visions to come:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?mode=getarticle&file=nn20080212a1.html

There's a lot more fun at ARMY WRONG

www.armywrong.net

Hey, please give Mr. Arkin a break. He has to write a column, and it needs to be interesting. What anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant, i.e., except his bosses.

If Mr. Arkin doesn't get a bunch of blogs pro and con, his bosses may just boot him out. Then he'd be in fix; he just might have to get a real job.

An all volunteer army of college graduates would be wonderful, but we live in the real world. We should lower recruitment standards to enlist our uneducated young men presently working the streets with an extra year of service to get their GED's or trade training. Trade unions across the country would welcome them as apprentices. The lower quality of our fighting men would cause problems, but functional operating theater numbers are more important for our commanders to achieve their objectives. With Pakistan possibly going bad, our country is in no position to intervene with present troop strength. We can't stop the slaughter in Darfur nor help the Congo with our present structure. Talk softly and carry a big stick is unknown to our current leader, despite his father doing it. The cost of increasing the military in this manner is a wash when compared to the cost of apprehending and jailing those that work the streets and the negative effect they have in their neighborhoods.

um,... It's DRAFT TIME.

Farzad, I don't think our gov't dubbed in the comments. I believe it was a prank and only the cool-headed restraint of some Navy personnel prevented us from starting a war over it.)Soldier's mom

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO A MOTHER, AND A LADY, I DISAGREE COMPLETELY. BUSH TRAVELS TO THE MIDDLE EAST TO PUMP UP THE IRAN THREAT, AND ALL OF SUDDEN WE GET A VIDEO AND AUDIO EVIDENCE OF THREATENING BEHAVIOR, IT IS ALL TOO CONVENIENT, AND WITH THIS CAST OF CHARACTERS IF YOU SMELL SMOKE THERE IS FIRE. I HEARD BOTH THE IRANIAN AUDIO, AND THE VOICE ON THE TAPE, NO WAY YOU COULD CONFUSE THE VOICE OF THE IRANIAN REV. GUARD SAILOR FOR THE GUY MAKING THE TRANSMITTED THREAT.

HERE IS TWO POSSIBILITIES 1. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION KNEW THE AUDIO THREAT WAS BOGUS AND SOLD IT ANYWAY AS COMING FROM THE IRANIAN SHIPS OR 2. THEY DUBBED IN THREAT AND THEY DUBBED THE VOICE OF AN AMERICAN CONFIRMING THE THREAT.

Remember there was no background noise on the transmission of the threat kind of unlikely for a speedboat in open water, meaning that it is unlikely the broadcast came from a small boat. As usual the Bushies tried to terrorize America by presenting a situation in its worst possible light. I don't buy this fillipino monkey cover story at all, it is all too convenient of timing, right when Bush is traveling to the Gulf. Not to mention that this supposed heckler is heard making one very strategically placed comment through the whole tape. Hecklers and crack callers want attention when they start something they don't usually just throw out one comment that fits perfectly into George Bush's scheme to paint Iran as a threat.Why did he make comments that are so in line with the Bush admins. policy of pumping up the Iran threat? Is it just a convenient coincidence? And if it is a heckler, someone who wants attention why is it that the fake blow up threat is all you hear on the tape? Please the only monkey on that tape is Crawford monkey and his minions doing their handiwork. With all due respect mam, you are acting like the wife who finds used condoms in her husbhand's car and believes that someone else put it there, and how do you know because he told you so.

Warren Capps,
We are now putting maximal effort and bonus money into recruitment.
IMHO, It was easier to meet your recruitment goals in the '80's with no war in sight. Joining the Navy now pretty much assures that you will see combat as a medic in Anbar, 7 months on & 7 months off.

Farzad, I don't think our gov't dubbed in the comments. I believe it was a prank and only the cool-headed restraint of some Navy personnel prevented us from starting a war over it.

Intel and police work has proved to be much more effective against terrorism than overwhelming military force. Europe, has had great success with this model against homegrown terrorists and have foiled a couple of major attacks. I think in certain situations you can use military force if it is narrowly tailored and you have a state organization like the Taliban in which AQ was a larger scale paramilitary force working with the sanction of the government.

The one thing the Bush administration is good at is creating false propaganda, unfortunately since they are so over the top with it, and their credibility so low that no one believes them. Like their phoney 5 speedboats terrorizing an American battlegroup story, which with little inspection turned out that our own government dubbed in the threatening comments.

