• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Army recruits shortfall blamed on Iraq war critics.

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Text

Army recruits shortfall blamed on Iraq war critics By Vicki Allen
1 hour, 33 minutes ago


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Senate Republicans denounced other lawmakers and the news media on Thursday for unfavorable depictions of the Iraq war and the Pentagon urged members of Congress to talk up military service to help ease a recruiting shortfall.

Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there," Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Inhofe also said that other senators' criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies. He did not name the senators.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."

The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June. With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.

"With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), a Kansas Republican.

Facing flagging support for the Iraq war that has killed about 1,750 U.S. forces, President Bush in a speech on Tuesday acknowledged the nation's doubts about the strategy but insisted the operation was worthwhile and portrayed Iraq as a key battlefield against terrorists.

Bush himself made a pitch for military service. "We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform," he said.

While Bush has rejected calls for a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), the committee chairman, pressed the Pentagon to declassify information on progress of training Iraq's forces, considered a key indicator of when U.S. forces can return home.

"The American taxpayer put a tremendous investment in that retraining and the equipping," Warner said. With that information, he said, "We can better translate where we are in terms of hopefully providing them (Iraqis) with trained individuals and equipment to eventually replace our forces."

Democrats questioned the Pentagon officials on how the Iraq war has strained the military's readiness for other potential conflicts and on delays in providing troops with adequate armor against car bombs and other explosives.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, said while Bush urged Americans "to raise flags" in honor of U.S. troops in Iraq, the president did not assure troops "they will have the equipment they need to fight the war, and he should have."

Schoomaker acknowledged up to 25 percent of the Humvees in Iraq still had the low grade of protective armor, but he said all should be equipped with higher grade armor in September.

He also agreed that in some cases the level of readiness of units was below desired levels because of the strain of the Iraq conflict and the Army's efforts to streamline its operations.

In his testimony, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee said readiness for battalion and squadron-sized Marine units had dropped by 40 percent because of the priority put on sustaining units in Iraq at the expense of the units that had rotated out of the war.

Riiight, it's the news medias fault. :roll: The fact that you could be blown up apart by some idiot with a bomb strapped to him or get your head sliced off in a country where most people despise Americans and everything we stand for has nothing to do with it.

I guess the path is clear! We must censor the news media!!!
 
Anyone see that thread about the US military meeting its recruiting goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy regarding recruiting.

Bush himself made a pitch for military service. "We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform," he said.
Not all wars are worth fighting in. Bush knows this. He didn't go to Vietnam.
 
it's always easier to blame someone else. i doubt very much that the media has had much influence over 18, 19, 20 yr old kids. Kids don't listen anyway, if the media told them not to join the army they'd all be rushing to join
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?

And people are still signing up to the military (It's only the Army that has the recruiting shortfall). So if was the quagmire and disaster that some claim it to be, you'd think nobody would enlist at all.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?

And people are still signing up to the military (It's only the Army that has the recruiting shortfall). So if was the quagmire and disaster that some claim it to be, you'd think nobody would enlist at all.
Attacking someone's strawman is low, TLC. :|

😉
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?
.

George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and all the other liars?

 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?
.

George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and all the other liars?
Feel free to provide some links. I want to see where they said it's "rosy."

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?

And people are still signing up to the military (It's only the Army that has the recruiting shortfall). So if was the quagmire and disaster that some claim it to be, you'd think nobody would enlist at all.

And yet it made the news today...
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?

And people are still signing up to the military (It's only the Army that has the recruiting shortfall). So if was the quagmire and disaster that some claim it to be, you'd think nobody would enlist at all.

And yet it made the news today...
Hard to believe, huh?

After all the news is all about roses and sunshine, flying kites, and butterflies, aren't they?
 
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?

And people are still signing up to the military (It's only the Army that has the recruiting shortfall). So if was the quagmire and disaster that some claim it to be, you'd think nobody would enlist at all.
Attacking someone's strawman is low, TLC. :|

😉

I never said people were saying it's rosy in Iraq. I was paraphrasing the poster who said the military was meeting it's recruiting goals. I am talking about recruitment, not Iraq in general.

Edited the first post to make it more clear for you. Thought it was obvious since this is about army recruits.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone see that thread about the US meeting its goals? This shouldn't be an issue if everything is so rosy.
Who is claiming everything is rosy in Iraq?

And people are still signing up to the military (It's only the Army that has the recruiting shortfall). So if was the quagmire and disaster that some claim it to be, you'd think nobody would enlist at all.
Attacking someone's strawman is low, TLC. :|

😉

I never said people were saying it's rosy in Iraq. I was paraphrasing the poster who said the military was meeting it's recruiting goals. I am talking about recruitment, not Iraq in general.

Edited the first post to make it more clear for you. Thought it was obvious since this is about army recruits.
So sorry. I thought you were talking about the war. Obviously you were talking about the recruiting topic by adding:

"Not all wars are worth fighting in. Bush knows this. He didn't go to Vietnam."

