| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
August
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 1296
Location: Rhode Island
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ducimus wrote: | | You know, after WW2, the general thought was conventional wars was a thing of the past with the advent of atomic weaponry, and the new reality it presented. So they downsized and scaled the US armed forces to fit that view. A view which did not fit the requirements of the Korean war. |
It wasn't the generals who downsized the army after WW2, it was the millions of men and women who rightfully wanted to go home after the job was done. You don't seriously think the Truman administration, or any other for that matter was going to say, "oh wait hold on, now that we've beat the Axis we might have to fight the commies, so we're going to extend your enlistments for a few years. The American people just wouldn't have stood for it.
| Quote: | We'll always need more boots on the ground. Given how many area's were acutally inivolved in. As for a draft, i'm split on that. On one hand , i feel it is EVERY CITIZENS duty to serve the country for 2 to 4 years. On the other hand, i dont want some dillweed watching my back who's some disgrunted shithead.
Personnally i dont think they're very far from a draft. If they've had to tap into the IRR, you can't scrape the manpower barrel any lower then that. |
Actually the IRR is the top of the manpower barrel. They're already trained and quicker to prepare for duty than any civilian off the street.
I agree with you about a citizens duty, (i put in 7 years myself) and the military itself much prefers a volunteer over a draftee anyways, but that will always limit the size of the force that can be sustained.
Nukes aside, our military, unit for unit, is more powerful than it has been at any time in it's history. I don't see technology as being the entire answer to every concievable situation that crops up but it certainly helps the effectiveness of what troops the political and social climate provides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bradclark1
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1007
Location: Connecticut, USA.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| August wrote: | | Yeah it was worth looking at last week, but it's obviously a case of sour grapes spurred on by the political opposition. |
| Quote: | | So what? You might as well add to that list; WW1, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, the Mexican-American war, the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary war. In short we're a country that has always maintained a small standing military in peace time and have been slow to arm for war. |
Your problem is you are incapable of understanding what "balanced" means. All you see is that if I don't want small I want huge.
| Quote: | | Again, a natural occurance found after every war in our history. Hard for a professional military man to understand, believe me i know, but there's no arguing with facts. |
You assume that makes it right? Lets just keep doing the same old crap. And you call me incapable of change.
| Quote: | | Our purpose isn't and never was to "hold ground" as an occupier of a sovereign nation. The Iraqis aren't a US vassal state and if you advocate we treat them that way then you haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam. |
This is the facts. Iraq police and military control nothing. The U.S. controls the ground they are standing on at that moment. You haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam because history is repeating itself. As long as we are there we are looked at as being an occupying force. You can call it whateve politically correct name you want to call it but it doesn't change the fact we are an occupier.
| Quote: | | I see your options as inaccurate and your assesment of the choice being made as incorrect, barring of course a Democrat getting into office in a couple years and ensuring its failure by dismantling the gains that have been made. |
I see you didn't come up with any options. Each option is distasteful but it doesn't make them go away.
What gains have we made besides the vote and an ineffectual goverment?
How many years have we been there doing all this good?
I've started reading the books that are coming out on Iraqi freedom. I'm on my second book. The current book I'm reading is "No True Glory" which mainly covers the battle for Fallujah. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Not the way the book was written but what happened.
This book is written by Bing West who was an assistant secretary of defence under President Regan. Must be an in vogue thing for past secretaries in defence to write books.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
August
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 1296
Location: Rhode Island
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bradclark1 wrote: | | August wrote: | | Yeah it was worth looking at last week, but it's obviously a case of sour grapes spurred on by the political opposition. |
| Quote: | | So what? You might as well add to that list; WW1, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, the Mexican-American war, the war of 1812 and the Revolutionary war. In short we're a country that has always maintained a small standing military in peace time and have been slow to arm for war. |
Your problem is you are incapable of understanding what "balanced" means. All you see is that if I don't want small I want huge.
| Quote: | | Again, a natural occurance found after every war in our history. Hard for a professional military man to understand, believe me i know, but there's no arguing with facts. |
You assume that makes it right? Lets just keep doing the same old crap. And you call me incapable of change.
| Quote: | | Our purpose isn't and never was to "hold ground" as an occupier of a sovereign nation. The Iraqis aren't a US vassal state and if you advocate we treat them that way then you haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam. |
This is the facts. Iraq police and military control nothing. The U.S. controls the ground they are standing on at that moment. You haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam because history is repeating itself. As long as we are there we are looked at as being an occupying force. You can call it whateve politically correct name you want to call it but it doesn't change the fact we are an occupier.
| Quote: | | I see your options as inaccurate and your assesment of the choice being made as incorrect, barring of course a Democrat getting into office in a couple years and ensuring its failure by dismantling the gains that have been made. |
I see you didn't come up with any options. Each option is distasteful but it doesn't make them go away.
