10000 ex Soldiers recalled to active service because of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Klaus

Refugee
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
2,432
Location
on a one of these small green spots at that blue p
According to tagesschau 10000 ex soldiers got allready a letter, out of a list of 110.000 men.
So ~10% of the military reserve are in use now.

Statement from the Pentagon:
"It's a management tool which we've always had available to augment our forces when we need additional personnel in a time of war"

Eric Miller, former US Army Captain , Walnut Creek / USA
"I'm a former US Army Captain who served a total of five years and incurred an eight year IRR obligation when I left the service shortly after the first gulf war. As a cadet when I was signing various contract papers, I was clearly told that the IRR recall provision would be used only in a WW III type event. As far as I am aware, the first use of the IRR recall was in the first gulf war. Knowing this unspoken covenant had been breached by the first president Bush and seeing its disruptive effect on the lives of my brothers, I was hugely relieved when my IRR obligation time recently ran out.

Word will get around regarding the liberal use of what was originally intended as a means to recall soldiers in the event of dire need. The Army has already taken stop loss action, preventing soldiers serving in Iraq from coming home after their contracted obligation is served. Under the leadership of the Bush presidents, the army is developing a Hotel California reputation - you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. This abuse of the spirit of military service contracts, although legal, undermines the long-term security of the US by making recruiting quality soldiers and officers more difficult."
 
They claim that a storage of men is not the problem, it's a shortage of SKILLED people and that's why they are dipping back into the people who have already been trained. Personally I disagree with this very much. I also hope they don't start the draft again.
 
There will be no draft, the IRR is made up of people who still have time on their 8 year contract, the unfortunate fact is that a number of these people are poorer soldiers who were essentially shipped out to finish their time in a reserve role. The US army is down in numbers and it needs more troops, I have no doubt that over time they can fill the gaps through recruitment. A draft is totally out of the question, it does absolutely no good for anybody - you get people in the army that have no will to be there and your morale sinks faster than the titanic, it will be just like the late 70's post Vietnam except there will just be terrorist attack after terrorist attack with no way to stop them. Critical lesson of Vietnam was to use a volunteer force because a draft creates serious divisions at home and destroys the effectiveness of your troops. The only person that I have seen that should support a draft is Michael Moore, I mean F 9/11 makes a point that poor ghetto blacks are the ones fighting wars for the rich therefore he logically should support a universal draft that takes men (and women of course) from all walks of life into the army.
 
Last edited:
This is one subject that I support the GOP on 100%. A draft would be a terrible idea, not only in terms of military efficiency, but in terms of military morale. The only reason that Democrats even bring this subject up is to be contrary. "Poor blacks" are fighting all the wars? Try "poor people" in general, but I think that this is only really an incidental connection. There is a correlation between a lower education level and lower income levels, yes, but I tend to think that those who have a statistically lower education level are the ones who tend to join the military, not just "poor people."

And, for the record, I don't mean for "lower education level" to a derogatory comment. Yes, I'm sure that some people in the military really are as stupid as can be intellectually, but make up for it in being a good soldier, but that there are also people of perfectly fine intellect who might be taking advantage of the college money and will get educated afterwards.

It should be noted, I believe, that those with higher education levels who join the military also get automatically promoted to officer-level positions anyway upon enlistment. So, yeah...that's probably why the "visible" part of the military looks so "poor."

But it also doesn't help that the military culture looks to be highly misogynist and homophobic from the outside here. Who would want to join that? I certainly wouldn't. They certainly have their military abilities down; they just need to work on the professionalism (if it so happens to exist :p ).

This should be winding down in the next couple years, if not by the end of 2005. I also believe that Bush has learned his lesson, and won't be provoking another multi-front war until Afghanistan and Iraq are finished.

Melon
 
Still everyone says, the draft is coming back next year. Neither idiot candidate will admit to this right now in fear of losing votes. My paper says, come January, whichever buckethead fool is elected will get on TV and make a sorrowful speech about how it wasn't wanted but couldn't be avoided and that all men AND women 18-26 will be forced to serve 2 years in the national defense in some form. It's already planned, they just won't tell you yet:down:
 
A draft is not going to happen, there is no reason for it to occur and I honestly don't think that political leaders would be stupid enough to scap the volunteer military and disregard the lessons of Vietnam. If they make the proper reforms in terms of avoiding stop-loss (which is a fuck up as it stands) and get on with redefining the military then there is no reason to think they would need to make such a blunder as to create a draft.

Ignoring how utterly disasterous a draft would be in modern warfare does anybody think that Michael Moore would support it? I mean the guy has a clear contention in Farenheit 9/11 that all war is fought by the poor (and black, obviously) shouldnt he support a move that enlists everybody regardless of social position?
 
Who cares if Micheal Moore would support it? Yes a draft would be a disastrous. But the fact is that our military is being stretched far too thin as we speak. I know men who are in their 50's with kids out of college that were asked to re-inlist and are in Iraq right now. That's ridiculous. And from what I've heard recruitment numbers aren't looking good. I think if we keep this pace up, we can last with the men we have but it puts us in a very vulnerable place. And if Bush is reelected hopefully he's smart enough not to provoke another "terrorism" "WMD" front again. It just goes to show how poorly this war was planned, and it puts us in a very vulnerable position in the next few years. We are more vulnerable now then before Iraq, which is absolutely ironic given the reasonings we went in to Iraq.
 
If they keep forcing people who have gotten out back in, and stopping people from getting out when their times comes, who would want to enlist? I still believe it's a dirty little plan up their sleeves and will happen next year, with much fake regret on their faces, and much patriotic rhetoric to cheer us on. No, I don't think most people will approve or accept it. But they don't care.
 
fighting terrorism millitarily does not require the vast numbers nation building does, when it comes to Afghanistan style operations of hunting down terrorists you really need the technological edge for your war, a strong human intelligence on the ground compounded with a lot of signals intellgence, the manpower on the ground needs to be ready to go and elite, special forces operators, rangers etc. nation building is what sucks in troops and the only way to do it effectively is with multinational forces. The US needs to get proper help and support from allies in training the Iraqi security forces properly. If they rush training too much then they do risk significant infiltration and will only create more problems in the long run.

To Clarify, if hypothetically Musharraff was toppled in a coup deta't tommorrow by Islamist elements within the country and they found themselves in possession of nuclear weapons then I think that the US would be able to fight a war there by expanding an Afghan theatre of operations outwards, a neccissary war such as that can be fought however the capacity to resore order within a given country postwar is diminished because of the long and tedious nature of nation reconstruction.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer:
But of course invading Afghanistan and Iraq without Nationbuilding would be a catastrophe in a Fight against Terrorism if you look at the long-term consequences.

And you're right, the US needs the help of its allies and i'm sure they could get it if the US government would have behaved different in the last years.
 
BluberryPoptart said:
Still everyone says, the draft is coming back next year. Neither idiot candidate will admit to this right now in fear of losing votes. My paper says, come January, whichever buckethead fool is elected will get on TV and make a sorrowful speech about how it wasn't wanted but couldn't be avoided and that all men AND women 18-26 will be forced to serve 2 years in the national defense in some form. It's already planned, they just won't tell you yet:down:

Out of curiosity, what is your source for that information? I certainly haven't seen any evidence that "everyone" expects a return of the draft.
 
Oh, no links and sources and footnotes, just all the real people I hear talking, especially terrified teenage boys.
 
Oh, and there was that editorial in my newspaper, which does not have a link for anything past the first day. If I can find the old article I'll type it up.

But I don't know why you are all so stuck on source verification, if it comes from the 'wrong' source, or someone from the 'wrong side' you will not give it credibility anyway, even if it is in print. Why bother? Everyone here is so set in their ways they're only going to believe what they want to anyway.
 
