[Gimpy]

I'm-a watchin MY six..... and a bunch of others also!

Looks like Emily now might be-a headin fer south Texas after it whallops the Yucatan. I'll be-a sendin prayers ta a whole bunch of them ole 'Cowboys' it looks like!

Look out SuperWindy...........it might be-a comin at ya!

#####

Now, back to the 'subject' at hand!

Supporting the Troops!

Army recruitment is now regularly falling short of the necessary targets. Recruiters are having even more trouble persuading people to sign up for Army National Guard and Reserve units. The Marine Corps has been missing its much smaller monthly quotas as well.

Unless there is a sharp change later this year, both forces will soon start feeling the pinch as too few trainees are processed to meet both forces' operational needs.

Why this is happening is no mystery . Two years of seeing and listening to former high ranking members of the military, returning Iraq War Veterans, and the media speak out about too few troops on the ground, inadequate armor, extended tours of duty and accelerated rotations back into combat have taken their toll, discouraging potential enlistees and their parents.


The citizen-soldiers of the Guard and Reserves have suddenly become full-time warriors. Nor has it helped that when abuse scandals have erupted, the Pentagon has seemed quicker to punish lower-ranking soldiers than top commanders and policy makers. This negative cycle now threatens to feed on itself.


Fewer recruits will mean more stress on those now in uniform and more bad reports reaching hometowns across America.


Things might have been different if Rumsfeld had heeded the judgment of General Eric Shinseki, then the army chief of staff, in the months before the United States invaded Iraq and planned for a substantially larger occupation force.


A larger force would have kept the insurgency smaller and more manageable. It would have been better able to defend and police the borders of neighboring countries. Individual combat brigades would not have been under such constant operational stress.


But Rumsfeld rejected Shinseki's sound advice. The Pentagon now says it gives field commanders as many troops as they ask for. But those commanders are aware of Rumsfeld's doctrinaire commitment to holding down troop numbers and of the diminished career prospects that could result from challenging him.

The list of "retired" high ranking officers increased 5 fold in the months after Rummie took over the Pentagon. He pretty much "purged" anyone who voiced objections to his or Paul Wolfowitz's ideas and plans.

Now THAT'S what I call "supporting" the troops alright!.......

Yeah, RIGHT!........ :cd:


####

A recent poll was taken by major web source that reveals the facts about American "support for the troops".

Following is a summary of their results:

Can you Support the Troops Without Supporting the War?

Consider the following rationale when arriving at an answer.


No - if you oppose the mission, then you undermine the troops and that's disloyal.

Results = 15%

Yes - but it's important to emphasize wanting the troops to be safe, and not wanting them to be doing what they are engaged in.

Results = 77%


I don't know .

Results = 2%

I don't care.

Results = 4%

So it's apparent that the narrowminded view of most far-rightwing folks is NOT as profound and widespread as they profess.


####