Is the Army using a shell game to give a false impression of its recruiting success?

That’s a dangerous accusation, but a critical issue.  In light of President Obama promise on the campaign trail to increase the end-strength of the military by 92,000 troops (65,000 for the Army alone), the Army’s numbers should accurately reflect how they’re doing.

Last week, the Pentagon issued a press release stating the Army had not only met, but actually exceeded its recruiting goals for FY2009.  Then Army Maj. Gen. Donald Campbell thumped his chest in the Washington Post soon thereafter, crediting the Army’s number of recruiters on the ground as a critical component of its success.

Unfortunately, the Army is using some creative accounting to trumpet its success.  To meet its goals, the Army simply lowered them–by ten thousand less new recruits in 2009 (vs. 2008), and ten thousand fewer re-enlistments.  Or, as Fred Kaplan notes in Slate:

[T]he Army this year lowered not only the recruitment goal but the retention goal too, from 65,000 in 2008 to 55,000 in 2009. And it actually held on to fewer soldiers than it did in either of the last two years (68,000 in 2009, compared with 72,000 in 2008 and 69,000 in 2007).

So here is the situation. The secretary of defense ordered, and Congress authorized, an expansion in the size of the Army. But the Army reduced the recruitment goal—and reduced the retention goal. The size of the Army is in fact shrinking. It may look as if it’s growing—the Pentagon report gives the impression it’s growing—but it’s growing only in comparison with the officially set goals.

For Army “recruitniks” (a term usually applied to my friends’ insatiable desire to follow Charlie Weis’ efforts to cajole 18 year old kids to play college football at Notre Dame), this dichotomy comes as little surprise.  In an excellent expose in September, the National Journal makes two key points about the Army’s recruits:

Never before has the Army had so many soldiers with so much experience; never before have so many soldiers been so exhausted.

The article concludes,

Today’s Army may be equal to the U.S. population in its demographic representation, but it is also separate.

And it is getting more so all the time. That reduces the chance that declining public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cause Army morale to collapse, as it did in Vietnam. Still, it raises a different danger. “I don’t think they’re going to get burned out,” said retired Col. Patrick Lang, a Vietnam veteran. “But they’re going to get harder and harder, and more detached from the values of civilian society.”

Unless the military puts out an honest assessement of where it’s recruiting is, none of these problems will be fixed any time soon.

Let’s say that tomorrow, a brave American GI patrol along the boarder between Afghanistan and Pakistan stumbled across a cave.  After a brief look inside, and low-and-behold, a stone-faced Osama Freaking Bin Laden is dragged out . Handcuffed and stuffed, he’s whisked away to Bagram Air Base for interrogation.  The media goes nuts,  Americans rejoice.

What then?

Consider the context:  We’re in the middle of a contentious strategy review on Afghanistan.  President Obama has outlined clear goals that the region must not be a safe haven from which Al Qaeda could launch a massive terrorist attack against the United States.  General Stanley McChrystal - the new US/NATO commander in Afghanistan - has written a new report that lays the groundwork to ask for more troops and resources.

But Obama’s confidants, including Vice President Biden, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and apparently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, are questioning whether more troops are necessary to achieve the President’s goals.  Congressional Democrats, nervous over poll numbers indicating 50 percent of the country doesn’t think the war effort is worth it, have become more ever more vociferous.

That’s why it’s quite conceivable then that Osama Bin Laden’s capture would end the war:  The war-weary public would no doubt view the capture of the man responsible for 9/11 as a definitive end point.  Congress would advocate on their behalf.  And the President would have an extremely tough sell to members of his administration.   Never mind debating more troops, President Obama might be forced to reduce America’s presence significantly.

How ironic therefore that Bin Laden’s capture today might weaken American security.  Though Osama is the titular head of a now fractured organization, America’s near term departure could faciliate the conditions that permit the Taliban to return to power.  With insufficient security forces, a corrupt bureacracy, and a questionable mandate following last month’s ugly elections, it’s doubtful Afghan President Karzai would last long before his military and police were militarily defeated or bought off by the Taliban.