BluberryPoptart said:
But I don't know why you are all so stuck on source verification, if it comes from the 'wrong' source, or someone from the 'wrong side' you will not give it credibility anyway, even if it is in print. Why bother? Everyone here is so set in their ways they're only going to believe what they want to anyway.

On an internet forum people are free to say almost whatever they like. Asking them to back up their statements with sources is the only way to ensure that people aren't just flat out lying. And unfortunately not all sources are equally credible - a quality newspaper such as the Guardian, Telegraph or Independent has far more credibility than a tabloid publication like the Sun or Star.
 
1st of all......Reservists are not the worst soldiers of the lot. I served with many very competant and dedicated people. I am not certain if that was what was meant by a post in here, but, reservists are VERY well trained as long as they are foinf the mission they are trained to do.

2ndly....it is sad that reservists and former active army are being recalled from the IRR. For those who do not know what the Inactive Ready Reserve is.....it is a pool that you are put into when you complete your contract with the service for two years. While you are discharged from having to actively participate in army activities, you are NOT free from activation until the two year period is up. This is in your CONTRACT. No soldier should be surprised during the time we are in now to find that the governement is calling them back to duty.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIZZ-the administration has taken steps to fill in draft board positions around our country. According to what I have read, it is a NORMAL thing to do and does not mean there will be a draft, however, the steps have led people to believe that there will be a draft. I have no sources to link you to right now, but this is based on things I remember reading throughout the past year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, surprise surprise, I disagree that there should not be a draft.

At the beginning of the war when I thought the administration would be successful in building a coalition that contained more man support, I was against the draft.

I AM currently in favor of activating and retraining reservists to fill in positions in which we need to provide relief to the soldiers who have not been home in ages.

I am in favor of the draft because it is so easy to say that we have a volunteer military and not bat an eye over the issue of Iraq. One thing that will make people think on both sides of the issue of Iraq and the use of our military is to reinstate the draft. It will make people thing, and it will kill the apathy on this issue right now, I feel it is not having an impact on people the way a draft would. I say this after spending a week with family that have not taken the time to educate themselves on the issues.
 
There are a number of reasons that the Draft should not be brought back as shown by the success of the all volunteer military. It is also not needed given the large numbers of reservist that have yet to be called and the size of the US military. It would be far better, if more troops are needed, to simply expand the size of the all volunteer military back to Cold War levels if need be. Why use a draft when you can have volunteers?

In addition, many who support bringing back the draft in Congress do so because they believe the USA would be less likely to go to war if we had a draft. History shows otherwise with the USA becoming involved with more large scale wars when the draft was in place then after it.

The all volunteer military is now about half the size it was during the 1980s. If more troops are needed, simply expand the size of the all volunteer military.
 
STING2 said:
There are a number of reasons that the Draft should not be brought back as shown by the success of the all volunteer military. It is also not needed given the large numbers of reservist that have yet to be called and the size of the US military. It would be far better, if more troops are needed, to simply expand the size of the all volunteer military back to Cold War levels if need be. Why use a draft when you can have volunteers?

In addition, many who support bringing back the draft in Congress do so because they believe the USA would be less likely to go to war if we had a draft. History shows otherwise with the USA becoming involved with more large scale wars when the draft was in place then after it.

The all volunteer military is now about half the size it was during the 1980s. If more troops are needed, simply expand the size of the all volunteer military.

We shouldn't be re-enlisting reservists, it should have never gotten to that point! Yes it would be far better if we had an all volunteer army, but unfortunately those numbers are getting dangersously close to not matching what we need...and if Bush stays in office and decides to further his "war on terror" then we're screwed.
 
I am sure there is a direct statistical coalition between the draft and war. I am not sure there is a statistical coalition that shows the DRAFT caused the US top become involved in a war.

