That's a huge number of soldiers to have gone AWOL. Good for them! With another showdown planned for Afghanistan/Pakistan will the US find its cannon fodder increasingly unwilling to go to war, I wonder:

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/36819

The headline is somewhat disengenuous. 5,000 American soldiers are currently absent without leave, fullstop. Not all the troops deserted the army in Iraq, as the headline says. In fact the only case cited in the article relates to someone who went AWOL before his deployment, though he had been deployed before.

It is also unclear what the figure relates to. It appears from one of the few statements of fact in the article that the figure of 5,000 relates to the total number of soldiers currently AWOL from the US Army, irregardless of deployments to Iraq. We don't know how far back this figure goes. For instance, are those who went AWOL from Vietnam still considered to be AWOL and thus a factor in those figures?

5,000 AWOL from an Army which has a current force of over 500,000 is not particularly high. It constitutes a mere 1 per cent and if the figure applies to the whole US armed services (Navy, Air Force etc) you are talking a fraction of 1 per cent. If the 5,000 includes those historically AWOL but still living it is a fraction of that again.

johnfás wrote:

The headline is somewhat disengenuous. 5,000 American soldiers are currently absent without leave, fullstop. Not all the troops deserted the army in Iraq, as the headline says. In fact the only case cited in the article relates to someone who went AWOL before his deployment, though he had been deployed before.

It is also unclear what the figure relates to. It appears from one of the few statements of fact in the article that the figure of 5,000 relates to the total number of soldiers currently AWOL from the US Army, irregardless of deployments to Iraq. We don't know how far back this figure goes. For instance, are those who went AWOL from Vietnam still considered to be AWOL and thus a factor in those figures?

5,000 AWOL from an Army which has a current force of over 500,000 is not particularly high. It constitutes a mere 1 per cent and if the figure applies to the whole US armed services (Navy, Air Force etc) you are talking a fraction of 1 per cent. If the 5,000 includes those historically AWOL but still living it is a fraction of that again.

I don't read that article like you do at all Johnfas - it seems straightforward to me that it refers to soldiers currently on duty in Iraq. The pressures on them are enomormous and have been going on now for almost as long as the second world war. It is hardly surprising if quite a few do go awol. There is another article about the high suicide rates among US soldiers too - not unrelated to the above really.
Link: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m51499&hd=&size=1&l=e

1. I don't see how it seems straightforward to you that it refers to soldiers currently on duty in Iraq. There is nothing in the article, except the headline, which suggests this is the case. There is only one statement of fact in the whole article: "At present, more than 5,000 troops are missing from duty, the Pentagon says." That factual comment makes no reference to when these troops went AWOL or under what circumstances. The article then proceeds to give a case study of a single soldier, who went AWOL. The soldier in question was not currently on duty in Iraq, as you state, but rather facing imminent deployment to Iraq. There is quite a difference there. Equally, there is no indication that his story is reflective of the general reason for soldiers fleeing the US military nor, as I highlight above, does it say what the timescale for these 5,000 defections is.
   
2. I agree with you, the pressures on those serving in armies is enormous and it is not surprising if many soldiers go AWOL. However, that opinion is not evidenced by this particular article and to gleam that from the article is not an accurate position.
   
3. Equally, I agree with you that suicide rates are very high amongst soldiers serving in combat situations and I would also likely agree with you why that is the case.
   

I don't doubt that many American soldiers are going AWOL, in fact I am surprised that there are not more than 5,000 soldiers currently AWOL from the US Army. However, the article that you link to does not provide adequate evidence for the assertions that you make. There is no specified causal link between the defections cited in that article and Iraq, though the author clearly has that as an agenda. There are many reasons why people desert from the US Army - Iraq is no doubt a major one but so too is sexuality.

