U.S. Army recruitment lagging

[Black Dog]

Army misses April recruiting goal by 42 percent

The U.S. Army missed its April recruiting goal by a whopping 42 percent and the Army Reserve fell short by 37 percent, officials said on Tuesday, showing the depth of the military's wartime recruiting woes.

With the Iraq war straining the U.S. military, the active-duty Army has now missed its recruiting goals in three straight months, with April being by far the worst of the three, and officials are forecasting that it will fall short again in May.

The all-volunteer Army is providing the majority of the ground forces for an Iraq war in which nearly 1,600 U.S. troops have died.

Come on, gang: Your country needs you!

[Shakeyhands]

Yeah right....

See, they aren't as dumb as some of think they are!

[moderateamericain]

would you know anyone that would want to join the military during wartime?

[Black Dog]

would you know anyone that would want to join the military during wartime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have thought that, with so many Americans voting for Bush, recruitnment for his war machine wouldn't be an issue. But then maybe Bush voters and otehr Iraq war boosters only support war when it's other people or other people's kids dying.

[PocketRocket]

"Be All That You Can Be"

"The Army; It's Not A Job, It's an Adventure"

"We Need a Few Good Men"

Maybe it's partly because all these feel-good military slogans don't look so great when the adventure starts turning into a nightmare, when "a few good men" die every day, and being "all you can be" turns out to mean being filler for a body-bag for thousands of our youth.

Then again, maybe they just need a more fashionable uniform

[TokyoTakarazuka]

I would have thought that, with so many Americans voting for Bush, recruitnment for his war machine wouldn't be an issue. But then maybe Bush voters and otehr Iraq war boosters only support war when it's other people or other people's kids dying.

Instead of inventing an intentionally partisan and inflammatory explanation, you could instead look at a few basic demographic statistics. One of Bush’s most overwhelming bases of support was seniors of age 60 and over. Bush won this demographic by the large margin of 8%, which is very high considering that he only won the election by a margin of 2.5%. Obviously, almost everyone from this demographic would be rejected from military service should they attempt to sign up. Bush also won the age 45-59 demographic by an above-average margin of 3%, and the so-called Generation Jones (those between the ages of about 30 and 44) by 7%. Those between 30 and 59 who attempt to join the army would of course have a much greater chance of being rejected than those younger than 30. By contrast, Kerry won the age 18-29 demographic by a 9% margin. In other words, Kerry supporters, the demographic most likely to be against the Iraq War, are also the group that, should they attempt to join the military, are the most likely to be accepted and sent overseas. Another factor that may play a role is that most single and childless people are Kerry supporters, whereas those who are married and have children voted for Bush by the astounding margins of between 11% and 15%. Obviously, this would be a great deterrent to join the army.

I don’t need to point out that not everyone who believes the Iraq war to be virtuous will immediately join the military, just as not everyone who believes the Darfur genocide is unjust will become a humanitarian worker, but that being said in 2004 Bush easily carried the military serviceman demographic by 16%. This margin was even higher for servicemen who had specifically served in Iraq.

However, considering the fact that Paul Martin is “at one with the United States” on the issue of rebuilding Iraq, and since defeating the insurgency is key to doing that, perhaps this isn't something you ought to be gloating about at all. Canada might be a bit too preoccupied in Afghanistan to fill the gap, but we should be hoping that other nations will. As Iraq’s first democratically-elected president in fifty years, Jalal Talabani, stated: “The victory of the new Iraq will be the triumph of freedom over hate, of decency over intolerance. Who would not want to share in such a worthy campaign?”

[PocketRocket]

“The victory of the new Iraq will be the triumph of freedom over hate, of decency over intolerance. Who would not want to share in such a worthy campaign?”

Good point, but I'll reserve judgement for a few years until we see how "decent" and "tolerant" this new Iraq is after US and other coalition forces have pulled out and left the country on it's own.

There is too long a history of brutality by USA-backed regimes.

This one may turn out to be better, but then again, it may not.

Time will tell.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I would have thought that, with so many Americans voting for Bush, recruitnment for his war machine wouldn't be an issue. But then maybe Bush voters and otehr Iraq war boosters only support war when it's other people or other people's kids dying.

