Ralph Peters has a nominee for August's most important unreported story: while the media were in a frenzy over Cindy Sheehan, the armed forces have quietly exceeded their recruitment goals for FY 2005:

Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30.

As Peters says, patriotism is alive and well. But what do the young men and women who enlist and reenlist see when they open a newspaper?

The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there's no hope in Iraq.

The ugly truth is that much of the media only cares about our soldiers when they're dead or crippled. That's a story.

If the major media weren't too self-absorbed to see outside the liberal cocoon, they'd be ashamed of themselves.

Via Betsy Newmark, subbing for Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh read this post on his show today.

FURTHER UPDATE: Many readers pointed out this Fox News story, which begins:

The U.S. Army will miss its recruiting goals this year but will be able to sustain troop levels in Iraq over the next four years, a high-ranking general told FOX News.

"We're gonna fall short of our recruiting goal this year. We know that,” [Lt. General James] Lovelace told FOX News. “We're putting in place mitigation plans to begin to address it in ’06."

The Fox report agrees with Peters that re-enlistments are exceeding projections, so the difference must lie in first-time enlistments. Peters says that for the Army, they are "running at 108 percent of its needs." The Fox story, on the other hand, says that "Military officials will not go into specifics about the numbers of new recruits signing up for Army duty." Odd.

With respect to Army Reserve and National Guard units, the Fox story says that re-enlistments are running at more than 100% of projections, which is consistent with Peters' theme. But, while Peters says that the Army National Guard is up to "106 percent of its requirements as of June 30," Fox says that "in total, the Army Guard has about 331,000 soldiers, 94.5 percent of its authorized strength of 350,000." Is there a difference between "authorized strength" and "requirements"? I don't know, but there should be more data out there somewhere that would resolve the inconsistencies.

SCOTT adds: NRO's Stephen Spruiell caught up with Peters today and reports that he "was most likely the victim of a bureaucratic mixup."

UPDATE: This DoD page seems to have definitive information as of the end of July--which leaves some mystery regarding the Fox story's statement that the Army doesn't release data on new recruits. Anyway the DoD numbers are consistent with the conclusion that re-enlistment is very high, while new recruitment is a little below targets. As I read the numbers, Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force recruiting (not re-enlistment) is at a combined 95% of goals with two months to go in the fiscal year. Combined recruiting for the Army National Guard and the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Reserves is at a combined 89% of targets, also with two months to go.

So some of Peters' numbers do seem to be off, but it's hardly a deficit to give the liberals anything to crow about, especially with sky-high re-enlistment numbers in the units that are engaged in combat in Iraq.

FURTHER UPDATE: Mac Owens, a top commentator on military affairs, writes:

I did a piece for the NY Post on this issue in July. The Army has exceeded its reenlistment goals, and it has exceeded its monthly recruiting--first time enlistments--goals for the last two months, but the service will still fall short of its recruiting goals for the year by about 11,000 because of shortfalls earlier this year.

Posted by John at 08:37 AM  |    |