WASHINGTON — The Army, faced with a severe and growing shortage of recruits, began offering 15-month active-duty enlistments nationwide Thursday, the shortest tours ever.

The typical enlistment lasts three or four years; the previous shortest enlistment was two years.

Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of the Army Recruiting Command, said 2006 could be even worse than this year, a continuation of "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer Army."

Isn't the Army still under a stop loss? If so, these people signing up for 15 month stints will actually be signing up for infinite service. In other words, the 15 month promise is meaningless.

As predicted by just about everyone, the war is easier than the peace. A lot of the troops in Iraq come from poor backgrounds. The Military offers them great opportunities to improve themselves and develop carriers. There is a price if war breaks out however. During a war like this, they pay dearly. Most Americans don't seem to care about the dead or wounded as long as it isn't someone in their own family. Republicans are very willing to give up someone else's life in the name of whatever.

WASHINGTON — Just as the Pentagon is increasingly relying on the National Guard and other part-time troops for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, an internal Guard survey suggests that the demanding deployments could prompt a significant number of its soldiers to quit the military.
A recent survey of 5,000 soldiers from 15 states showed that the rate at which Army Guard members choose to leave the military could jump — to 20-22% a year among those who have served long overseas tours, typically 12 months.

As the death toll of troops mounts in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's military recruiting figures have plummeted to an all-time low. Thousands of US servicemen and women are now refusing to serve their country.

Hi,

In addition to the decreased first-time enlistment rate, there are other problems. The first is the retention rate of those coming up for re-enlistment:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... uard_x.htm



I personally know several National Guard soldiers who just returned to my hometown from tours of duty in Iraq. Every last one of them told me that the conditions over there are horrible. None of them is planning on re-enlisting.

The National Guard are NOT affected by the stop loss. Only the regular active duty army is affected. However, the majority of soldiers in Iraq right now are National Guard not Regular Army.

(This is my last anti-Anglosaxon post on these message boards, I promise).

PROMISE?!?!??!???!??!?

EVERYBODY READ THAT QUOTE PLEASE!!!!!!

Here's a good book on the subject that I recommend.

Reviewer: True Christian American (God's Country) -
Many would argue against the validity of Mr. Blum's facts. I do not. If you closely examine his sources, they hold up well under rigorous examination. What I dislike about this book, and the likes of Mr. Blum, is the agenda of anti-Americanism. Mr. Blum is quite correct in implicating the US government and American corporations in a spectrum of mass murders, assassinations, tortures, rapes and terror in general. This is all correct but he fails to acknowledge that this is the manner in which all empires have comported themselves. There is no reason to expect us to behave differently. These are the necessary means of maintaining an empire as well as the costs required to sustain the American lifestyle. Insisting on anything different is not only unrealistic, but asks us to betray of our way of life. George Bush Sr. put it clearly, "the American way of life is not up for negotiation." The price of our cherished lifestyle is high. Whether its 5,000,000 dead Southeast Asians or 500,000 dead Iraqi children, the price is worth it. Even Secretary of State Madeline Albright, a lefty Democrat, said so on CBS' 60 minutes. Blum and his anti-American agenda refuses to accept this fact.
What Mr. Blum refers to our "killing hope" in the world is nothing less than what pumps money and oil into our economy. It is the tribute due to the nation that dominates the world. Mr. Blum fails to mention a single word about our civilizing effect on what he calls the "victims" of our actions. It is as absurd as claiming that the "victims" of slavery gained nothing from their association with the civilizing force of a morally advanced Christian society. (I'm sure Chris Matthews of MSNBC and his comments on Muhammad Ali would back me on this point.) Mr. Blum's unwillingness to refer to these trickle-down benefits exposes his bias. Likewise, Blum lacks a balanced perspective. He could learn a lot about fair and balanced reporting by simply watching some television. He ignores the positive effects of our interventions while monotonously pleading a case for either the millions of dead that the process of keeping the world in line requires, or anyone that might foolishly resist our efforts in incorporating their natural resources into our corporate and national interests. One thing doesn't do is spend time on the obstinance of these people. How dare they resist our advances? What right do they think they have to their labor or natural resources?
What Mr. Blum says is true only to a degree. His greatest inaccuracy is that he has divorced his account of American foreign policy from the context of our unique virtue and God-given mandate. At times I felt myself trembling with rage at how he freely soils our good name, (another reason the 1st amendment needs to be restricted). His ignorance of our purity is enraging. America is almost a second Israel. How could anyone argue with that? Books like this threaten our national security by exposing dangerous facts that might sway public opinion against our behavior abroad. For such reasons it might be a good idea to ban or censor this book.

(This is my last anti-Anglosaxon post on these message boards, I promise).

Question: since 1945, the US has been involved in countless wars, occupations, terror campaigns, invasions and interventions. In which year did the US military industrial complex NOT intervene, occupy, slaughter, bomb, kill, assassinate, commit coups, cause civil wars, or invade countries, nations, people, personae, babies?

Options:
a) 1948
b) 1967
c) 1980
d) 2001
e) never

For each of the options, you have to give an explanation as to why you think it's not the correct one.

Good luck!