The Best Use for our National Guard

[itsbob]

...do we go in recognizing the problem and when do we start fixing the problem? I can't be counted on to support a President who tells me we are in mortal danger and that we must win this fight when his actions and lack there of are not conducive to same?

What you are saying is that the guard was turned, long ago, into a support unit force in order to cut costs. I understand that. They're doing jobs that are necessary in war time. I understand that.

Whatever news that is or is not to me, it is not news to people like yourself on up the chain all the way to the Whitehouse. It is now nearly summer 2007, some 4 full years since we invaded Iraq, almost 4 1/2 since we invaded Afghanistan. It is almost 6 full years since 9/11. The President can not tell me it is going to be a long, tough battle and then do nothing to build the force to sustain that fight.

We have contracted out support services, including soldier jobs like guarding things, in numbers well above 100,000. We've strained the guard. We've strained the active military. Our President had things his way, including both Houses for much of this time. He had huge support from the American people.

Just tell me things are as good as they should be and I'll shut up. Just tell me they are close or even reasonable close to what should be happening to support his leadership and explain it, and I'll shut up. I'm not the one making glaring opportunities for people like forestal.

Problem being nobody wants to be the person that reinstitutes the draft.

Recruiting is doing what they can, but they aren't making their numbers, and whats said is how many careers are ruined because of it. Imagine an infantryman, he's done two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, they decide he's the poster child of the Army and make him a recruiter. They then task him with finding 3 or 4 people a month to put in the Army (in a market that says that all services combined will get 3 or 4 qualified paople a month). He fails, SURPRISE. His boss threatens him daily with getting fired, every year (or six months) giving this hero a bad NCOER, because he was a GREAT infantryman, but a crappy recruiter. By the end of his tour, his career is over. 15 years or so of his life, and out on the street with nothing to show for it, becasue he couldn't convince little Johny to join the Army in a time of war.

Now you look at the big picture. The Two Star General that is tasked with filling the ranks.. Congress tells him we need 125,000 new recruits to fill the ranks this year.. He say, "Yes, Sir, can do!!" and turns around and tasks his soldiers (recruiters) with providing him with 250,000 new soldiers.. End of the year comes, after many recruiters have been fired for not making mission, and they've only recruited 100,000.. They (the Generals) change the original number to 100,000.. showing SUCCESS!! We got 100% of our requirement 100,000/125,00...

On paper, and in the newspaper it's reported they made their recruitiment goals, or got close, when in fact they missed by almost 25%.

This has been going on for years..

 

[MMDad]

Having been in the military or closely associated with it for the past twenty-four years, I’ve done plenty of reading and am fully aware of the processes involved. The fact is, if recruitment goals are not being met, that is not a good thing regardless of what levels are mandated by Congress or the President. If the mandated levels are too low and the recruitment levels are still not being met that’s even worse.

Being around the military for 24 years does not mean you understand how it works, and your guesses about recruiting prove that.

End strength. Each year, Congress authorizes funds to maintain specific numbers of skilled service members, called “end strength.” Military Departments are required to budget and recruit, retain, or release members to match those authorized end strength numbers by the end of the fiscal year.

As long as congress mandates that end strength decrease, recruiting is not the problem.

Your anecdotes prove nothing more than that you talked to some people who agree with you. Big deal.

 

[Larry Gude]

Man...

Problem being nobody wants to be the person that reinstitutes the draft.

Recruiting is doing what they can, but they aren't making their numbers, and whats said is how many careers are ruined because of it. Imagine an infantryman, he's done two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, they decide he's the poster child of the Army and make him a recruiter. They then task him with finding 3 or 4 people a month to put in the Army (in a market that says that all services combined will get 3 or 4 qualified people a month). He fails, SURPRISE. His boss threatens him daily with getting fired, every year (or six months) giving this hero a bad NCOER, because he was a GREAT infantryman, but a crappy recruiter. By the end of his tour, his career is over. 15 years or so of his life, and out on the street with nothing to show for it, because he couldn't convince little Johny to join the Army in a time of war.

