• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Former soldiers slow to report

Status
Not open for further replies.
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.

The former soldiers, part of what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), are being recalled to fill shortages in skills needed for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of the 1,662 ready reservists ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., by Sept. 22, only 1,038 had done so, the Army said Monday. About 500 of those who failed to report have requested exemptions on health or personal grounds.

"The numbers did not look good," said Lt. Col. Burton Masters, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command. "We are tightening the system, reaching the people and bringing them in."

Masters said most of the requests for exemptions are likely to be denied: "To get an exemption, it has to be a very compelling case, such as a severe medical condition."

The figures are the first on the IRR call-up. They reflect the challenges the Pentagon faces in trying to find enough troops for ongoing operations and show resistance among some servicemembers who returned to civilian life.

The ready reserve is an infrequently used pool of former soldiers who can be called to duty in a national emergency or war. On June 29, the Army announced it would call 5,674 members of its IRR back to active duty this year and next.

Several of those who received recall notices have already been declared AWOL (absent without official leave) and technically are considered deserters. "We are not in a rush to put someone in the AWOL category," Masters said. "We contact them and convince them it is in their best interests to show up. If you are a deserter, it can affect you the rest of your life."

Fourteen people were listed as AWOL last week; six subsequently told the Army they would report. Punishment for being AWOL is up to the unit commander and can include prison time and dishonorable discharge, said Col. Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman.

With a force that generals say is stretched thin, the Army is considering $1,000-a-month bonuses to ex-soldiers who volunteer to return for overseas duty.

Ready reservists are soldiers who were honorably discharged after finishing their active-duty tours, usually four to six years, but remain part of the IRR for the rest of their original eight-year commitment. The IRR call-up is the first major one in 13 years, since 20,277 troops were ordered back for the Persian Gulf War.



This is so bizzare to me. Not that they don't want to go, I mean who in there right mind would go? Why isn't this reluctance to go to war seen within the general US population? I guess it doesn't matter when it not you.
 

Overseer

Member
WTF? That just plain sucks. I mean who the hell wants to go back? Noone. If all possible send someone else. Fucking U.S. government.
 
Overseer said:
WTF? That just plain sucks. I mean who the hell wants to go back? No one. If all possible send someone else. Fucking U.S. government.

There is no one else to send. Digging into the IRR is pretty deep in itself.
 

Cool

Member
I don't blame any of them. I'd never go in the first place, but to go back when the death toll has risen so dramatically. This whole thing is pointless, and they are beginning to realize it.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
IRR callups? WOW... for those who don't know IIR's are folks who are often nearing the end of the duty, or like me folks whose units were shut down and they were never reassigned just placed on "Individual Ready Reserve". So glad I'm past the age and got my discharge what 6-7 years ago....

The official definition is:

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), a manpower pool in the Ready Reserve, primarily consists of: Individuals who have had training, have served previously in the Active component or the Selected Reserve, and have some period of a military obligation remaining. IRR members are in an active status, but do not perform regularly scheduled training.
 

Cool

Member
DarienA said:
IRR callups? WOW... for those who don't know IIR's are folks who are often nearing the end of the duty, or like me folks whose units were shut down and they were never reassigned just placed on "Individual Ready Reserve". So glad I'm past the age and got my discharge what 6-7 years ago....

The official definition is:

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), a manpower pool in the Ready Reserve, primarily consists of: Individuals who have had training, have served previously in the Active component or the Selected Reserve, and have some period of a military obligation remaining. IRR members are in an active status, but do not perform regularly scheduled training.


So, in other words you're saying they are really really desperate for soldiers and that we're fucked if the 2004 election goes a certain way?
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Cool said:
So, in other words you're saying they are really really desperate for soldiers and that we're fucked if the 2004 election goes a certain way?

Possibly. Let me give a bit of background history from memory some of this may be wrong it's simply what I remember at htis point. IIRC someone got the big idea that the Reserves would be a great way to supplement the full time army. Because they aren't needed they can have regular everday jobs, and if necessary for brief periods during times of war they can be called up as supplemental support to the full time active troops... Army Reserve have a federal role while National Guard have state and federal roles.

Then something happened... during times of "peace" it was decided let's get rid of a lot of full-time soldiers. We don't need this many active duty folks because there are not any major conflicts... we can supplement any problems that come up simply by occasionally dipping in to the Reserve forces. So they down-sized... and generally haven't had TOO many issues... but this Iraq one has brought to light for many folks exactly how much down-sizing was done, and now they are stretching reserve troops to the limit.

Reserve troops are folks like you and me, they have personal lives, familes, some even have their own businesses... and being called up for the extended amount of time these Iraq call ups have resulted in have destroyed some of them financially, mentally, etc...

