Fox's Garrett reported Hunter's claim that "the military is meeting its current recruitment goals," but failed to note new methods adopted to do so
On the November 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report, during a report on Rep. Charles Rangel's (D-NY) proposal to reinstate the military draft, Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett uncritically stated that Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said "the military is meeting its current recruitment goals." But Garrett did not note that new methods -- including lower aptitude standards -- have been adopted to achieve those goals, as Media Matters for America has documented.
In addition to raising the age of Army recruits to 42 from 35 and offering significant monetary bonuses, a primary reason the Army "beat its goal of 80,000 recruits" was by "recruit[ing] more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year," according to an October 10 Associated Press report. According to the AP, those 2,600 troops were added under new standards in which "3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels." By contrast, "in previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores." The AP added that the "limit" of recruits scoring below the aptitude levels "was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department." Because the Army recruited 80,635 soldiers in a year when its goal was 80,000, without the 2,600 troops who did not meet the previous standard, the Army once again would have failed to meet its recruitment goals, as Media Matters noted.
From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GARRETT: On Fox's Your World with Neil Cavuto, Rangel said America needs a draft to spread military sacrifice.
RANGEL: Why is a kid who is going to Harvard or Yale or have alternatives not included in the sacrifice for our country? Why would you recruit people who've less options?
GARRETT: Rangel, a decorated Korean War veteran and top lawyer to the draft board during the Vietnam War, said a draft would discourage lawmakers from backing reckless wars.
RANGEL: Every time someone says "more troops," or "the military option's on the table in Iran," and "the military option is on the table in North Korea," they're saying that somebody's kids are going to be placed in harm's way, but not mine.
GARRETT: At least nine current members of Congress have sons who have served or are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, among them outgoing House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter.
HUNTER: My son had a high-tech job and a wife and baby, and he left those to serve his country after 9-11 and I think that's the -- I think that's the patriotic ethic of this country.
GARRETT: Hunter also said the military is meeting its current recruitment goals.
HUNTER: While you have people who are volunteering to take spots in the U.S. military, it doesn't make sense to be drafting people who would be displacing those persons.
as soon as I find my dentures. Where did I leave them? Next to the prozac, I think. Did I take my medicine today? What day is it? Who are you? Darn, what was I going to do today?
Since Iraq-the Central Front in the War on Terrorism(tm)-is so very important to our very existence, I'm sure we'll soon see all the newly out-of-work Republicans filling the recruitment gaps any day now.
on anybody in our military- I hope as many as possible get home safely from this mess.
But the evil part of me has to think about the grunt who didn't want a very capable gay guy watching his back ending up with an old stoopid guy in the job.
Bill O'Reilly is itching to go fight the good fight. He's begging for it. But darn the luck, they won't let him in. He checks that age limit every day, lobbies his congressman, prays that today is the day.
That the reason that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Savage, Michael Reagan, Rove and the others are pushing this war is that they all have guilty consciences about having evaded war when they were young.
They sat back, while someone else was sent to Vietnam in their place, and now they're all in favor of sending someone else to Iraq.
Isnt it great?
[link to abcnews.go.com]
then there was this AP story about a month ago (I found it here on this ABC site):
WASHINGTON Oct 10, 2006 (AP)— Hollywood may have to tone down its portrayal of the military's screaming, in-your-face boot camp drill sergeant. In today's Army, shouting is out and a calmer approach to molding young minds is in, says the head of Pentagon personnel. The Army says it has reduced by nearly 7 percent the number of recruits who wash out in the first six to 12 months of military life.
"Part of it is changing the nature of how it treats people in basic training," David S. Chu, undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said Tuesday.
That means "less shouting at everyone, in essence, which some of you may remember from an earlier generation as being the modus operandi," he said.
The changes started about a year ago, as defense officials looked for ways to make drillmasters more effective, said Lt. Col. Mike Jones, head of Army National Guard recruiting.
He said the old way was to "talk loud, talk often, get their attention" shock treatment to teach discipline and mold the newly recruited civilian into a soldier.