And though Osama Bin Laden would be gone, it’s anyone’s guess whether the remaining power-brokers within Al Qaeda and its broader movement would be able to reconstitute a viable international structure under the Taliban’s umbrella with the intent and capability of striking the United States.

This is, of course, a doomsday scenario, but if you’re Private JarHead, I might caution you to think twice before parading Bin Laden in front of that CNN camera crew.

Since 1968, Democrats have faced charges of being “weak on security.”  A new Democracy Corps poll suggests that stigma is starting to go away, at least for now.  Don’t get too excited, there’s still work to be done.

You can read through the raw data by yourself, but I draw one main conclusion - the public still draws a distinction between Obama and Democrats when it comes to security.

The approval numbers for how the President is handling national security affairs (and the issue-by-issue breakdown is below) are incredibly positive (most split 35 points in Obama’s favor), but this level of public confidence has yet to completely transfer over to the larger party.  On key issues of “respecting the military/ensuring a strong military” and “patriotism”, Republicans hold significant advantages; on the “war on terror” and general “national security” categories, the numbers are evenly split between the parties.

Despite this lag, Democrats continue to have a historic opening to erase historic portrayals of being “weak on security”.  The GOP is perceived as “reckless” and “extreme” by notable margins, and if Congressional Democrats follow the White House’s lead on security issues, they’ll gain traction.  However, if they become embroiled in squabbles over secondary national security concerns (like whether to release additional prison abuse photos even after the White House has shifted policies), Congressional Dems will continue to appear feckless and weak.  They’ll be perceived as caring more for scoring political points against the Bush administration than protecting America’s ongoing national security concerns.

And with that, the envelope please… Tons of numbers are below the fold.

Q.34 When it comes to national security policy, do you think President Obama is
doing better, worse, or about the same as recent Democratic presidents?
Total better ………………………………………………………….. 34
Total worse ………………………………………………………….. 18
About the same………………………………………………………44

Q.35 When it comes to national security policy, do you think President Obama is
doing better, worse, or about the same as President George W. Bush? Read the rest of this entry »

In an article otherwise about Hillary’s transition from contender to employee, here’s an interesting tidbit that almost seems out of place… as if a separate article would be too damaging:

But people in her circle say less-than-generous things about Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, suggesting there is some jockeying among the top officials around the president. General Jones, these people say, has struggled with his transition from Marine commander to senior staff person, speaking up less in debates than Mrs. Clinton and not pushing as hard for decisions.

Here’s the best foreign policy story of the WaPo’s “100 Days” retrospective:

From the vantage of his inner circle, the new president has stepped into the role by projecting a sense of calm and confidence. The “no-drama Obama” campaign mantra has been adopted by Obama the president, sometimes through glimmers of humor during serious times.

While visiting Prague this month, Obama was awakened with news that North Korea had fired a long-range missile, and he joined Axelrod and Mark Lippert, the National Security Council chief of staff, in a secure room in their hotel to discuss the development. Looking at Axelrod, his hair suffering from an acute case of bedhead, and Lippert, who had thrown on a pair of shorts, Obama quipped: “I don’t know which is more frightening — your hair, Lippert’s legs or this launch. I’ve got to think about this.”

Another quote from their op-ed:

There is something of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the claim that our interrogation of some unlawful combatants beyond the limits set in the Army Field Manual has disgraced us before the world. Such a claim often conflates interrogation with the sadism engaged in by some soldiers at Abu Ghraib, an incident that had nothing whatever to do with intelligence gathering.

Ah, classic Bush-era mentality - the rest of the world should see things the way we do!  And damn them if they don’t!

Of course, it does not matter whether or not Abu Ghraib had anything to do with intelligence.  The rest of the world firmly believes that Abu Ghaib had everything to do with torture.  It’s not about you, you friggin’ a-holes, it’s about the world’s perceptions.

Former Congressman Tim Roemer (D) will reportedly be the next US ambassador to India.  Despite earlier confusion in South Bend, he won’t be returning home.

Hey now!