This article is a fluffy piece of journalism which does not address the issues of army defection nor does it provide evidence of US army deserters fleeing Iraq, only army deserters as a general section of the army.

johnfás wrote:

1. I don't see how it seems straightforward to you that it refers to soldiers currently on duty in Iraq. There is nothing in the article, except the headline, which suggests this is the case. There is only one statement of fact in the whole article: "At present, more than 5,000 troops are missing from duty, the Pentagon says." That factual comment makes no reference to when these troops went AWOL or under what circumstances. The article then proceeds to give a case study of a single soldier, who went AWOL. The soldier in question was not currently on duty in Iraq, as you state, but rather facing imminent deployment to Iraq. There is quite a difference there. Equally, there is no indication that his story is reflective of the general reason for soldiers fleeing the US military nor, as I highlight above, does it say what the timescale for these 5,000 defections is.
   
2. I agree with you, the pressures on those serving in armies is enormous and it is not surprising if many soldiers go AWOL. However, that opinion is not evidenced by this particular article and to gleam that from the article is not an accurate position.
   
3. Equally, I agree with you that suicide rates are very high amongst soldiers serving in combat situations and I would also likely agree with you why that is the case.
   

I don't doubt that many American soldiers are going AWOL, in fact I am surprised that there are not more than 5,000 soldiers currently AWOL from the US Army. However, the article that you link to does not provide adequate evidence for the assertions that you make. There is no specified causal link between the defections cited in that article and Iraq, though the author clearly has that as an agenda. There are many reasons why people desert from the US Army - Iraq is no doubt a major one but so too is sexuality.

This article is a fluffy piece of journalism which does not address the issues of army defection nor does it provide evidence of US army deserters fleeing Iraq, only army deserters as a general section of the army.

We'll have to agree to disagree J. I think it's straightforward enough - you may be right but I dont share your interpretation of the piece.

Two year old article which pretty much augments the RT report:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/08/news/awol.php

The second article is alot more satisfactory and it does not augment the RT report, it is entirely different in nature. It outlines the timescale during which an increase has been seen in desertion, it provides annual percentages, and cites historical norms. The two are not even comparable.

johnfás wrote:

The second article is alot more satisfactory and it does not augment the RT report, it is entirely different in nature. It outlines the timescale during which an increase has been seen in desertion, it provides annual percentages, and cites historical norms. The two are not even comparable.

Whatever, J. Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the first article.

Suicide and desertion are very much on the increase. The point of the OP was the severe stress these people are experiencing - it is good to see them taking matters in their own hands and getting the hell out before it comes to this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html

I seem to remember reading somewhere that out of the entire Congress and Senate only one person there had a child in Iraq. As the second last article makes clear, the army is now having to recruit people who would ordinarily not be considered suitable for active duty like this. The impact on them and their families is likely to be exponential and it doesnt bear thnking about how they cope under pressure in a war zone. It may certainly be the explanation for some of the apparently senseless killing of civilians going on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Watched something last night on armaments and equipment for sale in the markets in Pakistan and Afghanistan. You can buy anything. Last week there was a story about USB pens containing a large amount of secret US army data for sale in the markets.

One of the three main Pakistan to Afghanistan bridges was blown yesterday.

There were mass demonstrations against the killing of civilians.

Youngdan was talking about ex combatants living on the streets in the US.

cactus flower wrote:

Youngdan was talking about ex combatants living on the streets in the US.

They always have done. For a country which publicly praises its "vets" so much more than any State it is quite horrendous really. It is not just soldiers serving in the current wars. A large proportion of the homeless around the US cities served in Vietnam.

Further to post above, it seems the original article is more than likely an underestimate of the numbers going awol since 2002:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html

That's another side of it Cactus. Apparently mental illness rates, murders and marriage breakdown are soaring too. Returning soldiers are showing severe signs of distress - previously calm people are beating their wives and getting into fights. The human cost of it all is horrendous.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Youngdan was talking about ex combatants living on the streets in the US.

