Actually, Army combat positions are as popular as ever. It's the other stuff that's gotten harder to recruit for, in part because they're still in danger, but with less training.

Time to up military pay a bit.

I wouldn't be surprised about that, someone. In fact, I believe Ace did a post a while back about soldiers who had lost limbs who wanted to go back into combat. Good for them!

But I guess what I'm getting at is that I wouldn't be surprised about the numbers really going down, since we're so concerned about fighting a policitally correct, kinder gentler war. It doesn't work that way.

RE: that post "someone" linked.

He makes a point that I've often made on my site-- if there is a shortage of troops, we'll just have to recruit more.

Duh, right?

Well, the MSM would have you believe that no one in their right mind would sign up for combat. Yet, the MSM ignores that the United States armed forces are today a mere fraction of the size they were in the 1980s. The Army had little trouble getting more than a million men and women in uniform then, with less pay, fewer benefits, and a smaller population to choose from.

Ironically, a major problem for the U.S. armed forces that is preventing them from doing more to recruit is that they currently offer *too many* benefits-- at least to the wrong specialties. Not only does DoD spend a ridiculously large portion of its budget on military salaries and annual benefits, it also has to pay a large amount of money out in military pensions-- the bill through today for all the pensions Uncle Sam owes is in the many tens of billions of dollars.

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating eliminating military pensions, especially not those we owe now. But think of this-- where else in America do you get to retire after just after 40 years of age with a pension you could conceivably live on? I know many military personnel that, upon retirement, take a new job and end up collecting both a high salary and their pension. It's the best deal in America, especially if you're an officer.

Realistically, I would argue that the military pension shouldn't kick in until a certain age, say retirement age. Or, if it kicked in earlier, it most definitely shouldn't be as much as it is today.

The problem with recruiting new soldiers is that by definition you're accumalting new debts-- not just in annual salaries, but in insurance & pensions. Anything that can be done to trim the latter will help free up salaries for recruiting. Of course, no one in a million years would advocate eliminating or rephasing military pensions, because it would be political suicide.

Yet, something has to give. Otherwise, when America *does* spend more money to entice recruits to fight for the flag, it'll end up spending much more than it probably should-- and continue the vicious cycle for the next generation of recruits.

Ahhh, the perils of the all-volunteer military. . .

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I hate to disagree with dave on this, but there's a HUGE difference between working for the military and being in the military. Pensions are earned, not given.

Dave, I'm confused here. How are good salaries, generous benefits and pensions a recruiting liability? You say that the government would be incurring new debts, in insurance and pensions. But if they recruit qualified people, wouldn't there be a good return on their investment?

Since October 10, 2001 the United States have lost 1589 soldiers in Iraq,
and 181 in Afghanistan for a total of 1,770. That is 1,770 Americans who
died in a war zone against hostile actions of enemies of the United States.
Now, we know some of them were killed in accidents but it's still a war zone. The date hostilities began in Iraq is March 21, 2003.

In the year 2004, in six American Cities, 1,965 American Citizens were
murdered. The breakdown of the cities is:
Detroit............370
Chicago..........445
NY City.........565
Wash DC.......193
Baltimore........278
St. Louis.........114
These are cities within the boundaries of the United States of America.
They are not declared war zones but more Americans died violently in these cities in only one year than American Soldiers did fighting a war in two different countries against an enemy that looks forward to dying as a religious salvation.

To add to Bob's point, on September 11, 2001, some 3000 Americans died as a result of hostile action on the first day of this current war. We've lost about 1/2 as many military casualties in the 2-3/4 years since then. We're not talking the Battle of Antietam here.

"U.S. troops are dying at a rate of two a day in Iraq, more than two years after President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended."

Statements like these prove that no one in MSM has ever read a history book.

After major combat operations were over in Germany with the German surrender, 8 allied troops a day were killed by German "insurgents." This went on until 1947.

Detroit............370

My brother-in-law is a Detroit cop. He's in Baghdad with his Reserve unit right now. He might safer in Bagdad.

Mike--

"Given" versus "earned" is semantics. I'm not arguing that our military doesn't deserve everything we can give them. The problem I'm highlighting is that enabling benefits such as pensions, the G.I. bill, etc. you are simply spending money that you otherwise wouldn't spend if you didn't enable those benefits. If I could give every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine a million dollars a year, I would do so. But obviously, we can't. So, like the old joke, we're now just negotiating price.

Which brings me to Zelda's question-- the issue isn't one of good benefits hurting recruits, but good benefits hurting the *recruiter*. One of the primary reasons why Rumsfeld has continued to fight attempts to permanently increase end-strength (aside from the "transformational" arguments) is that each new soldier, sailor, airman or Marine brings with them years of cash outlays-- and decades if they go career. Given basic inflationary pressure, that's going to be a constant pressure on DoD budgets for years to come, which means less money available to spend on bombs, bullets and guns.