But trainers found today's generation responded better to instructors who took "a more counseling" type role, Jones said, using strong tactics when needed but keeping them the exception instead of the rule.
The approach has had two positive results, he said: It has lowered attrition among those who go through training each year and has eased one of the greatest fears of recruits -- their fear over whether they can make it through basic training.
----
So, in other words, in order to be sure they have enough bodies in Iraq, they've had to make it easier to get through basic training. The hope is that if you don't get yelled at too much in boot camp, maybe you'll still manage to survive being maimed by roadside bomb.
..and this is not mentioned in this article, is that they've begun a program for kids BELOW recruitment age. They sign them to contracts at 14 and up, give them immediate advances on their combat pay...yes, COMBAT pay, they're planning a long long long war here...and the kid has to join up when he hits 18 and has to take a combat arm specialty. If he doesn't join, he has to pay back all that money...and for a poor family, it can't be done. Economic enslavement.
This is actually happening. Chase your nearest military recruiter out of town. He's there to trick and trap your children into a war crime.
21st Century America...isn't it a mess?
Not that I doubt you, but anyone who makes a contract with a child of 14 and expects to be repaid if the fourteen year old backs out, deserves to lose all of the money paid upfront. And, I know that no parent can sign their child up for the military.
NINE years ago, when my son was a Sophomore at the local home of the FFA (we're sorta rural), the recruiters were all over the HS "signing up" juniors and seniors for various services. Mine didn't sign (no advances?) but he did sign prior to graduation, and shipped to basic two weeks after receiving his diploma.
For my family, at least, happy endings: six-plus years of deployment (he kept getting extended) have ended, he is disillusioned about both our chicken-hawk "leadership" AND warcraft in general, and home safely (although still enrolled in the Nat Guard - I sure hope he doesn't get called back). THAT is the foundation of another future Democrat!
The Democrats have just called for a draft. They aren't happy just conning the kids into a war crime, they're ready to put them in front of a judge and into a prison if they don't go on command. Democrats have been for this war from the start. They were happy bombing Iraqis in the 1990s and now they are on Crusade in the 00's. They would certainly cheerlead for any war with Iran, they already spoken support for attacking them.
Democrats have already screwed our youth over. Clinton's drug policies packed our prisons with young black males and now the pro-war Democrats have spent the last five years selling our kids out to Bush and the neocons and Isreal.
I got a question:
Why is it that that McCain and the rest of the war hawks say we need more troops in Iraq . . . but don't like the idea of a draft to get those troops there?
Is it because a draft means that the sons and daughters of the wealthy and well-to-do would have to serve?
But, one Democrat, has called for a draft. At this time we, and Rep. Charles Rangle know that there is no chance for the draft to be re-instated. Rep. Rangle is trying to make a point. The point being that without a draft, the children of privilege, who are in power in all three branches of government, have nothing to risk in this war, but their words. All of the tough talk and challenges to our enemies, coming from Bush, Cheney and the other cowards at the top, have caused harm to our military, but not to their loved ones.
I understand the point that Rep. Rangle is trying to make. If the sons and daughters of the wealthy and politically connected were subject to the Selective Service System, those leaders would think twice before sending their own to die. If this system were in place prior to the invasion of Iraq, we would never have gone in.
EXACTLY, Worrierking . . .
What's particularly telling is the fact that when Rangel first introduced the draft proposal, he HIMSELF voted against it . . . he KNEW it had no chance of passing, he simply wanted to make the point that in this war, despite the rhetoric coming from the political chickenhawks and their noisemaking cheerleaders about the "sacrifice" Americans must make, the sons and daughters of privilege aren't making that sacrifice . . .
And he's making the additional point that, as much as McCain likes to talk about additional troops being needed to get the job done in Iraq, he never supports the idea of a draft to get those troops . . .
...shouldn't the government fix/repair/replace the massive numbers of broken military equiptment, broken due to deployment? What's the point of having people join/drafted into the Army when the equiptment is not working. I can see basic training now... 'OK Men, since all of our guns aren't working, to simulate shooting, just point your broomstick and yell BANG!'
did I fumble> the close-bold?