How often in the past couple of years as the antiwar voices in the media have gotten louder and more visible have you seen a report about the supposedly poor condition of the American military and troubles with recruitment?
So often that it's nauseating, right?
Well, with virtually no fanfare from a press with a clear agenda, the Army National Guard reported in April that it had achieved a goal it had not been able to attain since 1999.
As reported by the National Guard Bureau (h/t Glenn Reynolds, emphasis added throughout):
“The Army National Guard reached its congressionally authorized end strength of 350,000 Citizen-Soldiers on March 30, six months earlier than originally projected, Army Guard officials have reported.”
That’s good news, right? Yet, Google news and LexisNexis searches identified virtually no coverage of this announcement apart from military publications.
Regardless, the article continued:
"The strength of the Guard has been the amazing levels of retention among members of deployed units, surpassing all expectations," said Lt. Col. Diana Craun, the Army Guard’s deputy chief for strength maintenance.
"Retention is highest among units that have returned from deployments, and retention is an essential element in end strength," she added.
It is the first time that the Army Guard has been at full strength since 1999, Craun said. Officials had projected that the Army Guard would reach 350,000 troops by Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year.
Read this next paragraph for a perfect indication of just how wrong the media are about morale in the military:
The achievement follows one of the Army Guard’s most successful recruiting and retention years in its history. The force experienced a net growth of 13,111 Soldiers during fiscal year 2006, Guard officials said, and it surpassed its retention goal of 34,875 by reenlisting 41,083 Soldiers. That was said to be unprecedented for the all-volunteer force since the end of the military draft 34 years ago. The Army Guard’s end strength was 346,288 when the last fiscal year ended Sept. 30.
Any questions about why the media ignored this fabulous announcement?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Guard had more dangerous jo
May 6, 2007 - 15:36 ET by MilesDGuard had more dangerous job, typically in early days of Iraq war than reg Army, the situation has reversed
I hated the way some of them mouthed of in public about Rumsfeld (Hey soldier, anybody tell you the C130 makes a return flight)
Rant - McCain, you're gone, no hope, for trashing Rumsfeld in public after delivering your respects to Sec Rumsfeld at his recognition ceremony.
see ya John
what ??
May 6, 2007 - 15:47 ET by tejanodiablomilesd : .. what ????? .. is there something missing that i do not understand ?? please elaborate .. coherently ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
About McCain? McCain publi
May 6, 2007 - 15:53 ET by MilesDAbout McCain? McCain publically blasted Rumsfeld as the "worst sec of defense, ever."
McCain, on the other hand, delivered a nice speech about Rumsfeld, at a ceremony, when Rumsfeld left office, praised his "dedication, integrity", and so on. This was about a month before McCain decided to deliver his opinions about Rumsfeld's tenure
Rumsfeld wasn't horrible bu
May 6, 2007 - 16:30 ET by CCCPRumsfeld wasn't horrible but he wasn't good either, when he was trying to change the military he was going way too slow, so his removal was expected, and McCain thinks that because he's a POW he knows everything about war....bitch
“The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” - Comrade Josef Stalin
change
May 6, 2007 - 16:39 ET by tejanodiabloit's easier to change the uniform than to change the culture .. the top military was inculcated, way back when, to fight the soviets in europe .. they didn't learn shit from viet nam .. rummy's problem was that he didn't kick enough ass and he didn't bring in some green berets and seals to top positions .. some retired israelis would have been good, too .. just not olmert's idiots ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
<RumsFeld>, "when
May 6, 2007 - 17:00 ET by MobiusStrip<RumsFeld>, "when he was trying to change the military he was going way too slow, so his removal was expected"
What a bunch of hindsight crap. He HAD to go, despite the Commander Guy's insistence that he was doing a Brownie of a job. Rumsfeld was a disaster. I'd love to read his self serving Tenet-like memoirs- though he won't have the balls or reason to ever publish them. Does "You're out of here!" ever reasonate with the right unless and until the liability of incompetence has been proven to be too great to handle?
Rumsfeld put his faith and our money into military technology- while not looking after returning troops and making excuses about lack of armor for those in the field. "You go to war with the Army you have- not the one you want". Bullshit- he didn't either give a damn or was incapable of his charge.
