The Department of Defense announced today its recruiting and retention statistics for the active and reserve components for the month of May.

· Active Duty Recruiting.

· May Monthly. All services met or exceeded recruiting goals for the month of May (below) and have surpassed goals for fiscal 2008 to date.

• Active Duty Retention. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps continue to enjoy excellent reenlistment rates and are meeting or exceeding goals across the board.

· Reserve Forces Recruiting.

· May Monthly. Five of the six reserve components met or exceeded their accession goals for May 2008. The Army National Guard, which is already at (109 percent) of its year-to-date goal, finished the month at 94 percent of its May goal, reflecting an Army decision to have the National Guard strength at its authorized level.

· Reserve Attrition. Losses in all reserve components are within acceptable limits.

Detailed information on specific recruiting data can be obtained by contacting the individual military recruiting commands at (502) 626-0164 for Army, (210) 565-4678 for Air Force, (703) 784-9454 for Marine Corps and (901) 874-9049 for Navy. The reserve components can be reached at the following numbers: National Guard Bureau (703) 607-2586; Army Reserve (404) 464-8490; Air Force Reserve (703) 697-1761; Navy Reserve (504) 678-6055; and Marine Corps Reserve (504) 678-6535.

Remember all of those pictures from the news agencies of Camp Xray in Guantanamo? Lots of chain link fence, and orange jump-suited guys with hoods on their heads kneeling on the ground awaiting processing? Anytime you see news about GITMO - even today - those pictures tend to accompany the story.

Would it surprise you to know that Camp Xray has been deserted since 2002? It was only open for a few months, while other facilities were being built.

Of the camps currently in use, none come close to justifying the concerns of the Gitmo’s critics, let alone Amnesty International’s feverish judgment that it is the “gulag of our time.” Visiting Camp 4, Gitmo’s medium-security compound, one can see detainees walking about freely. And though the fact that many of the detainees wear unruly, Islamic beards is slightly disconcerting, it is consistent with the military’s intention to make their detention as comfortable as possible under the circumstances.

But of course, the news reports certainly convey the sleep deprivation and inhumane isolation of the many thousands of detainees.

Toward that purpose, Camp 4 offers a number of diversions, courtesy of American taxpayers. There is an outdoor basketball court, and a 6,000-book library, from which detainees can check out everything from hobby magazines like Bird Watcher’s Digest, to commentaries on Islam, to Agatha Christie thrillers. The latter come complete with white stickers blocking the author’s photo, lest the detainees deem the grande dame of the mystery novel too much of a seductress. “By western standards it wouldn’t be very offensive, but [the detainees] would have a problem with that,” explains Julie, Gitmo’s head librarian, somewhat apologetically. Detainees can also check out DVDs–nature documentaries and international soccer matches are particularly popular–and a flat-screen television is available at the camp for viewing. And, just as American troops stationed on the base can take academic and vocational courses, Camp 4 has a special classroom where detainees can learn English, Arabic, or Pashtu.

Special care is taken to allow detainees to practice their religion, which is invariably Islam. A kit of provisions issued to Camp 4 inmates includes not only bare necessities like a toothbrush and a uniform, as well as luxuries like prescription glasses and electric razors on selected days, but also prayer beads and oils, and a Koran that guards are under no circumstances permitted to handle. It is a measure of the deference–one might even say reverence–shown to the Muslim holy book that the military doesn’t even provide a sample copy on a display table of representative items shown to journalists. “Out of respect,” explains an officer in charge of Camp 4, who declines to be identified for security reasons.

To be certain, it would be very one-sided of me to only cite this article - which is a first hand account by the way - as it relates to the medium security accommodations.