They always have done. For a country which publicly praises its "vets" so much more than any State it is quite horrendous really. It is not just soldiers serving in the current wars. A large proportion of the homeless around the US cities served in Vietnam.

Britain did the same at the height of its imperial arc.

In 2004 the son of a good friend of mine was shipped to Iraq. My friend had been dreading it. The son was looking forward to it, as kids do.

My friend and I spent many months discussing it, before his son was deployed. He didn't agree with the war, many of his views mirrored my own. With one difference, he was of the view that Bush should be supported, to do otherwise he argued would be to divide the country and make the war all the more difficult for the kids that would still have to fight. I disagreed, but understood. Even before his son left, the guy was a basket case and it was having a massive effect on his life, his relationship with his wife (who wasn't coping too well either), with his other and younger kids, and with his son. By the time his son left, they weren't talking. The usual shit, the kid mistook his father's problems as a rejection of himself and the choice he'd made, and the father, well everything he said and did, just came out wrong.

The son wasn't gone a month when my friend suffered a nervous breakdown. We lost contact for about three months. When he eventually got in contact, he was no longer the same person. His wife had left him and taken the kids with her. He was still in the same house, but the plan was that he'd sell it and divvy up whatever money it made. He'd only spoken to his son twice, since the kid left for Iraq. He was 'getting his shit together,' he told me.

Anyway, at some point, some months later, his kid came home for a short while. The two of them made up and made their peace before the kid had to head back. Before my friend had his second nervous breakdown, we talked about his son. The son had changed too. Constant fear, unrelenting. The one thing I'll always remember him telling me was about the fear his son had to live with. His son had a really shitty job, he was part of a unit whose job it was to guard convoys, which constantly came under fire. Things were so bad that his son was even afraid of young children. A friend of his had tried to give a little girl some sweets and she'd lobbed a grenade into the vehicle.

My friend's son came home eventually, not a scratch on him, on the outside. Major dose of Post Traumatic Stress, Shell Shock, Battle Fatigue or whatever else they call it. Little or no help from the State. The son eventually moved back in with his father after the mother told him to never come near her or the rest of her children, ever again. Lost touch with my friend shortly after this.

Early last year, a mutual friend of ours told me that he'd hung himself.

Not only those who are deployed get hurt, as has been said. The US is now seen as a pariah nation from an international perspective. It's population, or rather a very decent proportion of it, are slowly going nuts. For what?

Parents of dead or injured service members are in the main really screwed. They must convince themselves the cause was just as the realisation their kid was chewed up for nothing is too great to handle.

Same thing in politics. Those who voted for Obama will justify what ever he does because they can not admit to themselves that they were suckered. The same people can easily see that Bush suckered the people who voted for him though.

People will believe anything when they don't want to believe the obvious.

I'd agree with whoever said it was pretty insignificant.

In 1944 and 1945 both the British and american generals were refereing to the missing divisions, that is the tens of thousands of men who arrived in France (and to a lesser extent Italy) and dissappeared. There was so many that they ran the Roman and Paris black markets. British Army deserters flocked to London and did the same.

During the Vietnam war, tens of thousands of yanks and hundreds of Aussies and kiwi's left their countries (the aussies estblishing the famous kings cross backpacker ghetto in the process, the yanks went to Canada and may have been responsible for turning it into such a liberal society). by 1970 the murder of officers in the Army in Vietnam was become a serious problem.

This is nothing by comparison. The US fought on in Vietnam, as did the Australians. Of course the Allies also won WW2. It unfortunately won't stop those wars in Iraq and you can be sure military planners have already made allowances for it.

Two things happen after wars invloving western powers which I find interesting - a general pardon of all deserters (happened in the 1920's, 1947 and 1977 i believe for WW1, WW2 and Vietnam) to enable them to return to normal lives. The other is a general amnesty to allow veterns or their families give up weapons they stole (or took as trophys) while in the service (definately happened in the UK in the 1960's and they got a lot of stuff from as far back as WW1)