Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Officer: Army May Change Reserves Policy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:52 AM
Original message
Officer: Army May Change Reserves Policy
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=4&u=/ap/20050107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/reserves

<snip>

The official, who discussed the matter with a small group of reporters on condition of anonymity because the matter has not been fully settled inside the Pentagon (news - web sites), said the Army probably will ask Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the next several months to change the policy.

<snip>

Under current policy set by Rumsfeld, a Guard or Reserve member is not to serve on active duty for more than 24 total months. Thus, for example, if a Guard or Reserve member was mobilized for six months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and later for nine months in Afghanistan, then that person is off limits for duty in Iraq because a yearlong tour there would exceed the 24-month limit. A standard tour in Iraq, for both active-duty and reserves, is 12 months.


If the limit were set at 24 consecutive months, with some break between tours, then in theory a Guard or Reserve member could be mobilized for multiple 12- or 24-month tours in Iraq or elsewhere.


That is the kind of flexibility the Army has decided it needs in order to sustain the forces needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official said. He stressed that the Army would make only sparing use of the authority to call up soldiers for longer tours because it would not want to alienate soldiers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. They want to run them into the ground, don't they. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SKKY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. It certainly appears to be the case, doesn't it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. So now they are going to be the Mobilized Reserves
On 23 months, off one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phusion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Multiple 24month tours??
Has this ever been the policy?

It seems ludicrous to send these guys off for 2 years at a time, many times over.

It's just wrong...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pfitz59 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. Numbers don't add up.....
Unsustainable OPTEMPO is taking its toll on men and equipment. SNAFU is biting the CHICKENHAWKS! I feel a chill breeze.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuckinthebush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. If this keeps up
We will be seeing a draft in the future. They can't continue this way indefinitely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. Genetic improvements, self sustaining families mean greater capacity
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 12:12 PM by Inland
Turns out opinions on the limits of the reservists have been rendered quaint and obsolete thanks to the gene modification available that make soldiers impervious to fear, exhaustion, even death. And, the ability to store their families in cryo-tanks means that their income won't be missed. 24 months at a time would be nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wonderful
/sarcasm. This doesn't clarify something though. The current policy is 2 years in a 5 year period. This reads like after 2 years there won't be anymore deployments for these guys. That isn't true. They'll either wait 3 years or ignore it. My husband has already done two years. We're hearing to expect another deployment in a year or so, which definitely breaks the 5 year rule. I think this is already a done deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wabeewoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. Maybe a silly question
but if you sign up with one set of rules and they change the rules on you, do you get to say, 'no, thanks?' Seems only fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. not a silly question but my guess would be...
no. Fair doesn't exist in chimpy*s world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
two gun sid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is not the first step toward a draft
it is a draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. What company can hold a job open for a Reservists. . .
for a one or two year deployment, knowing full well when he returns it may only be for a year or so at best, then off he goes for another tour?

I fear most of these Reservists will end up in the new class of BushCo manufacturing jobs, flipping burgers and filling drinks. At least their spouses will be able to keep busy and keep their children fed for awhile as they sell off what possessions they own on e-bay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. Another back-door draft
Sounds like they're working these troops into the ground. Sooner or later they'll have to do an actual draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. There is probably a million former military people Bush could call up
I am guessing at the number, but couldn't bush just say that anybody who has been in the military in the last 6 years can be called back into service? Add to that all the reserves and national guard people, and there will be lots of soldiers to take in a backdoor draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. Duplicate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC