Pay the soldiers what the contractors make … then you might see those quotas filled.

The overall investment in fielding a soldier is probably not too far off of what the contractor makes. Training, benefits, dependent services, retirement, etc…

The contractors get none of that, just a day’s pay for a days work.

I think that the next 6 months will be critical. What is different with Patraeus in command is that the troops are keeping what they take until they can hand it over to the locals. And for now, at least, the locals are stepping up.

What is also different on the ground is that the Sunnis and the Shiites are starting to look beyond their past issues. There is hope that their disputes will diminish.

Why do I say this? What most people forget is that the Shia/Sunni split occured 1400 years ago, and that for most of that time, Sunnis and Shias have lived peacefully, even intermarrying and in integrated communities in Iraq. The current sectarian violence was instigated by Al Qaeda, a Sunni brand. And the reaction to the bombing of the mosques had to do with both the current Al Qaeda activity as well as the 3 decades of brutal Sunni control over the Shia under Saddam, where their religious activities were mostly prohibited.

The surge has given both the Sunnis and the Shiites the opportunity to get rid of Al Qaeda and build a framework for governing after we do pull most of our combat forces out. I think that if they can continue integrating their army, now being recognized and appreciated by their population, with both Sunni and Shia, and if they can make progress on the political front, then we can declare victory and go home.

You may have forgotten, but Patraeus was the architect of the new (post Saddam) Iraq Army. That was his job on his last tour.

As for permanent bases? Yep. We’ll have them, if only to keep watch on Iran and Syria. Think Germany and Japan and our bases there in the 1950′s and 60′s.

That’s my 2 cents.

From my experience, the military represents an accurate cross section of society. You’ve got guys like my pops who left after 26 years with 3 masters degrees in business, then you’ve got Forrest Gump swabbing decks. Most are between the two.

John from OPFOR on September 5, 2007 at 1:14 AM

I would say at this point it is better than a good cross section. There are tons of enlisted even with higher education and multiple degrees. However, beyond the 5th or 6th tour patriotism isn’t going to be enough to keep these experienced guys around. The economy is great and they can and do get better civilian jobs. Many even return to Iraq as contractors to make the “big” money. Why do you think they are offering those bonuses?

The biggest point being they are lowering standards to meet recruitment goals and that doesn’t bode well. To be successful a volunteer military, or any job for that matter, needs to be made up of people that WANT to be there not those that have no other option. Replacing our best of the best ranks with criminals that formerly would have been vetted out is not a good sign.

Ultimately Petraeus, in my opinion, is scaling down in anticipation of future Middle East engagements. We can stay in Iraq for 10 years and cripple the military because it is unlikely that even a tiny percentage of all you Armchair Activists will step up when its time to pay your dues.

No need to insinuate I am a liberal because I disagree with your views. I am far from that end of the spectrum.

Military has lowered its standards to accept fatsos, felons, drug users, forty year olds and stupid people.

frreal on September 4, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Y’know, I’ve heard this meme repeated at length in lefty circles, but I’ve never really seen any evidence of it.

Which is kind of funny, because today’s Left -always the deep thinkers- are the biggest proponents of the draft. Guaranteed way to get fatsos, felons, drug users, and stupid people into the force.

From my experience, the military represents an accurate cross section of society. You’ve got guys like my pops who left after 26 years with 3 masters degrees in business, then you’ve got Forrest Gump swabbing decks. Most are between the two.

Actually it was about 500,000 draftees and 1,000,000 enlistees as I said. That was at the peak of the Vietnam war, not totaling the whole duration for either enlistees or draftees. Of course, some/many of the enlistees (who got more say in their MOS by enlisting) would not have enlisted if they had not thought that they would be drafted otherwise, so I guess a certain percentage could be called “indirect draftees”. On the other hand the population was much lower. The economy was actually pretty good back then, but there was, in most cases, not all, about three years between tours, if you were in long enough, not one year like now. Plus going into the Army was considered to be more the norm back then as most guys fathers had been in.

I’m glad we sing the same song mostly. If we think Abu Graib(sp) is bad I can’t wait to see what kind of atrocities our new former felon recruits can muster up.

