Article

2004-06-30 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-30 12:16:17 AM|| || Front Page|| [11123 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The full AP story has more than a little bit of snide editorializing in it.

One thing that isn't noted here, IRR call-ups in '91 didn't start 15 months after the beginning of hostilities. If I remember correctly, the bombing of Iraq started on January 15, 1991, a couple days after that I received a telegram from Prez Bush telling me to report to Ft. Benning on January 31! I don't know if that means anything, other than perhaps dampening somewhat the "digging deeper" theme.

It might also be worth noting that, as the longer version of this article says, Bush has had the authority to order these call-ups since 2002. A reasonable question might be, why did he wait so long? I can't answer that, but I think we can assume the reason he's using this option now is because he doesn't have to go back to a Congress which is in full election year mode to ask for these troops. And of course, these guys and gals are fully trained already, they just need a quick bit of refresher training, then they'll be good to go.

It looks like a smart move to me, not at all like the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" slant this writer is trying to put on it. But what do I know, I'm not a journalist.

Posted by mva30 2004-06-30 2:32:09 AM|| 2004-06-30 2:32:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Thank God for the guys who in the 50's put the Cold War forces together. This is how it's done.

You folks that have to go back, serve hard and come back alive.

There is a lot that can be done to redefine this force. I bet every Burger could add at least one good idea.

Espirit de Corps is my thought. How best?

Best Wishes,

Posted by Lucky 2004-06-30 3:17:04 AM|| 2004-06-30 3:17:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Thank you for the explanation, #1.

I do not support a draft for a variety of reasons including that a draft is unconstitutional ie.forced servitude and unfair and discriminatory due to its gender and age specificity. When I read this article I initially thought this was one step closer to re-instituting the draft and my hackles went up. So I'm glad you put this decision in proper context.

Posted by rex 2004-06-30 3:34:29 AM|| 2004-06-30 3:34:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 If Congress says so and the President signs off on it Rex, it's constitutional and it's been done already.

But until specific changes to what our military is, it's components, how gender and marriage problems are figured out to give the best "bang for the buck", I can't go with a draft. To costly. But If smart patriots can hash it out....

Bill Clinton's "National Service thingy" could be a tool into PCing national service but, national defense?

Posted by Lucky 2004-06-30 4:13:24 AM|| 2004-06-30 4:13:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 If Congress says so and the President signs off on it Rex, it's constitutional and it's been done already.
Slavery was done before; women did not have the right to vote before; past practice does not ensure that that things will not be challenged in the future.

Besides, how would the great liberating USA look to the world as we try to take the high moral ground, claiming to "liberate" voiceless peoples around the globe like Shiites in Iraq and women in Afghanistan and then we turn around and disenfranchise our own young American men, ages 18-26? Rather hypocritical, I'd say.

Posted by rex 2004-06-30 4:36:12 AM|| 2004-06-30 4:36:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 All this fretting about a draft is rather pointless: from the end of the Vietnam War until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the size of the Army was kept at a constant 780,000-- about 70% higher than its present, post Cold War level-- without any draft.

It is the President and Congress, not the availability of willing volunteers, that limit the number of available troops. And if they want to make a long-term increase in the size of our forces-- even to the point of doubling them-- all they have to do is authorize the expenditure and set higher recruiting levels. And right now no one wants to do that because of the economic impact.

Until we start hearing talk of an Army of well over a million, I wouldn't lose any sleep about a draft. It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-06-30 6:25:36 AM|| 2004-06-30 6:25:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Who needs a draft? If Congress would raise authorized troop numbers the recruiters would do the rest.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-06-30 8:04:38 AM|| 2004-06-30 8:04:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The primary reason for a draft today is not the needs of the military, but the philosophical desire on the part of many in Washington to have one.
Many see the draft as America's most perfect socialist institution. In that regard, "training for the herd" is the end in itself, not what the herd actually does.
Paradoxically, they *hate* the military, for it was "the enemy" in the 'golden' days of the 1960s. And yet they feel that maybe that fear of "the enemy" could restore the glorious togetherness of their idealized youth.

