Call Missing Persons

I am reading, in my Dead Tree Times, a cogent op-ed piece by Phillip Carter, blogger and recently called up Army reserve officer.

However, I can't find the piece on the Times website [Now I can!].  For The Searchers everywhere, here is the lead:

The Quiet Man

America is facing a military manpower meltdown.  Overwhelmed by the demands in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has all but used up its emergency recruiting measures: higher enlistment bonuses, more expensive marketing campaigns, even home loans for some recruits....

His irrefutable point - George Bush should follow exert himself from the bully pulpit and urge people to enlist.  Since the column mentions Linclon and Churchill, and alludes to John Wayne, it makes my day.

If the Times ever gets this up at their site, feel free to leave a link in the comments.

UPDATE:  The Times has it, and blames a production snafu.

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

"His irrefutable point - George Bush should follow exert himself from the bully pulpit and urge people to enlist."

Some GOP lawmakers are blaming recruiting problems on war critics, and the chief of the Army seems to think a congressional pitch might be more effective:

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."

And while the Army is still on track to miss its overall goal, Schoomaker's comments on that were interesting as well:

Schoomaker says the Army is increasing its overall size by 30-thousand. That means this year, recruiters have to sign up 165-thousand prospective soldiers.

Schoomaker says without an increase in the size of the Army, the monthly goals would be met consistently . . .

Schoomaker says the Army has exceeded its recruitment goal for June, signing up more than 61-hundred recruits. The July goal is more than 74-hundred.

[POUNCER]

How about if presidents of major universities invited recruiters to campus?

More interesting, what if the president of the US invited presidents of universities to invite recruiters to campus?

What if the Army dropped anti-gay regs and went recruiting at "Pink Pistol" events?

[kbiel]

How about if presidents of major universities invited recruiters to campus?

How about if presidents of major universities stopped preventing recruiting activities on campus?

[Paul Sand]

See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06carter.html. The "Editors' Note" at the top describes some weirdness that probably has something to do with why the article was missing from the website for awhile.

[megapotamus]

"Weirdness", to say the least. I don't know what an "editor" does at the NYT but out in the rest of the world I would thing they would be more likely to REMOVE such snarky expletives rather than ADD them but hey, I'm not qualified to contribute to the NYT so maybe I'm not qualified to read them either.

[Chuck Simmins]

Meltdown? Huh? As of the last numbers relased, every service was ahead of its enlisted recruiting goals for the year but the Army. LINK

There's a problem, primarily for the Army, and some inspirational bully pulpit would help. But we're also in a booming economy, especially in some of the states that have fed into the military the most. And retention is fantastic, which is one reason the Reserves are lower. Often, folks who leave the active military join the Guard or Reserves.

[Creech]

How about if GWB simply urged his two daughters to put on their country's uniform for a couple years to show solidarity and sacrifice for the War on Terror? Lincoln's son served (albeit not in combat - none expect the Bush girls to do so either). TR, a big WWI war hawk, saw his son Quentin killed in the war.
His other son, TR jr. stayed in the military and died, a general, in Normandy. In WWII, Princess Elizabeth put on a uniform. Hell, a former VP of the U.S. led troops in the Civil War (on the wrong side). I know they aren't under any obligation to serve, but it would send a clear message that this war is real, it takes a commitment from all young men and women, and that the "elite" has a stake in it too.

[Robert Crawford]

Schoomaker says the Army is increasing its overall size by 30-thousand.

Could this be why they're not making their goals? That's an additional 2500 recruits per month, on average and assuming the entire increase is supposed to occur this year.

What is the timetable on that manpower increase?

[Fresh Air]

Creech--

How about helping yourself to a tall, steaming mug of STFU?

[TigerHawk]

I just read the post on the NYT's site, and I do not believe that there was a "production SNAFU" in the traditional sense. I believe that an editor intentionally wrote sarcastic marginal notes ("Imagine my surprise"?!?) that were then accidentally included in the published version. If you read the deleted comments, how could there be any other explanation?

I do, however, strongly agree with Phil Carter. As I pointed out last week, the call to join up was the most important line in Bush's speech last Tuesday night.

[Rich Cook]

Creech:

When the first car bomb goes off in Chicago the elites will be leading the charge to Canada. Is it possible that the American Public still do not understand or don't care what is at stake in this war?

