Under Pressure Indeed ... The U.S. Military vs. The MSM

In the opinion section of my local paper is a "commentary" by one Rick Mercier, a writer and editor for The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va. The title of the commentary is "Under Pressure" with a subheading of "Army recruiters are having trouble making quotas. You can help them by nominating a war supporter."

Mr. Mercier is, of course, completely full of himself and imagines himself to be a champion of the get out of Iraq clique popular among newsfolk. "Roper, can you sustain that charge," you ask "or are you just blowing smoke." I suspect that I can sustain it. Mercier is essentially making the "chicken hawk" argument when he suggests that you should refer war supporters to the Army Recruiters. I have debunked the argument here before and I urge you, the reader to go to that entry, read it all including the links and including the comments.

+++++++++++++++

Ok, having read that let us look at the rest of Mercier's argument. He makes a big deal of the U.S.Army only reaching some 90% of it's recruitment goal. He fails to mention that the Marines, the Air Force and the Navy met and exceeded their goals. And, since the Marines have a seemingly higher casuality rate, his argument that the Army didn't because of Iraq is ludicrous. Here's his explanation:

The four-letter explanation, of course, is Iraq. And many would say that other I words � such as ill-advised and incompetent � come to mind when they contemplate the Bush administration’s military adventure in the Middle East."

What utter nonsense. If this were true, than those who have actually served would have a lower "re-up" rate than the initial recruitment goal. Yet, such is not the case: Of course, this was BEFORE the Army announced that June's quotas were more than met or that re-inlistment quotas of those ACTIVELY serving in the Middle East often reach 150% of needs. In fact, according to Black Five:

(the Armys)...3rd Infantry Division in Iraq surpassed it's re-enlistment goal by 250%...that should tell you what the men and women that are actively engaged in the fight think of the mission in Iraq."

Further, there was an upsurge in recruitment in the last two month's of the quarter. In fact, things are going very well in Iraq and that story is slowly getting out, no thanks to the obstructionism of the MSM. Winds of Change has a great article on improvements in the Iraqi countryside here and I've contributed a bit myself here.

Mercier states:

These days, that fry-cook job at McDonald’s is looking a lot more enticing to potential young recruits than it did just a few years ago. And parents across the land have come up with an alternate take on an old cheer, crying out "Go away, Army" to beleaguered recruiters.

The numbers tell the story. The Army just wrapped up one of its worst recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service more than three decades ago. For the fiscal year that just ended, the Army missed its annual recruitment target by 7,000 enlistees � the largest such deficit since 1979."

Ok, overall the services missed recruiting goals by only a few percentage points (the Marines, Navy and Air Force making up some of the force deficits) but that doesn't even mean anything. Unless Mr. Mercier is totally dishonest (posh, he couldn't be could he?) he will acknowledge that people opt for all kinds of jobs in the military. From cook to telephone linemen, from drivers to payroll clerks, from front line infantry to helicopter repairmen. There is no indication whatsoever that COMBAT forces are suffering. Indeed, and since I served in the Army in the early '70's, the army will retrain it's potato peelers into infantry if it needs to, and hire civilian's to do the non-combat support. Let me repeat, a decrease in recruitment does not mean a decrease in combat effectiveness. However if that was part of the story, Mr. Mercier wouldn't be able to make the snide comments that he has made like:

You probably know some of these pro-war types. Maybe you’ve had to endure the guy next door or the guy in church talking up the war. Well, why not log on to goarmy.com and sign him up for an info pack? Old Earl can slap that flag magnet on the Hummer he’ll be driving through Sadr City.

And high school students, how about "volunteering" the teachers and administrators who’ve welcomed recruiters and JROTC programs into your schools? With any luck, school will be out for quite a while for Mr. Crabtree.

As for me, I’ve got my eye on a few scribes who’ve bellowed for this war and branded those who opposed it as America-haters and friends of terrorists. I know where some of you live, keyboard warriors, and I’ve got some phone numbers, too. The recruiters will be in touch."

I guess that Mercier doesn't realize that this is a free country and one not be an active member of the military in order to support the effort in Iraq. Mr. Mercier isn't a research scientist, but I'd be willing to bet that he supports cancer research. Of course, my favorite argument regarding those that make the chicken hawk argument comes from Donald Sensing (writing at One Hand Clapping) responding to a tirade by Duncan Black (Atrios):

My son is a lance corporal in the US Marine Corps. He will deploy to Iraq in two months. I myself am a retired US Army artillery officer.

Do you, Mr. Black, agree that you are kept free and safe only because my son and others like him are risking their lives on your behalf?

Why have you never served in the armed forces?

What gives you the justification to speak against the war?

What are your credentials that make you someone I or our nation’s leaders should listen to regarding national security?

Why should non-serving supporters be silent while non-serving critics be heard?

Do you agree that no one except veterans and presently-serving military members should ever decide when the nation shall go to war, and why?

I am a veteran and my son is now serving. By your lights these amounts to a “double credit� for me to speak about the war. Also by your lights, you yourserf suffer from a double deficit, since you have never served and have no immediate family member serving. Therefore, your logic would inexorably find that my opinion is of magnitudes greater value than yours.

Do you agree? If not, why not?

I support a vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq and have written several times (i.e., here) that it is the actual focal point of the war against Islamist terrorism.

Do you now, therefore, consider yourself well instructed and will you, therefore, bow to my experience and insights (which by your own standards are far superior to yours) and now fully support prosecuting the Iraq war until victory is achieved? If not, why not?

Finally, on what basis can you persuade me that you, personally, are not simply a coward of the most craven kind who hides behind anti-war cliches merely to keep intact your own precious skin?

Just substitute Mr. Mercier's name for Mr. Black's name and the argument should hold up just fine.

Oh, and Mr. Mercier, go ahead and write to the Army, give them my name and phone number and address if you have them. I was in Berlin on 9/11 and as soon as I got home I called to offer my services. "Sorry Mr. Roper," I was told, "you're to old." But if you do call them, I'll thank them for all their efforts to keep folk like you free to write the snide garbage that you write.

Posted by GM Roper at October 16, 2005 06:34 PM | TrackBack