Actually I do not believe that Abu Ghraib was that bad. What Green did was extremely bad. I certainly agree that those with criminal records and former gang members are likely to be bad news. They will not only cause problems, but will drive a lot of others out who do not want to have to deal with them.

Pay the soldiers what the contractors make … then you might see those quotas filled.

Bad PR though.

frreal on September 5, 2007 at 12:41 AM

The problem is not could we should we can we. We know historically the US can endure sacrifice that makes todays heart felt but truly historically minor sacrifices look like a minor issue.

The real question is “Is the GWOT a fight and win or is it something we can just ignore without consequence”. That should be the question. Make those in the latter explain how if we just quit the GWOT their will be no more US civilians killed by the terrorist. None of them can garantey such or will admit such so that should be used to beat them over the head with proof that while War is not what we want it is the only availible answer. Make them counter with a alternative.

War is never nice or clean or easy or not without sacrifice, war is HELL it is HORRIBLE it is FULL OF SACRIFICE but something most if not all common Americans understand is that sometimes ya just gotta do what you gotta do, its part of life.

We don’t need a new military or plan or country we need a f*ckin leader that can either rally and explain in laymens terms what we face and why we must win NO MATTER THE SACRIFICE. Bush while he may have all the right ideas and balls to follow them he cannot rally or speak to the people AT ALL. Speeches at 12am when the men who understand sacrifice are busten balls at work is spitting in the wind, they should be prime time monthly or more. And if that leader cannot do that he best better delegate that mission to someone and make dam sure they are given the needed air time and media access.

HaHa. I get it. Sigh. I get it.

I’m glad we sing the same song mostly. If we think Abu Graib(sp) is bad I can’t wait to see what kind of atrocities our new former felon recruits can muster up.

Pay the soldiers what the contractors make … then you might see those quotas filled.

frreal on September 5, 2007 at 12:20 AM

I think that you read what I wrote too quickly and missed my point. George W. Bush was inaugurated January, 2001.

baldilocks on September 5, 2007 at 12:23 AM

I agree the source is less than desirable but it was first on the google search. Unfortunately the report is one of many.

As to most of the rest of what you are saying, you are preaching my message, don’t you know?

Proof from a quick google.

frreal on September 4, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Seriously, thank you and I’ll resist the temptation to argue about CBS being a reliable source. :-) At least I have leads to follow up on the info they provide in the piece.

I thought that happened last January, 2001. Pretty much anyway.

During the peak of the Vietnam war the U.S. Army had 1,500,000 guys, 1,000,000 of them enlistees.

MB4 on September 5, 2007 at 12:15 AM

1. We weren’t at war when Clinton was elected.
2. They were drafted. I’m talking about the destruction
of the volunteer army when our experieced soldiers begin walking rather than begin a 5th or 6th tour with NO END in sight and an Iranian engagement in the near future. Soldiers will tire of being political pawns.

During the peak of the Vietnam war the U.S. Army had 1,500,000 guys, 1,000,000 of them enlistees.

Now with a population about half again as big and far higher pay, we have about 500,000.

frreal on September 5, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Should an anti-military liberal become Commander in Chief?

Huh!

I thought that happened last January, 2001. Pretty much anyway.

- The Man with No Name

Don’t forget that $20,000 to $40,000 U.S. Army enlistment bonus and college money.

MB4 on September 4, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Sounds great until you divide that by a 6 year tour. Will you go to Iraq for an extra $3000 bucks a year. Hey I will even be generous and give you $7,000.00 a year bonus. How many Little League games are you willing to give up for a $7,000/yr bonus? Apparently not enough Americans are willing. Plenty of Americans are perfectly content letting OTHERS miss out on Little League games again and again and again….. Imagine that.

Hell the military is saving money on 40k bonus. Imagine if they had to pay overtime. Those guys work 6 days a week 14 hours a day. $3,000 a year is a drop in the bucket. Oh, Oh and don’t forget to pay taxes on your bonus.

Oh and also take note we haven’t even approached the mass exodus should an anti-military liberal become Commander in Chief.

They are also not where most of our efforts have been directed.

A legitimate critique.

What conclusion are you suggesting I draw from that Wiki entry? Multiple nomenclature at work? Agreed. Thus I would conclude AQ to be a coalition rooted in shared ideology.

baldilocks on September 4, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Proof from a quick google.