Look morons. You can't fight terrorism with an army. Did the Air Force bomb Tim McVey's home town? Terrorists are criminals and for that you need police. For international terrorists you need an international police force. What you CAN do with an army is invaded a few helpless countries and take ownership of everything in those countries. War on Terror = invade for profit. The real terrorist nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan we call allies.

The movie Sir, No Sir! should be required viewing for everyone in the Department of Defense.

As a young Navy LT in the mid-80s, I served at the headquarters of the Navy Recruiting Command in the analysis branch. Back then, the maximum % of allowable nHSDG was 12%. The Navy was writing 93,000 enlistment contracts per year, and the Army considerably more (can't remember the exact number). The services have proven time and again, that, given sufficient recruiting resources, they can recruit to the standards that are set. The lowering of the enlistment goal and the increase in acceptable nHSDG is due, in part, to the lack of willingness of Congress to provide the resources necessary. If we could recruit many more, and higher quality people 20 years ago (when there were fewer available 18-23 year olds) I certainly believe we could do it now if it were important enough and Congress appropriated the money.

While Arkin's analysis may well be correct, it doesn't go deep enough. Americans are not stupid. They know when the government is pulling the wool over their eyes. The Bush administration has been so ineffective, lied so much and lead so incompetently that the people have refused to go along in the numbers Arkn thinks we ought to have. When Bush and whomever takes over the White House in 09' decide its time to be truthful with the American people, then the support wille there. I will not join in and fight for a lie and no one in their right mind would do so either.

Fellow readers, Mr. Arkin: do any of you recall W. Bush ever, ever once getting on TV and calling on young people to enlist in the US Armed Forces?

I can't. Not once. Why?

We're told that we're the new "greatest generation" fighting the new "long war" to ensure that our civilization survives.

So... where is the President? Where is the outreach from the White House to teachers, coaches, parents, telling them that it's their duty to encourage young people to enlist.

Instead, what we've got are "moral waivers", 3 and 4-term depoyments, and a diminishing number of high school grads in the US Army.

Why?

The U.S. Army's 2008 recruiting year started off strong over the past four months. As of Dec. 28, 2007, the U.S. Army recruited 10,136 Soldiers for the Active Army and 6,514 Soldiers for the Army Reserve. (Active Army recruiting goal for Fiscal Year 2008 is 80,000 Soldiers and 26,500 for the U.S. Army Reserve.) The great news story is that more than 107,000 young men and women chose to enlist in the Army and Army Reserve in Fiscal Year 2007, during a protracted conflict. The young Americans who enlist from all areas and incomes across this nation know and understand they are joining a warrior culture and willingly accept the inherent risks of national military service. A strong belief in the value of selfless service is what keeps people enlisting and re-enlisting in the Army. Enlistment education quality remains high: last year more than 3,200 new recruits enlisted with their Bachelor's degrees, 250 recruits had their Master's degrees and 20 enlisted after having earned their Doctoral degrees.

Our numbers don't match the National Priorities Project's findings. Their recent report says the number of high school graduates among new Army recruits fell from 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent last year. For Fiscal Year 2007, in fact 79 percent of regular Army recruits had a high school diploma and in Fiscal Year 2005 87 percent of regular Army recruits had a high school diploma. (The U.S. Army Recruiting Command shows 81.2 percent of regular Army recruits had a high school diploma in Fiscal Year 2006.)

Keen web researchers will recall the U.S. Army and Defense Department already discussed the Fiscal Year 2007 number of recruits with school diplomas last Oct. 10. See transcript at the following DoD web site: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4054

During that Pentagon press conference, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David S.C. Chu said Oct. 10, 2007: "I want to speak to those quality standards very briefly. We set three key quality standards in the Department of Defense and have since the mid-1990s. These standards come out of 30-plus years of experience with what works in the volunteer force. We aim to have 90 percent of the new enlistees -- meaning those without prior service, the new enlistees in the Department of Defense -- have a high school diploma as a measure of whether they will succeed in our enterprise. We aim to have 60 percent or more score above average on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. That's our version of the SAT, you might say. And we aim to have less than 4 percent score in Mental Category IV -- that's between the 10th and the 30th percentile -- on that same examination. In other words, we aim for the military to draw an above-average slice of America into its enlisted ranks, that's setting aside the officers, for whom we set even higher standards and who comprise about one-eighth of our total strength. And we made those standards in all force areas, with one exception. The Army, the active Army, did not meet the high school diploma standard. It recruited, in terms of non-prior service enlistees, 79 percent with high school diplomas. That's approximately the national average, and obviously we'd like to do just a bit better. But we're proud of the record overall. And it means the department as a whole met that record."

Retention of these Soldiers also exceeds all expectations, particularly when you consider the volunteer Army and our Nation face a historic challenge during this six-year period of protracted war. Last Fiscal Year, 2007, the active U.S. Army exceeded its retention goals with 112 percent of projected numbers raising their hands to stay with their units; with 119 percent of expected numbers for Reserve Soldiers re-enlisting and 100 percent of desired goal for the National Guard Soldiers proudly staying with their fellow Soldiers.

Public support for our Soldiers remains strong across this proud nation. More Americans should consider stepping forward to answer this call to duty and serve, and support a youth's decision to join our Army. To find out more, visit http://www.goarmy.com//

\\The future of the all volunteer force is an open question. How will we fight and win a conflict against Islamic terror that may last generations?//

Well - to begin with you don't throw up youtr hands and surrender like everyone on this page. The way that it is done is to bring the fight to you enemies doorstep. It's pretty funny that you should call yourself a hawk when you barely qualify as a chicken...

...doesn't faze me at all...

Don't sweat it Thom. The people on this page are hard-core pseudo liberals. If you said what you did in an effort to fit in with this bunch; I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or consider you a PL too...

I think your competition there on the editorial page, the guy talking about 900+ sunshine stories in relation to this war, that might explain why there's this dry friction sensation accompanying any discussion on the 'war on terror' or whatever they're dubbing it THIS week, meanwhile as americans try to figure out how to siphon gas out of other people's gas tanks,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21368817/
, Bush and company use this war AND the military as an excuse to siphon yet MORE promissory dollars out of our economy.
The facts don't line up, the numbers don't add up, thank whatever Deity it is that blows your dress up that these clowns only have one more year to perpetrate their larceny. Say it in a word: Blackwater. Our very own 'hessians' in support of our very own King George.
Support the military, support the troops?
Ok, here ya go:
http://www.impeachbush.org
Ron Paul 08! End this thing!

"What you have attempted to do is mischaracterize the military, and you are far from correct."

Actually, I was just attempting to point out some hard truths about the nature of military service and recruiting in any country, but I apologize if I mischaracterized military servicepeople. They have my deepest respect and appreciation, and I am sincerely glad that there are people willing to step up to the task despite mass media criticism and cynicism.

Mr. Arkin,
You write: "The flag waiving and the slogans and the eye-watering reverence for the troops is still on display. But the patriotism is mostly hollow. The country is clearly not behind the kinds of wars being waged to defeat terrorism."

I share your concern for the force, but I do not agree that "hollow patriotism" expresses public dissatisfaction with OEF and OIF. Your blog is provocative, but I believe you have conjoined several disjoint phenomena to reach a political conclusion.

USA recruiting is driven by deeply personal assessments of risk, reward, life and educational experience, family and peer pressure. Political opinion of the war and administration may be present in several of these factors, but the decision to serve or defer is not uniquely a political statement.

Further, your statement implies that patriots who do not serve are "hollow patriots". Military service is not an axiomatic measure of patriotism.

The all volunteer force provides advantages to the NCA: higher overall quality of soldier, greater deployment latitude and reduced public resistance to the use of force. There are disadvantages as well: force homogenization, reduced public exposure to military discipline, reduced understanding between those who serve and those who do not.

The future of the all volunteer force is an open question. How will we fight and win a conflict against Islamic terror that may last generations?

As this article demonstrates - it is now more important than ever for journalists and the media sound the alarm that we need to increase our level of patriotism to support and protect our country from the enemy.

Over here in Camp Pendleton USMC we appreciate your efforts to remind us how important true patriotism is.

And none of the guys who are currently responsible for putting others in harms way would have ever volunteered under similar circumstances.

Oh that's right, and they never did volunteer to fight. Can you say National Guard or deferments!