It's very sad.
 

Cool

Member
DarienA said:
Possibly. Let me give a bit of background history from memory some of this may be wrong it's simply what I remember at htis point. IIRC someone got the big idea that the Reserves would be a great way to supplement the full time army. Because they aren't needed they can have regular everday jobs, and if necessary for brief periods during times of war they can be called up as supplemental support to the full time active troops... Army Reserve have a federal role while National Guard have state and federal roles.

Then something happened... during times of "peace" it was decided let's get rid of a lot of full-time soldiers. We don't need this many active duty folks because there are not any major conflicts... we can supplement any problems that come up simply by occasionally dipping in to the Reserve forces. So they down-sized... and generally haven't had TOO many issues... but this Iraq one has brought to light for many folks exactly how much down-sizing was done, and now they are stretching reserve troops to the limit.

Reserve troops are folks like you and me, they have personal lives, familes, some even have their own businesses... and being called up for the extended amount of time these Iraq call ups have resulted in have destroyed some of them financially, mentally, etc...

It's very sad.


It is very sad. I'm assuming some of these people in the reserves signed up pre 9/11 and are now screwed. I am not sure what all goes into being into the reserves, but I'm guessing people just sign up to get some money and then with the risk of later going into combat. It is sad. That's why I hope people vote democratic this upcoming election.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
I saw a news story on this a few weeks ago. Apparently a few of these people (or maybe they're from some other sort of callback service) are even Vietnam veterans.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Cool said:
It is very sad. I'm assuming some of these people in the reserves signed up pre 9/11 and are now screwed. I am not sure what all goes into being into the reserves, but I'm guessing people just sign up to get some money and then with the risk of later going into combat. It is sad. That's why I hope people vote democratic this upcoming election.

Many folks sign up for college benefits, some sign up(like me) just because you get that exposure, and training, and sometimes it helps you if you feel your life is starting to slip up(I felt like I needed to gain more focus as a young adult), and you can have a regular life as you only drill once a month and two full weeks in the summer.

I really enjoyed my reserve time. Basic and Advance training had their moments but I feel like I'm a better person for them simply because I know if necessary I can push myself beyond the initial pain signs your body gives you. In addition I learn alot, and met alot of great folks. My only regret is that I didn't keep in touch with any of them.

During the first Iraqi conflict my unit was placed on alert but we were never sent. I can remember sitting in my room in Albany, NY glued to the news channels ever day, waiting for the phone call. Back then I was still in touch with some folks and a few wrote me from the desert... crazyiness.... I can only imagine what's going on in soldiers minds over there now... my heart goes out. (I've got two of the support our soldiers ribbons on my car, the yellow one and the red/white/blue flag one).

Ignore MAF he's trying to be funny.... I think.

What's even more sad is that with the whole way this has been botched Bush is leading in the pools... I can only pray that these debates open people's eyes.... but I'm scared... because I don't think so.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
Hey wait, Kerry and Bush were both honorably discharged, but neither served for 8 years, right? Maybe we should just send them both over there?
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
:lol
mad.gif


Gotta laugh to keep from crying, I guess.
 

Cool

Member
Yeah. Shit. Geez. So easy for Bush to fucking push people into war. It pisses me off. I can't believe people are pro-Bush. I mean, why?

And another sad thing is all the unregistered people who do hate Bush. Like, I brought up politics at work (food industry) and they all (well over voting age) were saying how they dislike Bush and such but none of them ever voted or were registered to vote or even plan to vote this year. Though I am only 17 and won't be able to vote in the upcoming election I am doing everything I can to try and convince people to vote democratic this year. Though Kerry doesn't seem to have the characteristics of what makes an absolutely great leader (then again, who does?), I feel it is absolutely imperative for the future of America to have Bush out of office.

I don't understand how a lot republicans say "WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS" but then want to vote for Bush. Supporting them isn't voting for a guy whose going to keep them over there for most of the better part of their lives.
 
not trying to be funny, just prove a point. I find it hilarious we keep sending people who dont wanna go to a place where people dont want them.

4 years ago I laughed at the draft, now I wonder if ill have to fight for people who hate my guts.
 

Cool

Member
MrAngryFace said:
not trying to be funny, just prove a point. I find it hilarious we keep sending people who dont wanna go to a place where people dont want them.

4 years ago I laughed at the draft, now I wonder if ill have to fight for people who hate my guts.


Exactly! What is the point (of being in this 'war')? Growing up in a conservative area where you're almost considered evil for looking at things in even a slightly liberal stance, it's nice to see people who are on the same page as myself.
 
