Comments on: Pentagon Ends Reserve Call-up Limit

By: Consul-At-Arms

Consul-At-Arms — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 03:27:23 +0000

Good post. I've linked to you here.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:23:33 +0000

I'd like to see Joe Biden defend that position against some actual constitutional scholars.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:28:17 +0000

My biggest apprehension is the active service integrating the NG and RC as a resource pool too much. They should use them for some supplemental purposes but to treat as the “if we need any units, we just take them from RC and NG” mentality can be harmful. I understand the arguments on both sides on how to use the NG and RC forces but worry if something really goes sour that we won’t have any forces to fall back on in a short period of time. Not that we don’t have plenty of forces not being used at any given time now but could run into problems in the future.

By: BrianOfAtlanta

BrianOfAtlanta — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:42:24 +0000

No declaration of war? Not according to Congress, specifically Senator Joe Biden, the guy who wrote the declaration: http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229598 Here's the relevant excerpt: "I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever."

By: M1EK

M1EK — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:54:57 +0000

LJD, To me, the word "War" in this contract means "A constitutionally declared war". We never declared war on Iraq. Even on semantic grounds, the AUTF didn't call it a "war".

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:52:24 +0000

Not exactly accurate in regard to the legality of the contract. DD Form 4 states that:

If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginneing of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress,

...my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

...I may be required to serve on active duty (other than for training) for the entire period of the war or emergency and for six(6) months after its end.

As a member of the Ready Reserve I may be required to perform active duty ...without my consent ...as follows:
(1) in a time of national emergency declared by the President of the United States, I may be ordered to active duty (other than for training)for not more than 24 consecutive months.

I will leave the formal interpretation to the lawyers, but I read that a reservist can be called for 24 months at a time, but may not be discharged until after the "War".

Every enlisted soldier in the Army signed this contract.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:55:15 +0000

This is a policy that should only be in effect in a constitutionally valid war - i.e., one in which Congress had to officially declare war.

And yes, that does make the prior conflicts non-constitionally-valid wars. The theory that reservists give up all their rights indefinitely without regard to prior contracts at any time the Commander-in-Chief just says so is probably already making many of them rotate in their graves.

By: JimT

JimT — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:42:52 +0000

This is going to end up being much more destructive to the reserves/national guard. As a reservist who was sent to Iraq for a year, I would rather have stayed there an additional year than go and come home only to go again. Once your life has been disturbed, you might as well stay as long as possible. It is all the stress of the change from civilian to military that is the hardest. Once your life, family, business, etc. is in the 'deployed' state of mind, the time gone (within reason) is easy. I dread more the months preceeding the next deployment than any convoy down MSR Tampa.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:43:22 +0000

DCL: I would prefer that all de facto wars that the United States engages in by de jure as well. Whether because of the UN Charter or some other reason, however, we have not formally declared war since December 1941. That doesn't make them non-wars, though.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:15:27 +0000

James, my quibble with this is that this isn't a war as far as no declaration of war was given. Let congress formally declare war and then take the reservists until the war's over.