If there isn't an ease of exit, how can we still claim to have an all volunteer army?
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Because we don't have a draft?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
We can't undo many of our actions, but I'd still categorize most of those as voluntary.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Because every member of the army volunteered?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
If only they knew how long they were "volunteering" for.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
They do. They're told right up front how long they're in for.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: They do. They're told right up front how long they're in for.
No they aren't, not with "stop-loss" kicking their asses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think he's talking about stop loss, where the army forces someone to stay in past their supposed last day.
edit: Kwea beat me to it.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
It could be worse. Back in WWII days, they were enlisted for the duration of the war plus six months. My grandfather was two weeks from getting out when Pearl Harbor happened. All enlistments were instantly extended.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: They do. They're told right up front how long they're in for.
No they aren't, not with "stop-loss" kicking their asses.
Every enlisted man is set up for 8 years total, no matter how long they specify for active duty. The rest of the time is considered individual ready reserves, where the enlisted person is not paid or required to drill, but they can still be deployed if need be. This is more common for soldiers with necessary, training intensive jobs in the military. The more time a person spends in IRR, the less likely they are to be deployed, and contractually, the military has little or no right to ask a person to remain in the military beyond the 8 year time period. The media seems to think (and has apparently mis-informed the masses, like they usually do) that people are being forced to stay in the military longer than they were supposed to. They aren't. They're still being let out after 8 years. However, if they happen to have skills that the military needs, they are very likely going to have to serve more time in active duty than they originally intended. Furthermore, only a relatively small percentage of enlisted people have been caused to stay active longer.
Soldiers sign up for 8 years, they remain under the command of the military for 8 years.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:The Department of Defense maintains that the term "war" means anytime America's Armed Forces are engaged in hostile conflict, and not just "war declared by Congress."
That's like, almost all the time, isn't it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends on the type of conflict they are talking about. We're not ALWAYS engaged in military action (Iraq aside).
I'd like to see more documentation on what "hostile conflict" entails. Are they talking about a small strike mission with 20 guys? Mogadishu sized conflict? Or the actual invasion of a foreign power? I mean, not all of these situations actually require the type of man power that would require stop loss. If we hit a small town with 200 guys but still claimed we needed to stop loss 2,000 other guys from leaving, that doesn't strike me as a valid reason for holding them back.
I think they use that term to mean war sized conflicts that aren't officially declared. I tend to agree. I think declarations of war are 20th century things of the past, and at that, the first half of the 20th century.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I believe stop loss affects only soldiers placed into a full one year deployment into an area considered hostile. They are required to remain as active duty soldiers from the time that they receive notice of deployment until up to 90 days after the end of that deployment. The soldiers who perform small strikes are typically career military in special forces roles.
For the most part, the people who are complaining about stop loss are Reservists and National Guard, who are rarely, if ever, deployed under normal circumstances. Personally, I don't think National Guard units should ever be deployed in foreign conflict. It was illegal to do so until the mid 90's. But that's beside the point.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
I am concerned that many people who enlist in the army do so becouse they don't feel they have any other choice. Only two members of my graduating class in high school enlisted and they both shared the features of coming from blue coller families and being less than steller academic achievers.
In the meantime, many hyper-intellegent middle class kids went on to federal Academies and became officers. In between there were those, usualy the under-performing children of the middle class, who went on to less than academicly demanding schools later to join the armed forces as officers.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
All my best friends from HS went into the military out of high school or during college. Both men and women. They were all from affluent, white, southern homes.
They had a choice, they chose to serve. They KNEW what they were getting into. They knew they could be in for as long as the military wanted them. They knew they could die.
There are many choices other than getting into the military. Heck, McDonald's is always hiring and in any event this is America and you're not going to starve. There are opportinities in the military, but it's not a social program. The purpose of the military is not to get one out of a bad situation. The purpose of the military is to defend this country (whether you think that's what they're doing or not, that's their purpose) The reason we give benefits is because we need to take care of the people who risk their lives for us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We're not ALWAYS engaged in military action (Iraq aside).
Has there been a single year since I was born in which we were not engaged in military action?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
The way I read it, Stop Loss involves those who are active duty military when a war starts. They are not allowed to "retire" until (up to) six months after the war ends.
