Calling up the ready reserves...

Troubleshooter · 07-07-2004, 08:34 AM

Yet another small step...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Army Recalling 5,674 Who Left Service

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For the first time in more than a decade, the Army is forcing thousands of former soldiers back into uniform, a reflection of the strain on the service of long campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials on Wednesday announced that 5,674 former soldiers - mostly people who recently left the service and have up-to-date skills in military policing, engineering, logistics, medicine or transportation - will be assigned to National Guard and Reserve units that are scheduled to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan. The first notifications are to be received July 6.

They will be put on active duty for a minimum of 12 months and mostly likely for 18 months. The Pentagon's policy is to not keep troops in Iraq or Afghanistan for more than 12 months.

Cyber Wolf · 07-07-2004, 08:53 AM

That whole concept is one reason I refused to consider military service for tuition or job training. Once you say yes and sign the paper, they OWN you.

Another reason is I'd die after the first day of boot camp

wolf · 07-07-2004, 09:54 AM

Yes, but then you could go home.

lookout123 · 07-07-2004, 11:27 AM

we've already discussed this one. this is the first large scale IRR recall, but they have been getting recalled in ones and twos since Sept 12, 2001.
signing the contract does not give DOD lifelong ownership. the original enlistment is for 8 years - across the board, no ifs, ands, or buts. most people only serve 2,3,4, or 6 years on active duty. they are still obligated for 8 years from their original enlistment date based on DOD needs. this is not a secret, everyone knows this going in.
those who sniffle and whine about it being a surprise or unfair are absolutely full of shit and a disgrace. to be upset and angry at being pulled back in is reasonable, but to find the nearest reporter and go public with complaints is chickenshit and without excuse.

edit: also - i heard a reporter interviewing an activist this morning and his assertion is that the military has recently enacted the stop/loss program because there is a mass exodus from the military and the recruiter's can't get enough people to enlist. That is BS. stop/loss has been ongoing since 9/11, it is not a permanent lock into the military, it does extend individuals in certain critical career fields until there is an appropriate replacement for them. this is also something that people know at the enlistment phase as well. speaking of enlisting, the recruiters i know have had no problem meeting their requirements.

jaguar · 07-07-2004, 12:35 PM

Gotta agree with lookout, you knew the score when you signed the paper, suck up and live with the results of your actions.

I'm probably hopelessly out of date but I seem to remember US military policy was the ability to fight 2 1/2 wars simultaniously for up to two years, no? Bet there's some interesting strategic rethinks going on at the moment.

07-07-2004, 02:26 PM

Hey! Glad to see you, Jag! I agree that people who signed on with the military should have known that such things go with the territory and have little right to complain if they end up being called into service. What disturbed me when I posted about this before is that this is evidence of our deepening involvement in the Middle East. So much for skating on out of there by the end of June. My fear is that the Middle East is going to turn into a quagmire, potentially of Vietnam type dimensions.

lookout123 · 07-07-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaguar

US military policy was the ability to fight 2 1/2 wars simultaniously for up to two years, no?

the problem is that we are always forced to fight the current war with the last administration's military. 2 1/2 wars was difficult even with the larger reagan/bush military. bush I started the restructuring post cold war, clinton just went too far in downsizing. the war on terror is being fought by clinton's military. bush and rumsfeld are still working on their own restructure but they are not increasing the size of the military fast enough, IMO.

jaguar · 07-07-2004, 05:10 PM

I was of the understanding it was more an issue of re-deployment rather than scale, out of places like Germany and Japan where troops aren't needed and aren't wanted to more useful locations combined with front-line hotspot bases that can accomodate troops when needed, particularly in central asia and eastern europe. It's not something I really follow but I pick up bits and pieces.