Less hospitable conditions might be expected in camps 5 and 6, Gitmo’s maximum-security complexes. To some extent, that is the case. With a narrow bed, a metal sink, and a small slit for a window, the cells in Camp 5 are no one’s idea of paradise. Within those confines, however, the detainees are granted substantial privileges. Climate controlled, the cells come equipped with a communications system that allows detainees to talk to the guards. Beneath the beds, one finds stenciled arrows pointing to Mecca, and detainees can elect their own imams, or prayer leaders–a concession that may well favor more extreme elements in the detainee population but which the military is nonetheless determined to grant.

Perhaps the most curious room at Camp 5 is furnished with a plush blue couch for the detainees. Were it not for the leg restraints at its foot, one might never guess that this is where interrogations take place. Of the steel-floored cells were detainees are alleged to be beaten for information there is not a trace of violence. Those who consider Gitmo an affront to international law might also be surprised to learn that Camp 5’s recreation yard not only has news bulletins from the Middle East but also a prominently displayed copy of the Geneva Conventions. While Gitmo is not officially governed by the treaties, the military makes every effort to make sure that detainees are treated in accordance with them. There is even a so-called “habeas room” for detainees to meet with their counsel. A gulag, plainly, this is not.

Even Camp 6, home to the most dangerous of Gitmo’s approximately 275 detainees, confounds the image of excessive confinement and ubiquitous brutality with which the naval base has come to be identified. True, the recreation facilities here are smaller and indoors, and the two-hour (minimum) exercise time less generous, but it would take a willful disregard of the evidence to see it as a U.S.-run “concentration camp.” Not the least of the reasons for that is that the military guards on duty here, as in other Gitmo camps, go out of their way to minimize the use of force. Trained to contain a mass riot, the guards actually spend most of their time trying to diffuse confrontation. “It doesn’t have to get physical,” insists Shawn Johnson, a guard at Camp 6.

Yeah - I know. I am being unfair. Because, in spite of all of this the detainees are still treated roughly and the air conditioning is set super super high to make it extremely uncomfortable for the detainees.

This is not to deny that abuse is a problem Gitmo. It’s just that most of it is done by the detainees. “The only mistreatment that goes on inside the camps is detainees on guards, and the guards absorb it without retribution,” says Army Brigadier General Greg Zanetti, Gitmo’s deputy commander. Zanetti notes that while many of the detainees have been here for five to six years, more than enough time to discover the best way to harass their captors, many of the guards are just weeks or months into their post. “For a while there, it’s an unfair match,” Zanetti says.

Underscoring the general’s point are some disturbing figures. In 2006, for instance, there were over 3,000 recorded incidents of detainee misconduct, instances which included 432 assaults with bodily fluids, 227 physical assaults, and 99 efforts “to incite a disturbance or riot.” That certainly suggests that Gitmo is a dangerous place, just not in the way its detractors imagine.

I think Jacob Laskin makes a good point when he says:

One source of conflict stems from the fact that, in contrast to journalists, lawyers for the detainees are not granted tours of Gitmo’s camps. It is not surprising, then, that the more outrageous claims about the treatment of the detainees and the conditions inside the camps more generally issue from those least familiar with them.

But then, the military is trying to respect the obligations we have with regards to how these detainees are treated. Parading them in front of the American public is in direct contravention to that.

I just want to say thank you. I believe in you and I believe in your mission.

God Bless you and keep you safe.

So maybe it is a bit awkward - you are not sure how to say it and you’re not sure how it will be taken. Here are a couple of ways to say thank you to our troops that might be a little easier for you.

Here are two ways to say thank you to someone serving in our armed forces.

[youtube MSfFYxSdKdo nolink]

The second way takes a little more work, but it is just as cool in the effect it has.

If you are in a diner or restaurant, explain to your server that you want to say thanks to the military persons seated in the establishment with you by paying for their meal, but you don’t want them to know who it was who did it.

Now, every person in the place is a potential “thanker” and even the most innocent look from another patron to the military folks can have a whole new meaning.

I was once a recipient of this kind of thanks and I know how I felt just being acknowledged through an anonymous grilled cheese sandwich.

Click play - I Double-Dog dare you!