These guys give new meaning to the phrase,
'die so others can live', others like
themselves. Perhaps they aren't so obtuse
after all - they are still alive and
sending others to kill others and to die for them and their stock portfolios!

What has made recruiting difficult is the fact that no one believes that this stupid Iraq war has anything to do with our interests or in getting the people who attacked us. Everyone sees that it is a phony war to satisfy the power lust and greed of the the far right in this country, and to also benefit certain very narrow interests.

IT IS VERY SIMPLE NOBODY WANTS TO DIE FOR A WAR BASED ON EITHER LIES OR BONEHEAD MISTAKES. NOBODY BELIEVES THAT THIS BRUTAL IRAQ OCCUPATION IS ACTUALLY MAKING US SAFER OR STRONGER THAT IS THE SIMPLE REASON WHY NOBODY WANTS TO FIGHT IN IT.

Here's what Arkin DIDN'T say in his blog:

Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted accessions (99 percent) had a high school diploma or equivalent, well above civilian youth proportions (80 percent of 18-24 year-olds). More important, 90 percent of non-prior service active duty and 89 percent of Selected Reserve enlisted recruits were high school diploma graduates.

(Extracted from DoD's Report to Congress on Population Representation in the Military Services for 2005 at http://www.humrro.org/poprep/poprep05/)

Hardly the "goofy kids incapable of reading at the third grade level ..." as one comment here suggests.

The Report does acknowledge the challenge the recruiting caused by the GWOT. Specifically, it states:

"There are three primary factors that have made recruiting more challenging in FY 2005 compared to the previous four years. The first is the ongoing hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Results from the 2005 DoD Recruiter Quality of Life Survey indicate that nearly three quarters of active duty recruiters agreed that these operations make it harder for them to achieve their recruiting goals. Unlike in previous eras when the operations tempo was much less, youth enlisting in the military, particularly the Army and Marine Corps, are aware that it is likely they will be asked to serve in hostile environments.

The second factor is higher education. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in October of 2005, nearly 69 percent of those who graduated the previous spring were enrolled in colleges or universities. This represents a record high immediate transition to postsecondary institutions since BLS began tracking this figure in 1959. Obviously, to the extent that the norm becomes direct matriculation from secondary to postsecondary education, this represents a challenge to military recruiters who are offering an alternative course.

The third is a growing economy and declining unemployment. BLS reports that the national unemployment rate has ranged between 4 and 7.5 percent since 1990, with the rate in 2005 at 5.1 percent. When the economy is strong and civilian jobs are readily available, it is much harder for recruiters to make their goals.

Although reports of recruiting problems have surfaced routinely in the media, the fact remains that, for the most part, the Services have been able to meet their overall recruiting goals. In 2005, only the Army came up about 8 percent (or about 6,600) short of its numerical recruiting mission.

One question that can be asked, however, is whether there are changes in the demographic makeup of recent accessions that could be linked to recruiting difficulties. Data from the Joint Advertising, Marketing Research and Studies' Youth and Influencer polls, for instance, suggest differences in views of various groups on a number of issues that could have an impact on whether the military is considered as a post-secondary choice. Overall, 62 percent of youth poll participants in 2005 indicated that the war on terrorism made them less likely to enlist in the military. Among females, this figure was 72 percent as compared to 51 percent of males. Differences by race/ethnicity were large, with 86 percent of Blacks indicating a negative impact, as compared to 64 percent of Hispanics and 56 percent of Whites. Similar patterns were found in the survey of influencers, with 74 percent of Blacks saying they were less likely to recommend military service because of the war on terrorism, compared to 50 percent of Hispanics and 48 percent of White influencers. These results are similar to those found in previous iterations of the polls, although the overall percentage of influencers who were less likely to recommend military service due to the war on terrorism dropped significantly from earlier polls (e.g., 63 percent in November 1994, 52 percent in June 2005). Given these figures, overall recruiting challenges are not surprising. "

Some of the very first Science Fiction I ever read was Robert A Heinlein stuff. He tells a good story, but like lots of the college crowd at the time, I found his pronouncements a bit fascist. Now I am rereading him partly in the hopes that I can get my eleven year old to read him (he is after all a good writer, and his style would improve lots of writers efforts). He still comes across as a bit fascist, but one point he uses, and makes, across several novels, but especially "Starship Troopers" is that nobody should be allowed to get into government who hasn't done his ephebic duty.