Instead of inventing an intentionally partisan and inflammatory explanation, you could instead look at a few basic demographic statistics. One of Bush’s most overwhelming bases of support was seniors of age 60 and over. Bush won this demographic by the large margin of 8%, which is very high considering that he only won the election by a margin of 2.5%. Obviously, almost everyone from this demographic would be rejected from military service should they attempt to sign up. Bush also won the age 45-59 demographic by an above-average margin of 3%, and the so-called Generation Jones (those between the ages of about 30 and 44) by 7%. Those between 30 and 59 who attempt to join the army would of course have a much greater chance of being rejected than those younger than 30. By contrast, Kerry won the age 18-29 demographic by a 9% margin. In other words, Kerry supporters, the demographic most likely to be against the Iraq War, are also the group that, should they attempt to join the military, are the most likely to be accepted and sent overseas. Another factor that may play a role is that most single and childless people are Kerry supporters, whereas those who are married and have children voted for Bush by the astounding margins of between 11% and 15%. Obviously, this would be a great deterrent to join the army.

Funny... you say the suggestion that Iraq war boosters only support war when it's other people dying is inflamatory and partisan, and yet you posted a paragraph of data that precisely demonstrate that it's true.

[Black Dog]

However, considering the fact that Paul Martin is “at one with the United States” on the issue of rebuilding Iraq, and since defeating the insurgency is key to doing that, perhaps this isn't something you ought to be gloating about at all.

Who's gloating? I'd liken my reaction to the state of affairs in the U.S. and Iraq to watching a grusome car wreck in slow motion: horrible to watch, yet strangely compelling.

Canada might be a bit too preoccupied in Afghanistan to fill the gap, but we should be hoping that other nations will.

Sorry, but no. Why would other nations want to send their people to die for George Bush's folly?

As Iraq’s first democratically-elected president in fifty years, Jalal Talabani, stated: “The victory of the new Iraq will be the triumph of freedom over hate, of decency over intolerance. Who would not want to share in such a worthy campaign?”

Uplifting bromides won't disguise the fact that the U.S. invasion and continuting war on Iraq was poorly planned and poorly executed. I'd wager that the longer the U.S. stays, the less chance a truly democtratic Iraq will have at success.

[Black Dog]

Recruiters play hardball

"Going Army" and making history appealed to 20-year-old Chris Monarch, so he called a Houston recruiting office.

"I recognized the name," he said. "His name was Kelt."

Sgt. Thomas Kelt was the recruiter.

But a new baby changed Monarch's plan to enlist and he cancelled his meeting with the recruiter.

"I said I'm a volunteer firefighter and eventually gonna try to go career with it and I'm just not interested anymore and I hung up the phone," Monarch said.

But the recruiter wouldn't take no for an answer -- with a phone message threatening Monarch with arrest if he didn't show.

"By federal law you got an appointment with me at two o'clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall." said Kelt. "OK, you fail to appear and we'll have a warrant, OK? So give me a call back."

What's next? A draft? Press gangs?

Seriously though, I'd wager that people in the U.S. tend to support the war, the troops and Bush in very abstract terms. Clearly, they're not willing to risk death or injury to fight for another country, which is essentially what Bush is asking (if one suspends disbelief for a moment and presumes all that talk of bringing democracy to the benighted brown-skinend people is true). In World War 2, it was an easy sell. The world was endangered by the menance of fascism, so it was not difficult to appeal to people's sense of duty to their country. But what duty to Americans have to Iraq and to a needless war?

[moderateamericain]

Recruiters play hardball

"Going Army" and making history appealed to 20-year-old Chris Monarch, so he called a Houston recruiting office.

"I recognized the name," he said. "His name was Kelt."

Sgt. Thomas Kelt was the recruiter.

But a new baby changed Monarch's plan to enlist and he cancelled his meeting with the recruiter.

"I said I'm a volunteer firefighter and eventually gonna try to go career with it and I'm just not interested anymore and I hung up the phone," Monarch said.

But the recruiter wouldn't take no for an answer -- with a phone message threatening Monarch with arrest if he didn't show.

"By federal law you got an appointment with me at two o'clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall." said Kelt. "OK, you fail to appear and we'll have a warrant, OK? So give me a call back."

What's next? A draft? Press gangs?