Please note down and repeat a verbatim statement given by Hillary Clinton on Jun-28-04: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable

I would love to see her name permanently associated with that one sentence.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-06-30 10:23:46 AM|| 2004-06-30 10:23:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Dave D's got it. Lift the pay rates and we can build a 14 divison force in four years or so. 1st 2 ready in two years.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-30 11:04:14 AM|| 2004-06-30 11:04:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Slavery was done before; women did not have the right to vote before

and might i point out that those things WERE Constitutional until amendments were passed to change them? Not everything thats bad is unconstitutional, as I must sometimes point out to my liberal friends.

The Congress that passed the 13th Amendment banning involuntary servitude was largely composed of members who had supported the civil war draft, only a few years before. Its hard to beleive they expected the 13th amendment to ban conscription.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-30 12:31:03 PM|| 2004-06-30 12:31:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Rex, I will forgive your naÃ¯ve and misguided attempt to tie conscription to slavery. I have not be recalled to service (yet) but if called I will report. I may bitch a little and but my Mortgage company will cry louder as I will have to forgo some payments while I serve on active duty. Nobody is asking you to serve but what makes you so special that you think you deserve special consideration against service to YOUR country? Do you not live in the country under an umbrella of protection provided by your government? Are you not free to work, live, play, and worship how you see fit? Do you not cherish these rights enough to protect them against those that will take them away? Is there anything you would fight for? I am curious at what point you would take up arms and defend something. And before you ask I have a nephew serving right now and I would not counsel my kids against joining the Armed Forces.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-06-30 12:36:45 PM|| 2004-06-30 12:36:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 To further elaborate on what Cyber Sarge said, rex, there would be no "disenfranchisement" of Americans should there be a new draft.
It would have to be enacted by Congress, who vote the voice of the American people.
And "forced enlistment" was one of the things our Constitution was designed to protect against as impressing colonists into military service was something the British did with impunity before we threw them out.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-30 12:46:45 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-30 12:46:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 This is the first I've heard about these retired soldiers being volunteer resevers in the event that they are needed.

Even Fox News Channel was reporting that the military was planning to pull up "recently retired and discharged" troops, with NO reference to the fact that the soldiers were fully aware of this possibility and had volunteered for the program.

I hate to say it, but... thanks to the AP for giving me... (deep breath)... the TRUTH of the matter. (ouch. that hurt.)

Posted by Chris W. 2004-06-30 12:56:26 PM|| 2004-06-30 12:56:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The reporting on this has been extremely shoddy at best and mostly disengenuous. My understanding is that his was also done during the Persion Gulf war, so it shouldn't be such a huge surprise to anyone. It's the smart thing to do.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-06-30 12:59:50 PM|| 2004-06-30 12:59:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Actually, #6, #7 and #9, as reported here last week, there are 2 bills making their way through the House and Senate that include a salary raise for troops and money for recruiting approx. 30,000 new soldiers/marines over the course of the next 3 years.
"Senate Passes $447 Billion Defense Bill " June 24, 2004

In addition to paying soldiers better and recruiting new soldiers, I think we should give hazard pay to combat troops in areas which have them face enemy action. Furthermore, the 750 US bases we maintain around the world and our current UN peacekeeping ventures should be re-examined for cost-benefit as it applies to our national security and decisions in our country's interest should be implemented a.s.a.p. For example there is no reason why we continue to have troops in Kosovo or why we maintain a troop strength of 40,000 in Japan or 66,000 in Germany or 36,000 in S.K. That is a waste of manpower.

Posted by rex 2004-06-30 1:08:02 PM|| 2004-06-30 1:08:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Nice to see you off that erroneous draft=slavery tangent and thinking like a patriotic adult again, rex.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-30 1:09:55 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-30 1:09:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Chris, when they give you your DD 214 and your retired ID they also explain that you will remain in the ready reserve for a period of five years. I think most retirees would report if called upon with little fuss.
Rex, pay raises are nice but few people stay in the military for financial purposes. I didn't get rich during the 20 years I served and I doubt few people do. The exception would be the odd man that marries a millionare heiress. ;-)

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-06-30 1:28:00 PM|| 2004-06-30 1:28:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Digging deeper for help in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is recalling to active duty about 5,600 people who recently left the service and still have a reserve obligation.

What's noteworthy here is that this article doesn't go so far as to claim that discharged and retired soldiers are being called up.

