[Previous entry: "Spirit of America"] [Next entry: "Keep your cotton picking hands off Free Speech"]
06/03/2004: "U.S. Military 'Stop Loss'"
Via Blog Runner, a June 3 story from the L.A. Times about U.S. military policy to keep maintain military strength. The opening verbiage:
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Troops Told They Can't Leave Army
'Stop-loss orders' keep soldiers in service if their units are set to be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. Officials call move 'finger in the dike.'
By Esther Schrader, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Struggling to stretch its limited ranks, the U.S. Army said Wednesday that thousands of soldiers who were scheduled to leave the military will be ordered to stay if their units are being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.
I was getting ready to blame President Clinton for the reduction in military size, so I googled "army size" and got an article from Jane's about the same thing. Their openning verbiage:
Rumsfeld relents on increasing army size
By Andrew Koch, JDW Bureau Chief, Washington, DC
Following a sustained effort by the US Department of Defense (DoD) to keep the size of the US Army from growing, despite heavy demands of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, senior DoD officials have now approved additional forces at least temporarily.
The L.A. Times concentrates on the human cost, which is important in a microeconomic sort of way. Mr. Jane's organization concentrates on the military readiness factor, which is important in a macroeconomic sort of way.
But, unlike Jane's, the L.A. Times should have broad based coverage. They seem to be missing the big picture, that we are living in a rapidly evolving world; that we are at war with a group of inventive people determined to destroy our way of life; and that we have finite resources with which to protect ourselves. In that context, asking a few troops to stick around a few more months seems to be low cost.
Oh yeah. The LA Times article came out June 3. The Jane's article came out February 2. Jane's scooped the L.A. Times by 122 days.