What gains have we made besides the vote and an ineffectual goverment?
How many years have we been there doing all this good?
I've started reading the books that are coming out on Iraqi freedom. I'm on my second book. The current book I'm reading is "No True Glory" which mainly covers the battle for Fallujah. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Not the way the book was written but what happened.
This book is written by Bing West who was an assistant secretary of defence under President Regan. Must be an in vogue thing for past secretaries in defence to write books. |
Whatever Brad. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't hold your breath waiting for Rumsfeld to resign though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradclark1
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1007
Location: Connecticut, USA.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Actually the IRR is the top of the manpower barrel. They're already trained and quicker to prepare for duty than any civilian off the street.
|
I think what Ducimus means is that we don't have the number of volunteers needed to sustain the force. If we are down to that we are sucking to fill slots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradclark1
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1007
Location: Connecticut, USA.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| August wrote: | | Whatever Brad. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't hold your breath waiting for Rumsfeld to resign though... |
 No, I don't think I'll hold my breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradclark1
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1007
Location: Connecticut, USA.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh boy I have hit my 1000th post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ducimus
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bradclark1 wrote: | | Quote: | Actually the IRR is the top of the manpower barrel. They're already trained and quicker to prepare for duty than any civilian off the street.
|
I think what Ducimus means is that we don't have the number of volunteers needed to sustain the force. If we are down to that we are sucking to fill slots. |
Yup.
If memory serves me correctly the whole drawdawn scheme under clintion was to downsize the active duty, but maintain the same level of "total force" by augmenting that downsized active duty with reserves.
Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it.
As manpower tasking goes, here is my understanding of it:
Active duty -> Active Reserve-> National guard -> IRR
Now what comes after the IRR?
Nothing. That is, unless you wanted to reinstate a draft. So if they've tapped into the IRR (which they have), then their sucking to fill slots, in a bad way. Until the iraqi invasion, when was the last time you heard about people in the IRR being recalled? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ducimus
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not intending to stir the pot, but i found this really intresting:
| Quote: | Could Rumsfeld Court-Martial the Retired Generals?
Surprisingly, yes.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:59 PM ET
Donald Rumsfeld has a notorious vindictive streak. How low will he stoop to pursue it? Let's put him to the test. If he wanted to get really brutal, Rumsfeld could convene a court-martial and prosecute the six retired generals who have been calling for his head. Military law, if read literally, permits him to do this. So, will he? |
http://www.slate.com/id/2140616/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
August
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 1296
Location: Rhode Island
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ducimus wrote: | | Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it. |
No, they are not discharged until their entire enlistment is completed. See when you sign up for the service you do it in what used to be a 6 year hitch (think it's 8 now). Some of that you do on active duty (3 years min when i was in) and the rest in the IRR. You are not discharged until the end of the IRR period.
Think of it as "indefinite leave". During that reserve time you are subject to recall at any time to serve the remainer of the hitch on active duty subject to the needs of the service. Activating National Guard and Active Reserve units requires, i believe, Congressional approval. Recalling an IRR does not.
If you look at it practically these people are far more prepared for active duty than a bunch of aging, out of shape reservists or National Guardsmen trained on last generation equipment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
August
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 1296
Location: Rhode Island
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ducimus wrote: | Not intending to stir the pot, but i found this really intresting:
| Quote: | Could Rumsfeld Court-Martial the Retired Generals?
Surprisingly, yes.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:59 PM ET
Donald Rumsfeld has a notorious vindictive streak. How low will he stoop to pursue it? Let's put him to the test. If he wanted to get really brutal, Rumsfeld could convene a court-martial and prosecute the six retired generals who have been calling for his head. Military law, if read literally, permits him to do this. So, will he? |
http://www.slate.com/id/2140616/ |
Well i'm not sure where the writer gets this idea:
"But if it is a crime, punishable by court-martial, to disdain Donald Rumsfeld, he could lock up half the Army officer corps."
But in any case I would be highly suprised if the SOD brought charges against Zinni and company. After all, the only person you have to keep happy in any military unit, private company or government organization is the boss and Rumsfeld has that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ducimus
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| August wrote: | | Ducimus wrote: | | Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it. |
No, they are not discharged until their entire enlistment is completed. See when you sign up for the service you do it in what used to be a 6 year hitch (think it's 8 now). Some of that you do on active duty (3 years min when i was in) and the rest in the IRR. You are not discharged until the end of the IRR period.
|
Yeah i know what the contract says. I signed one too. But i'm being realistic here. Like anything in the miltary, theres what the book says, and then there's how its really done. (unless you work on technical equipment and have to follow a TO).
