You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
US troops deserting by the thousands (so says Knickerbocker)
2004-12-16
EFLGriping among the troops is as old as armed conflict, illustrated most memorably by cartoonist Bill Mauldin's "Willie and Joe" characters during World War II. But something more than that is happening now in Iraq with what appears to be growing resistance from the troops.

Evidence includes numbers of deserters (reportedly in the thousands), resignations of reserve officers, lawsuits by those whose duty period has been involuntarily extended, and a refusal to go on dangerous missions without proper equipment. There's also been a willingness at grunt level to publicly challenge the Pentagon - as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld found out recently in a trip to the war zone, where he got an earful about unarmored humvees.

Reportedly in the thousands, huh? Sure, Knickerbocker...

One small logistics unit refuses to go on a mission due to vehicular isses, and 8 pansy reservists file a lawsuit, 7 of whom are anonymous, and you think you've got a rebellion on your hands? Please...

While some don't see much defiance - and, in fact, have been surprised by the depth of solidarity - others see an unusual amount of tension surfacing for an all-volunteer military force.

"What is driving the resistance is the same thing that drove it during Vietnam - a lack of trust in the civilian leadership and a sense that the uniformed leaders are not standing up for the forces," says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. Colonel Smith doesn't expect the kind of "fragging" incidents that occurred in Vietnam where soldiers attacked their own officers. "This force is too professional," he says. "But the lack of trust and the inequity of the tours will very likely be reflected in the numbers of Guard and reservists who vote no-confidence with their feet."
Posted by:gb506

#14  I said: "It's interesting that the article doesn't actually give any hard evidence that the number of deserters is "...in the thousands"

joeblow noted: "From the article: "According to a report on 60 minutes the Defense Department acknowledges that more than 5,500 service personnel have deserted since the Iraq."
This figure can be verified by contacting the DOD directly thru the contact link @ http://www.defenselink.mil/"

Me again: Sigh. One of these days I'll bother to read the article before making a smart-ass comment. Joeblow, thanks for the correction. Of course my point about the writer of the story not providing context stands, and civilian readers will walk away with the impression that US troops are fleeing in unprecedented numbers.
Posted by: Jonathan   2004-12-16 5:41:49 PM  

#13  Compare that tripe with the news out of Fort Carson last week about a reenlistment ceremony where 447 people from one batallion reenlisted simultaneously. The biggest reason most of them did was to make sure they'd be going back to Iraq with their friends next June. There's also a long article in today's Gazette, the local newspaper, about adding armor to the unit's 600 Hummvees. Most of the noise from Iraq is from Guard/Reserve unit whiners who found out that the contract they signed really meant what it said, and they didn't have an "opt-out" clause.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2004-12-16 3:38:33 PM  

#12  You see you have to also count the number of fleas too....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-12-16 3:26:31 PM  

#11  joeblow, I did go read the Stars & Stripes article, and you're right: it's no big deal. The KnickerBocker article tries to MAKE it a big deal...but even the simple chart in the Starts & Stripes article shows that the number is fairly constant in peacetime, and goes up a little during wartime. The S & S article also points out that what some call "desertion" is not the case. AWOL, Missing a Movement, etc...may wind up being so ultimately, but generally aren't.

And desertion IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY is a totally different charge...and EXTREMELY RARE!
Posted by: Justrand   2004-12-16 3:07:33 PM  

#10  DOH! Thank you joeblow! I was in the service and I remmeber there were ALWAYS a number of UAs each year. I bet that doesn't count the number that actually come back, just that they went UA for a period of time. You are correct that this is NOT a large number given the ops tempo. You can be counted UA for missing your flight, even if you subsequently catch up to your unit.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2004-12-16 2:58:48 PM  

#9  Shoot. That link didn't show.

It's http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/deserters/navy-deserters.htm
Posted by: Dreadnought   2004-12-16 2:53:03 PM  

#8  Wow. Thousands are deserting! Guess what thousands were deserting in peacetime, too!

Can't vouch for the accuracy of the link below, but here are figures one blogger dug up on the US Navy.



Since the Navy alone has about 372,000 personnel, that means in a single year about 0.9% of the force could be expected to desert. As a sanity check, I ran this against the crew of my first ship, which had a complement of 1200 men. At any time we had about 10 missing (UA not officially deserters). Just under 1%.

A whole lot of BS military analysis from folks who know nothing about the military. No story here.

BTW if the MSM go a hold of a story that no one was deserting they would spin that as "Tyrannical Pentagon has Stranglehold on Suffering Troops"
Posted by: Dreadnought   2004-12-16 2:52:16 PM  

#7  60 Minutes, huh? Well if you can't trust them, who can you
Stars and Stripes is fairly credible unless you have problems with a military related website, too.

Desertions are not a new phenomenon just because of the Iraq War. Desertions happen all the time and go up somewhat during time of war. So 5060 in 2001 before the war and 5500 after the war is understandable. No big deal. Although to some people who have never served it may appear to be a big deal or unbelievable.
Posted by: joeblow   2004-12-16 2:46:16 PM  

#6  "Thousands?" More like a hundred thousand. That's how many are in the desert, which makes them "deserters," right?

Or do they mean "desserters?" I'd like some pie.

The "Friends Committee?" What the hell? We have people from lousy TV shows on a committe about legislation?
Posted by: jackal   2004-12-16 2:26:45 PM  

#5  60 Minutes, huh? Well if you can't trust them, who can you trust?
Posted by: tu3031   2004-12-16 2:22:49 PM  

#4  It's interesting that the article doesn't actually give any hard evidence that the number of deserters is "...in the thousands

From the article: "According to a report on 60 minutes the Defense Department acknowledges that more than 5,500 service personnel have deserted since the Iraq."
This figure can be verified by contacting the DOD directly thru the contact link @ http://www.defenselink.mil/

Btw, this 5000+ figure is in line with what has been published on the Stars and Stripes website for desertions in the year 2001 - 5060 deserters -and desertions go up at wartime.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=126&article=16708&archive=true



Posted by: joeblow   2004-12-16 2:20:38 PM  

#3  retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation

Right, a really objective source. Like an article on the Church that refers to an interview with a former nun who's now "an analyst with the National Wicca Coven"
Posted by: lex   2004-12-16 1:50:24 PM  

#2  In the Article they quote a number of 5500 deserters. I doubt very seriously that many troops deserted or the LLL MSM would be all over it. Col. Dan is right on one note: "This force is too professional." I am not sure how retention is going, but didn't the services just report that they made their goals for the last year?
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2004-12-16 1:34:09 PM  

#1  It's interesting that the article doesn't actually give any hard evidence that the number of deserters is "...in the thousands..."; for all we know somebody just picked a number out of the air. Moreover, the retired Colonel quoted in the story works for the Quakers (or is a Quaker himself; "Friends" = "Quaker"). I've got a lot of respect for the Quakers' consistent policy of opposing any violence, no matter its nature, but they have a vested interest in depicting the Iraq war as another Vietnam and the reporter doesn't bother to point that out. All in all, this is simply tendentious reporting.
Posted by: Jonathan   2004-12-16 12:30:01 PM  

00:00