Seriously though, I'd wager that people in the U.S. tend to support the war, the troops and Bush in very abstract terms. Clearly, they're not willing to risk death or injury to fight for another country, which is essentially what Bush is asking (if one suspends disbelief for a moment and presumes all that talk of bringing democracy to the benighted brown-skinend people is true). In World War 2, it was an easy sell. The world was endangered by the menance of fascism, so it was not difficult to appeal to people's sense of duty to their country. But what duty to Americans have to Iraq and to a needless war?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

should be noted that my 19 year old brother just joined the army. So now i have a stake in seeing this done right and done soon. at this point with the stretch of personel i suspect they will rush him through a shortened basic training, he could see active duty within 3 months of his first day. I trully hope we can rap up the majority of the fighting soon.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

Funny... you say the suggestion that Iraq war boosters only support war when it's other people dying is inflamatory and partisan, and yet you posted a paragraph of data that precisely demonstrate that it's true.

Actually, this data doesn't reveal why older individuals and parents are much more likely to be Bush supporters, it only reveals that older individuals and parents (who voted) are much more likely to be Bush supporters. An example of a partisan explanation for this trend is, for instance, to argue that the old are wiser than the young, and that married people are less naive than single/childless people. It’s partisan because it explains the popularity of a candidate not by criticizing the deficiencies or merits of his actual policies, but by attempting to smear the alleged characteristics of his followers. Proving that the young are less wise than the old would in itself be difficult to demonstrate, but even if it could be proved, there would still be the matter of showing that their naivety was the reason they chose to vote for Kerry. My data did not prove two key points. Firstly, it did not show that the followers of Bush are typically more cowardly or devious than those of Kerry, and secondly it does not prove that their cowardliness or deviousness directly influenced their preferred choice of candidate, as opposed to some other factor.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

Good point, but I'll reserve judgement for a few years until we see how "decent" and "tolerant" this new Iraq is after US and other coalition forces have pulled out and left the country on it's own.

There is too long a history of brutality by USA-backed regimes.

This one may turn out to be better, but then again, it may not.

That’s true of course, but keep in mind that the United States has a long history of backing tolerant democracies as well. For every authoritarian regime that was happily or reluctantly given vital funding by the United States, such as Guatemala or Iran, there is also a democracy or two that would never have existed without American military and economic assistance, such as Costa Rica and Venezuela.

Those, however, are examples of dictatorial and democratic governments that the United States sponsored from abroad. Actually invading a nation and installing democratic institutions is much less common, and in human history I think the United States and Great Britain are the only countries to have ever attempted it. America's history of democracy-building has ranged from spectacular successes (ex. Japan) to outstanding failures (ex. Nicaragua).

In American history the most well-known examples of long-term democracy-building are post-war Germany and Japan, which were controlled for, respectively, four and seven years. Due in part to the great internal destruction wrought by World War Two, the military occupations were largely bloodless, although the demilitarization and reconstruction processes was regardless extremely expensive. Today the democratic constitutions of Germany and Japan are largely unchanged from those implemented by the United States and its allies in the late-1940’s.

These two famous examples, however, are not the only instances of successful democracy-building in US history. South Korea was taken over by 50,000 US troops and democratized between 1945 and 1949. The first years of the occupation were punctuated by terrorist violence, largely directed from North Korea, which exploded into an intense civil war from 1948-1950. The United States worked quickly to train a local Korean army, however, and in the end little of the fighting involved American troops. National elections held in 1948 brought the popular nationalist Rhee Syngman to power. The Philippines became an American colony in 1899 after a vicious four-year guerrilla war that resulted in nearly 5,000 US deaths, far more than have died in Iraq so far. During this period, the Philippines was by far the world’s most progressive colony. Not only were native Philippinos not discriminated against, the United States actively promoted their increased role in the government and economy. Under American tutelage, the Philippines developed Asia’s first democratically-elected legislature, and their civil service, well-trained by the United States, was ready to assume control over the country in 1946 when it became the world’s first colony to negotiate its independence. Since the end of the American occupation, South Korea and the Philippines have had among the best democratic records in the post-war third world. South Korea experienced periods of semi-authoritarianism during the late-1950’s and early-1970’s, but was an outright dictatorship only between 1972 and 1988. The Philippines have since 1946 endured dictatorship for only sixteen years (1972-1986). The transition back to democracy that occurred in the Philippines and South Korea in the 1980’s might have been delayed or might have never happened at all had it not been for diplomatic pressure the United States put on the dictatorships combined with massive funding Ronald Reagan provisioned for liberal opposition groups. Today, South Korea and the Philippines are still democracies very much in a US model, despite the fact that in the 1940’s they had absolutely no prior experience with democratic government.

On the other hand, US nation-building policies in Central America and the Caribbean failed entirely. Prior to the 1930’s the United States Marines often intervened militarily during Central American and Caribbean civil wars in order to ensure the protection of American property. In three instances they engaged in long-term nation-building efforts. American democratization programs were relatively unambitious in Haiti (1915-1930) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1922), although in both instances the United States held two elections (the freest in Haitian and Dominican history up to that point) before departing. Both occupations were largely peaceful, but in general the United States focused too greatly on building infrastructure and establishing the rule of law and spent too little effort on training local people and creating the government institutions that would be necessary for electoral politics to take root permanently. In both cases, the democratically-elected rulers the United States left behind either denigrated back into authoritarianism or were overthrown in a coup. The most ambitious attempt the United States made to impose democracy on a Latin American nation, however, was Nicaragua between 1925 and 1933. Over the course of the occupation the United States held three free elections, all of which saw high citizen participation and voter turnout, while fighting a small insurgency that cost the marines 140 dead. By the late-1920’s Nicaraguan political parties had become highly satisfied with the transparency and effectiveness of American-style politics, and prospects for a democratic Nicaragua were high. However, the American public was skeptical of the purpose that the operation served to American interests and by the late-1920’s the marines were slowly withdrawing. During the Great Depression this skepticism turn into hostility in the senate, and the United States wound up withdrawing completely before they had fully disarmed the insurgency. Tensions in Nicaragua between potential insurgents, the military, and the government were high during the 1930’s and in 1936 a military coup engineered by Anastasio Somoza ended democracy in Nicaragua until the late-1980’s.

America’s costly failures to style Latin American governments in its own image convinced many US policymakers that democracy was not the most suitable form of administration for Latin America. Cold War policymaker George Kennan’s dismissed American efforts to promote democracy abroad because, he said, democracy was not “the natural state of most of mankind.” Kennan was a supporter of the so-called Good Neighbor Policy proposed by Franklin Roosevelt, which advocated supporting Latin American governments that had taken root indigenously, even if they happened to be wicked dictatorships. Under this policy, Roosevelt refused to condemn Somoza’s 1936 coup as unjustified and unconstitutional.

There are two reasons why I believe Iraq stands a greater chance of becoming the next South Korea or Philippines than it does the next Nicaragua or Haiti. Firstly, democracies now, for the first time in history, comprise the majority of the world's nations. One often cited reason that democracy will not function in Iraq is due to its great ethnic diversity. Today however, compared to most democracies in the world, Iraq’s cultural heterogeneity is relatively low. India, a democracy built slowly under British guidance, has performed reasonably well since 1946 despite accommodating three times the number of major languages that Iraq has, as well as twice the number of major ethnic groups. Democracy had demonstrated its ability to be effective on every region in the world, and it is widely agreed to be the form of government best able to protect the basic civil liberties of its citizens. Iraq's prospects are perhaps also increased by its previous experiment with democracy in the 1950's. Many believe that Germany and Japan's previous (but very short) experiences with democracy greatly assisted their transition during the American occupation.

I'd wager that the longer the U.S. stays, the less chance a truly democtratic Iraq will have at success.

The case of Nicaragua demonstrates the dangers of a hasty withdrawal. It’s obvious that the insurgents, having boycotted and disrupted the 2005 elections despite being allowed full opportunity to participate, have little interests in abetting the development of a democratic Iraq. If the United States was to pull out now before an indigenous Iraqi army has been suitably trained to defeat the ongoing rebellion, then it would be impossible for this nascent democracy to resist a slide towards militarism and authoritarianism.

Why would other nations want to send their people to die for George Bush's folly?

