YOUR MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS

.
SUPERMOM REPORTS FOR DUTY WITH THE LITTLE SOLDIERS, TOO

ARMY STOP-LOSS KEEPS COMBAT VET & FAMILY ON CALL FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS

It's Not Just A Job. It's More Like Slavery. With Kids.

I guess this "Army of One" thing is literally true. Apparently, there is no one else in the whole country who can be depended upon to defend us from the imminent danger posed by destroying somebody else's country for no reason, six thousand miles away. Unh-hunh. So they just had to drag Mrs. Soldier back to Fort Benning, despite all her appeals for clemency. Convicted murderers get more consideration from the system.

See, the thing is, none of those conservative Republican blow-hards wants to go fight the wars they start. Like Dubya and Dick, Gingrich and Armey, they're much too busy and far too valuable serving their country at the Chicago Board of Trade or the New York Stock Exchange or in the Awl Bidness or Warshenden DEE-cee to waste their time or their blood defending their country. Besides, that's what poor people are for. And now the Middle Class, too.

(continued)
.

.

Seven years in, Obama says, "Oops, my bad, we're not leaving after all." In fact, we're staying in Iraq, doubling our forces in the black hole of Afghanistan, and bullying our way into Pakistan on the sly, too. So we're going to be needing every last Mommy to stand in for those loud but cowardly Republican males hiding in the business districts.

Of course, with the Republicans putting the whole world economy in the sh*tter, and doing their goddamnedest to keep it there, there should be lots more economic draftees pretty soon. Millions of people have lost their jobs, and millions more will lose theirs before the Bush Depression is over. That's your ideal cannon-fodder, right there. Recruiters say business is picking up for them, after a few slow years when everybody realized the war was bullsh*t, nothing to do with Osama, 9/11 or WMDs. I mean, even a right-tard doesn't want to die for oil, right? But he might have to take a chance on dying to keep his family fed. Or to satisfy a stop-loss order.

Well, apparently, the economy isn't getting bad enough fast enough for the Generals. They're still using the "unlimited commitment" in the fine print of everybody's enlistment contracts to keep dragging our citizen-soldiers back into the worst Hell-holes on Earth. In the past, this meant Daddy was going to be away for a while, and he might not come home. Now it means Mommy might not come home, either. Does anyone care?

Does anyone care?

Does anyone care?


Hello?



YAHOO NEWS
"NC military mom arrives at Fort Benning with kids"

' A North Carolina mother who reported for Army duty with her two young children in tow is waiting to see what happens next. Lisa Pagan, who was recalled to the Army four years after being honorably discharged, drove nearly 400 miles and braved a Southeastern winter storm to report for duty Sunday at Fort Benning, Ga. She says she has no one to take care of son Eric and daughter Elizabeth, so she brought them with her. She has reserved a motel room for a week and doesn't plan to stay in the barracks. "Them being away from me is not an option," she said. Master Sgt. Keith O'Donnell, an Army spokesman in St. Louis, said earlier that the commander at Fort Benning will decide how to handle the situation. "The Army tries to look at the whole picture and they definitely don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the family or jeopardizes the children," O'Donnell said. "At the same time, these are individuals who made obligations and commitments to the country." '

(Cross-posted at blog me no blogs by cosanostradamus.)
.
.

There's more: "YOUR MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS" >>

Incremental Change: Fighting For PTSD War Casualties

Two items in the media caught my attention this week that I believe are worth noting. First, Army Times republished an article by Gregg Zoroya in USA TODAY under the headline "Army may stop notifying COs of counseling". In the article, Zoroya reports:

Army leaders are proposing to end a longtime policy that requires a commanding officer be notified when a soldier voluntarily seeks counseling in hopes of encouraging more GIs to seek aid, according to Army Secretary Pete Geren...

The proposal being worked out between Army personnel and medical commanders is “an important part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the stigma associated with seeking mental health care and to encourage more soldiers to seek treatment,” Geren says in a statement to USA TODAY on Friday.

