7/22    If the military is having such a horrible time finding new recruits,
        why don't they just raise salaries/benefits?  I think this was the
        tact that the Clinton admin. took with the college scholarships
        after military service.  Also, I'm sure it would have helped
        recruiting if the Bush administration hadn't pushed reservists
                                     I meant "national guard"_/
        into service in Iraq or extended the enlistment of soldiers
        who were supposed to return home so that they would be forced to
        stay in Iraq longer.  I think you reap what you sow. -mrauser
        http://csua.org/u/ctf
        \_ Where does the money come from?  Also, do you raise salary/benefits
           across the board, or just for the new recruits?  The former costs a
           lot, the latter (or in the form of sign-on bonus) pisses off people
           already in the service.
        \_ They are.  In the form of signing bonuses, for new recruits and
           re-enlistment.  Variable bonuses depending on MOS and experience,
           just like in real life.
        \_ In my home country, the best and the brightest work in or around
           the government sector, and the really good people who don't,
           already applied to those government positions. I hate to insult
           military men on motd but it seems to me that this country is
           run completely reversed. Perhaps to compete with the powerful
           industry of America, the US military branches should offer stock
           options (ticker: ARMY, NAVY, USAF). For every unit of resource we
           pillage from another country, the military stock price goes up.
           \_ I'm glad you think we still went into Iraq to pillage their oil.
              Oil prices sure are at an all-time low. I bet you even think
              Vietnam was a military action for pillaging. I'm glad you
              disparage one of the fundamental engines of capitalism, the stock
              market, and compare that with a constitutionally-required service.
              Your grasps of these facts surely make you the best candidate to
              advise the military on recruitment, and what the heck, run the country.
              advise the military on recruitment, and what the heck, run the
              country.
              \_ ohh, I'm sorry.  we are there for WMDs... I forgot about that.
                 Wait... was this about WMDs?
           \_ USMC.
        \_ I do not think tha this will help because I think that the problem
           w/ recruitment is indicative of larger societal problems - (1) most
           people don't feel that it is their job to defend america, thus
           they see no need to volunteer for service and (2) most people see
           no personal benefit from miltary service.
           Additionally with the success of technology in the battlefield
           the historical perception that a large standing army (navy, &c.)
           is not needed during peace-time has been reinforced.
           I would contend that this is not peacetime, its just that most
           people haven't realized that (in no small part b/c of TPTB).
           Sadly, unless something happens that affects the direct survival
           of each and every person in this country, there will likely be
           no change in present attitudes. One prays that by then it will
           not be too late for the republic.
           \_ By "something happens" perhaps you mean "a real threat happens"?
              My guess is people aren't signing up because they know damn
              well they would not be contributing to the safety of the US,
              or of the world. That they're just there as a policing force
              to contain a massive fuckup.
              \_ It is certainly plausible to think of 9/11 a one time
                 occurance, but I see it more as the latest in a series
                 of calculated strikes against the West and Democracy
                 in general by radical Islam (do not forget the orig. WTC
                 bombing, USS Cole bombing and the US Embassy bombings).
                 Also, I think that by focusing on WMDs and Iraq the
                 real threat that Iraq under Saddam posed is being missed.
                 IMO, after the fall of Afganistan, the only countries in
                 the region w/ any infrastructure to support AQ were Iraq
                 and Libya w/ Iraq being the more logical choice for AQ
                 to run to b/c it could be reached quickly by land routes.
                 To "liberate" Iraq was essential in order to prevent AQ
                 from regrouping and rearming.
                 Under normal wartime circumstances, there would be no
                 dispute that the CinC could authorize an invasion to halt
                 the enemy. The problem here is that the traditional
                 notions of war are built on the assumption that the enemy
                 is a nation-state, not an organization - which is why the
                 invasion of Iraq is not seen by many as a separate action
                 rather than a new "front" in the war.
                 I also do not see Iraq as a massive screw up. I did not
                 think that in my lifetime I would see any hope of a demo-
                 cratic Iraq. Now there is some hope. Yes it is not perfect,
                 yes it might have been better managed, BUT it is still
                 a TREMENDOUS accomplishment. Rome wasn't built in a day.
                 \_ If they hadn't stolen Florida 2000 and then followed up
                    by robbing Ohio 2004, none of this ever would've happened.
                    \_ I fail to see how the current administration had
                       anything to do w/ either the original WTC attack,
                       the USS Cole bombing or the Embassy bombings. 9/11
                       would have likely have happened under Gore's watch
                       as well.
                       The difference, I think, is that Gore's response
                       would have been akin to "peace in our time."
                       While I would hardly characterize the current
                       administrations handling of the war as stellar,
                       at least they recognize that we are at war and
                       are trying to fight it rather than deny it all
                       together.