Now you look at the big picture. The Two Star General that is tasked with filling the ranks.. Congress tells him we need 125,000 new recruits to fill the ranks this year.. He say, "Yes, Sir, can do!!" and turns around and tasks his soldiers (recruiters) with providing him with 250,000 new soldiers.. End of the year comes, after many recruiters have been fired for not making mission, and they've only recruited 100,000.. They (the Generals) change the original number to 100,000.. showing SUCCESS!! We got 100% of our requirement 100,000/125,00...

On paper, and in the newspaper it's reported they made their recruitment goals, or got close, when in fact they missed by almost 25%.

This has been going on for years..

...it's about money, not recruits. Screw a draft, this is America, PAY 'EM.

Most of the guys doing private contracting are ex mil who couldn't afford to stay at age 30-40 with two kids and a mortgage. Hell, SEAL's are getting offered up to an extra $25,000 a year to stay. What the flying hell is $25,000 for a person that highly trained????

We could have all those contractors back in service in a few months by paying the guys, ex e 5's and 6's real money. They're making $500 a day now instead of $3k a month in the army and we're actually supposed to believe it's cheaper to have a contractor pay them $500 a day rather than the $100 they made before. What's that tell us about dead weight in the service?

So, pay them guys $5k, 6, hell, $10,000 a month and get 'em back in uniform.
Pay a SEAL $100,000 a year more and turn them loose on the bad guys.
Recruiters will be turning people away, good people.

For the sale of argument, if all 1,100,000 active duty got a $30,000 a year raise, as an average, you're looking at $33 billion on top of the $500 bil we're already spending on this 'life or death' struggle. That's alot of scratch to get good people and put them to work. Hell, think of how many people we maybe cull out paying that kind of money?

 

[Larry Gude]

I have not seen or heard...

Being around the military for 24 years does not mean you understand how it works, and your guesses about recruiting prove that.



As long as congress mandates that end strength decrease, recruiting is not the problem.

Your anecdotes prove nothing more than that you talked to some people who agree with you. Big deal.

...my President beating the podium into pulp that we MUST have the people to win this war and they MUST be taken care of. Not once. Never heard him say we need another division or two. Never heard him say we need to pay people alot more than they are making. Not once.

I have heard him, endlessly, say we must win.

 

[awpitt]

Problem being nobody wants to be the person that reinstitutes the draft.

Recruiting is doing what they can, but they aren't making their numbers, and whats said is how many careers are ruined because of it. Imagine an infantryman, he's done two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, they decide he's the poster child of the Army and make him a recruiter. They then task him with finding 3 or 4 people a month to put in the Army (in a market that says that all services combined will get 3 or 4 qualified paople a month). He fails, SURPRISE. His boss threatens him daily with getting fired, every year (or six months) giving this hero a bad NCOER, because he was a GREAT infantryman, but a crappy recruiter. By the end of his tour, his career is over. 15 years or so of his life, and out on the street with nothing to show for it, becasue he couldn't convince little Johny to join the Army in a time of war.

Now you look at the big picture. The Two Star General that is tasked with filling the ranks.. Congress tells him we need 125,000 new recruits to fill the ranks this year.. He say, "Yes, Sir, can do!!" and turns around and tasks his soldiers (recruiters) with providing him with 250,000 new soldiers.. End of the year comes, after many recruiters have been fired for not making mission, and they've only recruited 100,000.. They (the Generals) change the original number to 100,000.. showing SUCCESS!! We got 100% of our requirement 100,000/125,00...

On paper, and in the newspaper it's reported they made their recruitiment goals, or got close, when in fact they missed by almost 25%.

This has been going on for years..

Yea, I remember this going on in the Nav. When I was getting ready to transfer off my ship, most everyone was given the choice of instructor duty or recruiting duty. Sometimes the choice was or recruiting duty or recruiting duty. In that case most folks chose to extend sea duty because or recruiting duty was dreaded so much. I don’t know how I lucked out but my detailer gave me the option of NESEA, which I gladly took.

 

[awpitt]

Being around the military for 24 years does not mean you understand how it works, and your guesses about recruiting prove that.