Cool said:
Exactly! What is the point (of being in this 'war')? Growing up in a conservative area where you're almost considered evil for looking at things in even a slightly liberal stance, it's nice to see people who are on the same page as myself.
Well, you certainly joined the right forum then. Just be sure to share, lots of folks here want to crowd around that page you're reading from.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
MrAngryFace said:
At least the Iraqi people show their appreciation. That should make it all worth it for people forced to go over.

Ah you were being SARCASTIC.... Shiver me timbers I should have realized that! Argh! ;)

The whole thing sucks from top to f'n bottom, and the thoughts that this idiot now has a solid lead in the polls absolutely disgusts me.
 

AeroGod

Member
MrAngryFace said:
I just say anyone who wants the war can go, anyone who doesnt, doesnt have to. That way both sides get what they want.

Maybe in a perfect world. But the problem is that NOBODY wants to go to war, at least most people. Then what would yo uhave? Nobody fighting. Yeah the war sucks, but you cant just back out now after what youve done. Then it would get even worse both for them and for us. Gotta finish the job, and were doing all by ourselves. :( Its unfortunate to say the least.
 
what ive done? I didnt do shit. Send bush over, he can finish what he's done. I didnt even vote for this assclown.

Sure, ill support the troops over there, but I wont support the war. MY concern is more with getting our troops out than sending more in. But the current group of people 'leading' the united states are too stupid to admit they shit on my face and told me is was raining WMDs when in reality it was a big farce. Thanks jagoffs. A war started with a lie that I need to finish? You must be joking.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
AeroGod said:
Maybe in a perfect world. But the problem is that NOBODY wants to go to war, at least most people. Then what would yo uhave? Nobody fighting. Yeah the war sucks, but you cant just back out now after what youve done. Then it would get even worse both for them and for us. Gotta finish the job, and were doing all by ourselves. :( Its unfortunate to say the least.

Meanwhile Bush parades around talking mission accomplished.. more US soldiers continue to do... oh and don't get me started on how shitty the benefits are for US soldiers who come back injured.

Trust me when I say this and I do it with a heavy heart.

If you are a soldier and you go away to fight a war? It's better if you DIE rather than come back severely injured. Because besides the initial patching up Veteran benefits are generally SHIT for long term medical disability situations.

Oh and thank you current administration for doing absolutely fuckin NOTHING about the SLAUGHTER going on in Darfur region of Sudan... most not be any oil there.
 
DarienA said:
Meanwhile Bush parades around talking mission accomplished.. more US soldiers continue to do... oh and don't get me started on how shitty the benefits are for US soldiers who come back injured.

Trust me when I say this and I do it with a heavy heart.

If you are a soldier and you go away to fight a war? It's better if you DIE rather than come back severely injured. Because besides the initial patching up Veteran benefits are generally SHIT for long term medical disability situations.

Oh and thank you current administration for doing absolutely fuckin NOTHING about the SLAUGHTER going on in Darfur region of Sudan... most not be any oil there.


but they arent anything as bad as say...... "born on the fourth of july"?

i work as a pollster for a research company and every time i have to ask the question "who do you trust more for national security bush or kerry? and people answer :bush" a little part of my soul dies.
 

RiZ III

Member
What happened to kings/leaders being on the battlefields? If we still had that, there would probably be less wars cause all these bastards in power wouldn't want to risk their lives.
 

Cimarron

Member
"I don't understand how a lot republicans say "WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS" but then want to vote for Bush. Supporting them isn't voting for a guy whose going to keep them over there for most of the better part of their lives."

Me neither... I'm a Lab Technician in the Air Force Reserves. If you want to support me vote monkey boy bush out of office.
 
RiZ III said:
What happened to kings/leaders being on the battlefields? If we still had that, there would probably be less wars cause all these bastards in power wouldn't want to risk their lives.


That all ended with the formation of the USA. Americans figured that leaders are more valuable alive than dead.
 

AeroGod

Member
Tommie Hu$tle said:
That all ended with the formation of the USA. Americans figured that leaders are more valuable alive than dead.

I dunno about that. Last time I checked King James was sitting on his fat ass in England while George Washington was fighting. Washington might have been the "leader" really, but this was well before the United States.


EDIT: dammit my brain is off. :(
 
Boogie said:
umm, WTF?

When Washington was president he lead troops personally during the Whiskey Rebellion it was decided after that however that America Presidents should not go into battle. Napoléon was another leader the often lead his troops into battle but, after he was exiled (the second time) the French follow suite. I don't think any leaders have been to battle since Napoléon.


I should clarify that American leaders have not been in battle personally since the Whiskey Rebellion.
 

Boogie

Member
Tommie Hu$tle said:
When Washington was president he lead troops personally during the Whiskey Rebellion it was decided after that however that America Presidents should not go into battle. Napoléon was another leader the often lead his troops into battle but, after he was exiled (the second time) the French follow suite. I don't think any leaders have been to battle since Napoléon.