Now go to SoldiersAngels.org and donate or adopt a soldier!

Admiral Michael Mullen is the first CJCS to visit Israel in a decade. It appears Israel is greatly concerned about American political reaction to the most recent NIE on Iran.

 Israel thinks that an American National Intelligence Estimate about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, published in an unclassified version last week, is unduly optimistic and focuses too narrowly on the last stage of weapons development — the fashioning of a bomb out of highly enriched uranium.

Let’s remember, Iran has never stated they are no longer enriching uranium - they have actually refused to stop enriching uranium. The intelligence gathered for the NIE talks to whether or not Iran is likely pursuing the construction of a nuclear weapon, using the enriched uranium.

Today marks the anniversary of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was a defining event for America, which transcended several generations as a reference for national tragedy, and a catalyst for America to wake up and fight.

Sixty-six years later, there are still a number of parallels in sentiment of the American people. The same questions were asked? Why did they attack us? Why do they hate us?

We were a nation trying to remain at peace as the rest of the world erupted around us. We didn’t realize there were others who cared little about how we perceived ourselves in the world. What was important - and the reason we were attacked - was because America was a roadblock in the nefarious plans of others.

Sixty-Six years later, there are parallels for how people see America’s role in the world. “We are not the world’s policeman.” “Let <name a region> handle their own problems.” “We have problems enough to solve at home.” “Why are we fighting for people who don’t even appreciate it?” “We can’t possibly win militarily.”

Yet, doing nothing at all, as well as removing ourselves from a distasteful conflict, has always been more costly to us and to others. Even so, we tend to repeat the process of covering our eyes, when they should most be open - or second-guessing our values, when we should be most determined.

Sixty-six years later, we are no more educated in the lesson of Pearl Harbor and for that we have resigned ourselves to repeat the tragedy.

I recently wrote about changes in data driving changes in opinion or policy. Here is another example - although there is a slight difference in this instance.

The intelligence community in the Unites States rarely has indisputable evidence to present to our leaders. They operate in a world of indications that are “confidenced” based upon the quality and quantity of intelligence sources. From the NIE document, I took the major differences between the old data and the new.

In 2005, the intelligence community reported:

• Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable.
• We have moderate confidence in projecting when Iran is likely to make a nuclear weapon; we assess that it is unlikely before early-to-mid next decade.
• Iran could produce enough fissile material for a weapon by the end of this decade if it were to make more rapid and successful progress than we have seen to date.

Combine that with tough talk from a nation becoming increasingly theocratic and supportive of terrorist organizations, and you have a basis for a foreign policy concern about the Middle East becoming even more unstable than it already appears.

A recently published National Intelligence Estimate, based upon information gathered between 2005 and mid-2007, draws a different picture:

• Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

Notice the differences in language between the 2005 and 2007 estimates. The confidence of the judgment suggests a great deal more intelligence resources were able to contribute to the NIE. By no means does the NIE present proof that Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. This is an estimate based upon the US intelligence communities ability to detect through technology and human sources the presence of uranium enrichment activities and activity connected with securing nuclear material. However, unless a smoking gun emerges, the assessment is strong enough to warrant a different tack in working with Iran.

In any case, Iran benefits from the ability of not having a nuclear weapon, yet having everyone think they are close to being capable of producing one. What this gives Iran’s Ayatollahs is bargaining power and an elevated influence in the region. This also does not remove the fact that Iran is led by an extreme theocracy which hates the west and supports terrorism in the region to undermine peace between Israel and Palestinians - in the best case. Diplomacy itself seems woefully inadequate, but there is no case for pursuing a change from Iran by a threat of military force.

Here is a good question: Why did Iran halt its nuclear weapons program in 2003?

Antiwar.com has an interesting post relating to what it calls the “hidden cost” of the war. Here it is in it’s entirety:

Two recent articles in USA Today illustrate the hidden costs of the war.