Any apologist for this fool and failure- whose "removal was expected" but not done by our CIC- has to look at the outcome of his failed policies in Iraq. To do so requires they must admit that the CIC is not capable of fielding a team that knows how to do their jobs. Again and again. And Petreous will be the fall guy now, unless Bush's boy finds someone stupid enough to become War Czar.
(Just like a real Mobius st
May 6, 2007 - 17:28 ET by MilesD(Just like a real Mobius strip - it has only one side)
I stand up for Rumsfeld, he did not by any means decide the conduct of the Iraq war, and many of his suggestions were not implemented.
Rumsfeld believed in the ability of elete forces to conduct the war, and this was his original plan: go in there, remove what needed to be removed, get out, leave the Iraqi Army in place to manage defense.
So, tell me, have you heard any Tenet-style whining from Rumsfeld such as "I was a fall guy, people made a chump out of me, poor me, look at me now, everybody used me..."
Do you expect to hear some of this from him?
Rumsfeld was aware of the state of the Army and the Guard, and it looked bad to me when people took their case to the American press. This will have a negative effect on the whole Administration, only. The cmdrs should have told enlisted to discuss issues with Army, not with Press.
Rumsfeld could be abrasive, but I prefer that to a sweet lying mouth, anyday
(Just like a real Mobius stri
May 6, 2007 - 17:41 ET by(Just like a real Mobius strip - it has only one side)
and must be twisted to achieve it
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
""surpassed its ret
May 6, 2007 - 16:34 ET by general company"
"surpassed its retention goal of 34,875 by reenlisting 41,083 Soldiers"
This will quickly change if the surrender bill ever gets passed.
Any questions about why the media ignored this fabulous announcement?
Nothing here that makes Bush or the USA look bad. Plus its hard to tell folks all is going poorly when the people doing the hard work believe in it. Would proove them hypocritical, don't you think?
The Media will find fault wit
May 6, 2007 - 19:44 ET by ThisnThatThe Media will find fault with these numbers, and start to report on them shortly.
The faults? -- 1. Too many felons are being recruited; 2. the soldiers can't find a job anywhere else because of low skills, etc; and finally, 3. bonus's are the only way to keep the soldiers, and these bonus's are bankrupting the country and being applied incorrectly -- more needs to be spent on Walter Reed, blah blah blah.
I was listening to NPR and th
May 7, 2007 - 03:36 ET by Dan The Man 2I was listening to NPR and they already brought up those points, from a retired military guy.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
If only......
May 6, 2007 - 18:42 ET by acumen"The strength of the Guard has been the amazing levels of retention among members of deployed units, surpassing all expectations," said Lt. Col. Diana Craun, the Army Guard’s deputy chief for strength maintenance.
Retention among deployed units being the key phrase. And this is the part the burnt-out Pelosi/Kerry/Fonda Vietnam era leftist types just refuse to comprehend. Almost all (concensus?) of our military men and women WANT to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq to finish their job.
Today's military believes in the mission they are doing and for the most part, this President has not set up political barriers to the commanders and troops carrying out their mission. Our military men and women see first-hand the good they are doing for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. They see the gratitude of the civilian population. They see their work paying off in the growth and professionalism they were responsible for developing in the Afghan and Iraqi military and police. They see the populace returning to once abandoned neighborhoods because the citizens know that the military will stay this time and protect them against thugs and terrorists. They see the citizens informing on the troublemakers in their neighborhoods, which leads to the capture or killing of bomb-makers. They have built lasting friendships with the Afghans and Iraqis and realize that is the secret to lasting peace.
In short our military men and women choose to re-enlist and stay on in Iraq and Afghanistan because the citizens there respected and appreciate what they are doing. If only they could find that same recognition and gratiude in the American media.....
From the Soldiers Mouth to America's Heart
May 6, 2007 - 19:47 ET by acumenBut don't take my word for it. From an American soldier's mouth to America's heart, go to the following link and look for the video; I Would Like to Finish My Job
Since 1999? So how about 2
May 6, 2007 - 18:45 ET by GregESince 1999? So how about 2000? Didn't meet the goal then eh? Let's see, Slick Willie was president. I'm SURE the media talked alot about how the goal was missed in 2000. After all, it's a most important news item, one would think.