I fully understand how it works. The fact that my conclusions, and the facts, differ from your conclusions does not make me wrong. This is also evidenced by your tone. We’re just exchanging thoughts and ideas here. Chill out.

 

[itsbob]

...it's about money, not recruits. Screw a draft, this is America, PAY 'EM.

Most of the guys doing private contracting are ex mil who couldn't afford to stay at age 30-40 with two kids and a mortgage. Hell, SEAL's are getting offered up to an extra $25,000 a year to stay. What the flying hell is $25,000 for a person that highly trained????

We could have all those contractors back in service in a few months by paying the guys, ex e 5's and 6's real money. They're making $500 a day now instead of $3k a month in the army and we're actually supposed to believe it's cheaper to have a contractor pay them $500 a day rather than the $100 they made before. What's that tell us about dead weight in the service?

So, pay them guys $5k, 6, hell, $10,000 a month and get 'em back in uniform.
Pay a SEAL $100,000 a year more and turn them loose on the bad guys.
Recruiters will be turning people away, good people.

For the sale of argument, if all 1,100,000 active duty got a $30,000 a year raise, as an average, you're looking at $33 billion on top of the $500 bil we're already spending on this 'life or death' struggle. That's alot of scratch to get good people and put them to work. Hell, think of how many people we maybe cull out paying that kind of money?

OR go back to the draft and pay them $175 a month while on their first term of service.. save HUGE $$$$$. Once they re-enlist they go the 'normal' payscale.

And as far as SEALS, Green Berets, Rangers, even the 82nd.. etc.. there has NEVER been a problem filling their ranks, and they continue to turn people away during the application process. People that do those jobs generally don't do it for the money. If their experiences lead them to Blackwater and a 100K job, good for them, that's what the military sells, getting experience for a good paying job after. I just hope they realize they are going to get old.. and those 100k a year jobs are for the young.

 

[Larry Gude]

Then why...

OR go back to the draft and pay them $175 a month while on their first term of service.. save HUGE $$$$$. Once they re-enlist they go the 'normal' payscale.

And as far as SEALS, Green Berets, Rangers, even the 82nd.. etc.. there has NEVER been a problem filling their ranks, and they continue to turn people away during the application process. People that do those jobs generally don't do it for the money. If their experiences lead them to Blackwater and a 100K job, good for them, that's what the military sells, getting experience for a good paying job after. I just hope they realize they are going to get old.. and those 100k a year jobs are for the young.

...the new re-up bonus?

We've had numerous draft discussions on here over the years and you are the first mil person, or one of the few, who have advocated the draft. Why do you want a draft?

 

[itsbob]

...the new re-up bonus?

We've had numerous draft discussions on here over the years and you are the first mil person, or one of the few, who have advocated the draft. Why do you want a draft?

I don't advocate, it's rife with problems.

That being said, the draft wouldn't be the end of the world, it may just be the opportunity that some kids need, but have been talked out of taking.

Most veterans, drafted or volunteer, have gone on to have highly productive lives. They hold full time jobs, have or had careers.. and some of these same people will tell you that they owe it to the discipline they recieved in the military.. something that seems to be missing in society as a whole.

The governemnt would save loads of money, as you don't have to pay a conscript a lot money. I remember my time serving with the german Army, their conscripts were getting paid the equivalent of about $100 a month (mid 80's). If they re-enlisted they jumped up to a more normal payscale.

A lot of rules would have to change. the Drill Sergeants and the Enlisted Leadership would have to take the gloves off. You can't treat conscripts with powder puffs, and candy. Right now a Drill Sergeant is putting his livliehood on the lline if he so much as swears outloud. Punks would walk all over them within a day or two, once they realized the Drill Sergeant really can't do anything to them, and is actually powerless. Different story with volunteers, and people that generally want to be there.

All these SOMD thugs that think they are tough, put them in an infantry or Cavalry unit in Iraq, or Afghanistan.. Let them take point on a patrol in Kabul. They'll find out pretty damn quick how tough they aren't.