Blackfive and Sgt. Stryker are on the case.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-30 1:28:32 PM|| 2004-06-30 1:28:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 1. I have not be recalled to service (yet) but if called I will report
By using the word "recalled" it means that you voluntarily joined the service or National Guard at some point. It is different than being mandated to serve in the military.

2. there would be no "disenfranchisement" of Americans should there be a new draft. It would have to be enacted by Congress, who vote the voice of the American people.
And this is why we have a bill of rights and constitution so that individuals, minorities can be protected from the TYRANNY of the majority who benefit from discriminating against a minority group of individuals.

Jen, I would suggest to you that a draft that focuses on a specific age group and on only one gender to expose them to risk for the benefit of the majority of all ages and 2 genders is unfair and discriminatory. What risk would you or your gender ever take on the front lines if a draft were reinstituted? ZERO. It's easy to talk patriotism when you will never be expected to risk your life on the front lines to demonstrate that patriotism.

3. Is there anything you would fight for? I am curious at what point you would take up arms and defend something.
I would take up arms after Congress made a declaration of war against a NAMED ENEMY who attacked our country.

I would not take up arms in a war against an un-named enemy and when there was no formal declaration of war by Congress. I would not take up arms to fight on behalf of an airy fairy experimental war of liberation in some far off land that has zero to do with "defending" our country. I would not take up arms to fight an ambiguous enemy abroad while Congress has not taken extreme measures to secure our borders and or sovereignity at home.

Because unless the President and the Congress take some "risks" themselves to secure the nation from attack, as unpopular as those decisions may be, I see no tangible "sharing" of risk across the spectrum of our nation, only focused risk assigned by others to a small minority of Americans, specifically young men ages 18-26.

4. While all of you merrily uphold the merits of the draft, has it crossed your minds that young American Muslim men might use religion to avoid the draft to "liberate" Muslims around the world?
http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/local_news/?ArID=67438&SecID=2
"If you fight another Muslim brother and you kill the other one, both will be punished in hell."

If you will note, there has been next to zero support by the broad sector of Muslim Americans for the Iraq war of liberation. Isn't that odd?

5. The Congress that passed the 13th Amendment banning involuntary servitude was largely composed of members who had supported the civil war draft, only a few years before. Its hard to beleive they expected the 13th amendment to ban conscription.
It matters not what you believe, LH. It matters how the current activist Supreme Court will interpret the constitution if the draft is challenged. If this same court can see "rights" for Gitmo detainees, I see no reason why they might not see rights for young men ages 18-26 who are being forced into poorly paid servitude in an undeclared war with no enemy named.

As for your screen name and your arguing the merits of the draft, I am curious, LH...
a) did your hawkish self ever serve America and demonstrate your obvious patriotism per previous military service or in the National Guard?
b) do you have male children or male extended family members who would be affected by a draft if it were re-instituted next winter?

Posted by rex 2004-06-30 2:01:28 PM|| 2004-06-30 2:01:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#20

Jen, I would suggest to you that a draft that focuses on a specific age group and on only one gender to expose them to risk for the benefit of the majority of all ages and 2 genders is unfair and discriminatory. What risk would you or your gender ever take on the front lines if a draft were reinstituted? ZERO. It's easy to talk patriotism when you will never be expected to risk your life on the front lines to demonstrate that patriotism.

I've never been big on military service as a sign that women are liberated.
I think it's fine that women serve as nurses and aides in offices that aren't on the front lines.
(I actually believe in ladies being ladies.)
And when put in actual practice, putting women in combat areas hasn't been a sterling success, viz. Lyndie England and Jessica Lynch.
In that we have an Enemy that thinks nothing of raping women, it's most unwise.
But just because a woman chooses not to serve on the front lines--and I think all women should be given that option--that doesn't mean that there aren't many, many ways for ladies in the service to serve.
And even though I'm a woman and middle-aged, I consider myself and my blog weapons in the GWOT and in the Culture War also (same war).
That is why I chose Rosie the Riveter as the symbol for my warblog.
And as a soldier on the Web front, I feel beholden to tell you, rex, that you sound like the worst kind of Lefty with your "chicken hawk" talking points!
Clearly, the fax from the DNC has gone out to the faithful.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-30 2:17:25 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-30 2:17:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#21

I would take up arms after Congress made a declaration of war against a NAMED ENEMY who attacked our country.

This, in point of fact, is the second DNC talking point that is making the rounds, that the war "isn't declared."
(Everyone remember this from the old Vietnam days?)
Actually, war has been declared twice: once on Sept. 22, 2001 on (Islamist) Terrorism wherever in the world was necessary--Congress wasn't specific--and secondly on Iraq itself in the fall of 2003.
In fact, the Dims pulled this old chestnut out of Vietnam mothballs to make Congress vote on OIF.
Boy, is their stuff tired.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-30 2:31:12 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-30 2:31:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Look, Jen, I have already served as a whipping boy this past weekend for your character assassination posts. As the mods have recently reminded us, if you have nothing pertinent to the discussion thread but only want to flame another poster, don't.

Please focus. One does not have to be a DNC sympathizer to see the unfairness and discriminatory issues surrounding the issue of SELECTIVE[ahem]service. Many libertarians view the draft as a violation of the 13th amendmentment. Furthermore, there are a good number of conservatives who see the draft as yet another example of government being too controlling and and violating an individual's freedom of choice. That you do not recognize the other possibilities for my criticism of the draft is a reflection on you not me.

The whole nonsensical leap in flawed judgement of linking patriotism to support of the draft was brought up by others and not me, which is why this thread went off on this tangent. There is no link between the 2 issues whatsoever.

Postscript: if women "fight" tooth and nail to be considered equal to men during peace time and take advantage of the perks of equality like preference in college admissions and government employment, then women can darn well put their lives in danger on the front lines to defend the nation that grants them this equal status and benefits thereof during peacetime. And no, Jen, being a nurse in Kuwait is not the same contribution[ie putting your life at risk]as fighting Arabs in Fallujah or driving a Humvee through Baghdad. Give me a break.

Death on the battlefield does not discriminate between a skinny 18 year old male and an 18 year young woman of equal or more weight[as is often the case these days]or middle aged women with a spread or a man who is 30 years old. To be selective about about this "mandatory work" is morally if not constitutionally inappropriate for a nation that prides itself as being a role model for freedom and equality. Fyi, under the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, slavery or indentured servitude is not allowed unless it's part of punishment for a crime.

As for rape -got news for you -a favorite "violation" against Russian POW's by the Afghans was anal rape. In fact,there are certain cultures, who shall remain nameless, that view vaginal intercourse with women as necessary for reproduction but anal sex with men, on the q.t. of course, as a source of pleasure. Typically these are chauvinistic cultures that view women as second class...I'll let you fill in the dots.

Posted by rex 2004-06-30 3:17:16 PM|| 2004-06-30 3:17:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 screechers run wild again

Posted by boredbyharpi 2004-06-30 3:28:35 PM|| 2004-06-30 3:28:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 CyberSarge:

I don't think the higher pay would attract people ("Join the Army and be a millionaire"), but it might stop some NCOs and such from relucantly leaving the service because they can't afford to take care of their families.

Posted by Jackal 2004-06-30 3:34:23 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-06-30 3:34:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 "there are a good number of conservatives who see the draft as yet another example of government being too controlling and and violating an individual's freedom of choice." Name them?

If you feel that you are the 'whipping boy' of this thread then you are missing my point entirely. I also find your " would take up arms after Congress made a declaration of war against a NAMED ENEMY." As typical panzy liberal answer. Did we not fight Austrians, Czechs, Ukaranian, and Korean forces in WWII? Was there a 'formal' declaration for each group? Wake up and see the Islamofacists threat for what it is: The Enemy! A lot of people better wake up and realize that or we are in BIG trouble.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-06-30 3:35:30 PM|| 2004-06-30 3:35:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 If you include me in "screechers", #23, I do not believe defending oneself against flamers is inappropriate. However, I've said my peace. I won't waste bandwidth in this thread any further. "Screechers", it's all yours. Flame away to your heart's content.

Posted by rex 2004-06-30 3:35:55 PM|| 2004-06-30 3:35:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I guess some of you do not know,but it is part of your contract that you are part of the Ready Reserve.The only way to get out of it is to do an 8 year hitch.

