I can tell you I got it straight from a colonel way up in the recruitment hierarchy that by the middle of 2003 Army recruitment was going full blast, with annual doubling of budgets in some areas. The gist of it is that recruitment gets every resource they can productively use, and then is asked if they want more.
Even back then, they knew Iraq is not the end of the war.
The army brass keep saying publicly that they are meeting their recruitment needs. But the fact that they are drafting ex-soldiers demonstrates that they are undermanned and know it. The fact that they are pulling marines from Korea is another indicator. The fact that they have guard and reserve troops in front line duty is another indicator. The fact that they are stop-lossing soldiers and not allowing them to get out when their enlistment is up is another. The fact that soldiers are doing more than a year in theater, and soldiers who have done their year are returning for another deployment is another.
It becomes apparent that either we are severely undermanned, or holding a significant reserve for something else. Its possible, I would like to think so, but I haven't seen any evidence of this other parallel force ready to pounce on Iran or North Korea. I see one force that is strapped just to handle one low-grade conflict. This might be the tip-off to our enemies that we can't handle more than one low-grade conflict at a time.
They have to admit the obvious and expand the force. The only way to do that without a draft (that would destroy the force) is to raise the pay and benefits. And, as the article indicates, don't monkey with a soldier's enlistment.
I am an over the hill Vietnam veteran, and am in complete agreement with the article's thesis. I am not in good enough physical condition to be in combat, but I personally could do SOMETHING USEFUL in a combat zone. If I could be accepted for duty in Iraq or Afganistan, it would give one of the IRR members a chance to get on with their lives. They deserve a chance to resume being civilians.
What civilians and politicans fail to comprehend is: if service personnel have been in the armed services for a number of years (typically three or more) then they are the "last in line" to be hired, and "first to be fired or laid off" in a weak economy.
Surely the military could come up with a big dollar sign-up bonus for new recruits or a similar financial incentive program for able bodied civilians who could do something useful in Iraq.
There was a recent news report of an estimate of 17% of soldiers in Iraq with stress related problems. You can't expect "normal" soldiers to be in constant combat 365 days without getting PTSD. This is a terrible problem for our returning veterans, and we hear reports that the VA budget is underfunded even now.
Tapping the IRR pool is an indication that we are running out of warm bodies who are needed to replace the troops who are being extended involuntarily beyond a "reasonable" one year tour of duty in a combat zone. This is a major problem, and if Kerry wins in November, he will have to deal with it also. Better for Bush to address this problem before it gets even worse in the coming months.
This current administration may have to bite the bullet and pay our professional service personnel an attractive salary commensurate with their performance.
The US formally (declaration of war?) have to admit that we are in a long term struggle with a highly determined enemy whose defeat will require our blood and our treasure.
"...and that the enemy can choose to open new theaters of operation that are unexpected (such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan)..."
Questions the Bush Administration needs to consider... What if the next assasination attempt on Musharraf succeeds and there is a fundamentalist coup? A coup in Saudi Arabia? North Korea moves south? China invades Taiwan? A domestic terrorist act requiring us to secure an attacked area, or better secure the borders, or detain enemy nationals?
Do we have the troops, supplies, and transport?
On July 6, 5,600 members of the U.S. Army's Individual Ready Reserve will start to receive notices that they are being recalled to active duty. Members of the IRR are generally soldiers who have completed their primary active-duty assignments. They are not part of the regular Reserves or the National Guard, but are simply kept on a list as available for recall. In general, this has been simply a formality. IRR members have been called up on only two occasions: Once was in 1968, following the Tet Offensive; the other was in 1991, in the context of Operation Desert Storm. There have already been some smaller call-ups of essential specialties, but this is the first large-scale mobilization. The Army has indicated that there likely will be more.
=====
Guess being an individually recalled Reservist in August 1950 does not count. (Korean War era)
In 1948 an 18 year old could enlist for one year of active duty and then would have a 6 year in-active reserve requirement.
I enlisted USAF October 2, 1948 for one year. On October 1, 1949 I was released from active duty and transfered to the in-active reserve effective October 2, 1949.
I received my recall telegram on August 6, 1950 with 10 calendar days to report to active duty for one year unless sooner released from active duty.
I was assigned to Eglin AFB, Florida for this recall.
...Anyone else on FR remember those years?
Buddy B
Retired-USAF <> E-7
Moosaki! The time to have corrrected this problem was when Clintoon was laying waste to our military! Give X-42 a M4 and put him on patrol in Falluja...
On point, of course, because no one in his right mind would trust him behind their back with a loaded weapon...