| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| WaPo: Reservists May Face Longer Tours of Duty |
| 2005-01-07 |
| Army leaders are considering seeking a change in Pentagon policy that would allow for longer and more frequent call-ups of some reservists to meet the demands of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Army official said yesterday. Reservists are being used heavily to fill key military support jobs, particularly in specialty areas, but Army authorities are having increasing difficulty limiting the active-duty time of some normally part-time soldiers to a set maximum of two years, the official said. He described the National Guard's 15 main combat units as close to being "tapped out." To avoid pushing reserve forces to the breaking point, the official also said, a temporary increase of 30,000 troops in active-duty ranks that was authorized last year will probably need to be made permanent, especially if U.S. troop levels in Iraq remain high. He said significant troop levels may be required in Iraq for four or five more years. The official declined to be named because of the political sensitivity of the troop issue and the lack of decisions. But he said that the Army probably will ask Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the next several months to change the policy on mobilization of reservists. "It's coming," he told a small group of Pentagon reporters. "I think we're going to have this discussion this spring." snip The system of reserves/national guard is the weak reed of the U. S. military. The individual reservists and guardsmen are making incredible sacrifices but on behalf of a system that isn't fair to them or the country. After Viet Nam the military thought they could use the reserves as their stay out of long ugly wars card. The shortcomings of this policy are now apparent. The regular Army and Marine Corps shoud be expanded permanently, now, if we are serious about the War on Terror. |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #7 All is not doom and gloom - The Reserves have gained valuable combat experience - leaders have emerged. Units have distinguished themselves. Use this as a building block for the future. Restructure the force - units that have not been mobilized should be turned into MP, Civil Affairs and Transportation units. Mobilize them for a year train them for 3-4 months and deploy them for the balance of the year. Give the used up units a rest - at least two years off. This is an opportunity to strengthen the Reserve force - our leaders should recognize that. Not cry and moan because they have mismanaged. |
| Posted by: JP 2005-01-07 8:12:06 PM |
| #6 The planners knew from the very beginning the Reserves and NG would be called on in huge numbers. Yet here we are with no clear plan for the future. Lots of jingoistic yapping - Helmley is a bull in a china shop - he'll break the Reserves and blame everybody but himself. He is an active duty officer running the Reservists into the ground, cussing them when they leave and blaming his superiors for it. He is reaping what he has sown. |
| Posted by: JP 2005-01-07 8:00:52 PM |
| #5 Mrs. D -- I concur with you. The reserves and reservist families are making incredible sacrifices in the WoT. Much of this is attributable to the early-1990's cut-backs and the supposed "peace dividend." It takes years to tool up a bigger military. I liken our situation to the one before WWII, when General Pershing was tasked to perform a rapid buildup of forces. Unfortunately, as we are tranforming the military, we have not adequately been building it up fast enough. When President Bush mentioned the Axis of Evil, we should have been in buildup mode. That would not have prevented the heavy burdens faced by our fine men and women in the Reserves, but it would have given us an earlier start. Our hope is that the Iraqi military can be sufficiently brought up to speed soon. With the situation in Syria and Iran, Iraq may be just a transit point. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-01-07 4:07:54 PM |
| #4 The force that we presently have is the most advanced strike force ever put in the field, and was designed as such. Somewhere along the line the second half of the equation got lost, however. The strike force can take ground, but it takes old fashioned mass numbers of bodies to hold what has been taken. Oops. |
| Posted by: Weird Al 2005-01-07 2:59:24 PM |
| #3 in the late '90s there was plenty of GOP pushing to increase the DoD budget, which did succeed in some expansion. All the concerns were related to readiness, overstretch of the AIR FORCE, and missile defense. NO push for larger numbers of ground pounders. First big push Im aware of was by neither political party, but by the army brass, led by Shinseki, who was pushing for it at least from the start of Bush 43. Bush 43 made its principle defense priorities transformation, and missile defense. No effort to increase the size of the army or USMC Jan 20, 2001 to Sept. 11, 2001. Or from Sept 11 2001 to March 2003. Or from March 2003 till the last few months. Looks like theres lots of blame to go around ( if blame is warrented). But as Dot com and others have taught me, the blame game is not real fruitful. At least change is finally taking place, and thats good. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-01-07 1:41:53 PM |
| #2 Both parties had "spent" the "Peace Dividend" from the Fall of the Sov Union long before it actually arrived - but arrive it did, and so went the money that once supported those troop levels. Y'know, the differences between Geo43 and Geo 41 grow starker by the day. Many useful and potentially useful programs were scrapped. Even James Baker, whom I once considered a Master of the Game, has lost his shine for me... and I don't know if he was an idiot like Geo41 / Scowcroft, or just following his marching orders. Of course, all of those errors were intensified, exacerbated, and repeated at an alarming rate by the Clintoons in an orgy of idiocy I hope we never see the likes of, again. And now the tab comes due for these moronic policy eggs - hatched long after the clowns who came up with them have vacated the premises. This is the bane of corporations and government alike, for the accountability and timely corrective actions are muddled, at best, or criminally stupid assholes get off scot-free, at worst. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-07 10:06:59 AM |
| #1 Let's remember that at the time of the first Gulf War, the active Army strength was around 750K. During the 90's, both the Dem's and the Rep's cut the level to below 500k. Anybody remember any down and loud fights to keep it higher? I don't. And while the regular force was being sliced up, both parties did work their best to keep their home state NG resources from as deep a cut as the active. This is the price of those games. The increase in the new budget of around 24k is still too little. However, to create integrated cohesive units of major size takes over a year. Bodybags can be filled in 90 days. We are well behind on the power curve on this and will remain so till the pol's stop talking and start delivering. |
| Posted by: Don 2005-01-07 9:51:52 AM |