Comments on: Army Stop-Loss Program Forces 50,000 into Extended Duty

By: LJD

LJD — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:18:39 +0000

SD
While we're dealing in hindsight, why couldn't we have completed the mission in Desert Storm? Why couldn't Clinton have dealt with Bin Laden when he had the chance? Then there might not be a need for that extra division...

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:43:42 +0000

So, you would prefer to wage a war with untrained, inexperienced, and unmotivated draftees, rather than experienced, well trained volunteer soldiers in year five or six of an eight year contract? I was referring mainly to JJ's point about the past-8-years folks, plus the NG and Reserve. Yes, I would rather see this war waged by a draft army. I would even like to see a constitutional amendment that the draft start up anytime there's a declaration of war or its functional equivalent. Then maybe we would see a little less enthusiasm for feel-good warfare.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:07:10 +0000

>SD: The problem is that 1) it is incredibly
>difficult to radically upscale the Army in
>short order, since you need sergeants and
>senior officers, not just privates and
>lieutenants

Agreed, but it's been nearly five years since 9/11. So if we had started upscaling back then, we'd have fresh division available by now.

>and 2) the Army is having enough trouble
>recruiting for its current size.

Agreed as well, but again, that's now. It would have been far easier to recruit right after 9/11, and if the army hadn't been worn down by the subsequent five years of undermanning, it might not be so hard to recruit now.

By: Donald Sensing

Donald Sensing — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:43:52 +0000

James, didn't the IRR part of the enlistment get dropped not very long ago? As I recall reading somewhere, it wasn't working and IRR recallees weren't showing up and many who did were no longer qualified for active duty for various reasons.

I might be mis-remembering what I read, though.

By: LJD

LJD — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:07:32 +0000

Andersen, for a seemingly educated person, you say some really stupid things.
So, you would prefer to wage a war with untrained, inexperienced, and unmotivated draftees, rather than an experienced, well trained volunteer soldiers in year five or six of an eight year contract?
Also, I wouldn't count on much support for a draft from your liberal counterparts. They usually only say such things for sensationalism, not because the support the draft, the military, or even their country.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:17:08 +0000

Okay, I refuse to take the Iraq War seriously. It's not needed. It's irrelevant to our national security.

I know this because that's also what the President thinks.

If it were so g.d. vital, we'd have the draft, rather than dragging people back into the service and wearing out our Reserves and NG.

What a sorry excuse for a Commander-in-Chief.

By: G A PHILLIPS

G A PHILLIPS — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:57:15 +0000

Jonk is right, James is right, John Kerry is a jackass in more then ways then one. And why does that war criminal get to run for Prez. anyhow, oh yes, I forgot, he's a liberal. I say start the Draft, or let our military fight the war to win.example)you dont go into Iraq and and play peacekeeper with terroist strongholds, you LEVEL them. then you only need a couple soilders to guard the ruble! Please stop with the "If Bush did this, If Bush did that" it don't help. If you what to help write to your liberal friends, leaders, and media and tell them to stop crying and holding vigils every time we kill some of our enemy.IT EMBOLDENS THEM!

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 +0000

SD: The problem is that 1) it is incredibly difficult to radically upscale the Army in short order, since you need sergeants and senior officers, not just privates and lieutenants and 2) the Army is having enough trouble recruiting for its current size.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:45:47 +0000

>There is, however, no ready alternative. Sending
>units to war shorthanded or with last-minute
>replacements is too big a risk.

Perhaps not now, but if Bush had, shortly after 9/11, increased the number of activity duty divisions, we might have more to work with right now. It was pretty easy to seem at the time we were entering a period of drastically increased military operations, and the failure to increase the size of the military to meet this need borders on incompetence.

By: legion

legion — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:30:55 +0000

Like Jonk says, I don't have to like it, but I fully comprehend it (and did when I came in). But can your average 17-18 year old (or below average, if you want to be snarky about current enlistment standards) be expected to grasp the ramifications of their enlistment contracts?

By: Jonk

Jonk — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:49:56 +0000

When you sign on the dotted line, you belong to Uncle Sam until he says otherwise, contract or no...this is a fact of military life. There are many "rights" you give up once you take on the honor of military service. Those who are serving or who have served understand, though they may not like it.

By: LJD

LJD — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:16:39 +0000

When you sign up for the military, you're saying, 'I'll give you, say, six years and then after six years I get my life back.' And they're saying, 'No, really, we can extend you indefinitely.

Actually, 'they're' not saying that. The enlistment contract says that.