Army Plans Involuntary Call-Up of Thousands

[Truth]

By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization
of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and
Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday.

The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents
the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly
the Army, by operations in those two countries.

Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible
deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a
month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity.

A senior defense official said, "These individuals are being called back to fill
specific shortages for specific jobs."

The official said the last time the Individual Ready Reserve, mainly made up of
soldiers who have completed their active duty obligations, was mobilized in any
significant numbers was during the 1991 Gulf War.

more
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5536115

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I was always under the impression people voluntarily signed up for the reserves...

 

[my3kids]

That is pretty frightening. The article goes on to say they are going to keep 138,000 in Iraq until the end of 2005. We only have 20,000 in Afghanistan. Seems Bin Laden isn't as important to certain people as he used to be.

 

[Beth76]

A co-worker of my husband's just got called. He's supposed to be there for 18 months. Yikes!

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
I was always under the impression people voluntarily signed up for the reserves...

Reserves would normally be used only when no more active duty Troops are available for a mission in a time of war.

Your inability to understand if indeed that is what is what is, owes not so much to individual
capacity as to being unaware of this weeks definitions of terms. Think newspeak.

Anyway welcome to " 2004 ", George Orwell was only 20 years ahead of his time.

 

[wvrevy]

Actually, that's not true, truth....What they're speaking of is people that have already completed their active duty assignments, but that have seperated from the military. When I signed up for the Air Force, I was told very specifically that it was an 8 year commitment, even though I would only be active for 4 of those years. The other 4 I would be part of the "Inactive Reserves"...Out of the military, but essentially available for call-back should the need arise.

That said, this still sucks...I know I'd have been seriously ticked if, two years out, I'd been called back...By that time, I was making a little over twice what I was in the military, so I would not have been a happy camper.

 

[flaps]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That said, this still sucks...I know I'd have been seriously ticked if, two years out, I'd been called back...By that time, I was making a little over twice what I was in the military, so I would not have been a happy camper.

No need to answer of course, but....why? Just because of the obvious, an inconvenience at that point in your life? Guess I'm just curious, 'cause it seems to me that making choices and commitments have consequences, whether we ultimately "like" them or not.

My apologies if my question/comment comes across in a negative way. That's not my intent. Your post just had me going, "huh? say what? come again?" I guess.

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Actually, that's not true, truth

Not true ?

Please specify what was said that you feel was less than accurate.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Truth
Not true ?

Please specify what was said that you feel was less than accurate.

Maybe you need to re-read wvrevy's post again. Here's the pertinent part of what he said was inaccurate.

Originally posted by wvrevy
What they're speaking of is people that have already completed their active duty assignments, but that have seperated from the military. When I signed up for the Air Force, I was told very specifically that it was an 8 year commitment, even though I would only be active for 4 of those years. The other 4 I would be part of the "Inactive Reserves"...Out of the military, but essentially available for call-back should the need arise.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

But they are not calling up people who did not voluntarily sign up for military service. I have friends who are over there now, much longer than they ever thought they would be, but they're feeling is they knew when they signed up for military service that nothing is certain.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by flaps
No need to answer of course, but....why? Just because of the obvious, an inconvenience at that point in your life? Guess I'm just curious, 'cause it seems to me that making choices and commitments have consequences, whether we ultimately "like" them or not.

My apologies if my question/comment comes across in a negative way. That's not my intent. Your post just had me going, "huh? say what? come again?" I guess.

Why ? Because, like most people that join the military, I had no plans on making a career out of it. I used the military for training purposes and to pay for my education...that's it. There was a notion there that it would be good to serve my country, but that (in all honesty) was rather far down my list of reasons for joining (and any honest person in the military would likely tell you the same).

By two years out of the military, I'd moved on with my life. Moved aways from my former station...was buying a house...had a kid on the way...Saying it would be an "inconvenience" is a bit of an understatement...Kinda like saying the Hope Diamond is a shiny rock Yes, I would have gone, because I made the comittment...But that doesn't mean I'd have been happy about doing so.

Originally posted by TruthNot true ?

Please specify what was said that you feel was less than accurate.

Well, it's not really accurate to compare this story to something out of Orwellian literature. Pretty much anything can be labled "newspeak", but doing so doesn't imply any kind of sinister motive. The fact is, the people being called up to active duty did sign up for the comittment, regardless of wether they expected to have to fulfill it. JMHO....

 

[Feralpeg]

I don't wish to start anything, but I think a lot of people signed up for the reserves back when not a lot was going on. They got certain perks for the little time they had to actually put in each year. Should they have realized that things could change and they could be called for an actual war? Yes, but they took a chance. This is what happened with several guys I know.

 

[Keli]

Originally posted by wvrevy
The fact is, the people being called up to active duty did sign up for the comittment, regardless of wether they expected to have to fulfill it. JMHO....

Exactly, I believe that is inaccurate for the media to call this an "involuntary" call up. These people did indeed volunteer for military service. But that's not to say that I don't feel very sorry for many of them. I'm sure that most of those folks have moved on with their lives just as wvrevy had and didn't expect to be called up like this.

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by wvrevy

Well, it's not really accurate to compare this story to something out of Orwellian literature. Pretty much anything can be labled "newspeak", but doing so doesn't imply any kind of sinister motive. The fact is, the people being called up to active duty did sign up for the comittment, regardless of wether they expected to have to fulfill it. JMHO.... [/B]

Truth will assume rather than ask,
for the sake of saving time,
that your willingness to suggest Truth was being less than honest was because you did not catch the distinction between Truth's general comment about
the way the language in general is becoming corrupted (due to the willingness, specifically by the current people in power to justify things that
many people would not agree to had they been told about it in terms that could not be twisted so easily) and the minor details of a story about
taking advantage of people who made a pledge in a spirit that is no longer being honered.