The current effort to give Iraqis a democratic government that respects basic civil liberties is no folly; even Paul Martin agrees with that. Democracy-building has worked before and we can make it work again. However, the news story you cited shows that the United States can’t do it alone. The entire world ought to fall behind American efforts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan as better nations than they were. Not succeeding in this might not simply mean that the Iraqi people will have to endure dictatorship for another fifty years, it may lead to increased skepticism everywhere whether human rights and democracy can be appropriately cultivated in the Middle East, and it will serve to convince policymakers across the world to further their collaboration with Middle Eastern autocrats. Every time another country pulls out of Iraq it makes the prospects for Iraqi democracy that much weaker. However, the potential costs of failure are far too great to consider surrender.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear TokyoTakarazuka,

An excellent post, well argued and backed up by facts, as always. However, I must disagree with ...

Actually invading a nation and installing democratic institutions is much less common, and in human history I think the United States and Great Britain are the only countries to have ever attempted it

because Great Britain rarely cared if a colony was 'democratic' or not. They just wanted to control the upper echelons, the nabobs and the administrators (such as judges et al). What went on below that boundary was of no moment to them.

And this...

Every time another country pulls out of Iraq it makes the prospects for Iraqi democracy that much weaker. However, the potential costs of failure are far too great to consider surrender

The potential risks really aren't all that great.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

because Great Britain rarely cared if a colony was 'democratic' or not. They just wanted to control the upper echelons, the nabobs and the administrators (such as judges et al). What went on below that boundary was of no moment to them.

That’s an oversimplification not because the statement doesn’t apply to any British colonies, but because the level of enlightenment in British governance depended entirely on the colony. The professed goal in all British colonies was eventual self-government, like in Canada and Australia, although the speed and enthusiasm to which the British set about this task rested on many factors, inspired by both greed and benevolence, which varied from colony to colony. In all cases, however, Britain did attempt to lay the foundation for democratic governance in its former colonies, although the democratization process sometimes only began decades or years before independence. Britain was a Westminster-style democracy, and because it thought highly of this political system, it attempted to export the same legislative and executive model to each colony. This produced a mixed record of successes and failures, depending on the quality of the British administration and the level of cooperation local peoples were willing to give.

Even if the British were not always altruistic, they in several colonies pursued a framework that heeded their own words. Despite some failures, the British Raj in India deserves to be called an instance of nation-building. The British conquered India when it consisted of hundreds of warring states of many ethnicities and creeds, and unified them under a single, stable government. The Indian economy grew slowly but steadily, and the British were keen to encourage private Indian enterprise. By 1947, about 70% of the economy was in Indian hands (in fact, British companies had a greater presence in Argentina than India). Competent administration and lobbying by Indian nationalist groups made the colony a model of democratic gradualism during the late-1800’s and early-1900’s. Two Indian Council Acts (1892 and 1909) and two Government of India Acts (1919 and 1935) constructed and reinforced democratic governance in India. Prior to the Raj, freedom of speech, equality under the law, and rights for the accused were unknown in India. However, the constitution of 1949 enshrined all of these. While at the same time acknowledging the abuses of colonial rule in India, it’s also important to understand that without Britain, India would not today be the stable democracy that it is. Although India has since adapted its democracy to best cope with its unique dilemmas, the model of Indian democracy is British democracy, which was imported there during the colonial period. Botswana and Trinidad and Tobago similarly owe a good deal to the British for their post-colonial stability and wealth.

Although it’s true that in some colonies real effort towards democratization was indeed lacking, I also want to note that in other cases the democracy and rule of law imposed by the British broke down due to the failures of post-colonial administrations. Colonial Ghana is in my opinion certainly worthy of being called an enterprise in democracy-building. Within ten years of securing the country, Great Britain had put an end to intertribal warfare and slavery and began an unprecedented wave of political and economic liberalization. From the 1880’s on blacks steadily increased their presence in the legislative assembly, which was mostly elected by universal suffrage after reforms in 1925 and 1947. The British gave Ghana a vibrant free press and a well-developed system of infrastructure. Economically it became an African tiger, seeing long-term GDP growth rates that were above average even by contemporary European standards. However, Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first elected president after independence, was no Jawaharlal Nehru. He actively subverted the liberal constitution of 1956, arrested his political opponents, and regulated the economy on the Soviet model. Since then Ghana’s economy has experienced literally no growth at all, and democracy was restored only within the last ten years.

