Anyone here been on multiple deployments to Iraq?

[TayTay]

Or have family members, friends, coworkers or other people of your acquaintance who have served multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan? Anyone know someone affected by the stop-loss policies of this Administration?

There is a dispute going on that says that the 'surge' or escalation of the war that Bush now wants is the same thing as increasing the overall size of the military on a permanent basis. It has been alleged that the plan put forward by many Democrats and just recently backed by Bush will immediately make available more troops to go to Iraq. There are others who contend that these are separate issues and that one does not feed into the other, that it will takes years to bring 40 to 80 thousand new people into the permanent military structure and that the 'surge' or escalation of the war effort that Bush is talking about really doesn't have much to do with the permanent enlargement of the US Army and Marine Corp.

People who have actually served and how know how the military works: can you shed some light on this and cite some facts from your viewpoint? What is stop-loss, will more more permanent troops help ease the strain on current service people and the number of deployments they have to go on? How quickly can additional troops be equipped and trained and how quickly will they be able to deploy to the war zones?

Thanks!

[ewoden]

1. One son two tours, we're worried about a third

All combat personnel react difeently to the experience. There are a variety of categories and they range from "been there done that I am definately ready for civilian life" through "unfinished business if recalled to duty I'll respond" to "I need to go back because I wasn't supposd to come home".

From my son's situation two tours has put him and all those who love him through the ringer. A third tour will likely kill him or one of his parents.

It is estimated that the military can up their recruitment by 6-7 thousand a year (I herad this during an interview on NPR yesterday, though I think it to be very optomistic). That said, with a 60-80 thousand expected escalation it would be several years before additional recruits cn fill the void. Thusly the adminsitration will be forced to dip back into the well for multiple tours and blue to green conversions.

We have firends with a son who has formaly esign his commission, TWICE. Second time because he was recalled BEFORE paperwork was fully processed. You wouldn't believe the shennanigans goin on.

[TayTay]

2. My prayers are with you and your son on this.

My brother had a lot of friends who were being called up for active deployment after years in the reserve. They were proud to go and serve and most of them said that there was always the possibility of this happening and they 'signed up' for reserve duty with this knowledge.

But these guys were in their late 40's. While they are in decent physical shape, ahm, middle age does take it's toll. They can't just go, serve a year and come home, the threat of having to go again is hanging over their heads even after that. Families have to deal with this, employers have to deal with it and it is just a bad situation. (Most of the people are not complaining, at least not on the 1st or 2nd deployment. But, you start getting to the 3rd and 4th time out and it really, really is a bad strain on marriages, kids, jobs, etc.)

My prayers are with you and your family on this. I hope that, if your son does have to go back that he has a safe tour and speedy return. It is massively unfair that at a time when so many families with relatives in the service are being asked to bear such heavy burdens that the rest of us are advised to go shopping and spend money. So much is being asked of so few and that is just heartbreaking and awful.

[ewoden]

9. The crazy thing is he isn't scheduled for a return. . .

He's looking for a transfer to a to-be-mobilized unit or even switching services. Military psychologist won't reevaluate his case.

[Recursion]

3. It takes 2 years to train a soldier or Marine

If they're talking about doing a "surge" in '07 then it can only be with troops they already have. Now, the surge might well be co-ordinated with an attempt to raise troop levels, but they are not in any necessary way tied together. If they decided to increase actual troop levels now (ie, get more people in the Army and Marine Corps), they would have to allocate money, train new recruiters, recruit new people, send them to boot camp, send them to MOS school, send them to combat training, and desert acclimatize them. It would be pushing it to get all that done in less than 18 months. So, even if we "increased the size of the Army" now, there would be no effect until mid-'08 (and in fact it would lower active troop levels in the field now since we would need to pull more for recruiting and training duty).

[genie_weenie]

6. It only takes 8-12 weeks to train

a shrapnel sponge...

[TayTay]

7. There are no shrapnel sponges

Only real people, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and loved ones who are being asked to sacrifice too much for what, in my opinion, is an unclear objective.

These are not theoretical situations. This is happening to real people.

[genie_weenie]

13. Are you telling me this or Bush?

Our Unmatched and Faultless Leadership gets DIA or Centcom powerpoint presentations which list numbers of bodies in country not the back story on the life of SSgt Jay Collado (Killed 20 Feb 2006) and his little girl or how I pissed him off by planting him into the ground during a 2-hand touch football game back at Camp Lejeune...

[TayTay]

14. Bush and his enablers

They never talk about the troops and about the real human sacrifices that people have to make. They don't talk about how so many people have to live in fear and worry because of these long, multiple deployments.

I think, from you post, that you would share that sentiment. It breaks my heart, as it might indeed yours, to think of anyone talking about people in a war zone as shrapnel sponges.

Sometimes I wake up and think this is all some nightmare. Then I turn on the news and realize, this is what is going on. Sigh!

[Recursion]

11. The big problem isn't getting "shrapnel sponges"

Grunts have to eat. It takes 3 months to learn to cook in the military. The cooks need supplies. It takes 5 months to learn to be a supply clerk. The supplies need truck drivers. 9 months. All of them need to get paid. 5 months for an admin clerk. These people have to have translators: 2 years. Pilots: 3 years. Dental technicians: 1 year. Etc.

[genie_weenie]

12. Oh I know all about MOS training time

Did a little 02 work in Iraq and Afghanistan... My point was when things get really bad, training is cut down in order to get bodies in the field quickly.

[AllegroRondo]

4. Any permanent increase in number of troops will take years

you cant just sign up 40,000 people and send them over.

From the interviews I've heard this week, the most we can expect is an increase of 6-7,000 per year. Thats assuming we can find that many MORE people willing to enlist than are currently needed to replace soldiers whose contracts are up.

Which means the "surge" will come from keeping soldiers currently there longer, and sending troops that are scheduled to go there earlier than normal. Its going to be hell on morale.

[TayTay]

5. So, implementing both things will only put more of a strain

on people who are already being asked to do too much?

It's a wonder we have these incredible people who are doing this now. It is unbelievably awful that we are asking those who have already done so much to do even more. I can't imagine what the families are going through. Again, prayers and good wishes to everyone who is serving or has loved ones currently deployed. I wish there was some way to more fairly share out this burden. The country is at war, but so very few are being asked to make the sacrifices for this.

[ewoden]

8. In reality the surge and the added military personnel are related

The surge is the move by the administration to "solve" the current Iraq situation. It is widely unpopular with the command staff in the military.

To keep the comand staff quiet, Bush is also working to authorize an overall increase in military personnel. This to ensure that the command staff stay quiet about the surge. A bribe aftr a fashion.

[TayTay]

10. That's awful, it just cuts out the debate

One of the legitimate questions, it seems to me, about enlarging the permanent size of the military is to what end? Paul Rieckhoff had a post on Huffington Post on 12/21 about where the military needs to expand and why. He listed the reasons that he feels this is a worthwhile thing to do and where the need is for this right now. Rieckhoff's article seems like a good place to start a debate on what the US is doing and why.

Treating this as a bribe negates that debate. It seems to me that it is legimate to constantly talk about why we need this. The idea of having more available troops to ease the burden on those who currently have to endure multiple deployments seems reasonable, but others in this thread have pointed out that this is not really what will happen.

[JI7]

15. the "all volunteer" force

this is why this is considered a joke by many, especially those serving and have families who aer serving. while they did volunteer for the military, after repeatedly being asked to serve additional tours it's not so voluntary .

i can't see a serious increase in the size of the military being done under the current administration. they would have to change many things including offer far better benefits. this administration is not just opposed to increasing and improving the benefits but wants to cut them.