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Obviously you were talking about the recruiting topic by adding:

"Not all wars are worth fighting in. Bush knows this. He didn't go to Vietnam."

If you read the quote that preceded that sentence, you'd see how that relates to recruiting. And it is possible to talk about two different subjects in one post... Anyway, that will be all on this tangent.

 
Sometimes it's what's NOT said that really says the most...

Anybody notice the basic message of the Republicans that are complaining? It's that the shortfall in recruits is due to the "negative reporting" by the media. This idea is repeated several times. The negative reporting about Iraq is what's causing fewer people to want to join up. Nowhere is the idea suggested that the negative reporting is unfair or untrue.

This is an important difference. If the Reps believed Iraq was "rosy" as another poster said, and that the media was being unfairly negative in how they show the war, they would certainly have made that clear. And I'd agree with them, that would be shoddy reporting. But it's not what they said, and the absense of that sort of phrasing makes it seem like they think it's bad...and they are mad at the media for showing that negativity. In other words, they aren't mad because the media is being unfairly negative, they are mad that the media is telling the negative truth. Not exactly the kind of thinking I can get behind...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's interesting to consider...
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Sometimes it's what's NOT said that really says the most...

Anybody notice the basic message of the Republicans that are complaining? It's that the shortfall in recruits is due to the "negative reporting" by the media. This idea is repeated several times. The negative reporting about Iraq is what's causing fewer people to want to join up. Nowhere is the idea suggested that the negative reporting is unfair or untrue.

This is an important difference. If the Reps believed Iraq was "rosy" as another poster said, and that the media was being unfairly negative in how they show the war, they would certainly have made that clear. And I'd agree with them, that would be shoddy reporting. But it's not what they said, and the absense of that sort of phrasing makes it seem like they think it's bad...and they are mad at the media for showing that negativity. In other words, they aren't mad because the media is being unfairly negative, they are mad that the media is telling the negative truth. Not exactly the kind of thinking I can get behind...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's interesting to consider...

I'm in awe with your analytical skills. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Sometimes it's what's NOT said that really says the most...

Anybody notice the basic message of the Republicans that are complaining? It's that the shortfall in recruits is due to the "negative reporting" by the media. This idea is repeated several times. The negative reporting about Iraq is what's causing fewer people to want to join up. Nowhere is the idea suggested that the negative reporting is unfair or untrue.

This is an important difference. If the Reps believed Iraq was "rosy" as another poster said, and that the media was being unfairly negative in how they show the war, they would certainly have made that clear. And I'd agree with them, that would be shoddy reporting. But it's not what they said, and the absense of that sort of phrasing makes it seem like they think it's bad...and they are mad at the media for showing that negativity. In other words, they aren't mad because the media is being unfairly negative, they are mad that the media is telling the negative truth. Not exactly the kind of thinking I can get behind...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's interesting to consider...
I think you make a good case. I also think you didn't finish the analysis.

How often do we see the MSM tell us about the improvements in Iraqi infrastructure, or education, or government? US soldiers and others are working every single day on such improvements? Every single day there's another story to tell. What stories do we hear about though? The negative ones. Regardless of whether it's the "truth" or not, and the media has the <cough> occasional penchant for creating their own truth when speaking of the negative, it's virtually all we hear about. That one-sidedness does create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that encapsulates and permeates everything.

By not exposing people to the progress, we are not letting them know the entire truth. It's a half-truth. It's also going to prevent those that would otherwise enlist to lend a hand, despite the dangers, the wrong impression. So in a way those Senators are exactly right.

 
Silly me I though it was the idea of comming home in a box or without your arms that did it? Especially for an elective offensive war which violates most peoples morals.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Sometimes it's what's NOT said that really says the most...

Anybody notice the basic message of the Republicans that are complaining? It's that the shortfall in recruits is due to the "negative reporting" by the media. This idea is repeated several times. The negative reporting about Iraq is what's causing fewer people to want to join up. Nowhere is the idea suggested that the negative reporting is unfair or untrue.

This is an important difference. If the Reps believed Iraq was "rosy" as another poster said, and that the media was being unfairly negative in how they show the war, they would certainly have made that clear. And I'd agree with them, that would be shoddy reporting. But it's not what they said, and the absense of that sort of phrasing makes it seem like they think it's bad...and they are mad at the media for showing that negativity. In other words, they aren't mad because the media is being unfairly negative, they are mad that the media is telling the negative truth. Not exactly the kind of thinking I can get behind...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's interesting to consider...
I think you make a good case. I also think you didn't finish the analysis.

How often do we see the MSM tell us about the improvements in Iraqi infrastructure, or education, or government? US soldiers and others are working every single day on such improvements? Every single day there's another story to tell. What stories do we hear about though? The negative ones. Regardless of whether it's the "truth" or not, and the media has the <cough> occasional penchant for creating their own truth when speaking of the negative, it's virtually all we hear about. That one-sidedness does create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that encapsulates and permeates everything.