Although I concede that in several parts of the world British colonialism was punctuated with instances of arrogance, racism, recklessness, and bloodshed, I’m nonetheless willing to defend the British on this matter since I think the system often got positive results. Unlike many other imperial powers, the British didn’t seek to impose a centralized, bureaucratic, and repressive administration over their colonies and in most cases their rule was more transparent, more progressive, and at least as humane as the indigenous regimes that preceded it. More often than not, the British simply don’t get the credit they deserve.

[Black Dog]

Actually, this data doesn't reveal why older individuals and parents are much more likely to be Bush supporters, it only reveals that older individuals and parents (who voted) are much more likely to be Bush supporters.

...and thus also far less likely to be called upon to support the implementation of his policies.

That’s true of course, but keep in mind that the United States has a long history of backing tolerant democracies as well. For every authoritarian regime that was happily or reluctantly given vital funding by the United States, such as Guatemala or Iran, there is also a democracy or two that would never have existed without American military and economic assistance, such as Costa Rica and Venezuela.

The U.S. assisted the military overthrow of Venezuala's first democratically elected president and has been acussed of formenting the coup attempt gainst current president Chavez. Costa Rica has never been subject to much foreign intervention and was a viable, homegrown democracy before it fell into the U.S 's sphere of influence.

I also find it fascinating that you ascribe all these instances of direct and indirect foreign intervention as "nation-building". Really, such a concept was not even a stated objective of U.S foreign policy until after the First World War and the introduction of Wilson's 14 points. Prior to that, U.S. policy was fixed around the Monroe doctrine, which was (in practice if not in content) a declaration of U.S. supremacy over the hemisphere.

Now, as then, the purpose of U.S. interventionism it is to assure the primacy of U.S. interests (mainly economic). If states subject to American intervention are able (as in some of the cases you cited) to cobble together a democracy, so be it: however, in such cases where democracy is an impediment to U.S. interests, democracy can be undermined or destroyed entirely. That's the lesson we can glean from history.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

Costa Rica has never been subject to much foreign intervention and was a viable, homegrown democracy before it fell into the U.S 's sphere of influence.

In addition to being by far Latin America’s most staunchly democratic country, Costa Rica had also historically been America’s strongest ally in Central America. Although Costa Rica, renown for being an example of ‘homegrown’ democracy in the third world, held its first multiparty election in 1899, their incipient democracy wouldn’t have survived up to the present without the unflinching patronage they have received from the United States. Although Costa Rica’s government has been greatly assisted by America’s longstanding economic and military assistance programs, more significant have been the three occasions within the last hundred years where the United States has employed outstanding diplomatic pressure against both internal and external threats that would otherwise have proved fatal to Costa Rican democracy. The first instance occurred in 1917 when Federico Tinoco, the Costa Rican Secretary of War, seized power with the aid of the military and forced the government into exile. The United States, however, refused to recognize the junta and demanded the return of the former government. The junta withstood US economics sanctions and loan cancellations for two years until President Wilson dispatched marines to US properties along the coast and threatened the junta with invasion. Tinoco promptly fled the country, the military stepped down, and elections were held later that year. Costa Rica would then remain stable until 1948, when former-president Rafael Calderón Guardia, having lost the recent presidential ballot, conspired to annul the election with the help of the Popular Vanguard and Republican Parties. The United States promptly condemned the act and began to back Jose Figueres’ rebellion against the government. The United States played a vital role in supplying Figueres with weapons and military advice, and Calderón Guardia’s supporters were soon forced to step down. Figueres founded Costa Rica’s ‘second republic’, and drafted the constitution still in use today. He was also safely able to abolish the army, leaving only a domestic ‘Civil Guard’, knowing that the United States would protect Costa Rica from hostile powers. Figueres’ faith was proved to have been well placed in 1955 when the Nicaraguan army invaded Costa Rica in association with a rebel force led by the exiled Calderón Guardia. In response the United States scrambled to get emergency military aid to the Civil Guard, including sophisticated rockets, machine guns, and explosives, which successfully reached Costa Rica before the fighting began. Several P-15 Mustang fighters with trained pilots were also donated in order to ensure Costa Rican air supremacy. After a few pitched battles Somoza acceded to US demands and withdrew his forces. Although the United States has in the past used nation-building effectively to export democracy abroad, US relations with Costa Rica demonstrate that occasionally threats, economic sanctions, and financial and military aid to pro-democratic forces can be just as influential. Venezuela presents a similar case.

