This might just be some noise, in an overly cautious environment.
I got out of the Navy in 1998, at a time when there was no large-scale conflict. I was obligated at the time to spend three years in the IRR.
In those three years, I was contacted regularly, to verify my address and other status. It must have happened at least five times.
Just because you’re contacted doesn’t mean you’re going to be activated, obviously. Otherwise, I should have been sweating bullets in the waning days of the Clinton administration.
I think it was indefensible from the start and has only gotten worse. And that is, I think, amply shown by the results displayed so far, independent of any action with respect to active, inactive or any other reserves.
You didn’t defend the Iraq scheme, you just changed the subject.
As I’m thinkin about these things, I realize that I’d better impregnate my beautiful bride posthaste. Surely they wouldn’t take her if’n she was swoll with child would they?
No, they’ll just wait until after the baby is born, then ship her overseas. After all, they already shipped both parents overseas in at least one case, leaving their kids practically unattended. The grandparents had to takem them in.
My Daddy was a prominent frogman, my Momma’s in the Naval Reserve! When I was young, I carried a gun, but I never got the chance to serve, I did not serve . . .
“and send him to a war zone filled with random shootings, lethal bombings and enraged citizens?”. I guess maybe she’d like a war zone with PLANNED shootings, UNLETHAL bombings and HAPPY citizens? Wow…
I hope they do more of this call up of of inactive reservists. Each one, taken away from their families and jobs and dropped into the Iraq cesspool is an almost guaranteed vote against Bush come November. Bush team must be saying “How the hell do we get out of this whirlpool before we get sucked all the way down”?
This sums the problem up pretty well. One of the reasons given for deploying the 2nd Brigade/2nd Infantry Division from Korea to Iraq is that
The US is, of course, not in danger of losing control of the situation militarily, a federalization of more of the National Guard or the reserves could deal with shortages of deployable brigades at the cost of domestic political problems. The problem is that Iraq has stretched the military substantially in an entirely voluntary war, to the point that it is now impacting Korea, a region that has at least worried me much more substantially in terms of WMD proliferation than Iraq ever did.
Yeah, we got us a regular military genius in the oval o., a virtual Li’l Corporal
kinda reminds you of a Risk game, where you start rolling across Europe, and your throwin’ dice, and your ;movin’ and suddently, it’s the Urals and you;'re out of men…
Okay, I have a serious question. While I am against the activation of our reserves, it is mostly because I see it as a sign that we’ve overextended ourselves. While I’m sure there are some that find these foreign expeditions invigorating, I get the uneasy feeling that we’re sacrificing some of our national security with them (I am not against all actions on foreign soil, but the justification for our present situation is shaky at best).
Thing is, some people are treating it as though the activation of these troops are a violation of some nebulous moral code for modern warfare. Correct me if I am wrong, but these folks volunteered for their status, and most, if not all, received some sort of compensation from the government, be it training, education, or cash money.
Is it so silly for the government to call people on their obligation when there is a need? Note- I think that the need is really not necessary, but it seems like that’s a chance one takes when one signs up for the service. I seriously considered it during my college career- but opted out of it because my fiancé brought up just this possibility.
I am one of those that thinks that the best way to support the troops is to keep them at home…but, that said, is it so silly that, should you choose to join the army, you be expected to, you know, fight?
What dissuades me of that is the acronymic reference to having them go active (TPU) in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 3rd Rotation (OIF3).
I think that’s a legitimate question, Stonebow. Speaking just for myself, I think we pretty much agree on this, which is one reason why I linked to the enlistment contract in my OP. When an enlistee signs that contract, they know they can be called back up after their active duty is ended; their only reasonable expectation, IMHO, is that it be a last resort, after all other reasonable options have been exhausted.
Seems we’re really getting to that point.
What I have to wonder, now that I know the Bushies were thinking from the very beginning of invading Iraq, and knew after 9/11 that they finally had a hook to hang it on - why didn’t they ask then for the sort of increase in troop strength that would have made it easier to fight this war properly??? In the wake of 9/11, Congress was giving the Administration pretty much everything it asked for, and then super-sizing it. If Bush had asked for an increase in conventional troop strength, it would have been given him. With the legislation and the appropriations passed in September or October of 2001, this would have translated into additional troops well before now, and probably before the invasion. So why didn’t they do that? Even given my low estimation of the Bushies’ competence, I’m still mystified by this.
Asking for an increase in the authorized armed forces would have raised some doubt on the administration’s position that we would be hailed in Iraq as liberators.
Asking for the increase would have thown a little shadow on Rummy’s campaign to have a smaller and modernized military to fight what he called today’s battles.
or maybe three.
GW Bush seems only to get a grand vision from God, with the details left unattended to. This might be called the “God will provide” military method.
I really don’t see what the problem is. You’ve got the active duty folks, the Active Reserves and the Inactive Ready Reserves. Lemme clue you folks in on something here: they are all in the military roster and as such, yes, they are available for duty at the decision of those in charge.
Just because someone drops the to the Reserves, it doesn’t mean they are free and clear of the call of duty and the same goes for those who drop to the IRR. You are obligated to serve for the duration of your contract.
I didn’t change the subject. I was trying to talk about the deployment of inactive reserves, and whether our military was overextended. By inviting me to debate whether we should be in Iraq, you have changed the subject.
Sorry, but I’m not going to take the bait. The topic of whether we should be in Iraq has been debated ad naseum on these boards, in some cases by me. If you want to debate the wisdom of being in Iraq, you should think about starting a new thread.