Possibly spurring Secretary Geren and the Army along may have been Senator Claire McCaskill:

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told Geren in a November letter that current Army policies, such as notifying commanders about soldiers seeking help, “seem oriented to disciplinary concerns,” rather than treatment. Geren told McCaskill on Dec. 22 that he is ordering “an immediate and complete review” of ASAP. Suspending the notification rule, he said, could “assure soldiers the program is not punitive.”

It is heartening to learn that Senator McCaskill (the first woman freely elected a senator in Missouri, thus a "ground-breaker"), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee is taking up this issue. It is also encouraging that Secretary Geren has been receptive. But these are just small, incremental steps in the overal process that needs to be pursued in terms of changing the perceptions of and treatment of our PTSD and TBI war casualties. Evidence the fact that in the same article, the Army's surgeon general, Lt. General Eric Schoomaker has witheld comment:

Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general who urged an end to the policy in October, would not comment. But he is working with Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for Army personnel, to change the policy.

Absent a strong endorsement from General Schoomaker, and absent any evidence of a strong endorsement by other principals in the Army's command staff, common sense and logic will tell us that without a strong message being driven from the top command level down through the chain of command, little will change. If General Schoomaker is serious about this, he needs to act sooner, rather than later, and decisively.


The second media item that caught my attention this week was the New York Times editorial on January 12, titled "PTSD and the Purple Heart". In their editorial the Times took the position of supporting the recent decision by the Pentagon to withhold awarding of the Purple Heart to PTSD war casualties. In terms of their position backing the decision by the Pentagon to not recognize PTSD war casualties with the Purple Heart, it seems to me that it is a decision that may be debated and possibly modified as time passes, but not the most urgent issue. The most urgent issue, and which was the most significant point of their editorial was to shed light on the plight of our country's PTSD war casualties. This is one of the issues with the greatest impact facing military families today, gaining acceptance and recognition, and then appropriate care for our military PTSD war casualties.

Service members who have displayed the symptoms of PTSD are true war casualties, and in other wars and other eras this condition was also present, albeit labeled "battle fatigue" or "shell shock." Only relatively recently have health care professionals, law makers, and the general public begun to recognize that PTSD is a "real" combat injury, many times catastropic, in both civilian and military life. Unfortunately, it seems that the military services, as institutions, have not yet fully understood this.

Despite growing recognition in the media over the past few years, grass roots efforts lobbying our law makers and military command, PTSD injuries continue to go untreated. Instead, advocates are witnessing careers in which service members have made a lifetime commitment being nullified and families devastated because military commanders frequently choose to kick out PTSD sufferers (for post-deployment misconduct--the very behavior that the Department of Defense's Mental Health Task Force has identified as being evidence of PTSD is the evidence that commanders use to administratively discharge service members), without benefits of any sort including mental health care, VA administered health care or retirement benefits or any rehabilitative care. In some cases requiring the return of enlistment bonuses.

Untreated PTSD has a societal ripple effect by putting the service member at an increased risk for substance abuse, unemployment, homelessness, criminal activity, partner violence, incarceration, and physical violence--against themselves or others. Appropriate, adequate treatment and rehabilitation for our service members who have suffered PTSD war injuries must be a priority of our military services, the Veterans Administration, our government, our country men and women.

Much more work needs to be done in terms of educating the public at large, our military establishment and our government officials about this issue, and it falls upon all of us, military families, cognizant military and government officials, and cognizant members of the general American public to do this work. No one who is aware of this issue and who wants to see the status quo changed should expect someone else to take up the issue on their behalf. We all have skin in this game as our military family is our last and strongest line of defense to our freedom, and our existence as a sovreign nation.

What members of the active duty military family can do is to spread the word. Educate and advocate with your extended family members, friends, and business associates, ask them to take up this advocacy. Active duty military and their family members also have the right to contact their members of Congress, to raise the Congress' awareness of this issue, and to put pressure on our elected officials to respond adequately.

The same can be said for the general public, as beneficiaries of the service of our active duty military personnel and their families, it is our moral duty to educate and advocate on their behalf with our own family members, our friends and associates. It is our duty to lobby our members of Congress hard for this issue. It is also only our (members of the American public who are not active duty military personnel and do not have members of our nuclear family serving on active duty) to lobby directly with our military command structure. This is something that military personnel cannot do, for obvious reasons, so this is where we, who may have served in the past, we who are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, can speak for our country men and women who are serving us.

All of this represents incremental efforts, which will all lead to incremental change, which as a strategy, I believe has a better chance of being effective than undertaking any effort to demand immediate change. Like water dripping upon a rock, our individual efforts, over time, will break down the current structure, through incremental change.

To find out who your representatives in Congress are (your member of the House of Representatives and your two Senators) visit Congress.org where you can plug in your address and get the contact information, including telephone numbers and addresses for your Congress persons. You can also write and send emails or letters directly from Congress.org to your Congress persons. You can also find the names and addresses of all of the top Pentagon officials at the Defense Department web site.

To learn more about how lives have been impacted by PTSD war casualties please visit Military Spouse Press to read in their own words what military family members have faced. Military Spouses for Change (MSC) is an advocacy organization and that are providing pro bono case management services to active duty military personnel and veterans who are PTSD war casualties and they are fighting for their rightful benefits and appropriate care. To learn more about MSC or to give them a heping hand, please visit their website.

There's more: "Incremental Change: Fighting For PTSD War Casualties" >>

MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA

WHAT'S MILITARY ABOUT IT? SOUNDS GODD*MNED UNMILITARY TO ME

IS THE DOD INSTITUTIONALIZING RAPE, MOLESTATION, AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT AS "COLLATERAL DAMAGE"?


Conduct Un-Becoming Is Becoming A Pretty Big Statistic

Over 15% of all women serving in the US armed forces in the Middle East have been subject to military sexual trauma, which, in English, means sex-crimes perpetrated by fellow servicemen and/ or women. More than one seventh, or a company out of every battalion, have been victimized because of their gender.

[continued]
.

.

THIS SUCKS!!! THIS IS UNAC-F*CKING-CEPTABLE PEOPLE!!! YOU'D BETTER JUST STAND THE F*CK BY!!!

Sorry, troopers & marines, that's my impression of a righteous, righteously pissed-off Gunny/ Master Sergeant/ or CO or XO, reaming out the formation. If there is any so righteous. There had f*cking well better be. Because our goddam sisters in arms are our g*ddam BROTHERS-IN-ARMS YOU F*CKING ASSHOLES!!!


NEWSWISE
"Substantial Proportion of Female Veterans Report Military Sexual Trauma; Military Sexual Trauma Is Associated with Higher Rates of Mental Health Problems"

' According to preliminary research results from the Department of Veterans Affairs, approximately 15 percent of recently returned female veterans utilizing the VA health care system report experiencing sexual trauma during military service. The cross-sectional study, presented at the American Public Health Association’s 136th Annual Meeting & Exposition in San Diego, examined health care screening data of over 100,000 veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) who utilized medical care at any Veterans Health Administration facility during a six-year period. Along with the more than one in seven women, 0.7 percent of males also reported having experienced military sexual trauma (MST). Both males and females reporting MST were more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health condition than patients who did not report MST. '

USA TODAY
"15% of female veterans tell of sexual trauma"

' "There is concern about the number of sexual assaults, and we're working very hard to prevent them," says Kaye Whitley, who heads an office created by the Pentagon in 2005 to prevent and respond to the incidents. All service branches are expanding their prevention programs, and her office will launch a prevention effort next year focused on educating 18- to 24-year-old men, she says. A General Accounting Office report in July said training to prevent military sexual assaults isn't consistently effective, some commanders don't support the programs and more than half of victims don't report the incidents. Many women are afraid to report the assaults, says Anita Sanchez of the Miles Foundation, a non-profit that provides services to victims of military-related trauma. Fewer than a third of women who come to Miles for help after sexual assaults say they've told the military, she says. "A typical scenario is it's either a supervisor or someone at her level, in the same military unit. If you come forward, you're tattle-telling on a comrade. Women have told me about the sneers, the sarcastic comments. They can find themselves ostracized," says Sanchez, and when other women see this, the lesson isn't lost on them. '

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
"Evans Releases Military Sexual Trauma Report Suppressed by Administration "

' Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, today decried the Bush Administration for attempting to hide a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) study and report on military sexual trauma among National Guard and Reserve forces. Despite the Bush Administration’s refusal to release it, Evans obtained the long overdue report that was originally due by March 2001. Evans has repeatedly requested the report and had been told it is under review at the Office of Management and Budget. The VA report indicates that across National Guard and Reserve components the estimated prevalence of any military sexual trauma (MST) among females is 60% and among males is 27%. MST includes sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. The report also states the estimated prevalence for rape among females is 11% and among males is 1.2%. '

PBS: "NOW"
"Military Sexual Trauma"

' Roughly one in seven of America's active duty military soldiers is a woman, but a NOW investigation found that sexual assault and rape is widespread. One study of National Guard and Reserve forces found that almost one in four women had been assaulted or raped. Last year alone, almost 3,000 soldiers reported sexual assault and rape by other soldiers. In one of the only national television broadcasts of the issue, NOW features women who speak out for the first time about what happened. One woman recounts her ordeal of rape by her superior officer. Many more don't report the incidents for fear of how it will affect their careers. The shocking phenomenon has a label: military sexual trauma, or MST. NOW meets women courageously battling to overcome their MST, bringing light to an issue that's putting the Army in shame. '

(Cross-posted on blog me no blogs.)

There's more: "MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA" >>

The Shafting Of Our Patriots In Military Service - Part II

(In the second part in this series of postings it became obvious to me that not only were members of the reserves and the National Guard getting the shaft after being yanked away from their civilian lives, but also our career military personnel, people who have dedicated their entire productive adult lives in service to our country, are being kicked to the curb, as "damaged goods", no longer of value to the Disaster Capitalism Military/Industrial Complex. This posting was originally published at BFD Blog! in March of this year. -Big Fella)

The picture painted in the previous posting about the shabby treatment by the U.S. Army of our reservists and national guard members who have been called up and deployed to Iraq, is possibly even grimmer for our career military personnel. In the current issue of The Nation, Joshua Kors tells the story of Army specialist Jon Town and how he and other career soldiers have been duped, lied to and shafted by the Army after committing their lives and their livelihood to the Army.

The nightmare began for Town while deployed in Ramadi, Iraq in 2004, as described by Kors,

"He (Town) was standing in the doorway of his battalion's headquarters when a 107-millimeter rocket struck two feet above his head. The impact punched a piano-sized hole in the concrete facade, sparked a huge fireball and tossed the 25-year-old Army specialist to the floor, where he lay blacked out among the rubble."

Kors goes on to report,

"Eventually the rocket shrapnel was removed from Town's neck and his ears stopped leaking blood. But his hearing never really recovered, and in many ways, neither has his life. A soldier honored twelve times during his seven years in uniform, Town has spent the last three struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. By September 2006 he and the Army agreed he was no longer combat-ready."

Seems reasonable that at this point Town could not be combat ready which would logically result with an end to his military career, but what is unreasonable, what is unconscionable, what is possibly criminally frauduent is how the Army has railroaded this soldier in order to replace him with another warm body, on the cheap.

Kors' article goes on to tell readers,

"...instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him because of his injuries, doctors at Fort Carson, Colorado, did something strange: They claimed Town's wounds were actually caused by a "personality disorder." Town was then booted from the Army and told that under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits."

Not only would specialist Town never receive disability or medical benefits from the Army, he would not receive any retirement benefit, and he would not be eligible for medical care provided by the Veteran's Administration because the Army doctor handling his case conned Town in to accepting what is known as a "5-13" discharge (which according to the Army seperations manual is Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13: "Separation Because of Personality Disorder." ). On top of everything else, the Army demanded, according to seperation rules, that Town return $3,000 of the $15,000 re-enlistment bonus he had previously received, because he was unable to fulfill his contract.

A man permanently disabled, quite possibly with brain damage, is discarded like used waste material by the Army and left to put his life back together or not, without a second thought. The article by Kors goes on to report that this seems to be a systematic and widely practiced strategy of unit commanding officers in cahoots with medical officers throughout the Army. The reason behind it, reducing monetary expenses, as apparently the Army is strapped (no surprise here, after four years of depleting the bulk of our Army resources in a war that we "won" and then subsequently lost), it has been estimated that through this 5-13 process the military will avoid $8 billion in disability pay and $4.5 billion in medical expenses, by cashiering out its wounded manpower.

Obviously distressed and depressed by how he has been mistreated, Town made a failed attempt at suicide in May of 2006, which resulted in the Army sending him to a psych ward for a short time, and then busting him down from corporal to specialist. Town's story is not unique, Kors' article describes other soldiers in other commands treated the same way, and at least one of them, Chris Mosier of Des Moines, Iowa, eventually was a successful suicide, after being railroaded out of the Army by the same doctor who discharged Jon Town. Mosier never got over the trauma of being in a convoy in Iraq when a roadside bomb blew up the truck in front of his, seeing and hearing his buddies screams as they lie dying from their wounds and being on fire; and then having to collect the miscellaneous chopped, shredded, bloody, burned body parts of his dead comrades so they could be returned home. Scenes like this are not unique in Iraq and not unique in any war, the effects on soldiers used to be called "shell shock", and for many years there was little or no treatment available to those suffering from this, except maybe the most severe cases either being warehoused in VA facilities, or left to wander the streets.

At a certain point, after the Vietnam war the medical establishment identified and began developing treatments for "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" (PTSD), and not only military personnel, but civilians in public service roles and civilian victims of natural disasters were able to seek treatment, recognition and respect. Apparently our current military commanders prefer to put their heads down in sand in terms of accepting the reality and doing the moral, honorable thing in terms of taking care of those soliders who marched, unequivocably, upon their command. It seems that for the mid-level careerists in the military officer corps making their numbers, in terms of holding down expenses and providing warm bodies to their commander-in-chief is more important, than doing what is morally and ethically right.

Shame on these people, and shame on the American people for continuing to tolerate the lies, misrepresentation and mis-management of the current Administration.

There's more: "The Shafting Of Our Patriots In Military Service - Part II" >>

The Shafting Of Our Patriots In Military Service - Part I

(The following is the first of four related posts, and was originally posted at the BFD Blog! in March of this year, it's original title was "The Shortchanging Of Our Citizen Soldiers". Over the past few months the issue of the mistreatment of our military volunteers has not abated, but it seems to have just festered. As an American citizen I must say that continuation of this state of affairs is untenable, particularly in service to a phony war. As a veteran of the Vietnam era, this state of affairs has never been acceptable, under any circumstances, and I cannot stand by, silent, while this continues. -Big Fella)

In April of 2005, Sgt. Joe Baumann and his California National Guard unit were deployed in Bagdad when an incoming AK-47 round ripped apart his abdomen. While ricocheting around, the bullet also ignited tracer rounds that set the then 20 year old on fire. Baumann now "...walks with a cane, suffers from back problems and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder that keeps him from sleeping and holding a job", according to an article in the Los Angeles Times by Rone Tempest, he also has flashbacks, trouble with concentration and memory retention, and has anger-management problems, according to an article by Erin Allday in SFGate the online version of the San Francisco Chronicle.

There is no surprise around here that he has anger-management issues, anyone would who was transported from civilian life to the streets of Bagdad, two years after victory was declared, so he could be targeted by a sniper and suffer traumatic and debilitating injuries, and then return home and learn that the United States Army wants to kiss him off with a check for a pitiful $8,000.00, or in his words,

The Army acts like they just want you to get out the door as fast as possible at the lowest possible cost without taking into account how you are going to live for the rest of your life. Here's your $8,000; just go.

An army Physical Evlauation Board rated his disability at only 20% and in their wisdom decided 8 grand would cover his troubles, both up to this point, and for the remainder of his life. If the three officers of this board had ruled his disability at 30% or more, Baumann would be eligible for military retirement pay, family health care and PX and commissary privileges for life. Apparently the army is stretched for money, just as many units were sent in to combat not properly equipped with armor, many of our citizen solders and career military are being shortchanged in terms of medical care and just compensation when they return stateside and try to return to a more or less normal life.

What is wrong with this picture? The answer is simple: an Administration in Washington that does not use common sense or its conscience in making decisions, but which is driven solely by a political agenda, resulting in mismanagement in everything they have undertaken during the past six years. Fat cats in Washington, D.C. drunk on power and responsive only to the big business interests who profit from the war and their domestic and international policies, fat cats who have exercised a pervasive strategy of undermining our rights and freedoms and pissing on the constitution, without putting any of their own skin in the game.

It is time for the Legislative branch of the government to find some backbone and hold the Administration accountable to the American people and take back the consitutionally guaranteed freedoms that have been systematically undermined by "loyalists". The subpoening of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in the face of President Bush's defiance is a start in the right direction, let's hope that this is just the beginning of better things.

There's more: "The Shafting Of Our Patriots In Military Service - Part I" >>

Recruiting year off to a slow start

The Army started off the recruiting year with the lowest number of recruits signed up for Basic Training since the United States military became an all-volunteer force in 1973. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command, told Pentagon reporters on Wednesday that the diminished number of delayed enlistment recruits in the pike will make it extremely difficult to reach the goals for 2008.

For the last two years, the goal of 80,000 new recruits has barely been met. To meet the numbers, qualified OCS candidates were not informed of the option (even though the Army is experiencing a paucity of Lieutenants and Captains). Additionally, the Army has been forced to admit a staggering percentage of recruits on waivers. In FY 2006, fully 17% of all recruits were admitted under waivers for psychological, criminal and health problems. Nearly one in five who were actively recruited, would not have gotten five minutes of a recruiters time five years ago.

In a perfect world, the recruiting year starts with 20,000 recruits, or 25% of the yearly goal, in the pike and scheduled for Basic. The remaining 60,000/75% are to be recruited over the course of the fiscal year. Last summer, the Army toted the board and realized they were not going to meet their 2007 numbers unless drastic measures were taken. Over 1000 former recruiters who had fulfilled their recruiting duties were sent back to the sales floor. Additionally, the Army instituted recruitment bonuses. Recruits willing to leave for basic training by the end of September (to bolster 2007 numbers) were offered healthy $20,000 bonuses - a years salary in many cases.

[keep reading]

As a result of rushing recruits into uniform to meet the 2007 goals, the Army started this recruiting year with less than 7400 recruits, or a mere 9% of the 2008 goal, in the queue. “It’s going to be another tough recruiting year,” said General Wallace.

From Army Times:

The bonus program, which began July 25, was part of a last-minute push by the Army to meet its year-end recruiting goal, after having fallen short on recruiting numbers in May and June. It had the effect of getting many of the recruits who signed up after July 25 into basic training sooner than they would have otherwise, thus reducing the number with entry dates after Oct. 1.

“That is of concern for us because the delayed entry program gives us guaranteed enlistees to meter out across the year,” Wallace said. Without that cushion to begin the recruiting year, recruiters are going to have to sign up enough people to meet the existing goal as well as replenish the pool for next year.