While I understand the reasoning, this really concerns me considering that we are currently engaged in the "War on Terror". That one's never going to go away.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
quote: There are many choices other than getting into the military. Heck, McDonald's is always hiring and in any event this is America and you're not going to starve. There are opportinities in the military, but it's not a social program. The purpose of the military is not to get one out of a bad situation. The purpose of the military is to defend this country (whether you think that's what they're doing or not, that's their purpose) The reason we give benefits is because we need to take care of the people who risk their lives for us.
Absolutely. However, being in the military gives lots of benefits. I would wager that the vast majority of those who enlisted before 9/11 did so primarily for the benefits. They might well have been patriotic citizens and desired to serve their country, in fact I am sure that was the case, but they also felt that the military could help them out.
I am far from oposed to military benefits, hell, I have even benefited from some myself. Nor do I mean to defame or belittle those who enlist. I do, however, think it may be somewhat naive to assume that they would necessarily enlist were their situations different. If given total free reign, I think most people would rather join the officer corps. Why wouldn't they?
Officers are, by design, an elite. They are either middle class, highly intellegent or both. This is becouse the United States Military requires that, in most cases, they be college graduates.
I am far from oposed to the graduate rule, I think it serves our country well.
I do question the peculiar interpretation of free-will, which is so popular in America, which states that people can do anything they set their minds to. That's bull. A minute fraction of the most intellegent and mentaly balanced people have a great deal of control over their destiny. Even then they do not have anywhere near total control.
I don't believe in predestination, I don't even believe in "destiny," I do believe in good luck and bad luck. Some people just get lucky, some people die in a car crash at age nineteen.
What freedom we have is limited by the fact that we control nothing but ourselves. We cannot even control our bodies entirely. We cannot even, at times, control our minds.
The notion of a volunteer army, the notion of any sort of volunteering, is rooted in the naive assumption that humans are simple and can make simple choices.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Boris-
Eight years is right. Take active duty, subtract yearage from eight, and that's how long you've got in the INactive reserves. But I EXPECT to get out after six, and since I signed up to be on ACTIVE DUTY for six years them stop-lossing me will piss me off more than I've ever been pissed off before.
There's a guy (civilian now) in my shop who was stop-lossed after 9/11 while PCS'd to a place in GA. Not deployed. The deployment reference confused me a bit.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Prometheus: In the south, most people would rather serve in the military than the peace corps. And it's a good thing or we wouldn't have much of a military.
People who joined the military for the benefits were treating it like a social program. I don't have a lot of sympathy. It's like going to someone's funeral to enjoy the food at the reception. The military is *very* serious business.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We're not ALWAYS engaged in military action (Iraq aside).
Has there been a single year since I was born in which we were not engaged in military action?
It depends on what you mean. From 1972 till 1991 went mostly without large scale military action... but if you are going to consider things like the hostage rescue attempt in Tehran, the Marines stationed in Beruit, the "freedom of navigation" excercises off Libya, Grenada, Panama... as military action, then no, there probably hasn't been one.
I mean, it's been years since I gave up trying to remind everyone that there weren't two separate "Gulf Wars" but rather one war with a very long, randomly violated, cease-fire agreement. I know people (all AWACS crew, interestingly) who were affected by stop-loss before 9/11/01.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In the south, most people would rather serve in the military than the peace corps. And it's a good thing or we wouldn't have much of a military.
It makes me wonder about the viability of a Peace Corps service academy, the equivalent of West Point or Annapolis, or an ROTC type Peace Corp program.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
The risk of serving in the military right now is about four times that of being in high school. For the benefit it gives I think that it is and will remain a very good choice. Further it is the choice of those that make it. Your concern about poor misplaced lost youths falling into a bad crowd are not only insulting to the military, they are insulting to all those who are presumed adults at eighteen years old and capable of making choices for themselves. Stay out of other peoples business and you will be wiser and they will be better off.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: They do. They're told right up front how long they're in for.
No they aren't, not with "stop-loss" kicking their asses.
If I recall, the "in the enlistment contract" part is that the number of the regulation that spells this out is printed on the contract. If my information is correct, it doesn't say anything more about this than something like "MR-12345".