The book answer is the one you give. Yeah yeah, 4 active, 4 inactive reserve. But what normally REALLY happends?
Johny enlists in Highschool under the DEP. Graduates, goes to active duty for 4 years. Gets his DD FORM214 and certificate of Discharge, maybe a medal as a kick out the door, maybe goes on terminal leave, then goes back to school or back to work. Then maybe shows up once a year for a weigh in. ( i didnt do that part, i went active reserve )
Thats what NORMALLY happends. What's abnormal is
John goes back to work, starts a family 2 years after DOS. Then 1 year after he establish's his family, he's recalled. Well, yeah he did sign a contract, but the reality is, if they have to recall someone like THAT, they are hurting for people.
An intresting thought, although i doubt it could happen is what happends after they run out of IRR to pull upon? what then? It might not be a problem now, but if recruitment and retention remains low, in a few years it could be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
August
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 1296
Location: Rhode Island
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ducimus wrote: | | August wrote: | | Ducimus wrote: | | Individual Ready Reserves, are guys who have been DISCHARGED from active duty and put on inactive reserves for a couple years. For all intents and purposes their civlllians again. Show up once a year, show them how much weight you've gained... thats pretty much it. |
No, they are not discharged until their entire enlistment is completed. See when you sign up for the service you do it in what used to be a 6 year hitch (think it's 8 now). Some of that you do on active duty (3 years min when i was in) and the rest in the IRR. You are not discharged until the end of the IRR period.
|
Yeah i know what the contract says. I signed one too. But i'm being realistic here. Like anything in the miltary, theres what the book says, and then there's how its really done. (unless you work on technical equipment and have to follow a TO).
The book answer is the one you give. Yeah yeah, 4 active, 4 inactive reserve. But what normally REALLY happends?
Johny enlists in Highschool under the DEP. Graduates, goes to active duty for 4 years. Gets his DD FORM214 and certificate of Discharge, maybe a medal as a kick out the door, maybe goes on terminal leave, then goes back to school or back to work. Then maybe shows up once a year for a weigh in. ( i didnt do that part, i went active reserve )
Thats what NORMALLY happends. What's abnormal is
John goes back to work, starts a family 2 years after DOS. Then 1 year after he establish's his family, he's recalled. Well, yeah he did sign a contract, but the reality is, if they have to recall someone like THAT, they are hurting for people.
An intresting thought, although i doubt it could happen is what happends after they run out of IRR to pull upon? what then? It might not be a problem now, but if recruitment and retention remains low, in a few years it could be. |
Well I can sympathize with Johnny but that's like joining in peacetime and trying to quit when it looks like you might be shot at. A contract is a contract and like i said it doesn't take an act of congress to activate IRR troops.
If its any consolation retirees are in the same boat. During the first Gulf war, my Dad, a 61 year old retired Army Master Sgt got a letter from Uncle Sam telling him to prepare to report to Ft. Dix for activation believe it or not and that was back in 91.
As for retention, last i heard reenlistments were up and recruitment will meet or exceed quotas in all 4 services, although the Army was the only one looking like it might miss them for awhile.
BTW you said you were issued a DD214 when you left active duty. I was under the impression they weren't handed over until IRR was finished. Personally i don't know as i spent my entire 6 year hitch on Active. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ducimus
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | BTW you said you were issued a DD214 when you left active duty. I was under the impression they weren't handed over until IRR was finished |
yeah i got my DDform 214 after i outprocessed my final base. I dont remember if i walked out the gate with it, or they mailed it to my HOR. But know i HAD my DDform 214 because i couldnt get a job without it, or so was my understanding.
As for the certificate of discharge.. that came later. I've sat here thinking about it trying to remember because i have two of them on my wall....
When you go active reserve, it releases you from your prior contract and you sign a new one. So they issue you the certificate of discharge, right there on the spot. You get a second certificate later (without a DDFORM 214) after you finish your term in the active reserves, releasing you from THAT contract.
I think time in DEP counts towards your 4 year inactive requirement too.
:hmm: At any rate, im pretty sure if you do 2 year's active reserve, your not required to do the 4 year inactive IRR. Primarly because to go active reserve, they have to release you from your prior contract. So i never did the yearly weigh ins. I just played weekend warrior for a couple years and said to hell with it. Just wasn't the same as active duty.
edit:
Come to think of it, im not sure if 2 years active reserves releases you from the 4 year IRR requirement or not now. See, i had 1 year under DEP, and then i had my enlistment extended a year because i was overseas. So i acutally had 5 years active duty and 1 year IRR under dep. So i only had 2 years left over anyway when i got out. *shrug* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
