Regarding the deaths in Iraq

[Neil D]

Found what seems tobe a reliable source regarding the numbers of deaths in Iraq and Afganistan. It's called the Iraq Coalition Casuality Count [iCCC].

Here is the web site....

ICCC

[Dr. Shane]

Isn't it amazing that the terrorists killed more of us on the opening day of this war than they have been able to kill in two years of armed conflict against us?

Oh and yes, we are fighting al queida in Iraq. Saddam's regime fell long ago. Remember the aircraft carrior and the "Mission Accomplished" banner? That was the end of Saddam and the start of the insurgency fueled by al queida.

[Dr. Shane]

I am disappionted that we have not been able to train in a new Iraqi army quicker. For the amount of time we have been there, I belive Iraq should have a much larger army trained in. I would like to know why it is taking so long.

[Ron Lambert]

And those deaths of Americans resulting from insurgency actions like car bombs, etc., have all taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan, not in the U.S. Since 9/11, America has been fighting terrorists on the terrorist' home turf, and not on our home turf. The terrorist bombings in Madrid, and the more recent ones in London, are vitually the only significant attacks Al Qaeda and their cronies have made outside of their own lands in four years. Any attempts they may have made to launch new attacks in America have been prevented so far. If we must fight a war--and against terrorists we must fight a war--I think it is far better to fight it elsewhere and not at home.

Furthermore, I am sure it has not been lost on the Iraqi people that the vast majority of victims of terrorist attacks has been Iraqi citizens, not U.S. soldiers. Thus the terrorists are alienating the very population they most depend upon for support and recruits.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a few months? The media's glee would have made you confuse the New York Times and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered was the wonderful news that the Army couldn't find enough soldiers. We were warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great. Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record levels. And you don't hear a whisper about it from the "mainstream media."

Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism than the editorial pages do.

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let's wait for confirmation on that.)

Of course, we'll hear stammering about an "army of mercenaries"— naive, uneducated kids lured by the promise of big retention bonuses. That's another lie told by the elite to excuse themselves from serving our country in uniform.

The young men and women who have been through the crucible of combat — often on repeated deployments — are hardly naive. Their education levels exceed the American average. And, as of Aug. 2, the Army had spent a 2005 total of only $347 million on Selective Re-enlistment Bonuses — that's weekend walking-around money for America's Fortune 500 CEOs.

Big bucks for risking your life? Not hardly. Only 60 percent of soldiers get any re-enlistment bonus. For the overwhelming number whose skills merit an extra incentive, bonuses runs between $6,000 and $12,400 per year of contracted service — per year of facing death, wounds, separation from family and uncertainty as to whether you'll ever see that family again.

A total of 643 soldiers with very special capabilities, from special operators to doctors, got an average payment of $57,000 — a fraction of what the private sector offers them for doing the same jobs at far less risk.

No, they don't do it for the money.

Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is "love." They would die for the man or woman serving beside them. They're risking their lives to save a broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.

Their reward? The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there's no hope in Iraq.

The ugly truth is that much of the media only cares about our soldiers when they're dead or crippled. That's a story.

---

That ugly truth is demonstrated by the left generally.

[Bravus]

Ooops, slipping into broad generalisations there, Ed: you're uncomfortable with generalisations about the right, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

A few odd ones in the article, too:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

MMhmm - so those who refuse to enlist despise the country and the president? Some pretty shocking despite among the children of Republican senators and congressmen, then... Not a whole lot of them enlisting. There are all sorts of valid reasons why young people would choose not to enlist, and tarring those who make that choice like this is unfair and unAmerican. (in my non-American opinion!)

OK, in somewhat less combative, more dialoguing mode...

In the final analysis, targets are targets. There are (at least) two ways to meet or exceed them: recruit more soldiers, or lower the targets. Any evidence on whether any of the second might have occurred?