The first is about an Army study that found mental issues in 25,000 troops that came back from Iraq, including “post-traumatic stress disorder and depression to substance abuse and family conflict.” 7,000 soldiers admitted to having a drinking problem.

The second is about police officers who come home from Iraq with symptoms of PTSD “that law enforcement and mental health authorities fear could put their judgment and public safety at risk.”

Americans who served in the military and those who have the misfortune of being in their family or otherwise dealing with them will be suffering from the effects of this evil war for years to come. When will this madness end? Will it have to drag out as long as Vietnam did?

Getting soldiers safely home, and then safely reintegrated into society and a garrison mission is nothing new. The army has been evolving better ways of doing this since the Korean war. I would not call the military establishment expert in handling these issues, but it is obvious that the Army is well aware and addressing the issue. this is certain a concern, but it is not a hidden cost. There is absolutely nothing new about PTSD, depression, substance abuse, and family conflict in the military.

The other “hidden cost” of the war relates to PTSD symptoms in police officers returning home from Iraq. A “poll” of 103 mental health counselors is cited with 16% responding they were counseling someone who is returned from combat zones. It is likely these are not only returnees from Iraq. We have troops deployed in several combat zones. We should be well aware that PTSD symptoms are present among police officers regardless of whether they served in Iraq or not.

Eleven percent of officers reported no mental health symptoms at all. Twenty eight percent reported having between one and two complaints and 32% had between three and five symptoms. What is most startling is that 68 % of officers report frequently being irritable for the past six months.

Sixty six percent of officers report being fatigued and 57% report sleep difficulties. Depressions, restlessness, a sense of numbing/detachment and muscle tension were also reported by approximately a third of officers. Many reports have commented on the poor health and wellness behaviors and relative lack of attention to comprehensive wellness within law enforcement organizations. Previous research has found similar results in terms of depression and anxiety (Biggam, 1997; Ansen, 1995).

For example, an analysis of the data from Wilson, Poole and Trew indicated that 25% of officers reported symptoms consistent with at least mild to moderate depression (Wilson, 1997). The ability to replicate these statistics with multiple protocols is astounding.

What the antiwar crowd does not seem to recognize is that our first responders are at war daily, even while the military is not engaged in combat activities. I don’t hear a lot of concern about the mental health of these brave men and women, except as a means to denigrate their performance.

The bottom line is this is not a “hidden cost of the war”. It is an historical cost of having to deploy troops to protect America and its interests. It is an historical cost of having to police our streets and clean up the mess from the violence in our society.

The “concern” for harm done to the mental health of our heros home and abroad seems a bit misplaced, considering how much many antiwar folks contribute to it.

You don’t really hear about this and personally, I would never have thought this possible.

The first public military academy opened in Richmond, Va., in 1980, and now there are 16 schools in such cities as New York, Sarasota, Fla., Kenosha, Wis., and Sandy Hook, N.J.

This fall, Chicago opened the Marine Military Academy, and last week it approved plans for a sixth academy, affiliated with the Air Force, that will open in 2009. That will make Chicago the only district with schools representing all four branches of the military.

This is a great idea for children and parents who would like another option for their kids. In Chicago, the test scores don’t appear to be much different according to this story. Yet, that isn’t the only reason to explore other avenues of education. A child accepting of this kind of structure is much less likely to get into trouble.

About 7,500 students applied for 700 freshman openings this school year at the academies, which have competitive college-style admissions, Duncan said.

Duncan said the academies’ attendance rate is 94 percent, versus the district average of 85 percent. But aside from that, success is difficult to gauge.

I would say the attendance rate itself is a success. The fact that you have more than 10 students applying for every freshman opening is a success as well.

You know, perhaps there is a middle ground here in the school choice debate. This learning environment is different enough, it seems, from the traditional public school model to perhaps satisfy those of us who advocate creating competition and offering other opportunities for parents and children. Yet, since this is still within the public school system, the threat of voucher dollars being taken out of the public school system is removed.