Officer: Army May Change Reserves Policy

AP via YahooNews ^ | 07 Jan 2005 | Robert Burns

[pickemuphere]

Take this cum grano salis.. The source officer is "anonymous."

[dead]

The official, who discussed the matter with a small group of reporters on condition of anonymity

Who the hell is this idiot, holding an unofficial anonymous press conference with a group of reporters!?!

[matymac]

Who cares who he is...
what is important is that this change is bad news for the Reservist. Currently Reserve units have a minimum time that they have between activations. If they shorten this period or do away with it all together it will out even more strain on a stretched force as it is.

[2banana]

Stretched thin by the wars in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), the Army is considering a National Guard and Reserve policy shift that could result in part-timers being called to active duty multiple times for up to two years each time, a senior Army official said Thursday.

And this would help how?????

[dead]

Who cares who he is...

Maybe anybody who might want to know whether or not his statements are true?

[Salgak]

More importantly, it signals the end of the Guard and Reserve as we've known it. Forget local disasters and World War
III: The Guard and Reserve are now the "Garrison" forces. . .

[matymac]

Whoever this person is it doesn't matter...
Because if this is true it is a bad move on part of the Administration.
Knowing this persons identity does little to make the situation better if it is true and knowing them doesn't make it more false if its not true...

[matymac]

Exactly. If this is in fact true then being a reservist on a 6 year enlistment isn't really worth it when you can be gone for your whole enlistment. Why not enlist in the Active force instead and get better benefits and only have to serve 4 years.

[dead]

Obviously, the point is flying right over your head.

If the source is anonymous, we have no way of knowing if his information is accurate. If his information is inaccurate, there is no reason to be worrying about it.

But if it makes you feel better to fret over the fevered musings of some anonymous "official", go right ahead.

[Salgak]

Serve only 4 years. . .until you're "stop-lossed", and kept for 5 or 6 years. . .

I would request that the Congress only allow "stop-loss" when war has been formally declared. . .

[cll]

As far as I'm concerned, the only people that complain about stop-loss, multiple tours, etc. are the press. Mostly. From the day we raise our hands to the day we transfer to the inactive reserve or retired reserve, we know that we are always subject to mobilization. An even in the inactive or retired reserve you are always subject to a recall. That's called sacrifice and service to the nation.

[matymac]

I wasn't fretting...just stating that if this is, in fact, the case then we should worry.
If not then I guess I wasted a few minutes of my life discussing it. I'll be certain to make sure that I have the point defined clearly to me, by you, before I post...obviously I need the guidance.

[matymac]

Thats not the issue. Reserves are meant to be exactly that...Reserve Forces. But when they are subjected to multiple 2 year deployments over a 6 year enlistment...then that is not really, in essence, a Reserve function rather an Active Duty force that just happens to be designated as "reservist."

[Salgak]

On the other hand, though, an OCCUPATION is not, IMNHSO, sufficient reason to mobilize the Reserves and Guard.

A reserve is just that, RESERVE. . .and now that we're using them as de-facto regulars, should a genuine emergency occur. . . there is no reserve to fall back on.

As much as I love what he's doing, I think Rumsfield has made a serious mistake in not calling for the enlargement of our Active-Duty Regulars. . . we're still recovering from the paucity of the Clinton years. . .

[ThermoNuclearWarrior]

We need to increase our Military to the size it was during the Reagan years. Let's increase defense spending and cut the social welfare programs big time.

We could easily afford a bigger military and continue with our new defense projects if we would cut all the useless programs we fund outside of defense. It would just take some massive cuts in useless social programs but for some reason ignorant liberals are against that.

[cll]

Agreed that we are still recovering from the Clinton years and that the regular forces need to be increased. However, that takes time and political guts. In the meantime, this is a global war on terrorism, after all, and since the reserves/National Guard make just about half of all forces, we have to carry a good size of the weight. That's why we have trained for the last two decades to active duty standards. I've personally lost count how many times I have been plucked from my full time employment and from my family. But in the end, that's a choice I've made. Thankfully I have a supportive employer and family. I guess the bigger problem these extended mobilizations cause is recruiting new guys, not just retaining old soldiers.

[B4Ranch]

[xm177e2]

Who the hell is this idiot, holding an unofficial anonymous press conference with a group of reporters!?!

Possibly someone floating a trial balloon for the administration.