We have a handful of Reservist BNers around who may find their lives changed, again....
At least one BNer (not me) has deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, but under these new rules is eligible to be called up yet again.
This thread isn't about whether the policy is good or bad. It's just about supporting the people whose futures are once again somewhat uncertain...
The Associated Press wrote:The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a Citizen-Soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.....
....Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.
In other words, a Citizen-Soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months.
Carry on as you know they would want you to do. ~~JB, dedication to Tim Russert
Take your time
Find your passion
Life goes on until it ends
Don’t stop living
Until then
~~Mac McAnally
I really don't think any reservist ever believed they would be serving in combat or away from home like they have been. I personally do not like how the reservists have been used for this conflict and really believe this is a bad idea. We are really taking advantage of these people.
Skibo wrote:I really don't think any reservist ever believed they would be serving in combat or away from home like they have been. I personally do not like how the reservists have been used for this conflict and really believe this is a bad idea. We are really taking advantage of these people.
Before 1990/1991 I might have agreed with you, but every one of us knew mobilization/recall/combat was a possibility when we signed on the dotted line and accepted that as part of the package.
It does, however, become difficult to maintain a civilian career when you're pulled away for a year or two every few years....
Carry on as you know they would want you to do. ~~JB, dedication to Tim Russert
Take your time
Find your passion
Life goes on until it ends
Don’t stop living
Until then
~~Mac McAnally
SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
It does, however, become difficult to maintain a civilian career when you're pulled away for a year or two every few years....
This is what concerns me most. Not only do the call ups slow career development, but employers may start to not hire reservists for key positions with the concern that they may be out of town more than they are in. Yes I know you can't discriminate, but many do.
My perception of this current action is that the reservists are the backbone of the operation. This may be a media effected opinion. If this is true, then maybe we don't have enough active duty personnal.
SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
It does, however, become difficult to maintain a civilian career when you're pulled away for a year or two every few years....
This is what concerns me most. Not only do the call ups slow career development, but employers may start to not hire reservists for key positions with the concern that they may be out of town more than they are in. Yes I know you can't discriminate, but many do.
My perception of this current action is that the reservists are the backbone of the operation. This may be a media effected opinion. If this is true, then maybe we don't have enough active duty personnal.
problem is, it's political suicide to change the process (you have to raise taxes to pay for it, and even the means of hitting the recruiting numbers last year after 2004 and 2005's shortfalls cost a lot more; or you institute a draft and not many folks are serious about that option)
So, while supporting the folks who are having their lives turned inside out, the policy needs addressing as well to prevent repeating it ad infinitum
Last edited by RinglingRingling on January 12, 2007 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
I always thought that reserves we're for emergencies here at home or if an outside country was invading us. I never imagined they would be used like they are being now, personally I think its a disgrace.
"..he'll cook you a fish that he caught that day then belt out a song for the crowd, he'll drink half your beer, but don't worry buddy, the next ones on the house. I'm talkin' 'bout my kind of people..."
I find this troubling. I really don't believe this is what the reserve was designed for. Also, I'm surprised they are able to attract recruits given that this is now general knowledge.
You are really unable to have a civilian life with these conditions. There is no way to financially prepare for these long duty calls. If you own a home you could not possibly save enough money to supplement your loss of income repeatedly. Generally the families who are left behind are eligible for food stamps and other government programs.
I do know city workers who continue to receive pay but that will bankrupt the cities they work for as again when they placed those items in contract they never believed they'd be paying for years.
Navy Seals are Cooler then Pirates You Can Dream Anyway, There's always next year!!!
BrianM wrote:I always thought that reserves we're for emergencies here at home or if an outside country was invading us. I never imagined they would be used like they are being now, personally I think its a disgrace.
Every war we have fought has utilized the reserves overseas. This one is no different. The reason that the Normandy memorial is located in Bedford VA is that the company Bedford organized [assigned to the 116th Infantry Regiment (National Guard Activated), 29th Infantry Divsion] lost more soldiers, proportionally, than any other city in America during Normandy Invasion.
mu full and inconditional support for all of our tropps. They sacrifice for our our freedom and can never be thnked enough.
Bless tham and all of their families that they have the strength to make it though this.
MY father was in the army from 1958 to 1959 and in the reserves till 1995.
He has always said if you don't want to serve in the military then don't join. My nephew who join the marine reserves last year understands completely that he can be called up to serve in Iraq. I don't understand these people who enlist and don't expect to be called up to serve.
COME ALONG LET'S HAVE SOME FUN,
THE HARD WORK HAS BEEN DONE
WE'LL BARREL ROLL INTO THE SUN,
JUST FOR STARTERS
The only issue I can see one having with this change in policy has to do what terms the person originally enlisted under. If the terms don't prohibit this change and I don't think that they do, then no one should be surprised by it.
As for the majority of troops in WWII being reservist, well, only in the sense that all the draftees became reservist when they left active duty. The majority of troops were either volunteers or draftees. This is not to diminish the sacrifice that reserve units made during the war it is just to clarify that they were not the majority.
I fear that our present dependence on Guard and Reserve units has made it very difficult for the reservists and their families and I urge all BN'ers to contribute to charities that lend a helping hand to these families in their time of need.
I also believe that the fact that such as large percentage of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are Guard and Reserve units, that it shows that we have a need to increase the size of the active duty military.
Captain Jack's Bar & Grill, Home to the Lost Manatee.