Now for the story which Truth would not usually comment on at all, but because it has been confused
with the topic Truth brought up truth will try to explain what appears to be going on.

Truth would be interested in if
Beth76's husband's co-worker was a
" one weekend a month/two weeks a year reservist"
or a member of the

"Individual Ready Reserve,mainly made up of soldiers who have completed their active duty obligations,"

but it has no bearing on the comments that Truth made beyond being the basis for the attempt to point out that many things today cause confusion and a lack of understanding because the people in power can no longer tell the truth to people and stay in power.
--------------------------
Reserves would normally be used only when no more active duty
Troops are available for a mission in a time of war.

Your inability to understand if indeed that is what is what is,
owes not so much to individual
capacity as to being unaware of this weeks definitions of terms.
Think newspeak.

Anyway welcome to " 2004 ", George Orwell was only 20 years
ahead of his time.
----------------------------

As far as using any reserves are concerned it seems a new terminology should be demanded so that people are no longer able to think that they are
wrong to complain when what they agreed to is redefined by those in power without the people being affected having a say in that redefinition.

In Short, the reserves are no longer being used as reserves, they are part of the Standing Military, used without consideration for the hardships it causes and without the cost in Dollars that any honest understanding of the obligation would require of anyone before they would willingly agreee to it.

As has always been the case

The people in the military support the government
to a much greater degree than the government supports the people in the military.

Truth salutes and respects all military but reserves individual judgement for anyone sporting stars on their shoulders.

 

[flaps]

Thanks for replying, wvrevy.

 

[AirForceRocks]

wvrevy explained it perfectly - upon intial enlistment in the AF (or it used to be this way, I don't know if it still is or not), every enlistee took on an 8 year service committment. If the active enlistment was for 4 years, the IRR was 4 and if the initial was for 6, the IRR was for 2.

ITA that it is a hardship for those being called up, but I have a hard time categorizing it as "involuntary".

Reserves would normally be used only when no more active duty Troops are available for a mission in a time of war.

That isn't true, and hasn't been true for sometime. During the military rollbacks of the early to mid 90s, the "Total Force" concept was implemented to cut back on the size of the active duty military, thereby saving billions of dollars during peacetime. The idea was that many war time jobs would be filled primarily by guard and reserve units. These units could be fully trained an maintained for a much lower cost than it would take to maintain the same units in the active duty force. When the country goes to war, these units are called up for their war time duties.

 

[dawgfan]

The TRUTH here is that had the democratic establishment, so loved by many, truly fulfilled the needs of our military during their last reign of an eight year stint we would have no need to call on ready reserves. It was a budget move and sound administrative policy to a degree. I understand this to some degree. There were many arguements from all sides on the issue during Clintons two terms. He may have gone to far in cut backs. You decide. We are certainly having to pay back for that decision now it seems. When I joined the Army it was to serve my country and if I died in doing so I accepted that without reservation. I did not sign on to get education money and an extra check. Many took this carrot and thought little about the decision. They had few thoughts of world crisis situations or war. They should have considered the decision more carefully. During boot camp and other training times, recruits in combat missions are bombarded with war themes and the essentials of their duty. That duty is to fight wars and kill the enemy if in combat. There is no escaping this concept when you are in a combat unit. I find it hard to believe when I hear people who have joined our military say things to the effect that they just did not know they would ever be called to combat duty. What were they thinking? For those who have not served or would not serve, criticize any administration policy you wish. But, understand that there is a blanket of freedom provided to you by the many who do serve. Yes there will be some disruption of lives here. No one really wants to go to war. There are many that despite the comments will do the duty and be proud of their commitment. Thank God for them. As for a lack of troops out there, I should say there is no crisis in enlistment that I have seen. In contrast 9-11 saw an increase in enlistment nationwide. There is a short order of retainment. This is certainly a different problem and has different solutions. One of the biggest solutions to this is higher pay for enlisted troops and better benefits. GB has done some toward this end. That is more than I can say for the previous administration. The dem candidate running against him, Gore, no doubt would have gutted the military further as that was indeed his plan. He no doubt would have had no need for a military as I beleive his policy was to "talk them to death" by way of the UN. I believe firmly in peace through strength as that is the only angle that has really worked in the last 20 years. It is a new map and the bad guys are harder to define. Tactics must evolve and that has started to take effect.

 

[Alice28]

I have to say that I disagree with wvrevy on one point- there ARE actually some military men and women who sign up because they love their country and want to volunteer their time to serve, or, even give their life if it means freedom for the rest of our country and other peoples of the world.

My dear Husband signed up with the USMC reserves, at 17, to SERVE HIS COUNTRY. He could have gone to UCLA, but he felt very strongly about giving back to this wonderful country of ours. He went on to state college, which he and his parents paid for, not the military (state college in CA is cheap cheap cheap) and currently is in the Oregon Army Nat'l Guard. While we are fortunate that has not had to go overseas yet, I'm sure his turn will come, and he will do so willingly and proudly. He is on year #18 with the military and he has no plans on retiring any time soon.

Some of you might think we are completely nutty, but we are working on child #3- if it's a boy his name will be Nathan Hale- you know, of "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country" fame.

 

[Pin Wizard]

Originally posted by Feralpeg
I don't wish to start anything, but I think a lot of people signed up for the reserves back when not a lot was going on. They got certain perks for the little time they had to actually put in each year. Should they have realized that things could change and they could be called for an actual war? Yes, but they took a chance. This is what happened with several guys I know.

Exactly! They weren't expecting to actually have to put in that time.

 

[Pin Wizard]

Never mind. LOL!