Making tomorrows Military today: Happy Mission Day!

Happy Mission Day!

I am going to get down to the nitty gritty with this article. This is an editorial at least. My first problem is that the writer is attacking the President's one line: "To those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces." I applaud the man for putting the idea out there in such a public manner.

Then the author then puts his uneducated 2 cents in:

How to replenish the ranks during a bloody war with no end in sight? Among the options, each with drawbacks:

-Recruiting more women. Opening more jobs to women would help fill the ranks, but it would also bring women closer to combat. Already, many conservatives say the Army has gone too far, citing incidents such as last week's ambush in Fallujah, where three servicewomen died.

Bring it on. Right now, we have to recruit 7 upper mental group women to get 1 lower female seat. Women have proven themselves. HOWEVER, if you want to play with fire, the female soldier/sailor/marine/airman needs to be held to the EXACT same standards for physical testing including the Physical Readiness exams.

-Lowering standards. Recruiters are already taking more high school dropouts and recruits who score lower on aptitude tests. But research shows such recruits are harder to train, more likely to be discipline problems and less likely to complete their first tours.

The only standard that needs to be removed is the tattoo screening policy. That is the mosasininene policy that we have. We already have low enough standards. However, some of the most driven recruits and S/S/A/M's are in that CAT 4 category or just above. You really cannot judge completely on aptitude, but our standards are low enough.

-Ending anti-gay discrimination. Enlisting openly gay soldiers would mean repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" rule, which has led to 10,000 servicemembers being forced out since 1993. The military and Congress oppose the repeal.

I am no fan of intermingling of homosexual and straight in combat or in the military in general, but we could have an entire division of homosexuals in the Army. I am picturing the scene from South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut with "Operation Get Behind in the Darkies". I do not believe that will happen. If it does, I will paint my recruiting office a nice shade of pink.

-Enlisting more non-citizens. As today's front-page Cover Story relates, thousands of non-citizens are enlisting with the promise of expedited path to U.S. citizenship. A surge in non-U.S. soldiers, however, would give the U.S. military a mercenary flavor.

I only wish we could get Hispanicanic crowd to come in my office. I think that we should ADVERTISE the fast track to citizenship for joining. As a matter of fact, if someone wants to join and they are here illegally, I think they should be able to join under a tempoary work visa. After 2 years of proven service in the military, then gepermanentnent resident status. After 4, US citizen. If you are willing to work for this country, I am willing to work for you and let you work arm in arm with me.

-Raising enlistment incentives. The Army has offered shorter enlistments and is about to ask Congress for approval to raise the top enlistment bonus to $40,000. Money might prove to be the most powerful tool, but that risks having the poor shoulder U.S. battles even more than in past conflicts.

I am so tired of this "the poor are fighting Bush's war" B.S. I have attacked this subject before. If "poor" folks are fighting, it is because they are the only ones willing to fight in the Entitlement Generation. I am "part" of this generation. I got the entitlement knocked out of me. I know that this is part of the class warfare that has spurred the Democratic Party, but why take it to the military? We, the military, are not pawns. IF you do not want the poor fighting the war, pay us more. That then ends the argument. IF the military is paid more, thereby competing with entry level jobs (not just through "incentive packages" which company'spanys do not put a price tag on) people would have a higher propensity to enlist.

This brings me to my last point. This month's unemployment figures are at 5.1%. The last time the Army had troubles recruiting was in the late 90's tech boom when every kid thought and pretty much could get out of high school and work for a dot com. Our unemployment rate Aprilapril 9Januarynuary 99 was from 4.3-4.5%. This was the last time that the army had troubles. Yes, you are right, the war has something to do with getting those that taht "want money for college". But those other booger eaters that only only get entry level jobs for the rest of their days are sticking with changing oil for 20 years and no advancement to even assistant manager instead of talking to a recruiter about the military. One of the disadvantages of pushing for "x million new jobs" is that the new jobs are weighted to the lower end, which it has to be. If a company hired 5 new executives at 100 grand, they could hire 20 new oil changers at 25k. If they hire executives, they get complained (by certain dems) about because they are not focusethen teh little man. And the Dems will then turn and say that the only jobs that are being created are little guy jobs. The same little guys that vote for them.

I hope everyone's mission day was good. If it wasn't, keep charging. It will change with hard work. If you are in charge, give your recruiters a night off.