CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Another Step Closer to the Draft!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Step Closer to the Draft!

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
Today:
Quote:
Former G.I.'s, Ordered to War, Fight Not to Go
By MONICA DAVEY

Published: November 16, 2004

The Army has encountered resistance from more than 2,000 former soldiers it has ordered back to military work, complicating its efforts to fill gaps in the regular troops.

Many of these former soldiers - some of whom say they have not trained, held a gun, worn a uniform or even gone for a jog in years - object to being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan now, after they thought they were through with life on active duty.

They are seeking exemptions, filing court cases or simply failing to report for duty, moves that will be watched closely by approximately 110,000 other members of the Individual Ready Reserve, a corps of soldiers who are no longer on active duty but still are eligible for call-up.

In the last few months, the Army has sent notices to more than 4,000 former soldiers informing them that they must return to active duty, but more than 1,800 of them have already requested exemptions or delays, many of which are still being considered.

And, of about 2,500 who were due to arrive on military bases for refresher training by Nov. 7, 733 had not shown up.

Army officials say the call-up is proceeding at rates they anticipated, and they are trying to fill needed jobs with former soldiers as they did in the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

Still, the resistance puts further strain on a military that has summoned reserve troops in numbers not seen since World War II and forced thousands of soldiers in Iraq to postpone their departures when their enlistment obligations ended.

Tensions are flaring between the Army and some of its veterans, who say they are surprised and confused about their obligations and unsure where to turn.

"I consider myself a civilian," said Rick Howell, a major from Tuscaloosa, Ala., who said he thought he had left the Army behind in 1997 after more than a decade flying helicopters. "I've done my time. I've got a brand new baby and a wife, and I haven't touched the controls of an aircraft in seven years. I'm 47 years old. How could they be calling me? How could they even want me?"

Some former soldiers acknowledge that the Army has every right to call them back, but argue that their personal circumstances - illness, single parenthood, financial woes - make going overseas impossible now.

Others say they do not believe they are eligible to be returned to active duty because, they contend, they already finished the obligations they signed up for when they joined the military. A handful of such former soldiers, scattered across the country, have filed lawsuits making that claim in federal courts.

These former soldiers are not among the part-time soldiers - reservists and National Guard members - who receive paychecks and train on weekends, and who have been called up in large numbers over the last three years.

Instead, these are members of the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former soldiers seldom ordered back to work. Ordinarily, these former soldiers do not get military pay, nor do they train. They receive points toward a military retirement and an address form to update once a year.

When soldiers enlist, they typically agree to an eight-year commitment to the Army but often are allowed to end active duty sooner. Some of them join the Reserves or National Guard to complete their commitment; others finish their time in the Individual Ready Reserve.

For officers, the commitment does not expire unless they formally resign their commissions in writing, a detail some insist they did not know and were not told when they signed their contracts, although Army officials strongly dispute that.

Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, a spokeswoman for the Army, said people in the service are well aware of the provision. "We all know about it," Colonel Hart said.

She said problems with the call-ups of former soldiers have involved a relatively small number of people, are being worked out, and are hardly unique to this conflict. In the first gulf war, she said, more than 20,000 former soldiers were called up. With medical problems and no-shows, only about 14,400 were actually deployed, she said.

Most of the deployments in the first gulf war lasted 120 days, the Army said. The current call-ups are more likely to last a year.

Of those seeking exemptions now, the Army is studying each person's case individually, Colonel Hart said, and has no set rule on what allows a person to avoid deployment. Army officials are still weighing more than half of the requests. So far, only 3 percent of requests for exemptions have been turned down, while 45 percent have been approved.

As for the former soldiers who failed to appear at bases by their assigned dates, the Army is trying to reach them, one by one, to discuss their circumstances, Colonel Hart said. In late September, some Army officials suggested that they would pursue harsher punishments - declaring people AWOL and possibly pursuing military charges - but the Army has since taken a quieter, more conciliatory approach.

"These are challenging times in their lives," Colonel Hart said, adding that some former soldiers who failed to report might have moved and not received the Army's notice. "We're contacting them as best as possible."

For the rest, though, some questions linger over who really qualifies for the callback.

Colette Parrish said she burst into tears the evening that her husband, Todd, walked into their house in Cary, N.C., with a letter from the Army calling him back to service. "We had no idea this could happen," she said. "We hadn't been preparing for any of it because we thought it wasn't possible."

At first, Mr. Parrish, 31, said he was convinced that the letter was just an administrative error because he believed that his time in the Individual Ready Reserve had ended.

He had gone to college on an R.O.T.C. scholarship, then served four years as a field artillery officer. He said he resigned his commission after that, became an engineer, and still owed the Army four years in the Individual Ready Reserve to complete his total obligation.

To Mr. Parrish, who has filed a lawsuit against the Army in federal court in North Carolina, that obligation ended on Dec. 19, 2003. But the Army apparently does not agree, and says that it never accepted Mr. Parrish's resignation as an officer.

As the court fight has continued, Mr. Parrish's date to report to Fort Sill, Okla., has been pushed back, again and again, one month at a time. Instead of thinking about long-term plans, for his wife and their future family, he is living in 30-day increments.

He said he always looked back on his service years fondly, and with a deep sense of patriotism.

"I guess I feel disillusioned now," he said. "This isn't about being for or against the war. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's just a contract, and I don't think this is right. If they need more people, shouldn't they get them the right way? How many more like me are there?"

Mark Waple, Mr. Parrish's lawyer, said he had received calls from 30 other former soldiers in recent months, all of whom had heard of Mr. Parrish's case and had similar stories.

At least two other former soldiers have filed suit over the question.

In Hawaii, David Miyasato, a former enlisted soldier who served in the first gulf war, said he would never go AWOL; he would have gone to Iraq, he said, if need be.

But Mr. Miyasato also said that his eight-year commitment ended nearly a decade ago. After he received his letter calling him back to service, he said, he called the Army repeatedly to argue that he was not eligible. Finally, he said, with his date to report to a base in South Carolina just days away, he contacted a lawyer and filed suit on Nov. 5.

"This was actually my last resort," said Mr. Miyasato, a former truck driver and fuel hauler who said that, at 34, he led an entirely different life, with an 8-month-old daughter and a window-tinting company to run. "I had been calling around everywhere for help."

On Nov. 10, Mr. Miyasato said, he learned that the Army had rescinded his orders.

In New York, Jay Ferriola, a former captain in the Army, filed a suit saying he had resigned his officer's commission in June and no longer qualified for call-up in the Individual Ready Reserve. On Nov. 5, the Army rescinded his orders and honorably discharged him.

"This shows that the system works," Colonel Hart said. "If the soldiers bring their situations to our attention, we're going to do what's right."

Barry Slotnick, Mr. Ferriola's lawyer, said he wondered how many other soldiers might be in similar positions, but without the money, the contacts or the certainty to sue. Mr. Slotnick said he had received numerous calls from others since he filed Mr. Ferriola's case in late October.

"We might as well add another phone bank," Mr. Slotnick said. "What I can see is that there are many, many cases of people being called up that shouldn't have been. This is a backdoor draft. I also have to wonder how many are already in Iraq who shouldn't be there, who just didn't think to question it."
post #2 of 33
Thread Starter 
Cont:

Quote:
The Army's current plan is to fill 4,400 jobs through March from among 5,600 former soldiers ordered to duty. But an Army official said last month that more former soldiers, perhaps in similar numbers, might be called on later next year, as well.

For now, those being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan are being asked to handle a variety of support positions, including truck drivers and fuel and food suppliers.

Months ago, the Army said some of the former soldiers would be needed to play the French horn, the clarinet, the euphonium, the saxophone and the electric bass as part of the military's bands, but the notion drew criticism from members of Congress who questioned the need to order people to give up their civilian lives to play instruments. Colonel Hart said the Army has since filled the musician jobs with volunteers.

Before going to Iraq, former soldiers are receiving as many days of training as they need, an Army spokesman said. Some of the soldiers said they were worried, though, about the prospect and safety of trying to get up to speed in a few months.

"These guys like me are basically untrained civilians now," said Mr. Howell, the former helicopter test pilot. Mr. Howell said he left the Army years ago with an injured back, knee and elbow, leaving him wondering about his own physical condition.

"I don't even have a uniform anymore," he said. "But they don't have any more reserves left, so we're it. All they want is some bodies to go to Iraq, just someone to be there, to sit on the ground."

When he left the military in 1997 as part of a reduction in forces, Mr. Howell said, he saw a note in the "little print" in his annuity agreement about a future commitment. But he said he was told that his obligation to the Individual Ready Reserve would be brief and meant little anyway. "They said it was just a way of having me on the books," he said.

After that, Mr. Howell said, he jumped into the civilian world. He got married. He and his new wife began building a house. They struggled to have children.

In September, his first child, Clayton, was born. Just before that, his orders arrived.

"It does rip my heart out that these young men and women are over there, and there is part of me that wants to be with them," he said recently. "But I have responsibilities here now."

Mr. Howell said he had applied to the Army for an exemption but was recently turned down. If he loses his appeal, he will be given a new reporting date. His best hope, he said, is that his appeal is buried somewhere at the very bottom of a big stack of them.
post #3 of 33
Jesus. Why don't they just send out a call to all the gun nuts who'd love to gun down some towel-heads in the name of 'Murica? It seems they'd be on the same level training-wise, if not better because they shoot all the time, and they'd be WILLING to go to that hellhole.
post #4 of 33
That is fucking a superb idea. Can it be done?
post #5 of 33
Can't have an all-volunteer army, if they're not volunteering to go.
post #6 of 33
Even slicker is the Army "re-assignment" being done now. I was just reading an interview with seven prominent ex-general/ex-military guys in Rolling Stone, and one was relaying a story of how a guy who was recruited and trained in the army as a cook was re-assigned as a GUNNER and then shipped to Iraq with 3 weeks of training.

The civilian leadership is gutting the military right now.
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Robinson
Even slicker is the Army "re-assignment" being done now. I was just reading an interview with seven prominent ex-general/ex-military guys in Rolling Stone, and one was relaying a story of how a guy who was recruited and trained in the army as a cook was re-assigned as a GUNNER and then shipped to Iraq with 3 weeks of training.

The civilian leadership is gutting the military right now.
Army cook? Halliburton has his job now.
post #8 of 33
Not to mention we're outsourcing a lot of the security jobs to civilian contractors. They're certainly better equipped than the US Army. Perhaps we need to disband the official military forces and leave it to private armed forces. I hear Sky Captain and his fleet are looking for work now...
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key Chung
Army cook?
He's good with cooking knives.

I don't think there would be another draft. Maybe I'm disillusioned, but I don't think the American public would stand for it. However, Bush did win by a majority, so what do I know?
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Robinson
Even slicker is the Army "re-assignment" being done now. I was just reading an interview with seven prominent ex-general/ex-military guys in Rolling Stone, and one was relaying a story of how a guy who was recruited and trained in the army as a cook was re-assigned as a GUNNER and then shipped to Iraq with 3 weeks of training.


"I just wanted to fuckin cook, man!"
post #11 of 33
Quote:
disband the official military forces and leave it to private armed forces
UN wouldn't stand for that. They're afraid of the word 'mercenary', just look at Rwanda. What happened there was partly their fault for not hiring PMCs.
post #12 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maus
Don't get me wrong, but this sort of sounds to me like these guys knew the potential call-up implied in their deal to get out of the armed forces after an abbreviated period of service. They OPTED to be a part of the Individual Ready Reserve. Obviously, they never thought that it would come back to haunt them. Obviously, they sure screwed the pooch on that particular premonition.

Off topic, this same thing happened to my grandfather, a combat engineer in the pacific theater who was called up again during the Korean conflict. He pled his case and was released from service. This has been happening for a long, long time.
Happened to mine too.

Please note we didn't really win that war.
post #13 of 33
We didn't win the war because MacArthur's hands were tied and the Allied civilian chain of command was leakier than a collander. There were Soviet spies in important positions in both State and MI5/6, and what they told the Soviets about MacArthur's war plans was leaked to N. Korea and China to use them against the UN.

As far as the recall of long retired soldiers, that can't be good for anybody.
post #14 of 33
The Korean conflict ended in a truce (we are still at war with North Korea legally, maybe we should get on that) is because just as it seemed that UN forces would win, China decied that they wanted to help there friends the North Koreans. We still fought them but we couldn't bring out anything really big (nukes) because that would start a war with China's good friend the USSR.
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
Please note we didn't really win that war.
Restoring the status quo is a victory in Maus' book.
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorro
We didn't win the war because MacArthur's hands were tied and the Allied civilian chain of command was leakier than a collander. There were Soviet spies in important positions in both State and MI5/6, and what they told the Soviets about MacArthur's war plans was leaked to N. Korea and China to use them against the UN.
I'm curious about why you think the war might have been "won" if MacArthur hands hadn’t been "tied". IIRC, he proposed massive nuclear strikes against China and NK.

Even Bush isn't that cannibal crazy.
post #17 of 33
This is the administration that imprisoned people for years, getting around the civil laws on treatment of prisoners and international laws on prisoners of war by renaming them illegal combatants. This is the administration that had a lawyer who said that is not torture because it is not inflicting pain on the level with organ failure (who is now our Attourney General).

There won't be a 'draft', they will just redefine it as something else.
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
This is the administration that imprisoned people for years, getting around the civil laws on treatment of prisoners and international laws on prisoners of war by renaming them illegal combatants. This is the administration that had a lawyer who said that is not torture because it is not inflicting pain on the level with organ failure (who is now our Attourney General).

There won't be a 'draft', they will just redefine it as something else.
Well, it would certainly chip away at the obesity problem.
post #19 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
Happened to mine too.
Wait. Devin and Maus have something in common? ::faints::
post #20 of 33
And of course these particular soldiers will be painted as selfish unpatriotic idiots who should have followed the example of their fathers and grandfathers and gone when called. Nevermind the fact that WWII was a hell of a lot more worthy cause than Gulf War II: The Revenge.
post #21 of 33
I don't think it's going to happen. I was at the Marine recruitment center yesterday, and there were plenty of idiotic high school students ready and willing to go to Iraq.
post #22 of 33
There will never be a draft. The administration will quickly hand over the country to the trained Iraqi forces and anarchy will reign. They will call it a success even though it obviously isn't, and half of America will buy it. They will continue the administration carrying out their "conservative" ideology they've had planned in the first place: installing right wing Supreme Court justice(s), pushing for a ban on gay marriage, making the tax cuts permanent, privatizing Social Security, etc.

If there ever was a draft, the lazy, tv addicted citizens of America would rise up against it and it would be the death of the Republican party.
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegVelJohnson
If there ever was a draft, the lazy, tv addicted citizens of America would rise up against it and it would be the death of the Republican party.
Until the mailings of Liberals banning Bibles and furthering "the homosexual agenda" go out. Then, you'd see a miraculous resurrection of said party.
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorro
We didn't win the war because MacArthur's hands were tied and the Allied civilian chain of command was leakier than a collander. There were Soviet spies in important positions in both State and MI5/6, and what they told the Soviets about MacArthur's war plans was leaked to N. Korea and China to use them against the UN.
We didn't win the war because some nutty people thought is wasn't worth WWIII and the nuclear holocaust that would have come with it. Though Professor Turgeson would be proud of your stance.
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegVelJohnson
There will never be a draft. The administration will quickly hand over the country to the trained Iraqi forces and anarchy will reign. They will call it a success even though it obviously isn't, and half of America will buy it. They will continue the administration carrying out their "conservative" ideology they've had planned in the first place: installing right wing Supreme Court justice(s), pushing for a ban on gay marriage, making the tax cuts permanent, privatizing Social Security, etc.

the only problem with that theory is the government is not likely to walk away from Iraq. They got the oil, and the 'rebuilding' is soooo profitable for their friends. If they could find a way to control the oil and let the rest of the country sink into chaos they probably would.
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
I'm curious about why you think the war might have been "won" if MacArthur hands hadn’t been "tied". IIRC, he proposed massive nuclear strikes against China and NK.

Even Bush isn't that cannibal crazy.
MacArthur did use the threat of atomic weapons, but from what I have read (my sources are Manchester's biography American Caesar and The Atlantic), they weren't really considered until after China had entered the war. Then, when the UN forces were being beat back down the penninsula, he proposed using 20 or so bombs to create an impenitrable barrier between Manchuria and the Korean penninsula along the Yalu River. At that point, the damage was already done - JCS dithered about whether or not they should even bother with South Korea at all, then about whether the Inchon landing was an acceptable risk, then about whether or not they should cross the 38th parallel, then about approaching the Yalu, then about using troops from other fields of operations, could he use KMT troops, and so on down the line. If they had allowed their field commander (who is likely the most brilliant wartime general we will ever have) to use his judgment and not have to continually submit detailed battle plans to Washington and London, the communists wouldn't have been able to match his forces and know his plans and he would have been able to secure the penninsula quicker and hinder the Chinese from entering the war in the first place and then from resupplying their troops once they entered (via conventionally bombing Yalu river crossings). His serious consideration of using nuclear weapons was born out of a sense of desperation because the communists could match his every tactical move, as he was slowed down by bureaucrats half a world away who also happened to be passing on those same battle plans to the enemy. It was wrong, and it's fortunate that it didn't happen, but nevertheless, it's something that he wouldn't have considered if it wasn't for them hindering him in the first place. He knew better than any other world leader about the consequences and therefore why they shouldn't be used unless it was absolutely imperative.
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorro
MacArthur did use the threat of atomic weapons, but from what I have read (my sources are Manchester's biography American Caesar and The Atlantic), they weren't really considered until after China had entered the war. Then, when the UN forces were being beat back down the penninsula, he proposed using 20 or so bombs to create an impenitrable barrier between Manchuria and the Korean penninsula along the Yalu River. At that point, the damage was already done - JCS dithered about whether or not they should even bother with South Korea at all, then about whether the Inchon landing was an acceptable risk, then about whether or not they should cross the 38th parallel, then about approaching the Yalu, then about using troops from other fields of operations, could he use KMT troops, and so on down the line. If they had allowed their field commander (who is likely the most brilliant wartime general we will ever have) to use his judgment and not have to continually submit detailed battle plans to Washington and London, the communists wouldn't have been able to match his forces and know his plans and he would have been able to secure the penninsula quicker and hinder the Chinese from entering the war in the first place and then from resupplying their troops once they entered (via conventionally bombing Yalu river crossings).
But didn’t MacArthur famously slap down Truman when he asked him about the likelihood of the Chinese getting involved? I don’t recall his exact words but I’m sure they were somewhat derogatory. It seems to me that MacArthur wouldn’t have found himself in the mess he did if he hadn’t been so damned arrogant and cocksure from the start.

Certainly I don’t regard such actions as those of a “brilliant wartime general”. Toward the end of his time in Korea the man became a complete liability. When he wasn’t undermining his President by disobeying direct orders and defying him in public he was devising lunatic plans that might well have turned what was a relatively “local issue” into global Armageddon!

MacArthur’s desire to take the fight to mainland China was madness, pure madness. At best it was a war that would end in costly stalemate, with the worst case scenario being unimaginably bad.

I won’t argue that he was of inestimable service to the United States during WWII, but the moment he assumed his role in post-war Japan ego started to get the better of him and it was downhill from thereon. If Truman had had any courage he’d have given him a sheet of medals, offered him a fat retirement cheque and then bid farewell long before he set foot in Korea. Thankfully for us all he bucked public pressure and dragged MacArthur out of there kicking and screaming before he got a lot of people killed.
post #28 of 33
MacArthur did slap Truman down in public, which was why he was recalled (and rightfully so). He couldn't force MacArthur into retirement either, because his fifth star meant that he couldn't ever retire. He was active duty until the day he died, even though he wasn't really part of the army after 1951.

At the end of his time in Korea, he ran out of options, but if JCS had let him do his thing initially, Korea would probably be a single country today. He didn't propose bombing mainland China until after the Chinese had entered the war and pushed his forces back down past Pyongyang. He originally wanted to bomb the Yalu river bridges and dams to cut off power in the North and prevent Chinese troops from reinforcing the North Koreans. Had they allowed him to do that, he wouldn't have been overrun when he approached the Korean/Chinese border.
post #29 of 33
Thank you, Suburban Dad From The Sixties.
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALIENinfluence
Here's a little ray of sunshine:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1216/p01s01-usmi.html

I think a draft would be great, big slap in the face of all you baggy pants-wearin', cell phone yappin', talking in the movie theater teens out there.
Don't forget their damn music! With their MTV and their Zima...damn kids staying out past 7 PM and not goin' to church to praise Jesus...
post #31 of 33
Who are you? Where do you come from?

What do you wanna do with your life!?
post #32 of 33
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, but this sort of sounds to me like these guys knew the potential call-up implied in their deal to get out of the armed forces after an abbreviated period of service. They OPTED to be a part of the Individual Ready Reserve.
Yea people seem to forget things like that when the shit hits the fan.
Like during desert storm we had a lot of guys at Bragg refusing to go and saying it was against there religion to go to war.
So what the hell did they join the Army for?
I'll tell you it was for the good money and to have there college education payed for.

Yea all sounds good during peace time but when the shit hits the fan they don't want any part of it.

These guys you're talking about here most likely were offered early retirement or higher retirement pay or something like that if they would sign up with the Individual Ready Reserve.
Sounds good in peace time hell yes I'll sign up but now that there is a war well that don't as good as it did back then.

And all these deserters now (I think I heard something like 5000) They are the ones that joined in peace time for the money and education.

Point is you join military you are joining a war machine you are joining to train for war.
And you join with the understanding that the President is you highest commander so what he says goes.
If he says go to Iraq then you go to Iraq you are sworn to do that.

I think these guys especially the ones that are in now and deserting are a bunch of punk-ass cowards.
And I think the ones that are deserting should have there citizenship stripped from them and if they are ever caught in America again they will spend the rest of there lives in prison.
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorro
MacArthur did use the threat of atomic weapons, but from what I have read (my sources are Manchester's biography American Caesar and The Atlantic), they weren't really considered until after China had entered the war. Then, when the UN forces were being beat back down the penninsula, he proposed using 20 or so bombs to create an impenitrable barrier between Manchuria and the Korean penninsula along the Yalu River. At that point, the damage was already done - JCS dithered about whether or not they should even bother with South Korea at all, then about whether the Inchon landing was an acceptable risk, then about whether or not they should cross the 38th parallel, then about approaching the Yalu, then about using troops from other fields of operations, could he use KMT troops, and so on down the line. If they had allowed their field commander (who is likely the most brilliant wartime general we will ever have) to use his judgment and not have to continually submit detailed battle plans to Washington and London, the communists wouldn't have been able to match his forces and know his plans and he would have been able to secure the penninsula quicker and hinder the Chinese from entering the war in the first place and then from resupplying their troops once they entered (via conventionally bombing Yalu river crossings). His serious consideration of using nuclear weapons was born out of a sense of desperation because the communists could match his every tactical move, as he was slowed down by bureaucrats half a world away who also happened to be passing on those same battle plans to the enemy. It was wrong, and it's fortunate that it didn't happen, but nevertheless, it's something that he wouldn't have considered if it wasn't for them hindering him in the first place. He knew better than any other world leader about the consequences and therefore why they shouldn't be used unless it was absolutely imperative.
I'd argue that either Patton or Lee (depending on if you are counting Lee as "ours") was our most brilliant wartime commander, which I take to mean field commander. Inchon was brilliant, but I think that the campaign in Sicily and the Seven Days Campaign (among others) are much more impressive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Another Step Closer to the Draft!