If to hold office, or work in the government you had to have a DD214, we wouldn't have had Bill Clinton, but we also wouldn't have had Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Condoleza Rice, and the immensity of the chicken hawk experience we have had since Republicans discovered that they could dodge the draft and still accuse Korean War Veterans like Mike Dukakis of being lacking in patriotism. At least when the American Legion, and the VFW, decide to back one more Republican for President, he would actually be qualified to join one or the other organization.

It wouldn't neccessarily give us more centrist candidates, because the military has its own collection of blatant troglodytes, but when military service is required of a significant portion of the population, reasonable men who otherwise would never consider the services as a good experience would decide that, rather than wait for a draft, and the concomitant lack of choice in what job they get in whatever branch grabs them, they can at least get some benefit from going willingly instead of compulsorily. A year and a half at Monterey is worth four years active duty when the two year alternative is Fort Jackson, Fort Leonard Wood, Camp Victory and the remnant of your two years at Camp (now Fort) Irwin.

And it is especially important that we have more conscious objectors in the ranks, for their example, and their mollifying effect on the loose cannon that an all volunteer Army, Navy, and Marine Corps seem to get in overabundance. The Toughest armies the U. S. ever put in the field were made up of significant portions of draftees and their related, reluctant volunteers. Because they represented a much broader sample of American manhood (mostly, women never being subject to the draft) they also brought with them a much broader set of talents, skills, and experiences, and made any unit they served in much more competent in almost any thing they did.

Then again, it gave us the Bob Doles and Daniel Inoyues and John McCains, because even the dedicated sons of generations of career military men are better for serving with men who are doing just there ephebic duties.

\\Armies always recruit from among the poor, unfortunate, and uneducated--it's never been fair, and it is disingenuous to blame the current recruiting situation on Americans//

Not everybody that enters a recruiting office is accepted. By far, the recruiters wash out far more than they select. Thirty years ago, you could have a minimal criminal record and flunked out of school and you could be accepted. You also must have a high school diploma today - they don't allow GED's either. They have only recently relaxed that restriction.

No service branch allows for criminal records; that is why only ex-gang bangers with almost no record or none is accepted. In WWII, the standards were much lower than they are now, bur not as many people had serious criminal records - either. But people were more willing to be patriotic and serve their country. There are many people who still feel that way; but you won't find them here on this page - that's for sure. What you have attempted to do is mischaracterize the military, and you are far from correct.

With the number of commitments, we have in the world it is very difficult to cover them with a volunteer army. The unpopular war in Iraq is an additional problem. I do believe we need the draft, but because of Iraq it would be very difficult to start it right now. After 9/11 would have been the best time to restart it, and Afghanistan requires an increase in our forces. There has been no real commitment by this administration to properly fund or support these wars. These wars have been privatized for the benefit of big business, and the military services have payed the price. I was a regular in the Air Force and the Army for ten years, but I would not encourage anyone to volunteer for the mess this Administration has created.

Hollow Army - Hollow Patriotism and finally,

'Hollow -leujah"!

It sounds as if the mental capacity of the troops...,

will match up, commensurately, with
the members of the Administration
that will be responsible for
sending them to war in
the first
place!

To some degree there will be some
symmetry there - given that
everyone on the American
side will be on the
same academic
level!

Of course after studying the 'mean
group', take the 9/11 attackers
for example, several members
of their group had attained
a higher academic standing
than some members of the
American administration!

The men that they will be fighting
against will apparently be a
lot smarter than our guys
from top to bottom.

Perhaps that is why Afghanistan
is taking so long to be
subdued, and the
reason for UBLs
apprehension taking so long!

Excellent post by Chris Fox, sending an underqualified fighting force to a country that they don't understand the culture has probably resulted in thousands of unfortunate incidents and wrongful killings. None of which get reported by our media. Every time Israel or America kills somebody the media calls them militants, insurgents, or terrorists, as if they now for sure that whenever our government kills somebody that said killing is justified.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if more people refused to kill or die for nationalism, ideology, religion, or greed. You can count on one hand the truly justified wars that we have fought in our history. And as our politicians turn evermore increasingly to belligerence and the allure of military force for their power and their benefit, we will see inversely more people refrain from military service. NOBODY WANTS THEIR CHILDREN TO DIE SO EXXON-MOBIL, HALLIBURTON, BLACKWATER, RAYTHEON AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY CAN HAVE THEIR INTERESTS SERVED. WHAT THE HELL HAVE THESE INTEREST GROUPS EVER DONE FOR YOU AND ME? I KNOW THEY HAVE TRIPLED OUR ENERGY BILLS IN THE LAST 5 YEARS AND BANKRUPTED OUR TREASURY. HOORAY ANOTHER IMAGINARY VICTORY BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE NEOCON MENACE.