I believe people are more willing to watch a volunteer army go to war than a drafted army.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


We shouldn't be re-enlisting reservists, it should have never gotten to that point! Yes it would be far better if we had an all volunteer army, but unfortunately those numbers are getting dangersously close to not matching what we need...and if Bush stays in office and decides to further his "war on terror" then we're screwed.

The US Army National Guard has a total of 8 divisions with another unattached 18 Brigades. Thats a total of 42 Brigades vs. the 33 Brigades that the Active Army has. While many reserve units have been sent overseas, the majority have yet to go anywhere yet. I feel that the military needs to be using more of these Reserve Units to help take the burden off the Active Duty Force.

The US Military has been structured for decades to heavily use the reserves. Its actually impossible for the Active Army to go to war without mobilizing key support units only found in the Reserves. In addition, planning has always anticipated the use of Reserve Combat Units if the situation required it. During the Berlin Crises in the early 1960s, JFK put ALL the reserves on active duty for a full 2 years. I'll have to check back with the numbers, but currently only about 30% of the reserves are on active duty.

Also, if Kerry is elected instead of Bush, what do you think he will actually do differently from Bush?
 
Dreadsox said:
I am sure there is a direct statistical coalition between the draft and war. I am not sure there is a statistical coalition that shows the DRAFT caused the US top become involved in a war.

I believe people are more willing to watch a volunteer army go to war than a drafted army.

I understand your thinking on this and agree with it to a certain degree. But history shows that when the draft was used, the country became involved more frequently, in some of the longest and most costly wars.
 
STING2 said:


Also, if Kerry is elected instead of Bush, what do you think he will actually do differently from Bush?

I'm not sure what this has to do with it. We're where we're at due to the actions of this administration. I think Kerry would have at least tried harder to establish a true coalition so that our troops wouldn't be stretched this thin. I also think he would have planned the occupation a lot better. This was a poorly planned war and the situation we're in with our troops is a direct result of that.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm not sure what this has to do with it. We're where we're at due to the actions of this administration. I think Kerry would have at least tried harder to establish a true coalition so that our troops wouldn't be stretched this thin. I also think he would have planned the occupation a lot better. This was a poorly planned war and the situation we're in with our troops is a direct result of that.

What is your definition of a "True" Coalition? Do you have an historical example to compare it to? Is there any record of Kerry going public before the March 2003 invasion saying "the President had failed to build a true coalition and that he had no plan for the occupation"?
 
Sting, I think that a true coalition is the one where you have those strong and important countries willing to fight alongside you such as France and Saudi Arabia true beacons and strong leadership and respect for the rights of man.

Oddly enough it was the 1991 coalition that prevented George Bush from invading Iraq and the result of this coalition forced US troops to remain in Saudi Arabia which in turn started Bin Laden on a more violent campaign against American interests abroad and extended the Islamist cause globally. If thats the multinational coalition that Kerry wants to build then forget him, the USA must never give up control of its millitary and strategic interests to a bunch of duplicitous middle powers who actively collaborate with the enemy. If it does then Iraq will be destined to fail, I personally would rather see a Pax Americana than another UN disaster.
 
Last edited:
The administration is not REENLISTING anyone. Soldiers are placed(depending on their contract) into the inactive ready reserve for up to two years for this purpose. It is part of their contract that they signed. No one is getting screwed.
 
Dreadsox said:
The administration is not REENLISTING anyone. Soldiers are placed(depending on their contract) into the inactive ready reserve for up to two years for this purpose. It is part of their contract that they signed. No one is getting screwed.

There are people who have served their contracts and are being asked to sign another. Reenlisting or whatever you want to call it, but I know it's happening. My father worked as a civilian on an airforce base in TX and a lot of our family friends are retired service or reservist people and I know of at least one who reenlisted because he was asked to.
 
There is a difference between REENLISTING and activation from the INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVES. No one can be forced to REENLIST unless they want to.

The original post of this thread was about recalling people in the Ready Reserves.
 
Back
Top Bottom