Army Calls Up 5600 More Retired Soliders

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Mike, you're country needs you. This isn't the 5000 they called up THIS year, it's a NEW 5000 they're recalling for 2005.

 

"Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in!"

-Michael Corleone

 

Army to Call Up 5,000 More Ex-Soldiers in 2005

Reuters

Friday 01 October 2004

 

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army, now mobilizing 5,600 former soldiers from a rarely used personnel pool to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, plans to summon a similar number next year for duty in those war zones, a senior official said on Friday.

 

The Army also said it plans to step up recruitment efforts to try to meet goals to sign up 80,000 new soldiers for the regular Army and 22,000 for the Army Reserve in the fiscal year that began on Friday. The Army recruiting command's chief acknowledged the wars were deterring some potential recruits.

 

To plug shortfalls in certain skills in units being deployed, the Army has tapped the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), made up of 111,000 people who have completed voluntary military commitments and have returned to civilian life but remain eligible to be mobilized in a national emergency.

 

The Army said about 3,900 of the 5,600 IRR soldiers scheduled to be summoned to active duty already have received orders to report. The mobilization, which began in July, is intended to yield about 4,400 soldiers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming weeks and months after the Army provides service exemptions for medical problems and other hardships.

 

Robert Smiley, a senior Army official involved in personnel mobilization, said the Army also expected in mid-2005 to begin mobilizing about another 5,600 from the IRR.

 

"It will be a one-for-one swap, essentially," Smiley told reporters, with the 5,600 IRR soldiers being mobilized next year, replacing the current IRR soldiers after they complete 12-month combat tours.

 

"It will be a one-for-one swap, essentially," for the IRR soldiers currently being mobilized after they complete 12-month combat tours, Smiley told reporters.

 

Critics have cited the Army's reliance on the IRR as evidence that it has too few soldiers to sustain force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

'A NATION AT WAR'

 

"We're a nation at war. And we need these people to come on active duty," said Brig. Gen. Sean Byrne, the Army's director of personnel policy.

 

Of the IRR members whose date to report for duty has already arrived, roughly one-third have not shown up on time, with most of those requesting service exemptions or a delay in reporting, Byrne said.

 

Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon, said the Army has identified six IRR members who have not reported by the date ordered, and have not requested an exemption from service or a delay in reporting.

 

These six people potentially could face future criminal charges if deemed absent without leave, or AWOL, although Hart said charges were unlikely and noted that commanders have a great deal of discretion in how to handle these cases.

 

A spokeswoman for the Army Human Resources Command had said on Tuesday that eight IRR members had been listed as AWOL.

 

Byrne said the Human Resources Command was mistaken, adding, "No one is considered in an AWOL status right now."

 

Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, head of the Army Recruiting Command, said the Army is adding 1,000 recruiters and $12 million in advertising money to boost efforts to sign up fresh soldiers. In the fiscal year that ended Thursday, the regular Army and Army Reserve met recruiting goals, while the Army National Guard fell short.

 

"Obviously there's a war going on. No one would deny that. And for some people, for some of our prospects for our target age, young men and women, that is in fact a drawback. And it will deter some of them," Rochelle told reporters.

 

"Many of them, once presented with the facts, can be convinced otherwise."

[NoCalMike 0]

didn't a third of the amount not show up last time they did this?

[Guest INXS]

..and some around here think that there is no possibility of a draft whatsoever.

[Guest GreatOne]

Um, when you're in the reserves, you're still in the military. Hate to break it to ya.......................

 

Nothing 'draft' about it.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

These guys are in the military the same way John Paxson is still on the Bull's roster. In theory, as GM, he could play, but it'd take an emergency. After all the article says these IRR guys should only be called up in case of a national emergency. I thought we were turning the corner?

[Guest SP-1]

Now this is what pisses me off. This, I largely disagree with. These boys have served their time. We don't need them to give any more than they already have.

[NoCalMike 0]

Now this is what pisses me off. This, I largely disagree with. These boys have served their time. We don't need them to give any more than they already have.

well you can thank the wonderful planning for postwar Iraq via George W Bush. Looks like he had it all figured out about the amount of troops this would require, and when more informed, more experienced, and better suited folks suggested otherwise, they were "retired"

[Guest INXS]

Um, when you're in the reserves, you're still in the military. Hate to break it to ya.......................

 

Nothing 'draft' about it.

No, my point is, is that they are calling up 5,000 retired soldiers/reservists at this stage - in the future it seems it's possible that a draft may be needed, as in drafting from the public - i'm fully aware that calling up retired soldiers isn't a draft.

[Special K 0]

That's all speculation, though. I very much doubt there'll be a draft. There's been little evidence that anyone will be effecting a draft.

 

(P.S.) What would you do if you were drafted? I would probably join, if only becuase two of my closest friends are there, and i think i COULD maybe help the military as an engineer. Hard to say until you're put in the spot though.

[Guest INXS]

Yeah you're right it is speculation and I admit it's not very likely to happen, though a distinct possbility.

 

I live in England but if I was drafted for the British Army I would go - not to fight for my country or because I agree with what we have done to Iraq - just for amount of money I would make from being over there (good wage, nothing to spend it on). And for the life experience.

[Special K 0]

God, from having spent a small amount of time in England, I hope you hoard every pound. It's damn expensive!

[Guest SP-1]

Now this is what pisses me off.  This, I largely disagree with.    These boys have served their time.  We don't need them to give any more than they already have.

well you can thank the wonderful planning for postwar Iraq via George W Bush. Looks like he had it all figured out about the amount of troops this would require, and when more informed, more experienced, and better suited folks suggested otherwise, they were "retired"

Blaming Bush entirely for where we are betrays a lack of basic knowledge about the military and the government in general. There's more to it than simply Bush's whim. He didn't single-handedly plan out the war or the plans afterwards himself. He approved those plans, yes, but that doesn't make him solely responsible.

 

It's time to give Iraq its own government and get the hell out of there.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I'm so glad now I got out when I did.

 

 

Sp-1 - You are right in that there are alot of people to blame for the mess this has become. Seriously though, what could ANYBODY do over there to make something like this work? Nobody! Which is another great reason for not going over there in the first place. If we leave now, we have made another mortal enemy when people die due to all the infighting that will happen 10 minutes after we are gone. If we stay we risk more collateral damage (which makes enemies) and more loss of lives of OUR soldiers! Even if we leave we risk Iraq going totally fundalmentalist like in IRAN and Afganistan. This is a huge blunder, no other way about it.

 

This is why there is no hope with Bush. The same thing for John Kerry. Nothing either guy can or will do will solve this in any way resembling "victory". Now a whole shitload more of OUR soldiers will have to suffer for it. Flame me all you like (Mike, KKK etc.) but I have REASONS for being against this war. Forget oil, sweetheart deals, Micheal Moore, and put it all aside and this still doesn't qualify. Not when the cost is this high. The cost not just being in deaths, but is so many more ruined lives. No, no thanks.

[Guest Cerebus]

I can't believe people are suddenly crying over soldiers being called up (which, as I've explained before, is a real possiblity in their contract that everybody with more than half a brain in the military knows about) after they have been screwed over royally countless times since Bush I admin by the VA.

 

Oh and if you think this is cause for a draft you're a fucking moron.

 

Edit:

 

By the way...

 

The Army also said it plans to step up recruitment efforts to try to meet goals to sign up 80,000 new soldiers for the regular Army and 22,000 for the Army Reserve in the fiscal year that began on Friday. The Army recruiting command's chief acknowledged the wars were deterring some potential recruits.

 

Oh really?

[NoCalMike 0]

Now this is what pisses me off.  This, I largely disagree with.    These boys have served their time.  We don't need them to give any more than they already have.

well you can thank the wonderful planning for postwar Iraq via George W Bush. Looks like he had it all figured out about the amount of troops this would require, and when more informed, more experienced, and better suited folks suggested otherwise, they were "retired"

Blaming Bush entirely for where we are betrays a lack of basic knowledge about the military and the government in general. There's more to it than simply Bush's whim. He didn't single-handedly plan out the war or the plans afterwards himself. He approved those plans, yes, but that doesn't make him solely responsible.

 

It's time to give Iraq its own government and get the hell out of there.

well with an opinion like that, you certainly wouldn't be voting for Bush.

[Guest GreatOne]

As opposed to somebody who doesn't know who the hell he's voting for yet.

[Styles 0]

For the billionth time, there will be no draft it is not feasible or neccesarry: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm READ IT.

 

As a college student I have to hear this baseless scare tactic repeated over and over again as a way to try scare kids out of voting for Bush. It's such bullshit...

[Guest MikeSC]

I still love that Bush gets blamed for a draft --- when the ONLY PEOPLE AUTHORING BILLS FOR ONE ARE DEMOCRATS.

 

Can somebody explain how Bush is behind a Democrat strategy?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I still love that Bush gets blamed for a draft --- when the ONLY PEOPLE AUTHORING BILLS FOR ONE ARE DEMOCRATS.

 

Can somebody explain how Bush is behind a Democrat strategy?

-=Mike

well you can point to his policies on, immigration.....

[2GOLD 0]

I still love that Bush gets blamed for a draft --- when the ONLY PEOPLE AUTHORING BILLS FOR ONE ARE DEMOCRATS.

