I’ll admit I don’t know a whole lot about this. But it sure looks to this semi-ignorant observer that they’re really reaching now, in terms of using every last possible way to have enough troop strength to sustain operations in Iraq.
The U.S. military’s enlistment contract says" “If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years.” My understanding is that, once you’ve served your active duty or active reservist obligation, however long its term, you’re still regarded as being on reserve status until a total of eight years has elapsed. Between the time your active commitment has ended, and the end of the eight years, you’re in what’s known as the inactive reserves. While in the inactive reserves, you’re subject to involuntary recall to the active reserves or to active duty. (We’ve got lots of present and former military on this board; if I’ve got the story wrong, please speak up!)
Anybody know when was the last time we called up the inactive reserves? I’ve been trying to google that, and am drawing a blank. But I’m assuming we haven’t done it since Vietnam at least, and maybe not since Korea. (The inactive reserves were called up in Korea.)
I don’t know that I have a particular point with this, just that I’m worried about the stress on our troops, and on the U.S. military as a whole. Because this seems to me to be a fairly convincing sign that our forces are stretched about as tight as they can be stretched. And maybe then some.
It appears that H.J.Res.114 meets the criteria of 10 USC 12301(a) in that the inactive reserves may be called up for the duration of the Iraq war.
According to the Reserve Affairs FAQ Table this is a component of full mobilization of the armed forces. Since I don’t see anything greater in the table, for all intents and purposes, the US military is on full war footing, with military retirees being the last callup before the have to go outside of the the military structure for more bodies - a draft.
What has me concerned is what happens if another conflict looms? I am not talking doomsday scenarios by any means but if the the US were pulled into another conflict - South Korea for example - we are already at the end of our military rope. Were we ever at this point during Vietnam? Or was Korea the last time in our history we were on the doorstep of total war (with total war defined as all available military mobilized and the civilian population was next in line)?
Do you have a cite from a reputable non-partisan news orginization for this RTFirefly? This site has how should I put it, a blatantly obvious rabid partisan slant.
Whether or not this story has a basis in fact, NOW can any of GW’s water carriers tell my why this while Iraq mess isn’t just a Mark 1, Mod. 0; SNAFU, Type GW Bush, Routine?
I don’t think its accurate to say that we are calling up the inactive reserves. This is just a very basic step that seems to be done periodically anyways. Thats not to say that our forces aren’t stretched thin and it is possible that we eventually will call up the inactive reserves. Is there anything that you specifically want to debate here?
alaricthegoth-
Holy cow man did we forget our medicine or something?
We’re far from the end of our military rope. In fact, we’re not even halfway there.
Rough estimates are that we have 114,000 US personnel and over 23,000 coalition personnel deployed in Iraq. Over 26,000 US and Coalition personnel were deployed in Kuwait, providing logistical support to Operation Iraqi Freedom. In Afghanistan there are around 20,000. Cite.
However, in Southwest Asia as a whole, we’ve got 200,000 to 225,000 troops (including 1,200 at the Horn of Africa) (same cite). We’ve also got 71,000 troops in Germany, and another 47,000 in Japan, which aren’t exactly hot spots. We’ve also got thousands of troops deployed around the world in places from Kosovo to Djibouti to building schools in Central America to fighting the drug war.
None of our carriers are currently deployed to the Persian Gulf (in fact, only two are currently deployed, including the Kitty Hawk, which is always deployed). And still, half our units are sitting back home.
Still, I have no problem with calling up the inactive reserves. They’re reserves. That’s what we’re reserving them for. This is probably the first time in a long while that we’ve been able to use them.
So I don’t think we’re stretched too thin. I think we could commit more troops if we wanted without sacrificing other missions. And if it came down to it, we could probably sacrifice a couple of other missions. Of course, we haven’t done that, so it’s probably too early to get worked up over this.
I don’t see how this is such a surprise to people.
My pal Rich was ROTC in college, graduated, and did his stint in the reserves which ended several years ago. He finished up as a captain in the quartermaster corps, got bumped up to major the day before he went inactive, and went on his merry way.
And last February he got the call. He was being reactivated and get himself ready…and, by the way, he was a Captain again. Three weeks in Fort Hood and off to Kuwait to await the war.
He’s running a platoon performing water supply work in a spot just south of Baghdad now. It was supposed to be a 6 month deployment to get the system set up then he’d be rotated back home while some other unit took over. That was 14 months ago. He has no idea when he’ll be home.
IIRC, the shortages weren’t in raw troop numbers, but rather in specific relevant kinds of troops. At on epoint 30 out of 33 units of active duty combat troops were either deployed or just back from being deployed or just about to be deployed.
IIRC, there’re something like ten or fifteen support troops for every combat soldier.