While more troops are needed in Iraq now the best thing they could do is drop the word war. Wars are fought against identifiable foes, outside some fundies with AKs and mountain ponies floating around the north end of pakistan I don't see how this is going to end any better than the 'war' on drugs. Long, expensive, counter-productive and high on collateral damage while denying the problem starts at home.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-07-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

bush and rumsfeld are still working on their own restructure but they are not increasing the size of the military fast enough, IMO.

Thy would prefer to go the high tech route. When a robot gets blown up they just have to send an email and not an honor guard.

jaguar · 07-07-2004, 05:20 PM

which is ironic considering a reliance on high tech by the spook shops caused the intel failures that led to 9/11 etc in the first place. Can't beat people on the ground.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-07-2004, 05:30 PM

That's also why they went with insufficient troops to secure the country or even the borders.

richlevy · 07-07-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

the problem is that we are always forced to fight the current war with the last administration's military. 2 1/2 wars was difficult even with the larger reagan/bush military. bush I started the restructuring post cold war, clinton just went too far in downsizing. the war on terror is being fought by clinton's military. bush and rumsfeld are still working on their own restructure but they are not increasing the size of the military fast enough, IMO.

Actually, during Clinton the military was restructured for just these kinds of low intensity conflicts. More nuclear subs and heavy bombers would not go any farther in winning Iraq for us.

What the military was not ready for was a large scale peacekeeping/occupation/nation building role. GWB led us unprepared into a role we have not held in 60 years. Even then, we had the whole world, except for the Eastern Bloc behind us. Even they would probably have preferred a stable West Germany to the kind of chaos we have in Iraq.

lookout123 · 07-08-2004, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy

Actually, during Clinton the military was restructured for just these kinds of low intensity conflicts. More nuclear subs and heavy bombers would not go any farther in winning Iraq for us.

i was referring to bodies, not hardware. hardware will always be upgraded that is good. reducing the active duty force to levels unable to sustain long term combat operations is not (if we are going to stick to expeditionary force rotations, which looks probable.)

Troubleshooter · 07-08-2004, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy

More nuclear subs... ...would not go any farther in winning Iraq for us.

I remember in '92 when we were sent on deployment in the Med to work on ways to expand out capabilities into the intel gathering arena.

LSMFT · 07-08-2004, 10:52 AM

Frightening news. Years after my discharge from the Air Force, I continued to keep my multiple addresses current with a local recruiter. I dreaded the idea that they could call me up for whatever reason, but it was part of the deal. I was a child when I signed up, and immediately regretted my decision within seconds upon entering basic training. My service was hardly remarkable, but I had specific skills and clearances that the military likes to keep track of. Nothing at all like a James Bond or Rambo-like resume, in fact, both the Air Force and myself considered my service a horrible waste of time. If the "ready reserves" are called up in large numbers, I feel sorry for the thousands of people that have gone on to a better way of life. At this point, we should all reconsider the high cost of this war.

07-07-2004, 08:34 AM	#1
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	Calling up the ready reserves... Yet another small step... http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT Army Recalling 5,674 Who Left Service By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- For the first time in more than a decade, the Army is forcing thousands of former soldiers back into uniform, a reflection of the strain on the service of long campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army officials on Wednesday announced that 5,674 former soldiers - mostly people who recently left the service and have up-to-date skills in military policing, engineering, logistics, medicine or transportation - will be assigned to National Guard and Reserve units that are scheduled to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan. The first notifications are to be received July 6. They will be put on active duty for a minimum of 12 months and mostly likely for 18 months. The Pentagon's policy is to not keep troops in Iraq or Afghanistan for more than 12 months. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

07-07-2004, 08:53 AM	#2
Cyber Wolf As stable as a ring of PU-239 Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: On a huge rock covered in water, highly advanced moss and 7 billion parasites Posts: 1,264	That whole concept is one reason I refused to consider military service for tuition or job training. Once you say yes and sign the paper, they OWN you. Another reason is I'd die after the first day of boot camp __________________ "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then getting' upset 'cos they act like people." ~Adam Young, Good Omens "I don't see why it matters what is written. Not when it's about people. It can always be crossed out." ~Adam Young, Good Omens

07-07-2004, 09:54 AM	#3
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Yes, but then you could go home. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

07-07-2004, 11:27 AM	#4
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	we've already discussed this one. this is the first large scale IRR recall, but they have been getting recalled in ones and twos since Sept 12, 2001. signing the contract does not give DOD lifelong ownership. the original enlistment is for 8 years - across the board, no ifs, ands, or buts. most people only serve 2,3,4, or 6 years on active duty. they are still obligated for 8 years from their original enlistment date based on DOD needs. this is not a secret, everyone knows this going in. those who sniffle and whine about it being a surprise or unfair are absolutely full of shit and a disgrace. to be upset and angry at being pulled back in is reasonable, but to find the nearest reporter and go public with complaints is chickenshit and without excuse. edit: also - i heard a reporter interviewing an activist this morning and his assertion is that the military has recently enacted the stop/loss program because there is a mass exodus from the military and the recruiter's can't get enough people to enlist. That is BS. stop/loss has been ongoing since 9/11, it is not a permanent lock into the military, it does extend individuals in certain critical career fields until there is an appropriate replacement for them. this is also something that people know at the enlistment phase as well. speaking of enlisting, the recruiters i know have had no problem meeting their requirements. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin Last edited by lookout123; 07-07-2004 at 11:33 AM. Reason: afterthought

07-07-2004, 12:35 PM	#5
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Gotta agree with lookout, you knew the score when you signed the paper, suck up and live with the results of your actions. I'm probably hopelessly out of date but I seem to remember US military policy was the ability to fight 2 1/2 wars simultaniously for up to two years, no? Bet there's some interesting strategic rethinks going on at the moment. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

07-07-2004, 02:26 PM	#6
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	Hey! Glad to see you, Jag! I agree that people who signed on with the military should have known that such things go with the territory and have little right to complain if they end up being called into service. What disturbed me when I posted about this before is that this is evidence of our deepening involvement in the Middle East. So much for skating on out of there by the end of June. My fear is that the Middle East is going to turn into a quagmire, potentially of Vietnam type dimensions.

07-07-2004, 05:10 PM	#8
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	I was of the understanding it was more an issue of re-deployment rather than scale, out of places like Germany and Japan where troops aren't needed and aren't wanted to more useful locations combined with front-line hotspot bases that can accomodate troops when needed, particularly in central asia and eastern europe. It's not something I really follow but I pick up bits and pieces. While more troops are needed in Iraq now the best thing they could do is drop the word war. Wars are fought against identifiable foes, outside some fundies with AKs and mountain ponies floating around the north end of pakistan I don't see how this is going to end any better than the 'war' on drugs. Long, expensive, counter-productive and high on collateral damage while denying the problem starts at home. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

07-07-2004, 05:20 PM	#10
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	which is ironic considering a reliance on high tech by the spook shops caused the intel failures that led to 9/11 etc in the first place. Can't beat people on the ground. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

07-07-2004, 05:30 PM	#11
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	That's also why they went with insufficient troops to secure the country or even the borders. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

07-08-2004, 10:52 AM	#15
LSMFT Confounded Conjuror Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Inthamoment, Ny Posts: 33	Frightening news. Years after my discharge from the Air Force, I continued to keep my multiple addresses current with a local recruiter. I dreaded the idea that they could call me up for whatever reason, but it was part of the deal. I was a child when I signed up, and immediately regretted my decision within seconds upon entering basic training. My service was hardly remarkable, but I had specific skills and clearances that the military likes to keep track of. Nothing at all like a James Bond or Rambo-like resume, in fact, both the Air Force and myself considered my service a horrible waste of time. If the "ready reserves" are called up in large numbers, I feel sorry for the thousands of people that have gone on to a better way of life. At this point, we should all reconsider the high cost of this war. __________________ I'm not sorry anymore.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)