<p>Zaph---she mentioned that her barracks has 3 bars in it (and they aren't the kind you find on the windows in south central L.A.!!. :) )</p>
<p>Going back to the initial post, I think it's important to point out that although the article is correct about the declining 5-yr retention rate , it grossly mistates and misrepresents the trend of the 5 year retention rates for West Point Graduates.</p>
<p>Using information provided by USMA, the retention rate for graduates has been declining since the late 1970's and during the 1980's dipped below the current retention rates. For the 1980 -89 classes, the percent retained at 5 years ranged from 51% (1988) to 86% (1981). For the 1990 through 1999 classes, the percent ranged from a low of 65% (1990) to a high of 78%(1999). The retention rate for the class of 2000 was 66% and, if the article is correct the class of 2001 was lower than the 66% figure. </p>
<p>Clearly the attrition rate is not "five times the levels is was before Iraq."</p>
<p>The article infers that the attrition rate is in a death spiral. A couple of pieces of information would seem to indicate that's not the case. First, West Point is aware of the increased attrition rate and has instigated programs to increase retention. The Army will guarantee USMA graduates slots in the most sought-after branches of the service aviation, armor or intelligence, for example in exchange for an extra three years in uniform. Similarly, if a young officer wants an initial posting to a desired location or an opportunity to earn a master's degree, the Army will guarantee either choice in exchange for three more years of active duty.</p>
<p>The program appears to be working as the West Point graduating class of 2006 responded at levels even higher than anticipated by senior officers at the military academy, with 352 of the 875 seniors 40.2 percent signing on to the program.</p>
<p>^ chances are just about all of the 40% that signed on to that program were already planning on staying in past their initial obligation... i mean, if you were planning on staying past 5 years, what would stop you from signing that? now whats that say about the 60% that didn't sign on to the program? they believe that there is at least a chance that in 5 years they won't want to stay in, especially if they get screwed into a crappy job or crappy location after the people that signed onto the program got the good ones.</p>
<p>and those retention numbers aren't even counting the aviation people... ouch</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No "vote by the people" would need to take place. The Selective Service Act is currently still in force - all 18 year old men must register with the draft board.</p>
<p>Congress suspended it in 1973 - all it would take is a simple reinstatement by Congress to re-establish it. </p>
<p>The Pentagon has quietly been filling empty seats on local draft boards since 2003.</p>
<p>
[quote]
simple reinstatement
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How exactly would that work in the United States Congress? By any chance would they have to vote on the measure and then face their constituents??? I know it's a tough case to make, but Congressmen are people too...besides how are they going to find the time to focus on such an issue when they are busy passing amendments to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries; our troops don’t have adequate vehicles to protect them from most IEDs but we have politically correct fried food....I'm sorry my cynicism is showing</p>
<p>And you will vote for the incumbent? [As the vast majority of people do, regardless of party.] Why?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We also have to remember that contractors are doing much of the work previously done by the military. They are not cheap. And they have to be hard for morale when the soldier busting his a$$ looks over the steam table and the cook is making 10 times his salary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very important point that gets far too little attention.</p>
<p>Private Contractors Outnumber US Troops in Iraq</p>
<p>New U.S. data show how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of the war-torn nation.
By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer
July 4, 2007 </p>
<p>The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government's capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns. </p>
<p>More than 180,000 civilians - including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis - are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times. </p>
<p>Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq. </p>
<p>The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq - a mission criticized as being undermanned. </p>
<p>"These numbers are big," said Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar who has written on military contracting. "They illustrate better than anything that we went in without enough troops. This is not the coalition of the willing. It's the coalition of the billing." </p>
<p>The numbers include at least 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreign contractors and about 118,000 Iraqis - all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars, according to the most recent government data. </p>
<p>The array of private workers promises to be a factor in debates on a range of policy issues, including the privatization of military jobs and the number of Iraqi refugees allowed to resettle in the U.S. </p>
<p>But there are also signs that even those mounting numbers may not capture the full picture. Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials. </p>
<p>Continuing uncertainty over the numbers of armed contractors drew special criticism from military experts. </p>
<p>"We don't have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That's dangerous for our country," said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene." </p>
<h2>Although private companies have played a role in conflicts since the American Revolution, the U.S. has relied more on contractors in Iraq than in any other war, according to military experts. </h2>
<p>Read more:</p>
<p>Very misleading article. </p>
<p>118,000 Iraqis working in Iraq shouldn't be counted as "private contractors". </p>
<p>What "corporation" :rolleyes: do they work for?</p>
<p>Suunds like more troop/Bush/USA bashing from the LA Times.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity . . . how would you classify a private contractor?