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bravus said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

MMhmm - so those who refuse to enlist despise the country and the president? Some pretty shocking despite among the children of Republican senators and congressmen, then... Not a whole lot of them enlisting. There are all sorts of valid reasons why young people would choose not to enlist,

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I feel the same way about the yellow ribbon decals turning up on the cars these days. If we don't have the decal on our car, does that mean we're unpatriotic? I don't think so! It doesn't even mean we're not supportive of our soldiers.

In fact, "Yellow-Ribbon Patriotism" seems to be the only way the general populace can vent their grief - since the administration forbids publication of photos of the military coffins coming home for burial.

[Read Joe Klein's latest column in TIME Aug. 29 issue.... It can also be found at time.com/klein]

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Ooops, slipping into broad generalisations there, Ed: you're uncomfortable with generalisations about the right, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

---

To which the typical reply around here is: It's not a generalization, it's my observation.

My reply: I don't object to generalizations, I reject falsehood.

Quote:

---

so those who refuse to enlist despise the country and the president?

---

An interesting leap of logic.

It's a classic fallacy

Premise:

If A, then B

Your conclusion:

Not A, then Not B.

But the premise says nothing at all about "Not A," so your conclusion is fallacious.

What we hear from the so-called "mainstream media" every day is that people don't support the war, don't believe this country is a good place, and don't support the President. And falling short of those interim targests was trumpeted of evidence of that fact. He offered this datum as a refutation of that commonplace assertion.

And the targets are the same today as they were six months ago, when falling short was offered as proof of that assertion.

The military told us then that enlistment was a cyclical thing, up at some times, down at others, and the media pooh-poohed it. Now that their duplicity has been exposed, they're ignoring the facts that expose them.

Or proposing silly conspiracy theories--easily checked--like "changing targets." I have more respect for your intellect than you do. I expect much, much better of you.

[Bravus]

I *know* it's easily checked, and if you like I'm happy to check it. I just wondered whether you had any info.

OK, here we go:

This is from www.army.mil, a report from the Army to the House Armed Services Committee:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

First, in the area of recruiting and retaining Soldiers, we essentially met all of our goals in 2004 with the exception of the National Guard recruiting goal. Through the first quarter of the 2005 Fiscal Year, we again are either on or very close to our recruiting and retention goals in the Active Force and the Army Reserves. However, in the case of the National Guard, we failed to meet our recruiting goal, but made the retention objective.

Now, in my mind, there is no question that the remainder of 2005 will be a very challenging year, especially for recruiting. For that reason we have added over 2000 new recruiters, which is an increase of approximately 25% over 2004, with the goal of adding 1000 more. In addition, we have increased the incentives across the board. Let me end this part of my statement by saying that recruiting and retention of Soldiers is not just an Army challenge, it is a challenge for our country. Every one of us in both the military and Congress must do our part to emphasize to our young people the importance of service to the country.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Full URL is: http://www.army.mil/leaders/leaders/sa/testimony/20050209HASC.html

Notice two things:

1. dramatic increase in recruitment *activity* and the number of active recruiters: by 25% with another 12.5% planned. Given that, and the increased incentives, it would be surprising if there were *not* better recruitment. (And incidentally, dismissing incentives of $6000-$12000 shows how out of touch the author of the original piece is: for the poorest, that is something like a quarter to a half of a yearly wage: a not insignificant incentive.)

2. The fact that despite both the incentives and the large increase in recruitment, the statement is that most branches are 'on or near' their targets, not dramatically exceeding them, and that the National Guard recruitment fell short.

So maybe there's a story out there - the info I'm quoting is older, but the info in the article is not cited so it's hard to find), but I think it also reflects on my intelligence whether I accept as gospel the stats offered in such a right-wing piece.

[Dr. Shane]

I will tell you that I volunteered for active duty during the first Gulf War (I was in the National Guard). I was sent to Panama since they needed more crane operators there. However when I came home I felt so appreciated by all the yellow ribbons everyone had on the car attenas. The very least can do to show our appreciation to our returning troops is have a yellow ribbon on our cars. They are so cheap I can't understand why anyone wouldn't have one that claims to support the troops. The only problem I have had is that since they are magnetic people steal them off my car <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />