Mandatory Re-enlistments..what do you think about the soliders who have been recalled for the war in Iraq?
Printable View
Mandatory Re-enlistments..what do you think about the soliders who have been recalled for the war in Iraq?
Anyone who read their enlistment contract would know they enlisted for 8 years regardless of how many they did active. Afterwards, they would be re-assigned to IRR for the duration of the 8 years. I am currently in this status as a matter of fact. I have no sympathy for someone who didn't read their contract and as a result got their panties in a bunch when they were recalled or involuntarily re-enlisted. If you are going to sign your name to something READ IT! If you don't like what it says, go flip f*cking hamburgers for all I care but DON'T enlist and then f*cking whine about it.
As for the actual policy, I think it is a very effective and needed provision that enables the US Armed Forces a way to maintain numbers during a conflict or war during which the draft is not being utilized.
Nobody suffered a mandatory re-enlistment, as 213th pointed out.
Your term is up when it's up, and they can't get you after that. They have to stop loss you while you are in to extend it.
I'm presently in the process of re-enlisting, although my job will be dramatically different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 213th
This.
I am glad that my time is way over. I have seen some of my fellow platoon members get involuntarily extended on several deployments. The contract says 8 years; dont think that they wont enforce that, especially now.
I'm upset about the way this issue has been misrepresented in the media. 213th has it right.
I wish President Bush had increased the permanent increase in the end strength of the armed services in his first administration. I think it's good to call up the reserves from time to time, but they shouldn't be constantly on rotation.
My wife's enlistment was up the day before my unit got activated for Desert Storm and she waited a week then called in and asked I'm out right they said just by the skin of your teeth. I was the Unit MPI and my slot was replaced by a Medic and I became excess. Our First Sgt. in his wisdom only took Paragraph & line numbers with no excess to Ft Ord when the unit was activated for Pre Deployment training. My brother & I were transferred to Brigade for the War so they had us skip tracing all the people who didn't make movement with the unit to process them for discharge. My unit is getting ready for their 4th trip
I was in the IRR a short time, pretty stressful for a while, cause just about anybody can take you and being a medic I was expecting, but never got the call. All out now, but I'd do it again. Part of my old unit just came back monday:)
They own me until I turn 60; I'm in category II as a retired member (Nondisability military retirees under age 60 who have retired 5 years or more). It's highly doubtful they'd want me back 'cause I done broke myself after retiring :p. And it's extremely unlikely they'd call us back anyway.
But they could grab me. It's part of the deal I made. Shame on me if I signed it and then wanted to opt out.
You have a much better attitude than I would have. I signed up for 4 years with a 6 year commitment, assuming my last two would be inactive reserves. As it turned out, I did my 6 active duty, but when I got out, I felt I'd done my part.Quote:
Originally Posted by CT209
If we'd had all out war that would be different, but I'd have been pissed if I'd gotten yanked up for something like Iraq or even Afghanistan when there are lotsa young people hanging around on the street with nothing to do....
If you were in the military, would you want to work with a bunch of slacker draftees? I know I wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retdetsgt
I think the all volunteer force is necessary if we're going to try and act like a country that respects freedom.
I was in the military with draftees. Most were pretty good soliders. It wasn't until the Vietnam war drug on for so many years that they lowered the standards and started drafting people with criminal records that it went to shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Mack
I was a platoon leader in an infantry company in Vietnam. Half my people were draftees and I trusted them with my life daily. They never let me down. Doing away with the draft was a cheap political shot by liberals to appease the public over their mishandling of the war.
Draftees bring a fresh perspective to the military, trust me on that. I've been there, Kiddo.
Different war, different standards, different everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retdetsgt
The average infantry draftee in Vietnam would not know how to use a PLUG/R or a Blueforce Tracker. It simply wasn't necessary to have that sort of background or education.
What would one of your draftees have made out of an EOTech or a laser guide for a joint direct attack munition?
I'd rather have volunteers - and I've been there :D
War is still ultimately a man with a gun, but now even the gun requires an education.
I don't want to be rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. A good many of the draftees had college behind them, probably more than the average person joining the enlisted ranks today. Very few weren't HS grads. People were eligible for the draft at 18, but most weren't taken until about 21 or so. Even those w/o college probably had more life experience than most of the people enlisting today. Based on the average draftee I worked with, I would suspect the military dumbed down a little when it went to volunteer only. Then people were coming in the military that otherwise would have gone into a business or professional career. And a lot of extraordinary people joined the AF and Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army and going into the infantry. Others just let themselves get drafted so they'd only have to do the two years active.Quote:
Originally Posted by maclean
You've been there with volunteers, you're merely guessing about draftees. I was there with both. I also think you have a bit of an elitist attitude comparing my generation and yours, my friend and you have an idea not founded on anything that the average draftee was stupid. It was a different war, but don't think your generation of soldier is smarter than mine just because a lot of the gear you had wasn't available then.;) Did you know how to use a an EOTech or a laser guide before you went in or were you taught? You think a draftee with a few years of college or even just a high school education back then would be too dumb to learn? I'd love to hear what you base that revelation on......
I think the military today suffers because they don't get that cross section of society. For some reason, you and others seem to think only the dregs of society were drafted. You're dead wrong, a lot of talented people were drafted who would have never joined then and wouldn't bother to join now. And everyone was eligible, even college grads. Gore was drafted after he graduated from Harvard. Not many were able to dodge it by goiing into the Guard like Bush. But why you guys have decided all or most draftees were slackers and dumb is beyond me since you have no experience to justify it.:confused:
As I said earlier, towards the end of the war, it was a different story because they lowered standards. But until then, standards were about as high as enlisted today. In fact, recruiters didn't have to fudge to meet quotas then. Don't base your opinion on what little you've heard about the final years of the war. Ask your grandparents if draftees were all stupid and slackers during the 50's and early 60's.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I don't take it as rude. Please read what I actually write though, so we can have a good conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retdetsgt
Thank you for your service, by the way. Voluntary or otherwise.
You're going to have to support your argument a bit better to convert me, though. I'm still in - you haven't worn the uniform in a long time. A HUGE portion of the people I serve with are college educated - many beyond the education of the officers over us.
I've met some rocks - but they were and remain pretty few and far between.
My father - perhaps he will chime in - enlisted in the Army in 1966 as a volunteer. I trust and value his opinions - and he has the perspective of two sons in the service now to compare to.
If you want to tell me another perspective, I am all ears.
Historically speaking, comparing the post Vietnam reconstruction of the military to todays volunteers shows a disturbing lack of perspective.Quote:
You've been there with volunteers, you're merely guessing about draftees. I was there with both.
You are correct - I did not serve with draftees. That doesn't mean I can't read or ask or learn about it.
Did you have shake and bake NCOs?
The post draft years in the US Army were and are considered a "rebuild." NCOES didn't even start until 1971? The NCO corps was devastated.
I don't think you are being fair to todays service in making that comparison.
If this was a generational issue, my dad would have kicked that out of me years ago.Quote:
I also think you have a bit of an elitist attitude comparing my generation and yours, my friend
Settle down there - I'm not attacking your generation. I also don't think every draftee was stupid - but I can certainly look at historical evidence that suggests a different caliber than you are telling me about.
Maybe you can educate me, I do actually listen.
I was very fortunate - I had a grandfather and a father to ask about two differrent wars.Quote:
As I said earlier, towards the end of the war, it was a different story because they lowered standards. But until then, standards were about as high as enlisted today. In fact, recruiters didn't have to fudge to meet quotas then. Don't base your opinion on what little you've heard about the final years of the war. Ask your grandparents if draftees were all stupid and slackers during the 50's and early 60's.
If you can point out - anywhere - that I suggested draftees were stupid or sluggish, do so.
I still believe todays soldier is better educated, and will do so until you can dispel me of the rumor.
I found that 79% of Vietnam bound soldiers were high school graduates - at that time the highest rate we had ever fielded and something to have been proud of.
We now enlist 99% high school graduates or equivalent, or higher. There have been stories reported that is being lowered now as we fight two wars - I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclean
Of course they didn't know and neither did you until you were taught. And you don't think they were capable of learning? There are a lot of people with HS educations who are pretty good with computers that never attended a day of college. I have a graduate degree and I can tell you that education doesn't always equate brains. Some draftees weren't rocket scientists, but a lot were pretty bright because they were taken from a cross section of the population. I don't believe you have any basis for the statement the average draftee couldn't learn to use today's equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by maclean
You're faulting me for comparing the post Vietnam volunteer army with the present. But I get the idea you're basing your opinion of the draft army with the last few years of the war. As I said several times, they lowered the standard. I would suspect then that the 79% factor was probably a lot lower. They were really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. But remember, we lost over 50,000 people there KIA, not to mention many more permanently disabled from wounds. And we served only one mandatory tour. They were simply running out of people. I was fortunate that I had finished my tour and was out by the time it had gotten that bad. I also admit that I was allowed to go to OCS only because they needed cannon fodder in the form of platoon leaders. Today I wouldn't have qualified with the education I had then. But I gotta tell ya, some of the college grad officers I served with had the same military training I did. I didn't find them any more qualified to lead men than my peers. In fact, I think I had a leg up on most because I had a couple of years enlisted before I went to OCS. The West Pointers had more training, but in the bush, they didn't know a damn bit more about jungle warfare than I did. But they were qualified to be field grade officers and I wasn't, that was the difference.
You're correct, I probably know as much about today's army as you know about mine. History is written by liberals and not always correct. And liberals hated the draft, take that into account when you read that history. Several of my people who were draftees had some college education and one at least had a degree. Some of the draftees weren't terribly bright, but from what I've read about recruiting abuses just locally, not all enlistees today are sterling material. Recruiters are under terrible pressure to make quotas. I'd be willing to bet that if Iraq and Afghanistan drags on, you will start seeing a lowering of standards too. I don't think they can continue rotating people back there. That's insane.
I still believe the draft would be a good idea. I see no reason why people shouldn't have to serve their country. A lot of other countries require it and have excellent militarys. Israel for one requires service from both men and women. But it shouldn't be written though to exclude the rich and privileged.
I certainly have respect for the people in the military today, I would never badmouth them in any form. But draftees formed an integral of every war from the civil war through Vietnam. I have to admit that it irks me to have them criticized as not being as capable by people who weren't there and seeing them perform. The stereotype just isn't accurate. And you certainly can't discount their bravery because they were drafted and not volunteers.
You won't ever hear me do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retdetsgt
I'm reading the rest of your post carefully, and you bring up some good points.
More later.
I realize that and never thought you would say it. I was making the point that it takes more than education to make a good soldier. I was and still am proud to have served with many draftees. Guess that's why I'm so sensitive about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by maclean
I will chime in here if nobody minds. I am not in much of a position to judge either....since I went into the military at 20....with an ASVAB of 133. That qualified me to enlist in the old ASA....a very small and very elite group of men who worked around the world with and directly for the NSA. I had a Top Secret/Crypto and was additiionally cleared for R&D and Compartmented Projects. I worked in some very interesting places with some StarWars gear which was so far ahead of it's time that few people even now know the whole story.
Nobody in the Agency was drafted and nobody with an ASVAB of lower than 115 was qualified. I never worked with a stupid (intellectually anyway) soldier and never saw any of the then typical behavior of what we called the "Animal Outfits". Because our task was still evolving, the Army had a great deal of trouble finding officers that knew how to manage a team like us. For the most part, we were smarter than our offiers and I can cite you chapter and verse about that.
I did however, see a number of folks in my basic training at Ord in 1966 that qualify as people I would not have liked to serve with. Even though I volunteered for Nam, they just laughed since by that time, I had way too much exposure to be allowed in a comabt zone. Many Agency guys did serve there and did very well .
As Maclean said, I have two sons in the military. Maclean was and is better than almost anyone I served with. He is about to begin a new chapter in his career which I am not sure I understand and couldn't talk about anyway. My other son is an Annapolis grad who came up from the ranks and is now a Naval Flight Officer in an instructor billit. He too is better than anyone I saw during my time. Both are significantly more advanced than most of the folks I knew, observed or supervised during my time in service.
Perhaps that is just them....but I agree that todays military is a quantum leap ahead of what we fielded even 30 years ago. There are nearly 55,000 names on the wall and none of this post is meant to demean thier courage and sacrifice nor is it meant to belittle those who served honorably at any time. I just think we are a better nation with a better military.
Car 4