Only persons working for US corporations? Only US citizens working for US corporations?</p>
<p>If a person is working for an other than governmental entity--an NGO for lack of a better term--whether for-profit or non-profit, in a function previously carried out by military personnel, how would that person be classified?</p>
<p>If a multi-national corp, U.S., Kuwaiti, French, or UK employs an Iraqi, that is not a "private contractor"?</p>
<p>The quote below said the 118,000 were working IN Iraq, not FOR Iraq.
In any event, it seems that most personnel ove there are being paid with US dollars, so how does that factor into the equation?</p>
<p>Bechtel Corp has/had the food services contract for most of Iraq. They hire cooks from the US and most of the unskilled laborers are Iraqis. Therefore soldiers don't have to pull temporary duty doing KP nor do Army cooks do the cooking. The cook's salary destroys morale, the Iraqi is a security risk,and Bechtel makes an obscene profit on the cost plus contract.</p>
<h2>This is Senator Hagel's statement of support of the troop readiness legislation, though the amendment to S.2012 fell four votes short of advancing in the US Senate last week.</h2>
<p>July 9th, 2007 </p>
<p>SENATOR HAGEL FLOOR STATEMENT ON TROOP READINESS </p>
<p>Mr. President, I appreciate the time. </p>
<p>I rise to support the Webb amendment on troop readiness. The distinguished junior Senator from Virginia has taken, once again, an important leadership role on an issue that is as important to our country, to our military, and their families as any one issue, and that is readiness, because it is the men and women whom we ask to fight and die for this country who must always be our highest priority. The men and women who serve this country in uniform and their families deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifices. I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Virginia on this issue. This is part of an amendment Senator Webb and I had introduced a couple of months ago. </p>
<p>In February of this year, GEN Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that there is now, in his words, ``significant'' risk that our military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis in another part of the world. Since that time, the United States has sent more of our soldiers and more of our military equipment to Iraq. </p>
<p>The war in Iraq has pushed the U.S. military to the breaking point. I, like most of my colleagues, have been told by military leaders, both on active duty and those who are retired, that we are doing tremendous damage to our Army and to our Marine Corps, as well as our Army National Guard. Our troops are being deployed longer than they should be, more frequently than they should be, and without full training and equipment. We are eroding our military power at a time when our country faces an increasing arc of challenges and threats across the globe. We are abusing our all-voluntary force in a dangerous and irresponsible way. Senator Webb recited a number of the facts--facts, not interpretations, not subjective analysis, but facts--as to what is happening to our military today because of the burden we are placing on them in Iraq, our fifth year in Iraq, our sixth year in Afghanistan. </p>
<p>This amendment goes to the heart of ensuring the readiness of our military and the time between deployments. This amendment will ensure that all Active units that have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan have time at home that is at least equal to the length of the previous deployment. If we can't commit at least that to our forces, then what can we commit to them? For the National Guard and Reserves, our amendment establishes a minimum 3 years between deployments. Longer and more predictable dwell time will allow soldiers to rest, reequip, retrain, and return to their families. Our amendment has waiver authority because there can be extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary use of our military. We have used that over and over and over in Iraq. </p>
<p>Today, in our fifth year in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, we must return to the standards that allowed us to create the finest military force the world has ever known, the best led, the best educated, the best trained, the best equipped, and the most committed military the world has ever known. You can't make those kinds of militaries. You can't build those kinds of militaries overnight or even over 5 years. It took some of this country's greatest military leaders post-World War II--more importantly, post-Vietnam--such as General Powell, General Schwarzkopf, and many others, to commit their lives, 35 years of their lives to rebuild a broken military after we broke it in Vietnam. We are headed in the same direction unless we get control of this disaster now. Nothing is more important to our country, to our society than our people. </p>
<p>I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I appreciate the leadership of the junior Senator from Virginia who knows something about the military, who knows something about war.</p>