Retention and Recruitment

From Instapundit:

It's interesting that retention seems to be going much better than recruitment. Perhaps the view of what's going on that the troops get in the field is more positive than the view that potential recruits get from the media.

I'd like to expand on that.  I spent the first 27 years of my life surrounded by the military.  My father was a career Naval officer.  Both my older brothers were Annapolis grads.  I spent 6 years in the Air Force before coming to Oregon.  Since leaving active duty, I have maintained an active interest in our Armed Forces, following every news story and keeping abreast of military developments long before 9/11 put our Soldiers and Sailors at the forefront of public opinion.  And never in my memory has there been such a relentless attack on the morale of our troops.

I was too young to remember the Vietnam War.  But I am afraid I may living through its reincarnation, at least as far as our media establishment and our more liberal politicians are concerned.

We have senior Senators calling for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, despite the fact that, as far as our troops are concerned, he is a leader of unimpeachable integrity and skill.

We have newspapers and television anchors keeping us updated on the daily death toll, without ever mentioning the tremendous accomplishments of our Military forces.

We have activists--and Senators--comparing our Soldiers and Sailors to Nazis and the like.

Student leaders--and tenured faculty--keep recruiters from visiting our college campuses, including our public universities funded by our taxes.

Is it any wonder that it is hard for the Military to bring in enough young recruits?

But retention is up.  As Glenn Reynolds points out, our Troops in the field have a more positive view of things.  They are seeing what's really happening, and they believe what's happening is a good thing.  They know are they accomplishing great things.  They see first hand the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They know what risks are involved, they know how little they are appreciated, they get a lousy paycheck, and they re-enlist.

What do they know that our media, our elite scholars, and our liberal political leaders don't know (or perhaps, don't want to know)?

Truth is there for anyone willing to see it.  Our politicians have virtually unlimited power to travel to places like Iraq on so-called "fact-finding" missions.  Our media has correspondents and reporters who span the globe.  Maybe colleges are a lost cause.  But still, there is no reason for people like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin to believe what they are saying.  There is no reason for the New York Times and CBS to put so much emphasis on American casualties and so little emphasis on American success.  Unless...

Unless they want us to lose.

Unless they hate America.

Unless, no matter how much they claim to "support the troops," they revel in the news of each and every fallen American G.I.

Unless they want radical Islam to spread.

Unless they want democracy in Iraq to fail.

Who do trust?

Do you trust the American soldier who is paid less than minimum wage to spend 2 years away from family, in a hostile climate, where bullets and bombs are a constant hazard, and yet is so convinced that America is doing the right thing that retention is up?

Or do you trust the fat and lazy politician, safe in corner office on The Hill, spewing forth the daily venom of Bush's incompetence?

Do you trust the soldiers risking their lives to bring freedom to people half-way around the globe?

Or do you trust the anonymous editorial boards of the big-city papers who write daily screeds comparing our War on Terror to Vietnam?

Do you trust your sons and daughters who are giving up the chance to take lucrative positions with fat paychecks during this period of economic growth?

Or do you trust the college professors who want us to believe that America deserved 9/11?

Whose side are you on?

Granted, I am biased.  But I am going to side with the brave Men and Women of the United States Military who are re-enlisting in unprecedented numbers.

Will you?

Comments

[Ghost Dog]

Great post! I have to admit I was surprised to learn that rentention is up.

[Steve]

Ok, I'll bite. I'm not a liberal, I'm a Libertarian and, in many respects, I believe what the GOP used to believe. (You remember: small government, low taxes, non-interventionism, liberty, personal autonomy, federalism, etc) Of course, that was before Big Government, interventionist conservatives came on the scene.

I certainly don't want America to lose, but I am -- and always have been -- against this war. I admire the bravery of men and women who enlist in the service but I don't think their opinion should trump or overrule the other 298 million of us.

Iraq is already lost. And no, it's not anti-American defeatism, it's reality.

If the "war of national liberation" (Remember when that was a Communist expression?)is successful, we will have succeeded in creating a Shia dominated Iraq solidly in the Iranians' orbit.

But that's irrelevant now because public opinion is long lost. Mr. Bush will not be able to throw bodies and dollars at his misbegotten folly forever. The American people will not stand for it.

All that said, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I appreciate a good debate and I'm glad I stumbled upon your blog.

[Mr. Completely]

STEVE: Help me to understand. Please answer one short question.

"Do you believe the world is a better place with Saddam removed from power?"

Most liberals are unable to answer yes or no questions without rambling on and on.

A Liberatarian should be able to do so......

[Steve]

The world is a better place with Saddam out of power.

The world would be a better place with Mr Bush out of power.

I don't understand the point of the question.

The real question, Mr. Completely, is: was it worth 1800 American lives and 250 billion dollars (to date) to remove him? Or, more to the point, was it America's responsibility to impose democracy on Iraq or was it, ultimately, the responsibility of the Iraqi people to determine their own future?

[Gullyborg]

Anyone who thinks that American President George W. Bush is more of a threat to the world than Saddam Hussein is so unhinged and separated from reality as to render all his opinions meaningless.

Here is the primary difference between removing Bush and removing Hussein:

In America, every 4 years, we have free elections where the people can remove an incumbent if they don't like him. And even if the people screw up and let a bad incumbent stay, the really amazing thing is that four years later, the incumbent has to leave.

Saddam Hussein put living people into wood chippers for having the nerve to think that maybe he wasn't the best President.

See the difference? See why he had to be removed by force?

Was it worth so much in terms of American casualties? Like I said, the people being shot at seem to think so. I trust them. Not you.

[Steve]

>>Anyone who thinks that American President George W. Bush is more of a threat to the world than Saddam Hussein is so unhinged and separated from reality as to render all his opinions meaningless.>>

Who said Bush is MORE of a threat than Saddam? Reading and comnprehending seems like a good first step in any debate.

But I'll tell you this. George Bush is more of a threat to America than Saddam ever was. Massive deficits, the largest expansion of government since LBJ - the bill for which your grandchildren won't pay off. Further destruction of the manufacturing base. Erosion of civil liberties. (What conservative thinks its a good idea to suspend the right of due process for an American citizen on one man's authority?) Etc., etc, etc.

>>Was it worth so much in terms of American casualties? Like I said, the people being shot at seem to think so. I trust them. Not you.>>

But the people being shot at don't formulate policy. That's the role of civilians. Neither does their seeming "to think so" make a persuasive argument for war.

[Gullyborg]

Well we can all agree that spending is the big problem. But as I've said before and I'll say again: CONGRESS spends the money, not the President.

We need term limits for Congressmen--even more so than we need for the President. Remember, Congress started the Amendment process to put term limits on the White House after FDR--but conveniently left themselves out of it.

[Steve]

>>Well we can all agree that spending is the big problem. But as I've said before and I'll say again: CONGRESS spends the money, not the President.>>

Mr Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill, on the contrary, he proposed the programs that now have us mired in debt. His RX drug program (show me the conservatism in that) was nothing more than a trillion dollar re-election sop to old people.

We don't need term limits -- I don't want my franchise limited by irresponsible politicians -- we need critical thinking by the electorate. An elephant can call itself a cheetah but it doesn't make it so. Likewise, Bush can call himself a conservative but...

Awww, you know where I'm going with that one.

[Gullyborg]

not really, no.

[BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE]

BUSH IS LYING AND SOLDIERS ARE DYING

[Gullyborg]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

Go take your "Bush Lies" bullshit and shove it up your fat hairy ass!