quote:A veteran US soldier is suing the Defence Department over its plans to forcibly extend his reservist's contract and send him to Iraq. The man, known by the pseudonym John Doe, has been with the army for nine years and last year served in Iraq.
He took on a one-year reservist contract after returning to the US and may now be required to return to Iraq under the army's "stop-loss" policy.
Thousands of soldiers' tours of duty have been stretched under the policy.
Mr Doe's contract was due to have expired in December this year.
But the summoning of his California-based unit to Iraq could extend his period of service by up to two years.
quote:The Army National Guard is composed of reservists – civilians who serve their country on a part-time basis.
quote:National Guard members are required to attend one drill weekend each month and one annual training period (usually 2 weeks in the summer) each year. Weekend drills usually consist of attending one Saturday and Sunday, but can occasionally include reporting for duty on Friday night. Initially, all personnel are required to attend initial entry training (IET), which can usually be scheduled to meet civilian occupation constraints. Duration and location of IET varies in accordance with the military occupation specialty (MOS) or career field that a soldier chooses.
I've heard the aruments that boil down to "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it." But really, if there is no difference between what the government can demand from you as a National Guardsman or as a full fledged military person, why advertise reservist service as a short term commitment?
posted
I'll bet money that when he signed up, he signed something that said the army could forcibly extend his contract if they needed it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of us activated through the Guard expected anything less in a time of war. Nor are our deployments a surprise, we have known about the rotation schedule for over a year and our recruiters have been filling our ranks telling Recruits that we are going to go. It has been positive for recruitment. We have had a few slink away, and every one was allowed to go.
The recruiters have big bonuses to offer, and having $40,000 tax free pile up in a bank back home while the military gives you three squares and bunk is a nice incentive too.
Also the availability of hard to get into schools is helpful for rapidly accumulating promotion points and prestige. (Air Borne, Air Assault, PLDC, Ranger School, OCS, etc)
Seriously dude. I try to hold off on snide comments, because I prefer real discussion. But every thing you've posted today has been a real test for me.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess a good piece of information to go with this would be the current level of recruitment and training going on. Are the rolls down that far that people aren't allowed to leave? I knew a guy who had been called back after being out 2 years due to his training (this was at start of Iraq invasion, too...not at the current crunch point). I wouldn't call this a "back door draft," though. I could call this "Buyer Beware." Read the fine print. I feel badly that a rule that was probably meant for the most severe emergencies is being used pretty much across the board.
I think it is the kids who don't sign up that are at fault, though. If just more 18 year olds would just sign up and head on over this wouldn't be an issue.
I know my best friend was recalled very early to help fill Intel slots.
They also have been stopping some weird MOS's that you would not think of and calling up many many MP's and stopping them because of our military prison population. (like Quantico)
posted
Every person that is honorably discharged from the military automatically is in the 'IRR',or involuntary ready reserves, from which you can be called to active duty. My time was six years. Don't know if this was standard length of time, or what.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember correctly, the normal stint in the Guard is 6 years, 4 years active reserve, two years in-active. In a time of war, in-active soldiers can be called up to serve the extra time. That's part of the contract they signed to join the Guard. The guy mentioned in the article did two things: 1. He signed up for a second stint. 2. He forgot to actually READ the contract he signed.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are also differences between officers and enlisted personnel being called up.
At the start of the Korean War, there was a huge call-up of officers due to how many had left the service at the end of WWII. If I recall, a number of NCOs were also called up to form cadres for re-established units.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I signed up, I honestly did not think I would do anything but one weekend a month, two weeks a year; but here I am with more active duty, Title 10 time than reserve time. I've served more time in active duty in the guard for six years than a Joe who signs for four active duty. Oh well, now I have to go to Iraq. I will be on IRR for two years starting in May when I will arrive in Iraq after train-up. MY brother has six months of IRR left and he will be called up. It happens. The nature of the job is like playing the stock market. It's all a gamble. You might make it through eight years of service unscathed, but it's a chance YOU take. Back door draft. Bah! They all read the same papers I did. Or maybe their lawyer wasn't present. Just kidding.
