what can we do in the military to convince our public that we are making significant progress in both Iraq and in the global war on terrorism and that we have to remain committed to this important mission?

Stop listening to the liberals, their media allies, and the French.

The retirement question is one that my husband and his colleagues have mulled over for years now.  The military is letting people who are, as Rummy said, at the top of their game, walk away.  There folks are in their early 40's (some are even in their late 30's), they've got the job experience, they've got the management skills, they've got the combat experience, they still have a hell of a lot to offer...and the military is either shoving them out of the door or is letting them walk away.  It's silly, really.  Instead of pushing them out, the military should be offering them incentives to stay.  We need these people.....

dharma,

I agree. As an opponent of the draft, I believe it is in our best interests to retain those who wish to continue to serve and are capable of contributing. To throw them out and to propose a draft AT ANY LEVEL (the Democrats get the yellow hankie on THIS one) is an absurd double standard.

agree. As an opponent of the draft, I believe it is in our best interests to retain those who wish to continue to serve and are capable of contributing. To throw them out and to propose a draft AT ANY LEVEL (the Democrats get the yellow hankie on THIS one) is an absurd double standard.

Absolutely. Overloading the military with inexperienced rookies is a horrible idea.

This issue hit home for us. HW's dad was forced out after 32 years (he snuck by because of the Gulf War) He practically begged to stay in. He was happy, he was an outstanding 1SG and because of his age/time in service/time in rank, he was forced out.

I think the Army needs to not only rethink the max age limit but bring back the Spec ranks. Some guys are great Specialists and some guys make fantastic 1SGs. Telling them they have to get promoted or get out is not using the force to it's best capacity. Let soldiers serve as lower enlisted, keep the trained competent leaders and don't set blanket rules to promote idiots!

There's nothing like preaching to the converted. Let's have a real dialogue about what is really going on. Hawks on both sides inciting each other to the common purpose of annihilation and thepeaceful majority being deluded into complacency.

There's nothing like preaching to the converted. Let's have a real dialogue about what is really going on. Hawks on both sides inciting each other to the common purpose of annihilation and thepeaceful majority being deluded into complacency.

How about responding to the article instead of pontificating your own agenda.  If you want to do the latter, get an account and write your own articles.

That was a response. Just not the one you wanted to hear. Why am I your agenda?

Let's have a real dialogue about what is really going on.

Ooh, there where a lot of long words in your comment. Did you have to go look them up in the dictionary, or did you just repeat them parrot fashion? I suspect it's the latter.

Grow some balls, get an ID, and then join in a proper debate - one where you'll have to use your own words and thoughts. Blind repetition doesnt work in the grown up world.

That was a response. Just not the one you wanted to hear. Why am I your agenda?

That was grandstanding and evading the article.  If you cant tell the difference, you are not too bright.

If one has trouble arguing an idea, it's always helpful to attack the person.

If one has trouble arguing an idea, it's always helpful to attack the person.

A tactic you demonstrate very well.

So, are you going to discuss the original article, or are you just going to spout off anti-war sentiments? The article in question isn't about the war.....perhaps you should read again.

This is most definately very enlightening Shadow! Thanks so much for sharing!

I think the Army needs to not only rethink the max age limit but bring back the Spec ranks. Some guys are great Specialists and some guys make fantastic 1SGs. Telling them they have to get promoted or get out is not using the force to it's best capacity. Let soldiers serve as lower enlisted, keep the trained competent leaders and don't set blanket rules to promote idiots!

I agree with you here, because I have met some Sergeant First Classes that have years of good service and provide massive amounts of experience. But I would not want them to lead troops.

On the other side of the coin I have known soldiers that either had no upward mobility for their job skill (but don't wish to change MOSs) or the soldier lacks the leadership traits that the command requires to be boarded for promotion (no matter how many schools we send them to), but is technically proficient in his present job. But both types of soldiers still should be retained past eight years and paid more then an E-4 pay grade (in some places E-4s are eligible for food stamps).

As for the over 30 year’s thing, IMO keep the limit in place. From my personal experience, 80% of troops over 30 years are unable to physically survive the riggers of combat. Those over 30 are also holding a position that could be filled by an eager qualified soldier that is presently deciding to retire at twenty because of no upward mobility. After a soldier reaches twenty years, their really evaluate weather to either leave service while they are still young to get another career or stick it out hoping to be retained every two years by a review board for basically a half pay job (they would normally receive the other half if retired).

If you really think about keeping people past 30 then they need to be hired back on as civilian contractor and away from combat (which many do already).

Check out this blog

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com

It's related to question Sergeant Major [Pritsing] asked the SecDef.

JollyFE