[POUNCER]

"How about if GWB simply urged his two daughters to put on their country's uniform for a couple years to show solidarity and sacrifice for the War on Terror? "

After Baby Barbara (not her grandmother Babs, but Shrub's party-animal daughter) finishes her calling with AIDS victims in a Red Cross mission hospital in Africa, you mean?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/07/06/bush_daughter_is_said_to_volunteer_in_s_africa/

Surely you don't want to sacrifice AIDS victims and persons of color just to minutely swell the ranks of the imperial war machine?

[Doug Collins]

The Army might help itself too, by considering "too old" volunteers on a case by case basis. There are a number of ex-military people out here who have kept themselves in shape, have already been trained once before and could still contribute with some updating on weapons and tactics. They might even have a good idea or two from years back. Use a PT test to screen them if necessary.

I realize that one of the major disincentives to bringing older men into the military is the worry by budget planners about possible future disability and pension liabilities. However, if they are offering mortgages and other financial come-ons perhaps this problem is only relative.

[alene]

Might this
be enough?

[Creech]

Frankly, Babs' work with AIDS patients, while commendable, isn't enough.
If Pres. Bush really wants us to believe we are in a terrible, crucial, and necessary war that will take years to win, then, frankly, his family should be among the first to participate and demonstrate why it is imperative to get behind our military.

[Not Creech]

Creech-

By your logic, if all who support the war should offer themselves up for duty, then shouldn't all of the liberals who disagree with American foreign policy (and many claimed they would leave the US if Bush won), uh, y'know... LEAVE?

BTW Libs... Bush won. Time to go. Bye now.

[BurbankErnie]

Creech, it is a VOLUNTEER ARMY. Do you suggest people be FORCED to serve?
You are what is known as a MOONBAT. Serving in Africa on behalf of AIDS is not enough? What have you done, besides undermining the War effort I mean.

[Bill Quick]

If Pres. Bush really wants us to believe we are in a terrible, crucial, and necessary war that will take years to win, then, frankly, his family should be among the first to participate and demonstrate why it is imperative to get behind our military.

Frankly, Creech, if you believe America should cut and run from this war, then you should be among the first to skip the country, travel to Iraq, and enlist with the Islamofascist jihadis making war on American troops. There is precedent, you know. At least John Walker Lindh wasn't a pathetic chickendove, though he was a traitor. You should feel right at home.

[Creech]

I support the war against terror and in Iraq. What I'm saying is that if I was the guy beating the war drums and sending others peoples' kids off to war, then I would be mortified if my able-bodied kids refused to go.
I understand Bush's kids are grownups and can make their own decisions. I'm saying it looks bad and gives justification to other parents to argue against their children enlisting to serve this great country in a great cause. And, yes, if you promised to leave the country if so-and-so is elected (GWB or Hillary) then be a stand up guy or gal and do so.

[leaddog2]

Creech,

Intelligent Americans do not really want women in combat. Do you understand that? Some choose to go. Some don't!

I volunteered. Did you?

[Creech]

I didn't say women should be in combat roles. There's plenty of work in intelligence, administration, planning, or brewing coffee for the trogs.
And, I was washed out of ROTC with an uncorrectable medical condition during the Vietnam era.

[Michael E. Lopez]

Oh for crying out loud... leave Creech alone. He made a good, reasoned argument with ample historical support, and not a single person responding to him has done so without at least a gratuitous, snarky comment. Most haven't even bothered to address his point directly.

Thank you for reminding me why I so seldom bother reading the comments on any of my favorite blogs.

If I wanted to read hyperactive ranting and raving, I'd go visit some of the liberal blogs.

-Michael E. Lopez

[Harry Arthur]

Though I don't agree with Creech's thought process in its entirety, I do see sort of a "back door" point if applied to our national political leadership - IMHO.

I would suggest that if we examined the congress, democrat and republican, we would find that there are fewer people there with a military background than in the past. No references or facts, just a perception on my part - hopefully wrong.

I am not in any way making a "chickenhawk" argument. But I do firmly believe that to have served in the military in any capacity, including the Guard and Reserve, tends to at least give that person some sense of the reality of military service that is arguably otherwise difficult to acquire. Of course, if your close relatives, e.g., children, partents, have served, that's valuable experience as well.

Just a thought, but I'd be interested in discussing whether my perception is accurate and whether it really matters vis-a-vis national defense policy, funding, and other similar decisions made by the congress.

Again, this is NOT the "chickenhawk" argument. I've made my opposition to that ad hominem distractor abundantly clear previously. Nor is this a criticism of congress, necessarily. This is simply a question of whether there is empathy for and understanding of the sacrifices of military service that informs those who make national policy.

Hopefully this isn't too much of a tangent from the thread topic.