It's your obligation. If you really hate the idea that bad, there are ways to get out. All that you will lose is your pride....
posted
I can sympathize with reservists and guardsmen who are being asked to fulfill their commitment to the US in ways that they never imagined. Everyone who volunteers for military service does it with some valid perceptions about the risk of being deployed for long periods of time or to specific combat zones. Many of the people that we hear about in the press or anecdotally volunteered in services, units, or components (Reserve and Guard) that traditionally don’t deploy for long periods of time. However, I really think that the general public should be less shocked by the fact that the US is using these arms of the "total force" to fight conventional wars. In another thread I said
quote:The United States of America has been steadily drawing down its standing military since 1991. The people, through their representatives in congress and the White House, have made a considered decision that as a nation the US cannot afford to keep large standing armies when there is no immediate threat that would necessitate their use. Instead, the US will rely on call up of National Guard and Reserve forces in the event that an unforeseen threat rises that requires the use of military force.
I stand by this perception of recent history.
In my opinion, if the US doesn’t want to use the Guard and Reserve components to fight alongside the Regular component, the nation must come to the realization that we need more active units and fewer Guard and Reserve units. The tradeoff, of course, is cost.
When you sign up for the military it is always at least an 8 year commitment. Even if your duty is only for 2 years active (the smallest available) it is still an 8 year commitment....and if you re-up (re-enlist) that is always for another 8 years as well. The balance of the service time is in the Inactive Reserve...or the IRR as it is called these days.
Once your 8 years are up there are no options left for the government....you have met all your contractual obligations, and are not eligible for a draft or for reactivation.
At any time during your inactive reserve time they can force you to re-enter the service, and once you are in they can keep you over that 8 year mark, but once the 8 years is over you are free and clear of any and all obligations to the military.
What they are doing to these men is inexcusable, and they should clearly win any court case they are involved with regarding their military obligations, as long as their 8 year service obligation has been fulfilled.
quote:Duty is heavier then a moutain, Death is lighter then a feather...
Ughh! I hate this kind of clap trap. You make death the reward of duty when you marry these two ideas and, personally, as the mother of two boys, I'll tell you that their death would certainly not weigh lightly on my heart. It would be NO comfort to me to know that they had died in a foriegn land in the service of well.... I still don't know why the heck we're still over there.(please don't turn this into a lesson to me about why we're in Iraq)
I guess I'm thinking that what rubble said makes the most sense.
quote:In my opinion, if the US doesn’t want to use the Guard and Reserve components to fight alongside the Regular component, the nation must come to the realization that we need more active units and fewer Guard and Reserve units. The tradeoff, of course, is cost.
I have many older friends who served their time in the military, then, when they came back, they decided to take a "part time" job with the Guard because they wanted to be able to transition back into civilian life. In particular, they wanted to be able to take part in their families, get a straight job and still feel connected to all the pride/satisfaction that is involved with serving and being associated with people who serve.
rant I think that this is a fabulous choice. It means that they served their communities during natural disasters and went home feeling good about themselves. They used their training to do good work that was not morally questionable. Sort of like desert at the end of a liver and broccoli dinner. /rant
Many of these guys were traumatized by what they experienced in Vietnam. The Guard was good for them. It helped them transition both emotionally and socially back into a life that did not have the same discipline and made a whole other set of demands on them.
I doubt that my friends would have joined if they had thought that the chances were, at best, even that they could stay home. If they had been willing to go back into battle, they would have re-upped.
Were my friends stupid? Were they not able to read the fine print? No. The Guard has long been an organization that the Governor called into service when State and local areas had extreme need. It is considered a "part time" duty which allows people to serve their community and still hold a job and raise a family. This may not be the fine print, but it is the tradition. People who have been in military service tend to put alot of faith in tradition.
*Smooches to Toni *Plaid- Howdy! Have you listed to "Abraham - A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths"? I love this book. *Hi, Brian Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it is the tradition, but the contract says they CAN be activated, so that is what the goverment did.
In the cases mentioned though, the goverment is wrong. The goverment has no more claim to these people...legally they have even less of a claim than on most civilians, as they have already fulfilled their obligations to the fullest extent short of death.
They aren't even eligible for a draft, as they have already served.
I KNOW that is in my discharge papers, and I am grateful ever day that my inactive reserve time has expired and they have no more hold over me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