Coupled with the recruiting problems are retention problems. The backbone of any military is the mid-level NCO's, and they are not reupping. Instead, worn out by repeated deployments and feeling a sense of futility about the misadventure in Iraq that has cost nearly 4000 American lives, they are opting to leave the service. These losses in leadership will undoubtedly haunt the military for the next two decades.

Without top-notch NCO’s the force suffers. They fill a unique role, because they manage both up and down the chain of command. They transmit orders to the troops they supervise, and they have great influence over the decisions made by the officers they serve.

NCO’s simultaneously prepare their units to complete their mission and know the personal pertinents of their personnel. They know whose kids are struggling to adjust, whose marriage is rocky, who is expecting a baby, whose mother is ill, who has an in-law “vacationing” on their couch and clueless about why they can’t come play. They have the standing to pull a green Lieutenant aside and tell him or her the real score.

These middle managers are especially important in wartime. Not the least of all among reasons: seasoned NCO’s keep Leiutenants alive long enough to become seasoned officers. There are more Sergeants leading Soldiers and Marines down dangerous alleys and on patrol than there are Lieutenants and Captains.

These are the enlisted personnel that an Army facing a three-decade rebuilding process after the folly of destabilizing and occupying Iraq needs to retain most, but they are not staying. Instead they are leaving in droves. And Sergeants who leave after 8, 12, 15 years in service are not G.I.'s who can be replaced at the local recruiting station.

There's more: "Recruiting year off to a slow start" >>

Even if you were to support it, how could it be sustained?

Folks, the Army is in trouble. It is going to take at minimum two decades to rebuild our Army. Five years of rugged warfare conditions have taken a steep toll on man and materiel alike. It's broken all right, and George Bush is the vandal who broke it.

That the Army missed their recruiting goals for May by 9.27% is just the tip of the iceberg. The real fractures go much deeper. Young officers are leaving the service in higher numbers than at any time since Vietnam. It is unprecedented – but the Army has been hemorrhaging officers and senior NCO’s in leadership positions for at least the last two years. When I started getting up in arms about it was when I read an editorial by Lucian Truscott IV in the New York Times two years ago that confirmed what I had been witnessing.

This compromises the quality of the leadership of the officer corps. Army OCS has a 100% acceptance rate, and Republican members of Congress are having a hard time finding qualified candidates to even apply to West Point. (I know applications have been falling for at least two years, and I am looking for the supporting link for that claim)

Take this data point for instance: 97% of all eligible Captains are being promoted to Major. Traditionally that number has been between 70-80%. The promotion to Major has heretofore been the winnowing point for career officers. Now, if you have Captain’s bars and sufficient time in service, and you haven’t been court-martialed yet, you will get Oak Leaf Clusters.

Now consider that even though we are missing all those officers, qualified applicants are not being informed of the OCS option because their numbers are needed to bolster the enlisted ranks. This is counterproductive recruiting and short-term thinking.

This exodus of seasoned officers has resulted in what can only be classified as promotion by attrition. And that is no way to run an Army.

Now – let’s consider the recruits to the enlisted ranks. Fully 17% of the recruits into service in FY 2006 were admitted to service on waivers. Can anyone imagine a scenario in which that figure would improve when have already recruited everyone who is fit and willing? (Yeah, me neither.)

So lets recap: In our Army, we have a bunch of hinky troops – and not enough of ‘em, by the way – and no one to lead them. Also keep in mind that the Army uses accounting methods in the billet shell game that would make a Hollywood accountant blush. (h/t SPfY for that line).

This is a recipe for disaster and a broken military. It’s time we face the facts and deal with them. I do not believe our military has time to let Bush run out the clock on his failed presidency. Congress needs to get tough, and they need to do so now, while they are writing the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2008. The way things stand right now, we have at least a 20 year rebuilding process ahead of us. And we can't pay for it with tax cuts. It's time for a gut-check.

There's more: "Even if you were to support it, how could it be sustained?" >>