Marines to begin involuntary recalls

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Marine Corps will start ordering what could be thousands of inactive service members to return to duty in the coming months to counter a steady decline in the number of such troops who volunteer, the service said on Tuesday. Col. Guy Stratton, head of the Marine Corps' manpower mobilization plans, said the service is short some 1,200 volunteers over the next 18 months to fill roles in the war on terrorism. The total shortfall fluctuates regularly, he said.

Stratton said President George W. Bush authorized the Marine Corps to issue involuntary recall orders to members of the Individual Ready Reserve, part of the non-active force. It will be the Marine Corps' first involuntary recall since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The authorization limits the number of Marines who can be activated involuntarily to no more 2,500 at any one time, out of a pool of about 35,000, Stratton said. The length of each activated service member's duty is capped at 24 months but will likely last 12 to 18 months.

Under a general contract, a Marine serves four years on active duty and four in reserve. While on reserve, Marines may volunteer to return to active duty to fill needed roles. But the number of Marines volunteering outside their active-duty service requirement has been steadily declining for two years, according to Stratton, who said could not offer an explanation.

Involuntary recalls and other steps taken to stop the loss of personnel have been criticized by some as a back-door conscription and a threat to the volunteer nature of the force.

"What's really worrisome about involuntary recalls is they put even more of the burden on the handful of people who voluntarily join the military, and thus undermine the long-term viability of the whole volunteer force," said Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson. "In some ways this is worse than a back-door draft because it penalizes the handful of people who had the inclination and the courage to volunteer in the first place," he said.

more at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060822/...sa_troops_dc_3

[TailgateNut]

....but we don't call it a draft!!!!....and all is well in BushCo's military!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

....but we don't call it a draft!!!!....and all is well in BushCo's military!

And, lest we forget, the oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction, and the Iraqi people will greet our troops with flowers.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And, lest we forget, the oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction, and the Iraqi people will greet our troops with flowers.

......while our country is falling into that giant hole AKA the national debt!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

......while our country is falling into that giant hole AKA the national debt!

The majority are falling into that hole while Bush's friends are rolling in dough and swimming in record profits.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Online Poll at MSNBC: Did Bush Mislead on Iraq War?

88% Yes - As Sen. John McCain said, statements like "mission accomplished" underestimated the task ahead.

11% No - The administration has always made clear the challenges facing the military in Iraq.

1.4% I don't know or don't care.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14479271/

[Rohirrim]

Either go in with 200,000 and win this thing or get the hell out! This piecemeal crap just kills our boys for no effin reason. Do they really think 2,500 Marines are going to make any difference? These a-holes are feeding our soldiers into this wood chipper to try to save their own political skins. They are doing what Nixon did - Make sure you stretch this out till after the election. This whole cabal should go to prison. It's too bad they keep waving the flag and calling the opposition traitors. A lot of Americans are falling for it and can't see what's really going on. Just like some preacher who keeps screaming about the glories of God while fleecing the old folks and fondling kids.

I really can't believe this ****. I've been studying history my whole life. I can't name a single military leader who ever won a battle by saying, "How can I get away with using the fewest troops possible." This is the kind of mindless murder of our soldiers that happens when civilians, especially gutless chicken hawks, are put in charge. Like Napoleon said, "If you start to take Vienna, take Vienna." What does that mean? It means exactly what the Powell Doctrine says: Go in with overwhelming force. We have decades of experience in anti-insurgency warfare. The Brits wrote the book in Malaysia. The U.S. wrote the book in the Phillipines. We know how to do this and win.

But it doesn't matter if our idiot leadership chooses to ignore the lessons of our own history. This is a friggin crime - happening right before our eyes.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Either go in with 200,000 and win this thing or get the hell out! This piecemeal crap just kills our boys for no effin reason. Do they really think 2,500 Marines are going to make any difference? These a-holes are feeding our soldiers into this wood chipper to try to save their own political skins. They are doing what Nixon did - Make sure you stretch this out till after the election. This whole cabal should go to prison. It's too bad they keep waving the flag and calling the opposition traitors. A lot of Americans are falling for it and can't see what's really going on. Just like some preacher who keeps screaming about the glories of God while fleecing the old folks and fondling kids.

I really can't believe this ****. I've been studying history my whole life. I can't name a single military leader who ever won a battle by saying, "How can I get away with using the fewest troops possible." This is the kind of mindless murder of our soldiers that happens when civilians, especially gutless chicken hawks, are put in charge. Like Napoleon said, "If you start to take Vienna, take Vienna." What does that mean? It means exactly what the Powell Doctrine says: Go in with overwhelming force. We have decades of experience in anti-insurgency warfare. The Brits wrote the book in Malaysia. The U.S. wrote the book in the Phillipines. We know how to do this and win.

But it doesn't matter if our idiot leadership chooses to ignore the lessons of our own history. This is a friggin crime - happening right before our eyes.

I agree except we don't have 200,000 soldiers to put on the ground. People dont' understand how spread out our military is. We have troops in Japan, S Korea, Germany, Bosnia (albiet reserves), Italy, UK, Aghanistan, and Iraq.

We would have to deploy our full reserves and full active. You think the cost of the war is high now, and the public opinion of the war would be even worse. Not to mention that we can't maintain that level for an extended period of time. Like it or not, but the military cuts under Clinton and previous administrations are hurting right now. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Rascal

I agree except we don't have 200,000 soldiers to put on the ground. People dont' understand how spread out our military is. We have troops in Japan, S Korea, Germany, Bosnia (albiet reserves), Italy, UK, Aghanistan, and Iraq.

We would have to deploy our full reserves and full active. You think the cost of the war is high now, and the public opinion of the war would be even worse. Not to mention that we can't maintain that level for an extended period of time. Like it or not, but the military cuts under Clinton and previous administrations are hurting right now. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done.

If there weren't enough troops to do the job in Iraq, then Bush should have seen to it that there were enough troops before he started. That's his responsibility, not some former president's. Also, if we couldn't afford this war, or weren't willing to pay for it, then he shouldn't have started it. There is nobody else on earth that owns one molecule of responsibility for this war, or the conduct of this war, other than George Bush.

This president is telling the nation that winning in Iraq is absolutely crucial to the safety of the United States. Well, it either is, or it isn't. If it isn't, get out before we waste any more American lives. If it is, then institute a draft, and train and deploy 200,000 to 300,000 troops as quickly as possible. Finish the job. He's never going to run for office again. Why should he care about the politics? He made the decision to go into Iraq. He lied this country into Iraq. Now, does he have the guts to finish the job, or does he intend to just drop this mess in somebody else's lap - like he's done with pretty much everything else in this life?

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

If there weren't enough troops to do the job in Iraq, then Bush should have seen to it that there were enough troops before he started. That's his responsibility, not some former president's. Also, if we couldn't afford this war, or weren't willing to pay for it, then he shouldn't have started it. There is nobody else on earth that owns one molecule of responsibility for this war, or the conduct of this war, other than George Bush.

Never said it was anybody else's responsibility. Just pointing out that the military cuts in the 90's are hurting right now.

This president is telling the nation that winning in Iraq is absolutely crucial to the safety of the United States. Well, it either is, or it isn't. If it isn't, get out before we waste any more American lives. If it is, then institute a draft, and train and deploy 200,000 to 300,000 troops as quickly as possible. Finish the job. He's never going to run for office again. Why should he care about the politics? He made the decision to go into Iraq. He lied this country into Iraq. Now, does he have the guts to finish the job, or does he intend to just drop this mess in somebody else's lap - like he's done with pretty much everything else in this life?

The draft won't be implemented and you know it. The next president will have to pull the plug on this and you know that as well. I might be wrong, and I wish I was, but I firmly believe we won't get out under Bush. The latest airplane scare bumped him up a few points and bought him about another 6 months to continue this.

[TailgateNut]

IMO he is just sealing his fate with his BS moves. The Military is tired of his sh-t, the public (educated) is tired of his sh-t, and barring a few, no one in his administration has the balls to tell him how badly he manages everything he gets his hands on.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

....but we don't call it a draft!!!!....and all is well in BushCo's military!

It's not a draft. ALL volunteers do so with an eight year commitment minumum, ALL. Simple as that. After a 4 year enlistment, you have a couple of options. 1) Active reserves ; 1 wknd a month, and about a month of active per year OR 2) Individual Ready Reserve (IRR); touch base once a year with the associated service . Once your eight is up, it's up. That said, in the navy anyway, alot more guys are doing eight on active duty, THEN seperating. SEALS, EOD, MA's, etc..etc...Why? They cannot get called up once eight is complete, they've fully fulfilled their contract. Been that way for a while now. In addition, was briefed on this before it was disseminated. Alot of the "jobs" the marines are looking at filling are special needs jobs. Intel, comms, etc...etc... Not your conventional gun carrying ground pounder. In any case, it is absolutley within the bounds of the government to attack the issue via the method they are now employing to solve the problem...dman

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Never said it was anybody else's responsibility. Just pointing out that the military cuts in the 90's are hurting right now.



The draft won't be implemented and you know it. The next president will have to pull the plug on this and you know that as well. I might be wrong, and I wish I was, but I firmly believe we won't get out under Bush. The latest airplane scare bumped him up a few points and bought him about another 6 months to continue this.

That's my whole point: If the American people accept that Bush's whole "adventure in nation building in Iraq" has turned into a debacle, and that we don't have the troops, money, or political will to clean up this mess, why should one more American die for it?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by defenseman

It's not a draft. ALL volunteers do so with an eight year commitment minumum, ALL. Simple as that. After a 4 year enlistment, you have a couple of options. 1) Active reserves ; 1 wknd a month, and about a month of active per year OR 2) Individual Ready Reserve (IRR); touch base once a year with the associated service . Once your eight is up, it's up. That said, in the navy anyway, alot more guys are doing eight on active duty, THEN seperating. SEALS, EOD, MA's, etc..etc...Why? They cannot get called up once eight is complete, they've fully fulfilled their contract. Been that way for a while now. In addition, was briefed on this before it was disseminated. Alot of the "jobs" the marines are looking at filling are special needs jobs. Intel, comms, etc...etc... Not your conventional gun carrying ground pounder. In any case, it is absolutley within the bounds of the government to attack the issue via the method they are now employing to solve the problem...dman

I completely understand the commitments of enlistment, but I would venture to guess that the majority of vacancies would be the "ground pounders", not the elite positions which tend to keep the soldiers from dodging bullets!

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Never said it was anybody else's responsibility. Just pointing out that the military cuts in the 90's are hurting right now.



The draft won't be implemented and you know it. The next president will have to pull the plug on this and you know that as well. I might be wrong, and I wish I was, but I firmly believe we won't get out under Bush. The latest airplane scare bumped him up a few points and bought him about another 6 months to continue this.

the cuts hurt agreed. I paid dearly on numerous occassions for the cuts of the nineties. BUT, the real gotcha was when the cuts occurred, in addition to the cuts, workload on the remaining folks was an incredible burden to bear. NUMEROUS quality , hardworking and career minded individuals , enlisted and officer, dove out of the service because of the extreme workload and lack of money. They people employing the cuts didn't count of this and it got extremely difficult, and I do mean EXTREMELY to do our job, not only were guys diving out, BUT the monetary cuts handcuffed ud to degrees that were very , very extreme. I nearly retired during that time period because, after the cuts and the "diveouts" , my job was literally "hell " each and every day, lots to do and not enough people, money and parts to do it with. Pretty common to put in anywhere from 12 to 16 hr days , six days a week. But, in a nutshell, I'm not a quitter, so I stuck it out.

Pres. Bush WILL pull the plug BEFORE it gets to the point where a draft would be necessary. I don't ever see the american public putting up with a draft in the future....dman

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

That's my whole point: If the American people accept that Bush's whole "adventure in nation building in Iraq" has turned into a debacle, and that we don't have the troops, money, or political will to clean up this mess, why should one more American die for it?

I'm not sure that a maj accept it. I'm sure the vast maj - 65% - accept it was at best a mistake, and prolly close to half know bush lied about any real womd danger to the US.

I posted a link yesterday to signs that the new "passification" of Bagdahd appears to be making headway. However, I don't now, and never have, seen a military solution. Belatedly bushii appears to favor a political solution, but he'll never get one without involving the Iranians and Syrians, and the neocons won't even let Rice talk directly to them. She had them calling for her firing when she even sent some low level contacts.

However, the dems seem to be running on a "pull the troops out now." I think most Americans will not go for that. We'll want at least a "peace with honor" run away. The Dems need to be saying that we need both increased "policing" in Iraq, but also that we need to have a Arab summitt to put pressure on the sunnis and shiaa to exnay the murdering.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

I completely understand the commitments of enlistment, but I would venture to guess that the majority of vacancies would be the "ground pounders", not the elite positions which tend to keep the soldiers from dodging bullets!

The "elite" jobs, in most cases, carry extremely high security clearances let alone the individual in question is very highly trained in a more than sought after job in the civilian sector. Ergo, I'd say most of the jobs in question have a very good salary and job description in the civilian sector, of course being former military helps them out alot on employability for those types of jobs. The security clearance? Saves an employer between 50-100K in cost alone depending and how high the clearance goes. Bottom line: the guys in question are extremely employable in the civilian sector so they get out at 4 years and can earn a very healthy pay check quite readily...dman

*example, IF I were to retire today, in about 3 yrs or so I'd be in the neighborhood of about $125K a year salary. that's pretty much in stone. Depending on the job, you can do very well for yourself.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

I completely understand the commitments of enlistment, but I would venture to guess that the majority of vacancies would be the "ground pounders", not the elite positions which tend to keep the soldiers from dodging bullets!

The "war" is entering a different phase, if the public is aware of this or not, I don't know. Lots more "special" folks are going to be needed from here on out. SPEC WAR guys and the individuals required to support them are going to be very , very busy from here on out..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Never said it was anybody else's responsibility. Just pointing out that the military cuts in the 90's are hurting right now.

We need LESS military spending, not more. More isn't required unless people vote in "leaders" who invade and occupy countries in failed nation building attempts.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

We need LESS military spending, not more. More isn't required unless people vote in "leaders" who invade and occupy countries in failed nation building attempts.

Interesting pt. I'm a bit at odds with D-man becaues of attack subs and other high ticket hardware. The WJC admin did do the right thing in starving hardware. He's not admitting that the increases in funding rummy promised for hardware were at the expense of boots. WJC was at least in touch with reality in that, while we have to replace the carriers and their escorts as they age out, and while there undoubedly is a case for steath submarines to gather intell, and while yes we need the F-22 replacement ... the sad truth is that boots are damned expensive compared to tech. There's never going to be enough money.

[BroncoBuff]

I saw this headline this morning and my heart sank. I stood there like somebody had gut-punched me.

The time for more soldiers was THE START - if at all.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

I saw this headline this morning and my heart sank. I stood there like somebody had gut-punched me.

The time for more soldiers was THE START - if at all.

Fair statement. And LOTS more should have been employed at the outset..dman

*Hear ya bendog. Attack boat cuts are in the works , new ones are very multi mission capable. If you knew exactly how heavy the mission tempo of the boats in the 90's and WJC's cuts and how they affected us then you would better understand how it really screwed us, and hard i might add. Today? Don't need as many, but, you need more multi-mission capable platforms, and a sound set of criteria for employment. Not when WJC got a wild hair if you know what I mean..dman

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by bendog

I'm not sure that a maj accept it. I'm sure the vast maj - 65% - accept it was at best a mistake, and prolly close to half know bush lied about any real womd danger to the US.

I posted a link yesterday to signs that the new "passification" of Bagdahd appears to be making headway. However, I don't now, and never have, seen a military solution. Belatedly bushii appears to favor a political solution, but he'll never get one without involving the Iranians and Syrians, and the neocons won't even let Rice talk directly to them. She had them calling for her firing when she even sent some low level contacts.

However, the dems seem to be running on a "pull the troops out now." I think most Americans will not go for that. We'll want at least a "peace with honor" run away. The Dems need to be saying that we need both increased "policing" in Iraq, but also that we need to have a Arab summitt to put pressure on the sunnis and shiaa to exnay the murdering.

I've got an idea. We can pull Saddam out of prison, put him back in charge of the country, make him promise to give us all the oil contracts, and then pull out.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Rascal

I agree except we don't have 200,000 soldiers to put on the ground. People dont' understand how spread out our military is. We have troops in Japan, S Korea, Germany, Bosnia (albiet reserves), Italy, UK, Aghanistan, and Iraq.

We would have to deploy our full reserves and full active. You think the cost of the war is high now, and the public opinion of the war would be even worse. Not to mention that we can't maintain that level for an extended period of time. Like it or not, but the military cuts under Clinton and previous administrations are hurting right now. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done.

Well my view is that we really have no reason for most of those bases, and we will be hog-tying ourselves as long as we are in a cold war deployment long after the cold war is over. Furthermore having American troops all over the world reinforces the perception of the US as an "Empire".

Close bases, use troops where we need them, and let other countries take care of their own security!

[The Lone Bolt]

And oh yeah, I still believe that removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, but Bush and Rummy are ****ing idiots!