Posted by Raptor 2004-06-30 4:21:20 PM|| 2004-06-30 4:21:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#28

One does not have to be a DNC sympathizer to see the unfairness and discriminatory issues surrounding the issue of SELECTIVE[ahem]service.

I'm afraid one does, rex.

Furthermore, there are a good number of conservatives who see the draft as yet another example of government being too controlling and and violating an individual's freedom of choice...The whole nonsensical leap in flawed judgement of linking patriotism to support of the draft was brought up by others and not me, which is why this thread went off on this tangent.

I know of no such Conservatives and I know plenty.
The only ones talking about a draft are Liberal Dims.

Postscript: if women "fight" tooth and nail to be considered equal to men during peace time and take advantage of the perks of equality like preference in college admissions and government employment, then women can darn well put their lives in danger on the front lines to defend the nation that grants them this equal status and benefits thereof during peacetime.

What are you talking about?
You sound like Hillary Clinton.
While I'm glad I got into college and grad school in the 1970's, I had to earn my grades, same as the men, as did my mother in the late '30's and early '40s.
I had no idea that we got into institutions of higher learning because of Gloria Steinhem and Pat Ireland.
And as for equality in the military, I could have lived without Billary's earth-shaking reforms as could most other women.
Women in combat is a "no go"--ask our soldiers.
Men are just physically (and I think emotionally) more naturally equipped to handle battle.
I'll be happy for women to run into combat when AQ sends out their first All Girl All Burka Brigade.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-30 5:01:50 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-30 5:01:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Rex -
FWIW, I support a limited draft, but only after the IRR, Guard, and Reserves are exhausted. And for the record, myself, my brother-in-law, and my best friend are all liable to USAF IRR callbacks, while my son will probably be enlisting in the SC Air National Guard - which routinely deploys to the ME - next week.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-30 5:18:31 PM|| 2004-06-30 5:18:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 I do not support a draft for a variety of reasons including that a draft is unconstitutional ie.forced servitude and unfair and discriminatory due to its gender and age specificity.

Postscript: if women "fight" tooth and nail to be considered equal to men during peace time and take advantage of the perks of equality like preference in college admissions and government employment, then women can darn well put their lives in danger on the front lines to defend the nation that grants them this equal status and benefits thereof during peacetime.

hahahahahahahahahahah... moron

Posted by Rawsnacks 2004-06-30 5:27:49 PM|| 2004-06-30 5:27:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Could someone explain to me, how folks are seeing this as a "back door" draft?

If service people know, they can be recalled, how does this support this "back door" draft. I need some "discussion" words. I just can't grasp that idea.

Posted by Sherry 2004-06-30 5:39:41 PM|| 2004-06-30 5:39:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Sherry-
I think what the 'back door draft' refers to is this gives the Army (and for that matter, all of the services) the ability to ramp up manpower quickly and easily...and the people involved all agreed to be called back. We're talking literally tens of thousands of already trained, qualified, and background-checked personnel who could be called up within the next 12 months - enough to outfit a brigade or two at least.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-30 6:01:21 PM|| 2004-06-30 6:01:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Dear Jen, rex,

Cool it, guys! From what I've read on Rantburg, it looks like the Armed Forces new enlistments and re-enlistments are higher than expected, and units sent out from Germany and Korea will be not be returning there after taking their turn on the front lines. In fact, all the talk of reinstating the draft is coming from left-wing-of-the-Dem-Party Congresscritters hoping to relive their glorious anti-war youth. Ain't gonna happen, especially if the number of youngsters volunteering from my upper middle class neighborhood is typical for the U.S. as a whole.

As for women fighting on the front line: Special Force types that I've spoken with hate the idea, but then most of the men they meet are weaker/less effective warriors than they. On the other hand, my tiny little mother (5'0" and 95 lb. soaking wet in her winter coat) spent her teenage years during WWII running messages for the Dutch Underground, right under SS noses. Around the same time the Jewish poet Hannah Senesh parachuted into Nazi territory to support the Resistance, and ended her life in a concentration camp. WACs, WAVs and other female auxilliaries voluntarily gave their lives in every war America has fought, as have a great many under age kids. (Heartfelt thanks to them all, may their souls rest in peace!)

