Reserves Face Longer Stay in Iraq

Gadsden Times (AP) ^ | Sep 9, 2003 | staff

[ladtx]

The Associated Press Thousands of National Guard and Army Reserve forces are in for a longer stay in Iraq.

The Army is reportedly extending their tours of duty in Iraq and surrounding countries to a year, months longer than many troops had anticipated.

Most troops have been called up for a year of total service, which includes weeks of training in the U.S. before deployment and debriefings after they return home.

The Washington Post reports the new policy was issued Friday without a formal announcement. It means many Guard and Army Reserve troops could have their original year-long mobilizations extended by up to six months.

Army officials say it's necessary to keep a large number of Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq longer because of security concerns and the scarcity of active-duty forces.

[ladtx]

Posting this because my son is in the Army Reserves, in a Civil Affairs Battalion. Morale is taking a hit on this even though the Army is trying to paint a smiley face on it. Being a retired military guy myself I can understand what and why, but sometimes it's hard to explain it to some of the younger guys. If they had been told they would be there a year from the outset it would have been easier to take. But someone in their wisdom chose to tell them they would only be there 5-6 months now the extension is a morale killer. I told my son all he can do is lean forward in the saddle, anticipate the next order, salute and carry on. He agrees, but being a typical soldier he will grumble about it. The Pentagon planners have dropped the ball on this one.

[ladtx]

Reserves bump.

[Blood of Tyrants]

My friend from central Washington was told up front to expect to be in activated for a full year when they were called up. Due to some bureaucratic snafu where the units medical records were lost, his unit (called up Feb 14) was not deployed to Iraq until late April. So they are not sure if they will be comein home in mid Feb or late April or some where in between.

[ladtx]

My sons orders stated a maximum of 2 years, which I think is a standard time sited when the orders are issued, but they were told by commanders they would be there about 6 months. A better approach would have been to tell them they will be on active duty the full 2 years, anything less would be gravy.

[Coop]

The Pentagon planners have dropped the ball on this one.

There are only so many resources to go around to fill many important missions. But having been deployed before, I sympathize with your son's frustration. Please pass on our gratitude for his service, bravery and protection of our freedom!

[Feckless]

" ...months longer than many troops had anticipated. "

Not paid, trained, or encouraged to anticipate anything. This is a perfect time to weed out those who saw reserve duty as an easy way to make a bass boat payment with little or no work. Make more room for those who trult want to serve.

[Maria S]

I, too, am sorry that some of these guys are having to stay a little longer than they expected. But, folks, this is a fight that CANNOT be pulled out of until we've made inroads into this terrorism stuff. We cannot have another attack such as 911, and FINALLY we have a president who is willing to act. He may not have the 'spinners' that Clinton had, he may not be a silver-tongued talker like Clinton, his wife may not be serving as co-president, but he IS doing SOMETHING!!

I have started reading 'Losing Bin Laden' by Richard Minter, and I would encourage everyone to get a copy of it.

There is an entire chapter devoted to the connection between Saddam/Iraq and Osama bin Laden, so the argument being used by liberals right now (no connection between the two) is specious.

Also, when I read the continuing carping of the liberal press and how Bush has messed things up, I want to throw up! Unbelievable how Clinton had opportunity after opportunity, and was NOT up to the task. Page xvi (Introduction) of the book, two sentences jump out:

1. "If President Clinton had been more engaged in the fight against bin Laden, history might have been very different."
2. "After the president learned that bin Laden was planning to assassinate him, Clinton still could not being himself to take the kind of strong measures that seem second nature to the current Bush Administration."

[grania]

I, too, am sorry that some of these guys are having to stay a little longer than they expected. But, folks, this is a fight that CANNOT be pulled out of until we've made inroads into this terrorism stuff.

Those who have volunteered to defend their country have done a wonderful job, and will continue to do so. My son's experience in the military taught me that...the people he encountered every day were simply the best.

But, this is a long fight. And it's for all of us. No draft was fine when the challenges weren't so great and so long lasting. It's time for a fair draft. If our children can serve so can GWB's and everyone else's who put our soldiers in the battlefield.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

[Maria S]

"If our children can serve so can GWB's..."

Nope, sorry. Can't agree with drafting girls. If there are women who want to join the military, fine. But no drafting of women. Besides, Chelsea Clinton would look horrible in military garb...and we WOULD expect her to serve, too, wouldn't we?

[91B]

When I flew down to Qatar from Kuwait I was sitting next to a LTC staff officer with a bird colonel sitting across from him. He told me that he worked for the undersecretary of either Defense or the Army (can't remember which) for manpower(?) and he started asking me all sorts of questions (are you guard or reserve? how long have you been over here? When are you going home?).

I kind of got the impression that he wasn't really interested in my answers because he would interupt me before I was finished talking with another question. Finally when I said that I figured to be going home in December (because our one-year orders run out in February-the same time that our active duty ID cards expire) he explained that he, the colonel and the secretary were in theater to study the issue of whether we were to be activated for one year total or one year in theater.

This is the first any of us had heard about one year in theater and I mentioned that our orders and IDs were based on the one-year active duty assumption and he said that he would bring it up in discussions, because they hadn't thought about some of those issues.

Right now I am looking at a copy of my orders which say "Period of active duty: not to exceed 365 days", but which also contain a clause allowing for us to be extended.

As I see it we can be kept over here for a year (although I do not think that was the original plan), but we will have to have new orders extending us. I really don't think that will happen in the case of my particular company though. What will probably happen to us is that we will be sent back to NC, and then reactivated and broken up to fill shortages in 30th brigade when they come over here next year.

[ladtx]

My sons orders said a term not to exceed two years. He's in civil affairs so I suspect they knew the CA units would be required longer than combat or combat support units.

[grania]

Nope, sorry. Can't agree with drafting girls.

Do you think boys should be drafted at this point?

Do you think those whose children are girls should be encouraging them to serve, as they believe it is important enough to put other people's daughters on the line?

[Maria S]

1. No draft at all necessary at this time; no draft of women ever.
2. If a reservist is unhappy with his situation, too bad. He (or she) undoubtedly knew when signing up what the rules were, and should be enough of a man (or woman) to follow through with what was agreed on.
3. Leaders (both republican and democrat) have been putting other people's children in harm's way for many years. That's part of the way this country runs...and that's the way our lives are. All things considered, we still have the best country in the world, regardless of what the liberals say!

[Britton J Wingfield]

Should have just told them up front to count on 12 months. That's what they told us, on the chance that we'd be deployed.

If they got to go home early then that'd just be gravy.

What is a normal deployment for Army units?

[ladtx]

Normal assignments used to be 12 months unaccompanied and 36 accompanied. I would imagine that still pretty much holds true, but something like Iraq or Afghanistan all bets are off.

[SAMWolf]

Bump.

[berserker]

It could be worse:

A U.S. Air Force mechanic performs his duties on a C-130 Hercules aircraft as the 914th Air Lift Wing reservists say goodbye to loved ones at the Niagara Falls Air Base in Niagara Falls, N.Y., Thursday, Aug. 28, 2003. The 914th is being re-deployed to the Central Command Theater of Operations after returning home from Iraq in June. (AP Photo/Don Heupel)

[91B]

Yeah-an NCNG MP unit down the road from us back home went to Afghanistan in February 02 and came home in September 02. They were activated again in February and they are in Baghdad now. They didn't get in Theater until late May or early June so with a year in theater they are looking at about 19 months total deployment in a little more than two years (and they are hardly unique in this regard).

We really need more troops. Less than 500,000 active duty Army is not anywhere near enough.

[mystery-ak]

Well, my hubby(Mike) was to be home in Oct, then Dec and now April....it's one year in theater....give or take a month for demoliziation....Mike said his boys in his two Co's were disappointed but taking it very well..he was really proud of them...Hey, when you belong to the Army be prepared for anything.

I was real upset at first, but have accepted it....I hate to sound corny. but like Mike said *this is bigger than the two of us*....he's devoted to his boys and mission.....besides, he promised to take me on a cruise when he gets home....