The U.S. assisted the military overthrow of Venezuala's first democratically elected president and has been acussed of formenting the coup attempt gainst current president Chavez.

The United States did not overthrow Venezuela’s first democratically elected president. The first fairly elected government of Venezuela was the Gallegos-Betancourt administration, which initially came to power in a military coup in 1945, but decided to hold free elections in 1948. They themselves were toppled by a faction of the military later that year and although the United States can be accused of inaction in dealing with the coup, such as not imposing economic sanctions, they weren’t involved in assisting or abetting the plotters in any way. Betancourt, whose avidly pro-American rhetoric can be contrasted with Chávez’s provocative vitriol, was welcomed back to power by the United States in 1958 when the military junta collapsed. Betancourt’s adherence to democratic principles was hailed by President Kennedy as a model for the rest of Latin America to follow, and Venezuela became one of the region’s largest recipients of US economic aid under the Alliance For Progress. The United States also trained Venezuelan bureaucrats to engineer a comprehensive land reform program. The first true crisis for the new government, however, came in 1961 when Fidel Castro arranged for the national communist party, armed with Cuban weapons, to stage a violent guerrilla war against Betancourt’s administration. Venezuela was soon plagued by insurgent attacks and waves of terrorist bombings, which more than likely would have overthrown the government had the United States not prescribed a massive increase in military aid. At the School of the Americas, officers of the Venezuelan army received special training and equipment to battle the guerrillas. Here the United States supervised the formation of an elite counterinsurgency division called the Cazadores, which played a vital role in rooting out communist forces, which were largely defeated by 1964. In addition to the extreme left, conservative forces also opposed Betancourt. When Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo, in cooperation with anti-democratic conclaves of the Venezuelan military, attempted to assassinate Betancourt in 1961, the United States responded swiftly by ordering the OAS to impose economic and military sanction on the Dominican Republic. Today, the United States is still Venezuela’s second-largest economic aid donor, as well as the country’s major supplier of police and riot-control equipment to ensure that anti-Chávez demonstrations can be dispersed peacefully. Despite a few sensationalistic press articles and Chávez’s own accusations, US complicity in the 2002 coup still remains far within the realm of speculation. Although there’s no doubt that the United States is dissatisfied with his close diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran and his support for communist rebels in Colombia, there’s little circumstantial and no definitive evidence that the United States government aided or abetted the military putsch. In fact, since the coup the United States has negotiated all arms sales with Venezuela directly through the government to ensure that the weapons will not be used against it.

I also find it fascinating that you ascribe all these instances of direct and indirect foreign intervention as "nation-building".

A direct military intervention made with the intention of creating efficient, stable, democratic, and self-supporting political institutions in the target country is nation-building, according to the definition currently in use. In all the instances I have presented, the United States Army engineered massive projects to create accountable government and fair electoral procedures backed up by newly-built networks of infrastructure, telecommunications, public utilities, and health and educational facilities. The same process is at present progressing intermittently in Iraq and Afghanistan. During both British and American attempts at nation-building, however, democratic elections were always the cornerstone of the effort. For many countries, such as South Korea, India, and Ghana, this was the first experience in history that their people had with modern democracy. After their occupiers left the challenge for these nations was not to “cobble together a democracy” from scratch, but to preserve and improve the democratic institutions that had already been firmly implanted upon them. In some cases, such as the Philippines and India, the aftermath was an unmitigated success, while in others, such as Haiti and Nicaragua, the result was an unqualified failure. Obviously nation-building isn’t always inspired by altruism, it’s clear that the West has a vested interest in seeing viable democracies develop in areas where security concerns exist, but the results and the motives of nation-building should be considered equally important. Even when the motives aren’t entirely selfless, the result of nation-building for several areas of the world has been more freedom and greater prosperity for local peoples. However, as I pointed out in my paragraphs on Venezuela and Costa Rica, nation-building is only one of many ways the West can and has assisted the modernization and democratization of countries throughout the world. The United States, for instance, has used diplomacy and covert aid to play vital roles in the democratic transitions of dozens of countries, including Italy, Portugal, El Salvador, Panama, Bosnia and Eastern Europe. America, however, is far from the world’s only advocate of democratization. In all of these countries, equally important assistance, and in several instances more important assistance, has been rendered by Germany and Great Britain, and in other cases lesser but nonetheless highly significant contributions have been made by Canada, France, Australia, and the United Nations. Despite the periodic abuses of power that are touted by social activists as evidence that the self-interest of the West leads only to misery abroad, I would say without a doubt that the foreign policies of the United States and Western Europe have been largely beneficial to the economic and political development of the rest of the world.