Start the draft with the College Republicans!

I don't think you can separate this from Bush's vanity wars. The Army is taking recruits who score in the lowest quarter of the aptitude test; these men are essentially illiterate and could not hold any kind of responsible job in society. They would not have had a chance were the Army not so desperate for troops to fodder the money-laundering operation we call the "war on terror."

Now think about it .. goofy kids incapable of reading at the third grade level, equipped with modern weapons and thrust into a place like Iraq where they don't speak the language (they can barely speak their own), they don't understand the culture (and their own has no use for them), and they are in constant peril. This is not a recipe for winning hearts and minds, now. is it.

"Live Free or Die" KAPOW KAPOW KAPOW

Armies always recruit from among the poor, unfortunate, and uneducated--it's never been fair, and it is disingenuous to blame the current recruiting situation on Americans. As long as there are wars to be fought, and wars are always nasty and cruel, only the unfortunate and those unable to bribe or cheat their way out of a draft will be sent to do the majority of the fighting. At least our troops are treated fairly well, with decent food, prompt medical care when needed, and the best equipment we can afford. Our system is a good deal better-- and fairer-- than Al Qaeda's, which uses little kids as human shields or suicide bombers.

It would be a crisis ir there was a larger war and we had to respond with what we have. In that sense, you are correct. If we got out of Iraq, and had to return to fight Iran; then we would have to reinstate the draft. In which case, the soldiers who are presently in the Armed Forces would probably be jumped up in rank and fitted for command. But we don't want that situation to go that far; now would we?

It is false to say - that because the quotas haven't been reached - that this country is in danger. It is disingenuous to say that out of a country of three hundred million people you cannot find enough men to fill the ranks to protect their own families and loved ones and a way of life provided by the legacy of US of A.

I also respectfully disagree with your statement that said that the ranks are less representative of US society. Nothing could be farther than the truth. There are even a small but certain number of ex-gang bangers in the US military. But they only make up less than one half of one percent.

I am not concerned about the ability of the US to defend itself as I am concerned about those few individuals who attempt to lie about our chances to survive and win what we must to protect this country and its citizens. They have a right to say what they want; but they do so under the freedom provided by those who have contributed with the ultimate price. I hope they are mindful of the fact that they gave their lives selflessly. And in so doing, they have ensured it for another generation of Americans to continue.

I think some of your readers miss the point. To them I ask, What war would you volunteer for or would you encourage your children to enlist for? I think the problem is an old one, since WW2 each war has been smaller and could be fought (after a fashion) without building a consensus among the people that it was/is a "Good" war and should be undertaken for the good of the country. We have had wars that we were told were good or necessary wars, but as they went on, it became apparent that they were being fought for reasons of ideology or economics or whatever and the people were never encouraged to think of them because the administration was afread that the consensus would be that we should end the war because it "was not in out national interest". The only somewhat leveling factor in Korea and Vietnam was the draft and as we know from Cheney et al, not everyone was treated the same.

Exactly, who wants their kid to die for a war based on either a lie or a mistake? George Bush went to Iraq for his reasons, not ours, maybe he should send the entire younger generation of the putrid Bush and Cheney clan to die in this oilman's war.

"The country is clearly not behind the kinds of wars being waged to defeat terrorism"

I'm 100% behind a war that would end up lining up the cretins in the Bush admin against a wall and executing them!

The ARE the global terrorists.

Arkin writes:

-- The National Priorities study underscored that lower and middle-income families are supplying the lion's share of recruits. Our military is increasingly less representative of our society. --

What do you mean INCREASINGLY?????

It's been like that since the end of WWII ... long before the 'war on terrorism'. Where have you been, Arkin?

Your conclusion in connecting recruit demographic trends to a faulty national security policy is weak, at best. And disingenuous, at worst.

We support our troops. We do not support the misuse and abuse of our troops that is the Iraq occupation.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.