[url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/07/army_weighs_repeated_call_ups/]The Army is now seriously considering making the Reserves and Guard subject to *unlimited * callups for as much as 24 months at a stretch. Doesn’t that make them regulars?
I think what bugs me most about this (and other stuff such as stop-loss, calling up the Individual Ready Reserve, etc.) is that it effectively amounts to a draft on those who have already volunteered, while the rest of us continue to get a free ride. We make the comparatively small group of people who’ve already put their asses on the line for our country, do so over and over again. This is just plain wrong, IMHO.
And the other good news, from the WaPo link:
I don’t think the U.S. military will be in nearly as bad shape, post-Iraq, as it was right after Vietnam. But it still ain’t gonna be pretty.
On Meet The Press today, Tim Russert was speaking with Bill Frist on this very subject. Russert claims that, if we keep the 24 month active duty restriction, we will not have enough troops to meet demand by the end of this year. Russert asked Frist if he would vote for extending the 24 month active duty restriction, especially in the light of the “Broken reserves” memo.
Frist gave what I think is a non-answer (paraphrased): I have to study the matter more but I’d see into getting more reservists to sign up first.
Al Hunt says, if we get to that point there are two things we can do: Institute something that looks very much like a draft or get the hell out of Dodge.
Half-way through the year and my concerns have not disappeared. They have continued to grow but national concern has not kept pace with me. Am I being paranoid? Is regular armed forces recruitment picking up the slack? The NYT notes that the percentage of Reservists has dropped and continues to drop as soldiers bump up against the 24 month limit.
I see that the administration has raised the age limit for recruits from 34 to 39 but this has not helped the US meet recruitment goals.
Why am I the only one worried? Not only about this endless quagmire in the Middle East but all of our defenses all over the world?
I’m amazed it took so long for the Army to run into problems… after all who wants to risk their lives in an undesirable war like Iraq ? Its no longer about fighting terrorism or saving the nation… just cannon fodder duty.
Long term its hard to see troop levels not suffering while Iraq is still a mess.And to no one’s surprise, the pro-war Republicans are also the squirmiest in their excuses not to serve. :rolleyes:
What happen’s to a soldier’s efficiency when he or she has been deployed for that long? I’ve read that studies during WWI and WWII showed that after six months in the field a typical soldier’s efficiency had dropped to zero.
That sounds reasonable if we’re just considering anti-crime and anti-terror measures, but I wonder how it applies to, say, natural disasters. Fires, floods, hurricanes and so forth have occurred more frequently and at more catastrophic levels in recent years, and if the climatologists are right, this trend will continue due to ongoing climate change. Don’t the Guards (who are also sending a lot of people to overseas wars) and Reserves play a pretty big role in dealing with this kind of domestic emergency? Are we risking underpreparedness in handling natural disasters by sending so many non-regular troops abroad?
According to my copy of the SDMB Liberal But Not a Fucking Lunatic roster, it’s my turn to administer the Rjung Gratuitous Anti-Republican Drive-by Rebuke.
Consider it administered. Carry on, folks.
You forgot to mention that many reserve members are policemen and firefighters those most needed not only for natural disasters… but in case of terrorist attacks as well.
One of the things that keeps on occuring to me is that there should be some established military doctrine on how well the Reserves (or the regular troops, for that matter) can serve, for how long, and how much is just too much to expect of the Reserves (and the Army proper) as they existed two and a half years ago.
IOW, how big a war can we fight, for how long, without either (a) requiring a draft, or (b) overburdening the troops?
Seems like a no brainer to me. This cluster fuck of the logistics for this adventure makes me ill to think about it.
-XT
ISTM, though, that this is a logical way to maintain enlistment in an all-volunteer army. In times of peace, recruiters dangle the bait of material rewards and minimal risk. In times of war, recruiters reap the benefit of an energized populace’s feelings of solidarity, anger, and self-sacrifice for loved ones, as we saw in the enlistment spike following the 9/11 attacks.
What this means, though, is that an all-volunteer army is going to be weak at maintaining troop strength during a war that isn’t perceived as necessary and justified, which I’m afraid is the case with the current Iraq occupation. When potential recruits feel that military service means taking serious risks in service to a cause they don’t feel strongly about, it’s not going to look like a very desirable option.
I consider this a feature, not a bug.
You have a point, but it sure is hell for all the previous recruits on whose overworked backs the war is being sustained.
True – but there’s just no getting around the fact that if our Fearless Leaders get us into a war for no good reason, the people who are already signed up get the brunt of the screwage.
They serve as examples to potential wanna be recruit material unfortunately… in a way this stop the USA from ever overcommitting to wars. (good or bad) Even a “just” war gets people to take risks only so long. I agree this can be a positive feature.
Aside from all the inane political harping, the more likely scenario is a shift back toward soldiers being soldiers.
Traditionally, soldiers did not do most of the jobs they did today. I suspect that some of these jobs, if need be, will simply be moved to a civilian sector instead of a military one. It won’t be complete, but would certainly free up significant numbers of troops.
Ironically, I think the numbers actually imply that most people are more likely to die in reserve duty or in the peacetime army than in Iraq. But I could be reading them wrong.