It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An Army of (NO) one

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:03 AM
The Bush administration has jeapardized American security. How is that? Because of its policies, they can no longer recruit the proper amount of troops. Their policies are endangering the US forces.

An Army of (No) One
Commentary: An Inside Look at the Military's Internet Recruiting War

By Nick Turse

July 13, 2005

It's been a tough year for the U.S. military. But you wouldn't know it from the Internet, now increasingly packed with slick, non-military looking websites of every sort that are lying in wait for curious teens (or their exasperated parents) who might be surfing by. On the ground, the military may be bogged down in a seemingly interminable mission that was supposedly "accomplished" back on May 1, 2003, but on the Web it's still a be-all-that-you-can-be world of advanced career choices, peaceful pursuits, and risk-free excitement.

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:11 AM
I notice, ECK, that the only evil in the world that you see is coming from the Bush Administration.

I suggest that if it were another president and the scenario was a bit different, you'd still have a hard time filling the slots.

When I joined, it was during the Cold War era, and there were still kids (mostly the "in" crowd kids that thought it was more important that they become wealthy doctors and lwyers than serve their country) that saw no reason to serve the country. There was always that chance you could get killed when the Soviets rushed through the Gap!
Nowadays, it's a bit different; there are no days that go by when there aren't shots fired in large numbers. A bullet to the noggin would certain lessen one's chance of becoming a wealthy mean, laywer!

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I notice, ECK, that the only evil in the world that you see is coming from the Bush Administration.

Only Bush administration policies have caused this problem. Clinton was not a great commander in chief, but at least they met their enlistment quotas.

The most important aspect to consider is this, the Neo Cons did their best to enlist Clinton in this worthless cause, but he refused them. For that I give him credit. (Anyone who knows me knows for me to give Clinton credit is a rare thing.)

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:52 AM
Clinton also drove a lot of good troops out of the military. Unless one is to belive the unfounded conspiracy theories (and as this is PTS and not ATS, I'll take it from this angle), Clinton's lousy foreign policy and wrecking of the military and intelligence communities is what got us attacked to begin with. Of course, the world loved Bill, and that was the only important thing to him.
When you are shrinking the military, keeping the numbers is the least of your concerns. When you are having to build the numbers back up and doing it during a shooting-war, the task is a bit more dificult.

Bush's stupid policies are more domestic. Such as, leaving our borders wide-open so that the next attack can be more easily accomodated.
This is where I'd usually dive conspiratorial, so I'll go to bed, now, rather than mix ATS and PTS.
Good night, Kid; sweet dreams!

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:55 AM
As much as I couldn't stand Clinton, I will say you can't lay any of this at his feet. It is the policies of the Bush administration that has totally screwed up recruiting .

Besides, the draw-down started under Bush (the first), not Clinton.

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:12 AM
Good morning! Wish I could say that I slept well, but ruining my rotator cuff muscles and cuffs in the Army prevents that!

I can lay it at his feet, and I believe that I explained it clearly.

I am very much aware that George H.W. Bush started it with his B.R.A.C., but that has nothing to do with what Clinton did, which was a travesty. I also outlined the differences between keeping the numbers while dismantling the military, and making goals while rebuilding a dismantled military, and doing it while we are at war, and doing it in a nation that has become narcissistic, commercial and shallow.

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:22 AM
I opposed the drawdown under Bush (I). I thought it was a dangerous policy (with China, especially, looming as an ever greater threat). However, back then, those concerns fell on deaf ears from all sides.

It's true, Clinton's policies went a long way in furthering the decline of our forces and troop morale. I had a good friend who warned me back then, not to go back in ('cos I'm old school) and I wouldn't have been able to tolerate the insane PC that had taken over the ranks. She was very correct. She knows me well and she was still in at the time, struggling to deal with what she saw as a terrible infection. She said it was not the military we had served in together.

But, Bush's mistakes, likewise, are his own and cannot be blamed on anyone else.

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:26 AM
One more thing, no matter how flawed Clinton's policies were toward the military, they didn't miss their recruiting quotas as they are now.

In looking for culprits in 9-11, I would direct everyone interested toward the NeoCons and their long cherished plan PNAC. Wolfowitz' own words are remarkably and eerily similar to Operation Northwoods. He said, and I'm paraphrasing.. Now all we need is another Pearl Harbor type attack to make this operational..

I think Mr. Wolfowitz is a Lymon Lemnitzer of today.

Btw, TC, get better soon!

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 08:18 PM
Well nearest I can tell we're not going to see those quotas reached anytime soon, at least not until we're out of Iraq, and not till Bush is out of office (face it, kids are afraid to have Bush as C in C). In the mean time the best idea I can think of is to invest more in training and equipment in order to make up for quanity with quality until we can get out of Iraq. Plus when kids see high tech equipment they want to enlist. So maybe investing in better equipment and training would help to attract more recruits.

new topics

top topics


log in