Now, that's an argument specifically against increasing end-strength, while our recruiting woes are focused on simply meeting our *current* end strength. Still, any increase in benefits for new recruits will carry the same long-term costs that DoD is trying to avoid.

Personally, I feel that the only viable solution here is an increase in enlistment bonuses-- one-time outlays given upon joining the military, or re-enlisting. Once the recruiting problems are over (and who can argue that today's problems *aren't* tied to the war, which will one day end?), those bonuses can be scaled back, or eliminated.

Increasing salaries is out of the question, because you're merely making your problems worse in the long run. Ditto things like the G.I. Bill, and definitely pensions and insurance benefits.

Unless, of course, the American people are prepared to spend significantly more on the defense budget than they already are. I suspect they would be, if asked ("National Emergency," and all that), but I doubt that will ever happen given politics in Washington.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Zelda brings up a good point, about recruiting qualified people. My definition of "qualified" is pretty simplistic-- it's the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine that re-ups at the end of their enlistment. Obviously, they are not going to make the military a career unless they are getting good benefits from it. Yet, again, we have to balance our intentions with our resources, which DoD has a lot of trouble doing these years.

The problem was bad in 1984. It's worse today.

The military reflects America, and like other major American employers, it faces a severe pension challenge. My posts here are just a reminder that, in fixing the short-term recruiting shortfall, we find a way to do so without making our long-term problems worse.

Granted, we are in a war, and I personally am all for pulling out whatever stops we have to. I just want to make sure the taxpayer knows what those stops cost before they pull 'em.

Screw what the media says, even if they are correct occasionally. (Yech! Can't stand reporters!) However- morale in the Army definitely sucks. Feeling like bait for terrorists is pretty depressing- it doesn't seem like you are serving your country so much as it feels like you signed up to be a city cop in Mosul or Najaf. My friends are worth more to me than those people who stood on the roof of a mosque with machine guns pointed at us. If they're that big a threat to the rest of the world, bring out our troops and bomb the towns until the neighbors stop being a load of lazy #@&%!s and take care of their own damn country.

PS: I got out, and I routinely suggest that others don't bother getting in. Call me disgruntled, I don't care. It just seems like government waste lately. I only base my opinion on my own personal experience.

Sorry Jake, I'm calling you on your utter bullshit on claims of Allied soldiers being butchered at 8 a day in occupied Germany from June 1945 until 1947.

The American, Brit total deaths from insurgents was 7-10 people from surrender to 1947. We walked every German town with impunity. Drilled frauleins right and left.

Evidently you haven't read a history book yourself or you wouldn't be talking about 240 killings a month of allied soldiers....

You pulled it out of your ass, pal.

Perhaps you had a motive to lie and say; "Heck, the folks working for Beloved Maximum War Leader said it would be a cakewalk...and it is....compared to the Hell of Occupied Germany...." But that is utter BS.

You pulled it out of your ass, pal.

Bravo Cedarford. After hearing it directed at yourself so many times, you finally get to use it on somebody else. Got a link to that 7-10 US/Brit total? Not that I don't believe you, but there's a lot of stuff pulled out of a lot of asses on the internet.

The "Occupied Germany" as deadlier than post-War Iraq was pulled out of hyper Bush partisan asses that counted on the general ignorance of history that folks like Jake and .com Brownshirt have. It's easy to look up. RAND checked the occupation deaths from Japan, Germany, Italy then Haiti and Bosnia later and came up with zero deaths.

http://www.unknownnews.net/riceandrumsfeld.html

My own 7-10 number evidently includes unsolved murders

Fact checking the "Dear Beloved Mazimum War Leader Bush" worshippers claims that post-War Iraq as a cakewalk compared to past occupations is crap - as easy as finding the Gitmo Gulag claim made by Lefties was bullshit.

Right now, military analysts are saying that it will be 1-3 more years before we can start drawing down troops if everything goes Perfectly RightIraq is now the 4th most expensive war America has ever fought, and is on track to pass the cost of Vietnam in a few years.

Bush will be leaving the Iraq mess, which alone disqualifies him to be rated as an above average President in the historical ledgers from our sheer ineptitude in intelligence and postwar planning.

Besides the Iraq mess left to his successor, Bush will also be leaving huge fiscal responsibility, trade, energy, immigration, and health care messes. America will also need a good President to reverse the diplomatic damage we have suffered in all nations but our pet leech, Israel..And that successor will also have to come up with a strategy that actually fights the radical Islam movement rather than pretending it is only about a few thousand "evildoers" who hijacked "The Religion of Peace".