If it was discussed, wouldn't be a big deal anyway since there was no Republican president at that time, and an no war to pin him to.
The way I remember and
May 6, 2007 - 19:26 ET by doug1950The way I remember and understand it, we have Paul Bremer to thank for most of the problems we are experiencing in Iraq now. The retired General (his name escapes me for now) that was originally sent over there to start training the old Iraqi army and rebuilding the infrastructure in the first weeks after Baghdad fell, got his legs cut off from under him by Bremer. Apparently Bremer would countermand this General's efforts at every turn and it became such an impossible situation the General decided it was not within his power to do much so he left Iraq. This is backed up by many of the people who were on the ground there at the time. We missed the "golden" opportunity to do it right from the beginning. Unfortunately, in a hostile and rapidly changing war zone you do not get a chance to have a "do over". The opportunity was missed. Had we allowed the ex-Army people to get the involved in rebuilding Iraq at that time there would not have been so many false starts and our own people could have concentrated on doing what they do best; clean up and mop up ops to clear out any lingering combatants, and allowed the Iraqis to guard the oil fields, rebuild the utilities, etc. When Bremer's plan proved to be ineffective and went over like the proverbial turd in the punch bowl, he bailed out too. By then any opportunity to make a good start was gone, now we are trying to do something akin to herding cats.
Shortly
May 6, 2007 - 20:12 ET by Mr. BishopShortly after 9-11, I became the Retention NCO for my Batallion. One of the reasons for this was my political background. The powers that be in the Batallion, felt that with my experience in the political field (including lobbying the state legislature for the National Guard), as well as experience in the Army and Guard itself, I was the perfect candidate for them to help convince other people to stay in the National Guard. Here is the kicker though: I really wasn't needed. When I talked to individuals who were having an ETS coming up, 95% of them had already planned on re-signing, and needed no convincing from me -- this is post 9-11 now, remember that. Anyhow, when I asked those who were not re-signing, what their biggest reasoning was -- it was almost universal: They didn't like training, when there was no chance they would go to war. The National Guard wants to fight -- it's what we train for. And while we didn't train as often as the regular Army, we did train 4 times as hard. We were held to the same stardards of conduct and readiness, that any regular Army unit is held to. We surpassed this, always, and were repeatedly complimented on our ability to outperform every regular Army unit our instructors encountered. The reasons were multiple -- but the biggest reasoning was our own personal motivations -- our drive.
Without the personal motivations and drive of the members of the National Guard, they are nothing, and have low morale, thus the retention rate is low. When you have a purpose, a reason to be there -- your retention rate is high. The National Guard has a purpose, a function in the war in Iraq -- and for that reason alone, the retention rate stays very high.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Seems to me some of the credi
May 6, 2007 - 23:30 ET by maggieqpublicSeems to me some of the credit for the recruitment figures should accrue to the respect our servicemen hold for the Commander in Chief. Our President is nothing if not steadfast, and some of us find that enormously refreshing while others call him a war criminal.
First, I would like to thank
May 7, 2007 - 04:14 ET by old croFirst, I would like to thank all past and present soldiers who have/are serving. They are brave beyond comparison, there is not a match for them in this wide world, I and my family support them and their CIC to the fullest. This is great news you probably won't hear about many other places, another reason I come here. Secondly, I think Rumsfeld did a heck of a job, he was just caught between the present war and evolving the military at the same time. It is an immense job changing our military to modern methods, but in retrospect cannot be done while moving the machine to a war footing. Mistakes were made, but what endeavor is error free? With no help from democrats and the MSM, his job was rendered near impossible. I salute him and all who made this ongoing effort possible!
Where were Clinton's cuts in
May 7, 2007 - 08:41 ET by ucWhere were Clinton's cuts in military spending? Where were troop levels lowered under Clinton? These reported numbers are quite a proud statement about america and americans yet leave me wondering how many would be away from their homes today but for Clinton's policies.