In the Times, right above my letter to the editor sadly (why they give this congressman more space than me is a good question) Jim "Wiretap" McDermott attacks a previous Times editorial supporting federal laws giving military recruiters access to high schools. Supporting federal laws, there is a radical concept! The incredible thing about it is he brags about his military service, then criticizes stop loss, in a vague and misleading way, then complains that recruiting is down, and then he still manages to call for making it MORE difficult to recruit. Could this man have a coherent position on anything?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002246361_mcdermott20.html
Some gems:
Buried in the fine print of Santiago's recruitment paperwork eight years ago was a provision called stop-loss. It is meant to ensure that America has enough soldiers to defend itself in time of national emergency, but the Pentagon under Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has perverted the use of stop-loss because military recruitment is significantly below goals.
If 120,000 soldiers in Iraq, and another 19,000 in Afghanistan doesn't fit the definition of "national emergency" I am not sure what could, short of Canada invading.
Stop-loss now affects 50,000 soldiers. Santiago could end up serving until Christmas Eve, 2031, 37 years after he signed up — a virtual lifetime.
Of course this is intentionally misleading, and I am sure McDermott knows it. I already addressed it here:
The Seattle Times casually tells its readers that a student can sign a form to opt out. The reality is that young people have lost their right to privacy and The Times is stone-cold silent on restoring this fundamental right in a free society.
He just admitted they can "opt out" of being contacted. What exactly is this right to privacy? Somehow when our founding fathers were running from town to town trying to raise an army during the Revolutionary War, I can't imagine them considering that knocking on people's doors asking them to fight for freedom was a violation of their "right to privacy" and thus enshrined in our constitution. And even if they don't opt out what is the worst that can happen? They aren't drafting you, a recruiter might call them! The horror. At least it isn't someone calling to ask if you want to change your long distance provider.
Meanwhile, don't blame the recruiters. These people were selected because they are role models, the best of the best to represent the military. Now, they suffer under a quota system, and recruiters are under increasing pressure to find soldiers. Army National Guard recruitment plunged 31 percent in February and fell another 12 percent in March.
OK, recruiting is down. Here is a solution, make recruiting more difficult!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I know this is a bit late, but our beloved McDermott is also the co-signer for the Draft. So we have him to thank him also for that.
Which may explain his reasoning all along.
Just a thought, recruiting dropped in those months from what point? From last year, or two years ago?
How does it compare to 5 years ago is the real question, and does the 5-10 year average of enlisted persons, has that number on average gone up or down related to the 9/11 bulge we had?
Curious to see the numbers for the past decade, and to see how they averaged out-
Josh
Usually they base the numbers off of whatever their quota is, which is how much they expect to be able to get to maintain troop strength. It is a delicate balancing act. In the early 90s they slashed the ranks, but still had to recruit new privates to maintain the right mix of experience. Now they not only need to keep up recruiting, but keep the people they have, especially in critical areas such as SF, MI and civil affairs.
Post a Comment