The "Troops" Demographics-Only 'Group' Down Is Poor

[jillian]

The fact that it's 'right wing' doesn't mean that it's wrong. The same would be said about many things coming out of Cato, more liberal. Equally Canegie. The whole idea that if people are 'right' they must be 'wrong' is a fallacious statement, that I would think you better than.

In fact, the information I posted was on socio-economic demographics, where were they wrong, because they are from Heritage?

I made it clear that they misrepresented the issue of troop strength. That makes everything else they wrote suspect, IMO. .

Oh... and for the record... I don't ever use things like Cato... Extremists of either stripe are just that.....

 

[Annie]

I made it clear that they misrepresented the issue of troop strength. That makes everything else they wrote suspect, IMO. .

Oh... and for the record... I don't ever use things like Cato... Extremists of either stripe are just that.....

Well sometimes think tanks and research groups are necessary. Both have done good work.

I'm probably being obtuse, but I fail to see the comparisons you are trying to nitpic. The two articles were discussing different topics, but as for 'meeting recruitment goals' and 'highest reenlistments', those are facts that have been in WaPo, NY Times, etc. Most of us, as I posted earlier, think the military should increase in size, whether or not we are in Iraq.

Addition*ally, three of the four branches of the armed forces met their recruiting goals in fiscal year 2005, and Army reenlistments are the highest in the past five years. A draft is not necessary to increase the size of the active-duty forces. Our analysis using Pentagon data on wartime volunteers effectively shatters the case for reinstating the draft.

ample evidence shows that the Army is scrambling to cope with the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan:
The Army has forced about 75,000 soldiers since 2003 to continue serving after their enlistments ended, a policy called "stop loss." That has applied mostly to units slated to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, 11,000 soldiers are serving beyond the term of their enlistments. Of course, the military has extensively tapped Reserve and National Guard units to augment military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Army, to keep hitting enlistment targets, has increased financial incentives, added many more recruiters, raised the age of eligible enlistees (from 35 to 40 in January, then to 42 in June) and taken more enlistees who were considered marginal before because of past legal problems.
The Pentagon has increasingly relied on contractors in Iraq, with more than 35,000 working there now, mainly in food services, transportation and construction. Some Navy and Air Force personnel also are being pressed into jobs such as driving trucks into Iraq that usually would have been assigned to ground forces.
Military experts said the stressful deployment rate is a result of an Army cut too deep, too fast since the end of the Cold War.
About 504,000 soldiers were in the active-duty Army last week, according to the Pentagon. That compares with nearly 800,000 during peacetime 20 years ago. Since then, the Army was reduced from 18 divisions to 12, then 10.

"We have the smallest army America has fielded since 1939, when the pre-World War II buildup began," McCaffrey said.