I came into the Army in 1980, and several people I served with started out as conscripts.. all the senior NCO's were draftee's, or people that chose the Army over jail.. NOT a real likeable bunch of people.. and they had their share of discipline problems.. But back then the thought was if you didn't have an Art 15 (Captains mast) you weren't a REAL soldier. Now you get one, and your career is over, or at least you have to jump through hoops to be able to re-enlist. these same "problems" could carry a 100 lb ruck and an M60 miles without taking a break. I watched an E-6 from my platoon curl a lock out cylinder for an M578.. about 250 lbs (they kicked him out 3 months later for being overwight).. These guys were unstoppable, and they never asked "Why".. they grumbled and whined with the best, but they always got the job done without question. Now you have to tell a soldier to do something, then you have to explain the why, or why not..

And no matter what anyone says, you don't have to be a Rocket Scientist to be an infantryman in today's Army or Marines.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I don't advocate, it's rife with problems.

That being said, the draft wouldn't be the end of the world, it may just be the opportunity that some kids need, but have been talked out of taking.

Most veterans, drafted or volunteer, have gone on to have highly productive lives. They hold full time jobs, have or had careers.. and some of these same people will tell you that they owe it to the discipline they recieved in the military.. something that seems to be missing in society as a whole.

The governemnt would save loads of money, as you don't have to pay a conscript a lot money. I remember my time serving with the german Army, their conscripts were getting paid the equivalent of about $100 a month (mid 80's). If they re-enlisted they jumped up to a more normal payscale.

A lot of rules would have to change. the Drill Sergeants and the Enlisted Leadership would have to take the gloves off. You can't treat conscripts with powder puffs, and candy. Right now a Drill Sergeant is putting his livliehood on the lline if he so much as swears outloud. Punks would walk all over them within a day or two, once they realized the Drill Sergeant really can't do anything to them, and is actually powerless. Different story with volunteers, and people that generally want to be there.

All these SOMD thugs that think they are tough, put them in an infantry or Cavalry unit in Iraq, or Afghanistan.. Let them take point on a patrol in Kabul. They'll find out pretty damn quick how tough they aren't.

I came into the Army in 1980, and several people I served with started out as conscripts.. all the senior NCO's were draftee's, or people that chose the Army over jail.. NOT a real likeable bunch of people.. and they had their share of discipline problems.. But back then the thought was if you didn't have an Art 15 (Captains mast) you weren't a REAL soldier. Now you get one, and your career is over, or at least you have to jump through hoops to be able to re-enlist. these same "problems" could carry a 100 lb ruck and an M60 miles without taking a break. I watched an E-6 from my platoon curl a lock out cylinder for an M578.. about 250 lbs (they kicked him out 3 months later for being overwight).. These guys were unstoppable, and they never asked "Why".. they grumbled and whined with the best, but they always got the job done without question. Now you have to tell a soldier to do something, then you have to explain the why, or why not..

And no matter what anyone says, you don't have to be a Rocket Scientist to be an infantryman in today's Army or Marines.

Same with the Navy.

 

[itsbob]

Same with the Navy.

OH, and my first unit.. C Trp 1/11th ACR.. we had a 1SG nicknamed Buffalo...

He was a draftee/ Vietnam Vet, and still ran his unit like he was taught, he had no problem with wall to wall counseling, or beating some sense into some lower enlisted. Listening to bodies getting thrown around in his office, and watching some tough guy walk out with tears in his eyes.. Priceless..

Now you have to privide 'counsel' and refer them to mental health..

 

[SamSpade]

Someone needs to tell this nitwit what the National Guard is supposed to do.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Someone needs to tell this nitwit what the National Guard is supposed to do.

I did, and since it proved him wrong, he will not answer back.

 

[awpitt]

Govs Worry About Depleted National Guard

With repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan leaving state National Guards without nearly half of their required equipment, some governors are loudly questioning whether they will be able to handle the next hurricane, wildfire or terrorist attack at home. "We are not going to be able to continue to rely on the National Guard as a full-time operational force," North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley said.

It's not just Kansas.......

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0507/422036.html