 

Can somebody explain how Bush is behind a Democrat strategy?

-=Mike

 

Because Democrats are good and sweet and innocent and never do anything wrong.

 

Therefore, they cannot possibly be behind a draft.

[Guest MikeSC]

..and some around here think that there is no possibility of a draft whatsoever.

Well, as long as the GOP is in charge of the Congress and the White House, there isn't a chance of one.

 

If the Dems get power, then yes, all bets are off.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

..and some around here think that there is no possibility of a draft whatsoever.

Well, as long as the GOP is in charge of the Congress and the White House, there isn't a chance of one.

 

If the Dems get power, then yes, all bets are off.

-=Mike

Thanks for summing it all up.

[Guest MikeSC]

..and some around here think that there is no possibility of a draft whatsoever.

Well, as long as the GOP is in charge of the Congress and the White House, there isn't a chance of one.

 

If the Dems get power, then yes, all bets are off.

-=Mike

Thanks for summing it all up.

The Dems are the ones proposing the bills. Not the Republicans.

 

Bush has EXPRESSLY stated an all-volunteer army is his policy. Kerry has not.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

..and some around here think that there is no possibility of a draft whatsoever.

Well, as long as the GOP is in charge of the Congress and the White House, there isn't a chance of one.

 

If the Dems get power, then yes, all bets are off.

-=Mike

Thanks for summing it all up.

The Dems are the ones proposing the bills. Not the Republicans.

 

Bush has EXPRESSLY stated an all-volunteer army is his policy. Kerry has not.

-=Mike

Yes I know. I tend to think a draft sometime in the near future has a slight possibility of happening, but I refuse to think it will be a bi-partisan effort. Just something that the ludicrous national policy will naturally lead to in it's current fashion.

[Guest MikeSC]

..and some around here think that there is no possibility of a draft whatsoever.

Well, as long as the GOP is in charge of the Congress and the White House, there isn't a chance of one.

 

If the Dems get power, then yes, all bets are off.

-=Mike

Thanks for summing it all up.

The Dems are the ones proposing the bills. Not the Republicans.

 

Bush has EXPRESSLY stated an all-volunteer army is his policy. Kerry has not.

-=Mike

Yes I know. I tend to think a draft sometime in the near future has a slight possibility of happening, but I refuse to think it will be a bi-partisan effort. Just something that the ludicrous national policy will naturally lead to in it's current fashion.

Except the only people for it --- are Democrats.

 

If parents don't want their kids to be drafted, they'd best not vote for Dems.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

You're missing the entire point - the only reason a draft may be necessary is that thousands of US soldiers are being injured and they are also DYING on a regular basis in Iraq. Add that to regular wastage (medical dischahrges) and the guys being booted out for torturing prisoners (!), as well as the guys who get to go home on leave. If Bush mounts an invasion on Iran or Syria (or both, why the hell not!), there is going to be an even greater need for more troops!

 

Yes it's unlikely that a draft will happen but it's a distinct possiblity, a much great possibility than say four years ago.

 

The Dems might even HAVE to do something about a draft, especially if they win in November and have to go around the world shovelling Bush's shit up after him.

[Guest MikeSC]

You're missing the entire point - the only reason a draft may be necessary is that thousands of US soldiers are being injured and they are also DYING on a regular basis in Iraq.

And one party has said they WILL NOT INSTITUTE A DRAFT.

 

That party is NOT the Democratic Party.

Add that to regular wastage (medical dischahrges) and the guys being booted out for torturing prisoners (!), as well as the guys who get to go home on leave. If Bush mounts an invasion on Iran or Syria (or both, why the hell not!), there is going to be an even greater need for more troops!

Which, while lovely and all, does not equal a draft --- as the Republicans have said it isn't happening, period.

Yes it's unlikely that a draft will happen but it's a distinct possiblity, a much great possibility than say four years ago.

 

The Dems might even HAVE to do something about a draft, especially if they win in November and have to go around the world shovelling Bush's shit up after him.

Well, Bush managed to clean up the shit Clinton left him without a draft.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Do you seriously believe it when they say there won't be a draft? Do you trust them enough to believe it? I personally don't believe a word of it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Do you seriously believe it when they say there won't be a draft? Do you trust them enough to believe it? I personally don't believe a word of it.

Yes, I do.

 

Considering that, once again, the only people submitting bills calling for one are Democrats.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

That's because you're a close minded moron.

 

Slapnuts posted a detailed article on

 

WHY THERE WON'T BE A DRAFT.

 

There will not be a draft. Get that through your head.

 

Any party that puts a draft in place will never win an election for a long time.