By not exposing people to the progress, we are not letting them know the entire truth. It's a half-truth. It's also going to prevent those that would otherwise enlist to lend a hand, despite the dangers, the wrong impression. So in a way those Senators are exactly right.
Unfortunately for the perpetually rosy, routine good news is rarely considered headline-worthy. I think any negativity by the media is more than offset by the Pollyanna tales spread by the Bush administration and its flock. The whole truth is somewhere in the middle, no doubt.
 
Army recruits shortfall blamed on Iraq war critics.
In that case, blame the Bush administration. They were critical enough to launch a war against them. Doesn't matter much that all of their so called "reasons" were lies.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Sometimes it's what's NOT said that really says the most...

Anybody notice the basic message of the Republicans that are complaining? It's that the shortfall in recruits is due to the "negative reporting" by the media. This idea is repeated several times. The negative reporting about Iraq is what's causing fewer people to want to join up. Nowhere is the idea suggested that the negative reporting is unfair or untrue.

This is an important difference. If the Reps believed Iraq was "rosy" as another poster said, and that the media was being unfairly negative in how they show the war, they would certainly have made that clear. And I'd agree with them, that would be shoddy reporting. But it's not what they said, and the absense of that sort of phrasing makes it seem like they think it's bad...and they are mad at the media for showing that negativity. In other words, they aren't mad because the media is being unfairly negative, they are mad that the media is telling the negative truth. Not exactly the kind of thinking I can get behind...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's interesting to consider...
I think you make a good case. I also think you didn't finish the analysis.

How often do we see the MSM tell us about the improvements in Iraqi infrastructure, or education, or government? US soldiers and others are working every single day on such improvements? Every single day there's another story to tell. What stories do we hear about though? The negative ones. Regardless of whether it's the "truth" or not, and the media has the <cough> occasional penchant for creating their own truth when speaking of the negative, it's virtually all we hear about. That one-sidedness does create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that encapsulates and permeates everything.

By not exposing people to the progress, we are not letting them know the entire truth. It's a half-truth. It's also going to prevent those that would otherwise enlist to lend a hand, despite the dangers, the wrong impression. So in a way those Senators are exactly right.

If we're not being exposed to this "progress" you speak of, how do you know "progress" is being made? Are you in Iraq? Do you get briefings from an unimpeachable source? :roll:
 
Nowhere is the idea suggested that the negative reporting is unfair or untrue.

Actually that has been widely commented on.

Why do you think soldiers will no longer talk to journalists? Because they know that they will so badly misconstrued that it is not even worth it. Why do you think journalists are no longer leaving the Green Zone? Because they have 'relaible' sources of information that come to them - just like in Vietnam where they worked with Viet Cong spies to trade information.

When is the last time ABC, NBC, or CBS showed a positive story about Iraq? When have they commented on the 20,000 schools built, or the 1,000 hospitals, or the day to day projects to improve life? I suspect the last time they reported any of this was in WWII shortly after we took Germany.

It is no mystery that the media is looking to relive their glory days. Vietnam saved them from an impending doom. Thankfully for them, as rating were once again on the brink, they now have another chance, Sadly, people can now see exactly what the media was doing during Vietnam - attempting to engineer a defeat. Thankfully today, most reasonable people (everyone except the teen liberals here) get it.
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Sometimes it's what's NOT said that really says the most...

Anybody notice the basic message of the Republicans that are complaining? It's that the shortfall in recruits is due to the "negative reporting" by the media. This idea is repeated several times. The negative reporting about Iraq is what's causing fewer people to want to join up. Nowhere is the idea suggested that the negative reporting is unfair or untrue.

This is an important difference. If the Reps believed Iraq was "rosy" as another poster said, and that the media was being unfairly negative in how they show the war, they would certainly have made that clear. And I'd agree with them, that would be shoddy reporting. But it's not what they said, and the absense of that sort of phrasing makes it seem like they think it's bad...and they are mad at the media for showing that negativity. In other words, they aren't mad because the media is being unfairly negative, they are mad that the media is telling the negative truth. Not exactly the kind of thinking I can get behind...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's interesting to consider...
I think you make a good case. I also think you didn't finish the analysis.

How often do we see the MSM tell us about the improvements in Iraqi infrastructure, or education, or government? US soldiers and others are working every single day on such improvements? Every single day there's another story to tell. What stories do we hear about though? The negative ones. Regardless of whether it's the "truth" or not, and the media has the <cough> occasional penchant for creating their own truth when speaking of the negative, it's virtually all we hear about. That one-sidedness does create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that encapsulates and permeates everything.

By not exposing people to the progress, we are not letting them know the entire truth. It's a half-truth. It's also going to prevent those that would otherwise enlist to lend a hand, despite the dangers, the wrong impression. So in a way those Senators are exactly right.

If we're not being exposed to this "progress" you speak of, how do you know "progress" is being made? Are you in Iraq? Do you get briefings from an unimpeachable source? :roll:
I know by reading sources of news that rarely seem to find its way to the MSM, for some unknown reason:

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/06/good-news-from-iraq-part-29.html

Do you ever even bother to check out such information, or does your bias prevent any good news from invading your eyeballs?
 
Back
Top