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: It makes me wonder about the viability of a Peace Corps service academy, the equivalent of West Point or Annapolis, or an ROTC type Peace Corp program.
It would be a foolish waste. They do not have the operational structure or the scale of operations to require specialist in coordination of assets and operational parameters. Not only that they do not use specialized assets so there is no need for special training. Any decent manager can run a peace corp operation.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Is that adresses to me, O legumous one?
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
not particularly, though your statements about freedom of choice are a bit whiny. All freedom is relative, it is not measured by ones choices against a background that is absolute, it is measured against other less savory levels of choice.
This is a truth that any sophomore in high-school should know, treating the fact that we are not infinitely free but limited by nature, environment and chance as a revelation of stunning import is rather embarrassing for you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We're not ALWAYS engaged in military action (Iraq aside).
Has there been a single year since I was born in which we were not engaged in military action?
I meant large scale, every day, all day, all the time, to the point where it would be necessary to do something like that.
We could fire a cruise missile at someone on January 1st and then do nothing for a year, and that would count as having been engaged in military action for the year. It's all about scale and longevity.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:They do not have the operational structure or the scale of operations to require specialist in coordination of assets and operational parameters. Not only that they do not use specialized assets so there is no need for special training.
This is all controversial.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The more I think about the idea of a Peace Corps Service Academy, the better it sounds to me. We have Institutes of Technology and Military Sevice Academies, I like the idea for one institution, fully publically endowed, whose mission is nothing more complicated than studying the philosophy and mechanics of cultivating a just peace among diverse societies, with the same service requirement as our military academies. At home and abroad, it doesn't seem to be that our failures are in the military, but rather, we fail in the cultural fallout after the bombing and shooting is finished. One would think that these Peace Academy graduates could have anticipated the nation building problems we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia, in addition to allowing us to stop ignoring the genocides in the Africa and the touchy relationship we are engaging in with China. Domestically, crime and urban sprawl, and the attending environmental concerns, can be mitigated with more forethought with regard to peace. The positive unforseeable externalities of having an institute that is unwaveringly devoted to studying peace strategies and theory, with the unabashed support of the Federal Government, could be astounding. At the very least, the level of dialogue and thought concerning peace will markedly improve.
_____
In a way, it seems like the next step for the Peace Corps, in furtherance of the same noble goals.
[ March 17, 2007, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
gag gasp choke cough...chuckle. Another useless UN style piglet sucking at the American public trough.
[ March 18, 2007, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Counter Bean ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
BC, I thought you couldn't choke on stupidity anymore.
Guess I was wrong......how do you live day to day with yourself then?
Boris: Stop-loss, and the 8 year enlistment, and NOT cast in stone. The Army has recently gone after a number of people long after the 8 year mark was past, including several cases in Hawaii where they threatened to declare someone AWOL after being discharged 10 years previous.
I personally know 3 guys who should be out now, with far more than 8 years in each, and they are considered too "vital" to be allowed to leave so their enlistment has been extended against their express wishes.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Even if people don't believe moral arguments should be made through the Federal Government, I believe that it would be in the US's material interest to establish this school. The monetary dividends would come through more stable and robust international markets and lower spending on criminal related issues at home.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Counter Bean, I'm sure everyone here would appreciate it if you observed the website's Terms of Service.
Posted by Barabba (Member # 10322) on :
I just heard a report yesterday (CBS news) that all services met their most recent recruiting quotas. The reason behind it is that retention is so high, making recruiting quotas not as high.
It is a volunteer armed force.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Three words, "Tax Free Bonus!"
Nothing beats that war zone pay! Wish I was still making it, though Iraq is a dry sewer in a junk yard full of lying thieves (not all the people are lying thieves mind you, but the country is at full capacity for them, so much so that for each new person who starts lying one person is forced to actually accidentally tell the truth. This is okay since nobody believes him anyway) Still once you get used to it, the only real issue is the disconnect from family.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Nothing beats that war zone pay!
Yes, given the fantastic annual earnings of enlisted soldiers, it is impossible to imagine that there are any careers on the face of the earth with a better risk/return curve.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
how long does it take you to save 20,000 tax free?