelievably low reup rate, unless it illustrated some national trend that was contained in data. And while reup rates differ across reserves, guard, and regular military, and across services, seems to me a lot of conservative blogs are avoiding some far more systematic problems in reup rates, to whit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002061.html The Army Reserve, taxed by recruiting shortfalls and war-zone duty, has adopted a policy barring officers from leaving the service if their field is undermanned or they have not been deployed to Iraq, to Afghanistan or for homeland defense missions. The reserve has used the unpublicized policy, first adopted in 2004 and strengthened in a May 2005 memo signed by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, its commander, to disapprove the resignations of at least 400 reserve officers, according to Army figures. "I don't think during a time of war you would want to let people go when you have a shortage of people," Army Reserve spokesman Steve Stromvall said when asked to comment on the memo, which surfaced during litigation over the policy. At least 10 reserve officers have sued the Army, saying they should be allowed to get out because they have finished their mandatory eight years of service. Blocking reserve officers' resignations is one of several steps the Army has undertaken in recent years to keep soldiers beyond their original terms of service, as today's wars place unprecedented demands on the all-volunteer force.

7 Exactly wrong, jd. The latest figures from the DoD show that re-enlistment remains strong, and, in fact, they have exceeded their goals for the last 11 months. Conversely, this puts more pressure on Reserve enlistment, which depends heavily on retired Active Duty personnel. Thus, the mass re-enlistment story is the most dramatic illustration of the overall trend, and a natural for an unbiased press to use as a lead to a story about the overall enlistment picture. The MSM's refusal to publish is a measure of their status as water-carriers for the DNC, which is invested politically in the humiliation and defeat of the United States. As are you.

8 DPB: here is an article, by the MSM, reporting the reenlistment surge. There are MANY. Just because you don't see something (and really, read the article I sent you about perceptual bias) does not mean it isn't out there. We have a better eye for things that agree with our existing worldview. neither I nor the MSM root for the defeat or humiliation of this nation. Please don't insult me as a substitute for debating me. I don't question your patriotism. It is clear to me that reenlistment is going okay, much better than last year. What changed? could it be massive new financial incentives? Yup...bingo. Recruitment, however, is still problematic, even though incentives have grown. Now, they reduced the targets, so they can be met, and doubled the number of recruiters. Army re-enlistment figures up, but recruitment lags by DREW BROWN, Knight Ridder Newspapers January 18th, 2006 WASHINGTON - Re-enlistments for the Army in fiscal 2005 were the highest they've been in five years, nearly enough to make up for a shortfall of about 7,000 new recruits last year, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Wednesday. More than 69,500 soldiers re-enlisted in the 12 months ending in September, Harvey said. But last year also was the Army's worst for recruiting since 1999, the last time it failed to meet its annual goal. A study produced for the service in 2004 indicated that a high chance of being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan was keeping many young people away who might have signed up.

9 "...the mass re-enlistment story is the most ...dramatic illustration..." 640 combat veterans re-enlisting together is quite a story. It shows how the war iss affecting Americans. It has 'wow factor.' Remember, this is a business with the motto 'if it bleeds, it leads.' "I don't think the national media is avoiding this story without cause." jd, you are so right.

10 Hmmm, a perception issue. Sure, I can see how Democrat loyalists would find Dan Rather's forged document TANG story to be profoundly biased against John Kerry.

11 For your reading pleasure, jd But The Army National Guard, Air Force Reserve, And Marine Corps Reserve All Have Exceeded Or Achieved Their Year-To-Date Recruitment Goals. Click to read the whole thing. If you are concerned about the veracity, take comfort knowing that it came from an unnamed source.

12 Hi Fluffy, Interesting WH rebuttal. I don't think it is inaccurate, just incomplete. The goals were lowered, because in 2005, the fact that targets were not met was so embarrassing. Also, incentives were raised by a huge amount from 2005 to 2006, because recruiting and reenlistment were so problematic in 2005. Hey, homo economicus is predictable. If you pay more money for a service, more people will provide it (or, looked at another way, if my friend's brother, who has spent 3 of the 5 years of his marriage overseas deployed, is thinking of reupping, a LOT more cash better be on the table). The left is wrong to say that our military is "broken" but the right is wrong to say that recruitment and reenlistment are just fine. The iraq war is putting a huge strain on our manpower resources, as well as several other types. ****** (this is from June of 05) Although the Army will not release its numbers until Friday, it fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May, officials said Wednesday. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350. The Army said it lowered the May target to "adjust for changing market conditions," knowing that the difference will have to be made up in the months ahead. The Army also missed its monthly targets in April, March and February — each month worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short; in March the gap was 31 percent, and in April it was 42 percent. "It's like having a persistent drought," said Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the private Lexington Institute. "At some point when you have drought conditions you have to institute water rationing, and that's what you potentially face in the military if it goes on long enough. You would get to a stage where you don't have enough people to staff your organizations." These recruiting statistics appear to indicate that the Army will likely to fall short of its full-year recruiting goal for the first time since 1999, raising longer-term questions about a military embroiled in its first protracted wars since switching from the draft to a volunteer force 32 years ago. Many young people and their parents have grown more wary of Army service because of the likelihood of being dispatched on combat tours to Iraq or Afghanistan, opinion polls show. U.S. troops are dying at a rate of two a day in Iraq, more than two years after President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended.

13 Many young people and their parents have grown more wary of Army service because of the likelihood of being dispatched on combat tours to Iraq or Afghanistan... Well where the hell else would the military send someone in wartime? ...opinion polls show. U.S. troops are dying at a rate of two a day in Iraq... Who's opinion? Wouldn't actual, factual numbers be better? Besides, it's a war, what do you think happens, people get really big booboos and go home for milk and cookies after mommy kisses it better? Wait, you're a liberal, so yes, that's what you think. Silly me. ...more than two years after President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended. Sigh... Occupation, stabilization, and counter-insurgency operations, while just as dangerous as major combat ops, are totally different. I know that you idiots can't understand anything that isn't in a Friends episode or a Michael Mooron movie, but that's the way it is.

14 If there is a lesson to be learned, once we topple a leader and declare " Mission Accomplished ", then it's time to get the f**k out! These wary potential recruits are smart enough to realize that no American life ( or at least most ) is worth all the grains of sand in Iraq! Smarter than you IM.