So not being formally on the front lines does not equal huddling safely at home while our brave menfolk protect us, draft or no draft. And, as Jen pointed out, there are ways to fight the enemy that are done far from the smoke of battle.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-06-30 9:01:41 PM|| 2004-06-30 9:01:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Cyber Sarge, Mike K.and you unnamed lurkers ;-),

Thanks to you and yours for protecting my freedom to natter on from my keyboard!

And Jen, I have to disagree with you about female temperment. Historically, "Give him to the women!" was about the most frightening, and certainly the most final, sentence a male POW would hear. And from what I saw back in my corporate days, women (as opposed to ladies such as you and I) can be just as focussed and deadly as their male counterparts.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-06-30 9:16:24 PM|| 2004-06-30 9:16:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 trailing wife, God bless your Mom--what a woman!
And yes, we ladies can be vicious and if women want to serve in combat, OK, but...we're always gonna have a hard time with upper body strength and testorone levels.
I don't know how girls are socialized now, but don't know if the "warrior" mentality comes easily to us and given all the stress on non-competitive sports even for boys, let's hope all of our young males aren't metrosexuals, either!

Posted by Jen 2004-06-30 11:06:41 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-30 11:06:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I have nothing but great respect for gals that serve. Brewing coffee, working 24/7 ops, doing staff, packing bags, showing how, frying bacon, taking names. That is, IS, top quality service. Serve in the way that helps us not you.

By rethinking the way we build our military, less PC, more security, we can all be happier. I'm not into the "I can do anything you can do, only better" unless it is really true.

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-01 12:37:21 AM|| 2004-07-01 12:37:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 Just a correction to #35--upper body strength, lower body strength, and testerone levels.

Posted by Freedomaoanatcossamus 2004-07-01 1:38:51 PM|| 2004-07-01 1:38:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Also...when I enlisted and then went to the OCS program in the Army the IRR, as I was told and read in the recruiter's office, was a force reserved for national emergencies. It has been almost three years that we have been fighting this war and the SecDef, CJCoS, and Congress refuse to add a sizable contingent of troops to the rolls to fight this war (30,000 in FY '04) or any other possible conflict. Troop levels are at an emergency level because the SecDef refuses to admit that his idea was wrong that we could do it all with 10 divisions and more technology. We have strung out the Active Duty soldiers and families, the Guard, the Reserve and now the IRR. Time to add the 8-12 divisions back into the equation and forget George H.W.'s and Billy C's so called "peace dividend" drawdowns.

As for the current call back--increase the size of the AD force and give a new volunteer a chance to go and fight. I am in the Army IRR and really have no interest in being called upon any more even though I know it is possible. I haven't seen my wife in 9 months (Iraq) and am not looking forward to a potential two year hiatus when I get deployed (again). Bottom Line--more active duty slots, more benefits, more volunteers, happier troops, happier families and less screwing of the NG and Reserve--let us remember what they really signed on for.

Posted by Freedomaoanatcossamus 2004-07-01 1:52:47 PM|| 2004-07-01 1:52:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Thank you for your service, Freedom and thank your family for their sacrifice, but...we are at war and war is hell (a platitude, but true nonetheless.)
We appreciate you ensuring our security here at home by fighting the bad guys over there!
You're right about enlarging the Army.
I heard a clip of Clintoon talking about that "peace dividend" and nearly lost my lunch!
I have a strong feeling that President Bush will address this issue in the campaign and as part of his second term, because we not only have to hold the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have Iran looming on the border...and then there are the other neighbors Syria and Saudi Arabia.
I'll include you in my prayers--I've been praying for our troops for 2 and 1/2 years now--God Bless you and come home to us safe, sound and victorious!

Posted by Jen 2004-07-01 2:01:28 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-01 2:01:28 PM|| Front Page Top

12:10 AnonymousAuthor
00:42 Anonymous5889
11:13 jibril
23:41 John
12:58 Anonymous5563
09:59 jibril
01:02 Anonymous5563
14:46 Balima Bingo
23:49 jibril
13:58 badanov
13:44 Balima Bingo
02:55 Anonymous5563
23:07 jawa
23:02 jawa
22:51 jibril
03:44 Anonymous5563
12:44 jibril
01:19 Anonymous5563
18:42 Anonymous5581
12:46 ed
12:33 jibril
10:44 Anonymous5563
17:45 Diane
09:19 jibril