[Shady]

As usual, liberals are attracted to pessimism like flys to, well, you know. And as usual, their opinions are worth about as much.

Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal

Troops help offset recruiting shortfall

By Dave Moniz

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets, even as overall recruiting is suffering after two years of the Iraq war.

Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army. There are about 105,000 Army soldiers in Iraq, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.

...

“The biggest thing is that soldiers believe in what they are doing,” Head said.

...

The re-enlistment rate has remained strong even though the Army has accounted for 1,179 of the 1,750 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, according to USA TODAY's casualty database.

USA Today

[newbie]

would you know anyone that would want to join the military during wartime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A couple of examples

For the first three years of the First World War, enlistment in Canadian military service was voluntary and approximately 300,000 men joined up.

Conscription, or compulsory military service, divided the nation in the Second World War and threatened the survival of political leaders. In 1939 Prime Minister Mackenzie King, conscious of the opposition of French-speaking Quebec to conscription in the First World War, promised that there would be no conscription for overseas service. By mid-1940, however, there was enormous pressure from English Canada for total mobilization of manpower. King introduced the National Resources Mobilization Act (NRMA), which called for a national registration of eligible men and authorized conscription for home defence. From April 1941 the young men called up were required to serve for the rest of the war on home defence duties.

[Montgomery Burns]

Retention/re-enlistments are above historical averages. Doesn't sound like a dispirited military. Sounds like a military that believes they are doing something worthwhile.

And the recruitment rates, while not spectacular, are good when you consider that the US economy is in excellent shape, and there is a good chance that joining up means a tour in Iraq.

[Guest eureka]

Could retention be up while recruitment is down be because those who are resigning enlisted in the first place to escape poverty?

Poverty rates in the US have increased for the fourth consecutive year. These resigners have nothing to go back to.

[Montgomery Burns]

When I think of poverty, I think of someone destitute or nearly so. That hardly describes the "poverty" in the US.

But even if you disagree, the fact is that the US unemployment rate is 5.0%; it's not too tough to find a job there.

[Guest eureka]

The US has created very few jobs other than minimum wage for severalo years and the unemployment eate is far higher than 5%. 5% leaves seveeral classes out of the calculation.

[smooth_boarder]

I was just down in California to visit friends and family. While in a shopping mall, a lady approached me asking me to complete a survey for a reward of 5 dollars. Since I was waiting for my friend to finish browsing in Nordstrom, I gladly agreed.

It was a "survey" to see if I am interested in joining the US forces. My answer was in the negative since I am not even eligible to join, but she insisted on changing my answer to "interested" so I am able to get the $5. How nice of her! I told her I don't need the money... She persisted once again. Next thing you know, she said I have to follow her to her office to complete another set of questionaires to get the money... I promptly told her that I really don't need the $5 dollars, and that I had to leave in a short time. That ended the whole thing.

I am not sure if she is hired by the military to located individual who might be interested so they could be further contacted by the military... Either way, that was my little story about my brief military encounter that had 5 dollars written all over it...

[Shady]

The US has created very few jobs other than minimum wage for severalo years and the unemployment eate is far higher than 5%. 5% leaves seveeral classes out of the calculation

Leaving aside the fact that you provide no evidence to back up your ridiculous claims. Unemployment in the US is still lower then in Canada, per capita income in the US is higher then in Canada. And using your ridiculous premise, do you really think people would opt to make more then minimum wage, but have to go fight in a war? Give me a break. Go spread your manure in a garden.