I should clarify that American leaders have not been in battle personally since the Whiskey Rebellion.

Everybody thinks they're historians these days. :p

America hardly started the trend of leaders who left the professionally qualified to lead the troops into battle.

Besides, in all reality, that's a good thing. When nations get leaders who are more adept at managing the country at home, they should leave the warfighting to those who are qualified. Politicians screw enough things up, you don't want them messing with how the military is run (ie. Rumsfeld's desire to send less troops into Iraq against the Pentagon's wishes :p)
 

RiZ III

Member
If its a preemptive war, they should be required to go. That way, politicians would stop waging wars on others. Ofcourse, this would never happen. But its somewhat idealistic imo.
 

Boogie

Member
RiZ III said:
If its a preemptive war, they should be required to go. That way, politicians would stop waging wars on others. Ofcourse, this would never happen. But its somewhat idealistic imo.

No, it's still stupid. So, for Just wars, the leaders shouldn't have to fight, but for unjust wars, they should? Who decides that? Sure, it sucks that Bush is sending others to die, and the war in Iraq is a waste, but it's still kind of juvenile to say that "Bush should go fight instead".
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Boogie said:
No, it's still stupid. So, for Just wars, the leaders shouldn't have to fight, but for unjust wars, they should? Who decides that? Sure, it sucks that Bush is sending others to die, and the war in Iraq is a waste, but it's still kind of juvenile to say that "Bush should go fight instead".

IMO his war was started with a lie... now that we know we should ship his ass over there to take personal command of some of those troops, and make sure to announce to the world that he's going over there to take personal command... if something happens... whoops....
 

Boogie

Member
DarienA said:
IMO his war was started with a lie... now that we know we should ship his ass over there to take personal command of some of those troops, and make sure to announce to the world that he's going over there to take personal command... if something happens... whoops....


Well, I think it'd be enough if you managed to simply impeach him and kick him out or something, but that's about as likely to happen as your idea.
 
Boogie said:
Everybody thinks they're historians these days. :p

Besides, in all reality, that's a good thing. When nations get leaders who are more adept at managing the country at home, they should leave the warfighting to those who are qualified. Politicians screw enough things up, you don't want them messing with how the military is run (ie. Rumsfeld's desire to send less troops into Iraq against the Pentagon's wishes :p)


Agreed and I/we have to say at the time that these guys were professional soliders and not professional politicians.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
MrAngryFace said:
Well im not really into advocating death even if he is stupid.

I'm not advocating death I'm simply saying he should go take personal command of those troops... hey you can never tell what's going to happen in a war zone man.
 

speedpop

Has problems recognising girls
RiZ III said:
What happened to kings/leaders being on the battlefields? If we still had that, there would probably be less wars cause all these bastards in power wouldn't want to risk their lives.
Heh we should all adopt a Spartan kingship body, have two kings - one goes out to fight a war, the other stays home just in case the other dies.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
DarienA said:
I'm not advocating death I'm simply saying he should go take personal command of those troops... hey you can never tell what's going to happen in a war zone man.

I wouldn't wish that upon the troops he would be commanding...
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Why isn't this reluctance to go to war seen within the general US population?

The article says that "fewer than 2/3" of the former soldiers have reported on time. Presumably this means slightly fewer than 2/3, let's say 60%, report on time. Assume for purposes of your hypothesis then that 40% don't want to go so much they fail to show up in a timely fashion.

More than 40% of the people in the country disapprove of the war in some fashion--it's probably closer to 50%. So I would say that the reluctance of soldiers to report is running behind general US reluctance for the war and I disagree with your premise.
 

3rdman

Member
SSGMUN10000 said:
Excuse my ignorance but what is Kerry going to do different than Bush if he is elected?

Well, I think that he'd be a far more trusting leader than Bush for one. This is more than semantics when our present leader lied and altered information to get into this war. He then lied about the cost of the war (by about 199 billion dollars). He would (at least) be relaistic about the situation.

As of now, it seems that the Bush administration plan is to allow Civil War to break out as long as we keep control of the southern part of Iraq...the oil fields. They've fought this war using tactics that they were told would not work and our boys are paying the price.
 

SSGMUN10000

Connoisseur Of Tedium
Code:
Well, I think that he'd be a far more trusting leader than Bush for one. This is more than semantics when our present leader lied and altered information to get into this war. He then lied about the cost of the war (by about 199 billion dollars). He would (at least) be relaistic about the situation.


Is there 100% proof that he lied an altered information to get into war? Sorry I dont follow politics and GAF is the most exposure I get of it(sad but true).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom