Bush and DOD are threatening to force more citizen soldiers to possibly give their lives for Iraq

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Pentagon Says It May Need to Call Up More Reservists
By THOM SHANKER

Published: September 25, 2003


WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 ? The Defense Department may be forced to call up thousands of additional National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq if foreign nations do not volunteer sufficient forces for a third international division, one of the Pentagon's most senior generals said today.

The decision on a significant new mobilization, expected within four to six weeks, will also turn on whether the Army and Marines can send fresh active-duty troops to Iraq and still manage other global commitments. It also depends on whether instability in Iraq has subsided to the extent that fewer outside troops are required, said the general, Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
------------------------------------------------
About 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are serving in Iraq or nearby, according to Pentagon statistics. The total number of National Guard and Reserve members now on active duty at home and overseas is 170,465, Pentagon officials said today. That is down from a high of 223,000 during major combat operations in Iraq.

Pentagon officials fear that the stress created by long, back-to-back deployments for active-duty troops assigned to the Iraq mission or the broader campaign against terrorism may hurt recruiting and retention.

One Pentagon official said today that there was no "drop-dead deadline" yet for securing commitments for the international division, but noted, "Our prudent planning is continuing."

While the strain on the Guard and Reserve raises similar anxieties about recruitment and retention, the possibility of a large mobilization raises political concerns as well. These citizen-soldiers have roots in communities deeper than active-duty troops who move every few years, and therefore they also have the ear of their Congressional delegation.

At a hearing today of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, pressed Defense Secretary Donald. H. Rumsfeld on the demands now placed on the National Guard and Reserve, saying, "Pulling their fair share gets harder and harder and harder as their fair share becomes longer and longer and longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/international/middleeast/25MILI.html?ex=1065067200&en=a7ef0c5110c2de53&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
What the hell are you talking about? What exactly is a "civilian soldier"?
Guard/reserve. You know thost people that signed up for this job.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Pentagon Says It May Need to Call Up More Reservists
By THOM SHANKER

Published: September 25, 2003


WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 ? The Defense Department may be forced to call up thousands of additional National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq if foreign nations do not volunteer sufficient forces for a third international division, one of the Pentagon's most senior generals said today.

The decision on a significant new mobilization, expected within four to six weeks, will also turn on whether the Army and Marines can send fresh active-duty troops to Iraq and still manage other global commitments. It also depends on whether instability in Iraq has subsided to the extent that fewer outside troops are required, said the general, Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
------------------------------------------------
About 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are serving in Iraq or nearby, according to Pentagon statistics. The total number of National Guard and Reserve members now on active duty at home and overseas is 170,465, Pentagon officials said today. That is down from a high of 223,000 during major combat operations in Iraq.

Pentagon officials fear that the stress created by long, back-to-back deployments for active-duty troops assigned to the Iraq mission or the broader campaign against terrorism may hurt recruiting and retention.

One Pentagon official said today that there was no "drop-dead deadline" yet for securing commitments for the international division, but noted, "Our prudent planning is continuing."

While the strain on the Guard and Reserve raises similar anxieties about recruitment and retention, the possibility of a large mobilization raises political concerns as well. These citizen-soldiers have roots in communities deeper than active-duty troops who move every few years, and therefore they also have the ear of their Congressional delegation.

At a hearing today of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, pressed Defense Secretary Donald. H. Rumsfeld on the demands now placed on the National Guard and Reserve, saying, "Pulling their fair share gets harder and harder and harder as their fair share becomes longer and longer and longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/international/middleeast/25MILI.html?ex=1065067200&en=a7ef0c5110c2de53&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
You are a tool and fvcking moron.

These people knew full well what they were getting into. If they didnt they are morons. They signed up for this.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,657
5,141
126
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: dahunan
Pentagon Says It May Need to Call Up More Reservists
By THOM SHANKER

Published: September 25, 2003


WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 ? The Defense Department may be forced to call up thousands of additional National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq if foreign nations do not volunteer sufficient forces for a third international division, one of the Pentagon's most senior generals said today.

The decision on a significant new mobilization, expected within four to six weeks, will also turn on whether the Army and Marines can send fresh active-duty troops to Iraq and still manage other global commitments. It also depends on whether instability in Iraq has subsided to the extent that fewer outside troops are required, said the general, Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
------------------------------------------------
About 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are serving in Iraq or nearby, according to Pentagon statistics. The total number of National Guard and Reserve members now on active duty at home and overseas is 170,465, Pentagon officials said today. That is down from a high of 223,000 during major combat operations in Iraq.

Pentagon officials fear that the stress created by long, back-to-back deployments for active-duty troops assigned to the Iraq mission or the broader campaign against terrorism may hurt recruiting and retention.

One Pentagon official said today that there was no "drop-dead deadline" yet for securing commitments for the international division, but noted, "Our prudent planning is continuing."

While the strain on the Guard and Reserve raises similar anxieties about recruitment and retention, the possibility of a large mobilization raises political concerns as well. These citizen-soldiers have roots in communities deeper than active-duty troops who move every few years, and therefore they also have the ear of their Congressional delegation.

At a hearing today of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, pressed Defense Secretary Donald. H. Rumsfeld on the demands now placed on the National Guard and Reserve, saying, "Pulling their fair share gets harder and harder and harder as their fair share becomes longer and longer and longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/international/middleeast/25MILI.html?ex=1065067200&en=a7ef0c5110c2de53&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
You are a tool and fvcking moron.

These people knew full well what they were getting into. If they didnt they are morons. They signed up for this.
Whe thought the Supreme Coup was going to elect the Moron King?

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: dahunan
Pentagon Says It May Need to Call Up More Reservists
By THOM SHANKER

Published: September 25, 2003


WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 ? The Defense Department may be forced to call up thousands of additional National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq if foreign nations do not volunteer sufficient forces for a third international division, one of the Pentagon's most senior generals said today.

The decision on a significant new mobilization, expected within four to six weeks, will also turn on whether the Army and Marines can send fresh active-duty troops to Iraq and still manage other global commitments. It also depends on whether instability in Iraq has subsided to the extent that fewer outside troops are required, said the general, Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
------------------------------------------------
About 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are serving in Iraq or nearby, according to Pentagon statistics. The total number of National Guard and Reserve members now on active duty at home and overseas is 170,465, Pentagon officials said today. That is down from a high of 223,000 during major combat operations in Iraq.

Pentagon officials fear that the stress created by long, back-to-back deployments for active-duty troops assigned to the Iraq mission or the broader campaign against terrorism may hurt recruiting and retention.

One Pentagon official said today that there was no "drop-dead deadline" yet for securing commitments for the international division, but noted, "Our prudent planning is continuing."

While the strain on the Guard and Reserve raises similar anxieties about recruitment and retention, the possibility of a large mobilization raises political concerns as well. These citizen-soldiers have roots in communities deeper than active-duty troops who move every few years, and therefore they also have the ear of their Congressional delegation.

At a hearing today of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, pressed Defense Secretary Donald. H. Rumsfeld on the demands now placed on the National Guard and Reserve, saying, "Pulling their fair share gets harder and harder and harder as their fair share becomes longer and longer and longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/international/middleeast/25MILI.html?ex=1065067200&en=a7ef0c5110c2de53&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
You are a tool and fvcking moron.

These people knew full well what they were getting into. If they didnt they are morons. They signed up for this.

Maybe you should tell the Mothers, Wives, Sons and Daughters of the MARKED FOR DEATH reservists THAT THEY ARE THE FVCKING MORONS .. FVCKBOY ...


Then I guess "Vietnam Syndrome" doesn't mean anything TO ANYONE anymore? FVCK IT.. TOO LONG ago to care about :disgust:
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: dahunan
Pentagon Says It May Need to Call Up More Reservists
By THOM SHANKER

Published: September 25, 2003


WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 ? The Defense Department may be forced to call up thousands of additional National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq if foreign nations do not volunteer sufficient forces for a third international division, one of the Pentagon's most senior generals said today.

The decision on a significant new mobilization, expected within four to six weeks, will also turn on whether the Army and Marines can send fresh active-duty troops to Iraq and still manage other global commitments. It also depends on whether instability in Iraq has subsided to the extent that fewer outside troops are required, said the general, Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
------------------------------------------------
About 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are serving in Iraq or nearby, according to Pentagon statistics. The total number of National Guard and Reserve members now on active duty at home and overseas is 170,465, Pentagon officials said today. That is down from a high of 223,000 during major combat operations in Iraq.

Pentagon officials fear that the stress created by long, back-to-back deployments for active-duty troops assigned to the Iraq mission or the broader campaign against terrorism may hurt recruiting and retention.

One Pentagon official said today that there was no "drop-dead deadline" yet for securing commitments for the international division, but noted, "Our prudent planning is continuing."

While the strain on the Guard and Reserve raises similar anxieties about recruitment and retention, the possibility of a large mobilization raises political concerns as well. These citizen-soldiers have roots in communities deeper than active-duty troops who move every few years, and therefore they also have the ear of their Congressional delegation.

At a hearing today of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, pressed Defense Secretary Donald. H. Rumsfeld on the demands now placed on the National Guard and Reserve, saying, "Pulling their fair share gets harder and harder and harder as their fair share becomes longer and longer and longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/international/middleeast/25MILI.html?ex=1065067200&en=a7ef0c5110c2de53&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
You are a tool and fvcking moron.

These people knew full well what they were getting into. If they didnt they are morons. They signed up for this.

Maybe you should tell the Mothers, Wives, Sons and Daughters of the MARKED FOR DEATH reservists THAT THEY ARE THE FVCKING MORONS .. FVCKBOY ...


Then I guess "Vietnam Syndrome" doesn't mean anything TO ANYONE anymore? FVCK IT.. TOO LONG ago to care about :disgust:
So you are saying the military is only a jobs program and it should not involve any danger?

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: dahunan
Pentagon Says It May Need to Call Up More Reservists
By THOM SHANKER

Published: September 25, 2003


WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 ? The Defense Department may be forced to call up thousands of additional National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq if foreign nations do not volunteer sufficient forces for a third international division, one of the Pentagon's most senior generals said today.

The decision on a significant new mobilization, expected within four to six weeks, will also turn on whether the Army and Marines can send fresh active-duty troops to Iraq and still manage other global commitments. It also depends on whether instability in Iraq has subsided to the extent that fewer outside troops are required, said the general, Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
------------------------------------------------
About 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are serving in Iraq or nearby, according to Pentagon statistics. The total number of National Guard and Reserve members now on active duty at home and overseas is 170,465, Pentagon officials said today. That is down from a high of 223,000 during major combat operations in Iraq.

Pentagon officials fear that the stress created by long, back-to-back deployments for active-duty troops assigned to the Iraq mission or the broader campaign against terrorism may hurt recruiting and retention.

One Pentagon official said today that there was no "drop-dead deadline" yet for securing commitments for the international division, but noted, "Our prudent planning is continuing."

While the strain on the Guard and Reserve raises similar anxieties about recruitment and retention, the possibility of a large mobilization raises political concerns as well. These citizen-soldiers have roots in communities deeper than active-duty troops who move every few years, and therefore they also have the ear of their Congressional delegation.

At a hearing today of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, pressed Defense Secretary Donald. H. Rumsfeld on the demands now placed on the National Guard and Reserve, saying, "Pulling their fair share gets harder and harder and harder as their fair share becomes longer and longer and longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/international/middleeast/25MILI.html?ex=1065067200&en=a7ef0c5110c2de53&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
You are a tool and fvcking moron.

These people knew full well what they were getting into. If they didnt they are morons. They signed up for this.

Maybe you should tell the Mothers, Wives, Sons and Daughters of the MARKED FOR DEATH reservists THAT THEY ARE THE FVCKING MORONS .. FVCKBOY ...


Then I guess "Vietnam Syndrome" doesn't mean anything TO ANYONE anymore? FVCK IT.. TOO LONG ago to care about :disgust:
So you are saying the military is only a jobs program and it should not involve any danger?

Not at all.. but this is becoming a quagmire that could last several years. To be honest with you I hope we build a large military base in Iraq and use it to protect ourselves from Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. With the continuous growth of China's military we will need more presence in that area of the world.


BUT... does George Bush think the US Presidency is a game? Why did he land on a Aircraft Carrier and proclaim victory and stir up the terrorists in Iraq with his gung ho "Bring It On" crap?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
i always thought reservists just second line to protect our boarders and help out in times of national disasters and such. i never signed up but if i did i sure as hell would be pissed if they tried to ship me half way around the globe on some nation building project.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,809
192
106
It all was major part of the reduction of forces plan to ramp up combat training and readiness of the reserves. You couldnt cut the military in half and still have a bunch of weekend bar-B-quers in the reserves. They were given all that high tech military armament and then active duty officers placed in charge of training them for major military objectives. I dont believe any reservist in today's armed forces should have been taken aback by the possibility of deployment and the consequences, especially after Desert Storm. A large percentage of them are Desert Storm vets.
 

Bulk Beef

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
5,466
0
76
i always thought reservists just second line to protect our boarders and help out in times of national disasters and such.
You were wrong, and this has been hashed out repeatedly. The Guard and Reserves have long histories of overseas deployments, and they have an even more integral role in the current streamlined (read: downsized) military.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I seriously doubt the Reserves or National Guard enrollment could be sustained if GWB (or Gore) had announced a plan to invade/overthrow/occupy Central Asian or Middle Eastern countries . . . while requiring 12mo tours. Reserve troops clearly understand there's a chance they might be called for active duty but this President has essentially made it a certainty. By stacking his Cabinet with Cold War retreads and "Masters of the Universe" delusionists, Bush has commited our country to a needless loss of life (military and civilian) and tremendous financial costs.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I seriously doubt the Reserves or National Guard enrollment could be sustained if GWB (or Gore) had announced a plan to invade/overthrow/occupy Central Asian or Middle Eastern countries . . . while requiring 12mo tours. Reserve troops clearly understand there's a chance they might be called for active duty but this President has essentially made it a certainty. By stacking his Cabinet with Cold War retreads and "Masters of the Universe" delusionists, Bush has commited our country to a needless loss of life (military and civilian) and tremendous financial costs.
I don't think it will take that. Give it a few more years in Iraq. If it goes on much more than a year, many reservists will be financially ruined. Not all, but many, perhaps even most. So who is going to put their family through that? Who is going to say to their kids, "Well you may be without a home, but buck up, I am helping people"?

Few here remember that there was tremendous public support for VN early on. Day turned to months and months into years. That didnt work out.

We cant leave, but we cant stay long either, and that is just one reason.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Financial ruin . . . whatcha talkin' about Winston?! Bush tax cuts (marginal rates and definitely the dividend/capital gains) will reinvigorate American industry from manufacturing to textiles. Subsidies to farms means there's plenty of agriculture jobs available particularly when we shut down the border to keep out the illegals. Don't believe any of this hysteria about long term interest rates climbing due to the appearance of a structural deficit in the US budget.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
You are right BBD, but I suggest a "National Binky Day"

Our country needs solace right now. A pacifier to pacify the masses.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I seriously doubt the Reserves or National Guard enrollment could be sustained if GWB (or Gore) had announced a plan to invade/overthrow/occupy Central Asian or Middle Eastern countries . . . while requiring 12mo tours. Reserve troops clearly understand there's a chance they might be called for active duty but this President has essentially made it a certainty. By stacking his Cabinet with Cold War retreads and "Masters of the Universe" delusionists, Bush has commited our country to a needless loss of life (military and civilian) and tremendous financial costs.
Actually, with the current state of the economy, the active military is having no trouble at all fulfilling and even exceeding enlistment qoutas. Even though I personally think recruiters are lying, cheating, one step above car salesman types...they are packing them in. The older guys in the guard and reserve may jump ship however which would hurt, particularly if a lot of senior NCO's decide to pack it in.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
This isn't directed at you but let me see if I got this right . . .

When the economy was booming, lower enlistment and re-enlistment was due to Clinton's slashing of the military. Now that the economy is in the dumps, higher enlistment is due to Bush's leadership.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
This isn't directed at you but let me see if I got this right . . .

When the economy was booming, lower enlistment and re-enlistment was due to Clinton's slashing of the military. Now that the economy is in the dumps, higher enlistment is due to Bush's leadership.
The military always has higher enlistment rates during tight job market's, I don't really think it has much to do with "leadership" per say.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I know I was lobbing that one at the rabid Clinton haters. I thought many of Clinton's policies were BS but his BS was certainly less expensive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY