http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060822/us_nm/...usa_troops_dc_5
Marines face involuntary recalls
By Kristin Roberts
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.
The Marine Corps' authority to involuntarily recall Marines for jobs in the "Global War on Terror" -- a war whose parameters remain largely undefined -- has no expiration date.
"The authority is until GWOT is over with," Stratton said. "Until we're told to do otherwise, we'll use it."
The Marine Corps' move comes almost five years after the September 11 attacks that led the United States to declare a war on global terrorism and more than three years after the Iraq war began.
Many Marines have performed three tours of duty in Iraq since March 2003. While the U.S. Army has provided most of the ground forces fighting an insurgency there, the Marines have carried a heavy load and been deployed in one of the most dangerous parts of Iraq, Anbar province.
Beyond Iraq, which the Bush administration considers part of the war on terrorism, the broader war is expected to last many years, defense officials regularly say.
The Marines and Army have been meeting monthly recruiting goals. But some analysts have questioned the military's ability to sustain long-term operations with its all-volunteer force.
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.
Stratton, however, said the Marines' involuntary recall was not a back-door draft and that Marines on nonactive status should always expect that they may be called when needed.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Full Version: Marines Face Involuntary Recalls
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,110903,00.html
Thousands of Marines Face Recall
Associated Press | August 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.
This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war.
Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a current shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments.
The call-up affects Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve, a segment of the reserves that consists mainly of those who left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligation.
Generally, Marines enlist for four years, then serve the other four years either in the regular Reserves, where they are paid and train periodically, or they may elect to go into the IRR. Marines in the IRR are only obligated to report one day a year but can be involuntarily recalled to active duty.
Thousands of Marines Face Recall
Associated Press | August 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.
This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war.
Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a current shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments.
The call-up affects Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve, a segment of the reserves that consists mainly of those who left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligation.
Generally, Marines enlist for four years, then serve the other four years either in the regular Reserves, where they are paid and train periodically, or they may elect to go into the IRR. Marines in the IRR are only obligated to report one day a year but can be involuntarily recalled to active duty.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0823/dailyUpdate.html
posted August 23, 2006 at 11:30 a.m.
'Backdoor draft'?
'Critical shortage' prompts involuntary recall of reservists by US Marines.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
In a move that critics denounce as a 'backdoor draft," the US Marines and Army are recalling to active duty thousands of men and women who have been discharged for several years. According to the Associated Press, thousands of Marines are being recalled because of "a shortage of volunteers" to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.
This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 10,000 soldiers since the start of the war.
The BBC reports that while only 2,500 of the 60,000 inactive Marines who comprise the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) will be recalled now, the authorization signed last month by President Bush is open-ended and will stop only when the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) has ended, a sign that many thousands more could be called back to active duty in the coming months and years.
The Boston Globe reports that the former Marines will return to service for up to 18 months and will be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan next year. Marines and soldiers may be recalled up to eight years after they have been discharged. While the Marines have been meeting recruiting and retention goals, "it is short about 1,200 specialists in engineering, military police work, communications, and intelligence operations."
Tuesday's announcement of the recall "raised some eyebrows" among military experts.
"The announcement surprised me," said Charles Henning, a retired Army officer who specializes in military affairs at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the Library of Congress. "I see no indication that they are having trouble manning their units."
Henning said the Marines' seven-month combat tours have perhaps "placed enough strain on the system and they don't want to be sending people back three or four times," he said. But it also could be that the rising US casualties in Iraq – where more than 2,600 troops have died and tens of thousands have been injured since the invasion – may be taking a toll on heavily used units.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Pentagon has had to "scramble" to meet personnel requirements, long after it was thought that so many troops would not be needed. But the continuing insurgency in Iraq, the sectarian violence which many believe has become a civil war, and the growing strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan, means the need for troops had not abated.
For much of the conflict, the Army also has had to use "stop-loss orders" – which keep soldiers in their units even after their active-duty commitments are complete – as well as involuntary call-ups of its reservists. Both actions have been criticized as a "back-door draft" and are unpopular with service members, many of whom say they have already done their part.
"You can send Marines back for a third or fourth time, but you have to understand you are destroying their lives," said Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "It is not what they intended the all-volunteer military to look like."
Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told the Times that he believes that the latest stop-loss announcements are the "latest sign" that more ground troops were required in Iraq.
"It is one of an avalanche of symptoms that the ground forces are overstretched by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," Kagan said. "This administration needs to understand this is not a short-term problem, and it really needs a systemic fix in the size of the ground forces."
McClatchy News Service reports that Tuesday's announcement coincides with a report being issued Wednesday by two military experts that "the Marines are having to borrow equipment from non-deployed units and pre-positioned stockpiles to replace tanks, trucks, armored vehicles and other hardware worn out by more than three years of combat duty in Iraq."
The Iraq war also has put unprecedented wear and tear on the Marine Corps' trucks, tanks and other combat equipment, according to a report by the Center for American Progress and the Lexington Institute, two policy research groups that frequently study national security issues. The war has forced the Marines to keep about 40 percent of its ground combat equipment, 50 percent of its communications gear and 20 percent of its aircraft in Iraq, the report says.
Helicopters fly two to three times more hours than they should, tanks are being used four times as much as anticipated, and Humvees are being driven an average of 480 miles a month, 70 percent of which is off-road. The harsh desert and combat losses are chewing up other gear at nine times their planned rates. Humvees that were expected to last 14 years need to be replaced after only four years in the extreme conditions of the Iraqi desert, the report says.
The report's two authors, Larry J. Korb and Loren Thompson, say it will cost the Marines about $12 billion to replace their equipment, and that figure grows by about $5 billion a year every year the Marines remain in Iraq. Mr. Korb and Mr. Thompson reached a similar conclusion about the Army in a report earlier in the year.
Finally, the AP says that Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, a longtime supporter of the war in Iraq, on Tuesday criticized the Bush administration for misleading the American public into thinking that the war would be "some kind of day at the beach."
The potential 2008 presidential candidate ... said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military.
"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."
On Monday, Sen. McCain also reiterated his opposition to an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, saying it would have "direct implications" for the US national security.
posted August 23, 2006 at 11:30 a.m.
'Backdoor draft'?
'Critical shortage' prompts involuntary recall of reservists by US Marines.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
In a move that critics denounce as a 'backdoor draft," the US Marines and Army are recalling to active duty thousands of men and women who have been discharged for several years. According to the Associated Press, thousands of Marines are being recalled because of "a shortage of volunteers" to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.
This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 10,000 soldiers since the start of the war.
The BBC reports that while only 2,500 of the 60,000 inactive Marines who comprise the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) will be recalled now, the authorization signed last month by President Bush is open-ended and will stop only when the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) has ended, a sign that many thousands more could be called back to active duty in the coming months and years.
The Boston Globe reports that the former Marines will return to service for up to 18 months and will be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan next year. Marines and soldiers may be recalled up to eight years after they have been discharged. While the Marines have been meeting recruiting and retention goals, "it is short about 1,200 specialists in engineering, military police work, communications, and intelligence operations."
Tuesday's announcement of the recall "raised some eyebrows" among military experts.
"The announcement surprised me," said Charles Henning, a retired Army officer who specializes in military affairs at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the Library of Congress. "I see no indication that they are having trouble manning their units."
Henning said the Marines' seven-month combat tours have perhaps "placed enough strain on the system and they don't want to be sending people back three or four times," he said. But it also could be that the rising US casualties in Iraq – where more than 2,600 troops have died and tens of thousands have been injured since the invasion – may be taking a toll on heavily used units.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Pentagon has had to "scramble" to meet personnel requirements, long after it was thought that so many troops would not be needed. But the continuing insurgency in Iraq, the sectarian violence which many believe has become a civil war, and the growing strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan, means the need for troops had not abated.
For much of the conflict, the Army also has had to use "stop-loss orders" – which keep soldiers in their units even after their active-duty commitments are complete – as well as involuntary call-ups of its reservists. Both actions have been criticized as a "back-door draft" and are unpopular with service members, many of whom say they have already done their part.
"You can send Marines back for a third or fourth time, but you have to understand you are destroying their lives," said Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "It is not what they intended the all-volunteer military to look like."
Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told the Times that he believes that the latest stop-loss announcements are the "latest sign" that more ground troops were required in Iraq.
"It is one of an avalanche of symptoms that the ground forces are overstretched by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," Kagan said. "This administration needs to understand this is not a short-term problem, and it really needs a systemic fix in the size of the ground forces."
McClatchy News Service reports that Tuesday's announcement coincides with a report being issued Wednesday by two military experts that "the Marines are having to borrow equipment from non-deployed units and pre-positioned stockpiles to replace tanks, trucks, armored vehicles and other hardware worn out by more than three years of combat duty in Iraq."
The Iraq war also has put unprecedented wear and tear on the Marine Corps' trucks, tanks and other combat equipment, according to a report by the Center for American Progress and the Lexington Institute, two policy research groups that frequently study national security issues. The war has forced the Marines to keep about 40 percent of its ground combat equipment, 50 percent of its communications gear and 20 percent of its aircraft in Iraq, the report says.
Helicopters fly two to three times more hours than they should, tanks are being used four times as much as anticipated, and Humvees are being driven an average of 480 miles a month, 70 percent of which is off-road. The harsh desert and combat losses are chewing up other gear at nine times their planned rates. Humvees that were expected to last 14 years need to be replaced after only four years in the extreme conditions of the Iraqi desert, the report says.
The report's two authors, Larry J. Korb and Loren Thompson, say it will cost the Marines about $12 billion to replace their equipment, and that figure grows by about $5 billion a year every year the Marines remain in Iraq. Mr. Korb and Mr. Thompson reached a similar conclusion about the Army in a report earlier in the year.
Finally, the AP says that Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, a longtime supporter of the war in Iraq, on Tuesday criticized the Bush administration for misleading the American public into thinking that the war would be "some kind of day at the beach."
The potential 2008 presidential candidate ... said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military.
"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."
On Monday, Sen. McCain also reiterated his opposition to an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, saying it would have "direct implications" for the US national security.
http://watchingthewatchers.org/story/2006/8/22/174458/087
Draft? Hell no! Call back the guys who already served.
By Lee Russ, Section News
Posted on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 05:44:58 PM EST
What do you do when you have a shortage of marines to fight what you consider to be a crucial war in a far off place? You sure don't institute a draft to get the needed manpower, so you have to involuntarily recall Marines from the Ready Reserve.
Though the initial recall is for 2,500 troops, there is no cap on how many could be called up in the future.
Marines in their second or third years of on-call service will be tapped, because those in their first years just finished active duty and those in their fourth years have almost completed their military obligations.
The total of Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve is about 59,000, according to Marine officials.
This is not the first time the corps has called on the Individual Ready Reserve since fighting started in Iraq in 2003. The Marines recalled more than 2,600 troops in the early days of the Iraq war.
The Army has recalled about 10,000 soldiers since September 11, 2001, the majority of those coming in 2004 to help bolster needed positions for troops in Iraq.
Other sources note that there are only about 35,000 Reservists eligible for recall, so 2,500 is slightly more than 7% of those eligible.
Here are a few questions:
Why do you have an 8 year military commitment just because you volunteer, in a time when there is no draft, for a 3 or 4 year active duty tour?
How is it fair to recall people who have already volunteered and served, rather than drafting those who have yet to serve?
Is this policy in any way shape or form consistent with all the rhetoric from Bush and the right about this being a "crucial" front in the war on terror, WW III, and the like?
4, Where are all the young republicans that voted for this administration and this war? Let me answer my own question. Many of them are busy posting anti-liberal tirades on their web sites and blogs, ranting about how important Iraq is to the war on terror, how opponents of the war are terrorist sympathizers and traitors, et-blah-cetera. Check out the utter nonsense on Free Republic some time when you're bored (and don't have anything in your stomach).
I had an e-mail argument with one of the geniuses writing for National Reveiw Online about this very thing--where are all these brave, patriotic keyboard warriors in time of military shortfall? Is Iraq crucial enough to the "war" on terror to vitriolically support it, but not important enough to risk your own butt on? Why doesn't Ann Coulter volunteer for God's sake, or Sean Hannity? Surely Bill O'Reilly could win the war on his own, just by using all that hot air to blow down the cover of the insurgents.
It's the "crucial" "World War" that somehow isn't important enough to upset the plans the affluent have for their lives.
Services
Draft? Hell no! Call back the guys who already served.
By Lee Russ, Section News
Posted on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 05:44:58 PM EST
What do you do when you have a shortage of marines to fight what you consider to be a crucial war in a far off place? You sure don't institute a draft to get the needed manpower, so you have to involuntarily recall Marines from the Ready Reserve.
Though the initial recall is for 2,500 troops, there is no cap on how many could be called up in the future.
Marines in their second or third years of on-call service will be tapped, because those in their first years just finished active duty and those in their fourth years have almost completed their military obligations.
The total of Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve is about 59,000, according to Marine officials.
This is not the first time the corps has called on the Individual Ready Reserve since fighting started in Iraq in 2003. The Marines recalled more than 2,600 troops in the early days of the Iraq war.
The Army has recalled about 10,000 soldiers since September 11, 2001, the majority of those coming in 2004 to help bolster needed positions for troops in Iraq.
Other sources note that there are only about 35,000 Reservists eligible for recall, so 2,500 is slightly more than 7% of those eligible.
Here are a few questions:
Why do you have an 8 year military commitment just because you volunteer, in a time when there is no draft, for a 3 or 4 year active duty tour?
How is it fair to recall people who have already volunteered and served, rather than drafting those who have yet to serve?
Is this policy in any way shape or form consistent with all the rhetoric from Bush and the right about this being a "crucial" front in the war on terror, WW III, and the like?
4, Where are all the young republicans that voted for this administration and this war? Let me answer my own question. Many of them are busy posting anti-liberal tirades on their web sites and blogs, ranting about how important Iraq is to the war on terror, how opponents of the war are terrorist sympathizers and traitors, et-blah-cetera. Check out the utter nonsense on Free Republic some time when you're bored (and don't have anything in your stomach).
I had an e-mail argument with one of the geniuses writing for National Reveiw Online about this very thing--where are all these brave, patriotic keyboard warriors in time of military shortfall? Is Iraq crucial enough to the "war" on terror to vitriolically support it, but not important enough to risk your own butt on? Why doesn't Ann Coulter volunteer for God's sake, or Sean Hannity? Surely Bill O'Reilly could win the war on his own, just by using all that hot air to blow down the cover of the insurgents.
It's the "crucial" "World War" that somehow isn't important enough to upset the plans the affluent have for their lives.
Services
Contractually, they are obligated to serve...but...IMO; it's a "back door" draft!
As Bush & Rummy would say…”If we didn’t kill them the first time…Let’s give it another shot”!
As Bush & Rummy would say…”If we didn’t kill them the first time…Let’s give it another shot”!
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/08/no_marines_to_s.html
No Marines to Send
Posted by Heather Hurlburt
Almost a year ago, I attended a conference at which several senior retired Marines said that we would soon see evident in the Marine Corps the same kind of stress and strain that has been much-talked about in the regular Army.
In fact, the talk about "straining the Army to the breaking point" died down for a while this spring, when troop levels were quietly declining. Now, of course, that trend has stopped. And guess what?
The Marine Corps announced today that it is short 1200 active-duty forces over the next twelve months and will begin its own involuntary recalls. The specific problem seems to be that Marines who have served their active duty commitment, and were formerly quite reliable about volunteering when needed, have become steadily less reliable over the last two years. It's worth emphasizing that this affects only Marines who volunteered to serve four years of non-active duty in an Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) instead of the regular Reserves.
The head of the Marines' manpower mobilization planning said that President Bush has authorized this "until the GWOT is over with." Just in case you were wondering.
August 22, 2006 at 11:40 AM in Defense | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5761217
No Marines to Send
Posted by Heather Hurlburt
Almost a year ago, I attended a conference at which several senior retired Marines said that we would soon see evident in the Marine Corps the same kind of stress and strain that has been much-talked about in the regular Army.
In fact, the talk about "straining the Army to the breaking point" died down for a while this spring, when troop levels were quietly declining. Now, of course, that trend has stopped. And guess what?
The Marine Corps announced today that it is short 1200 active-duty forces over the next twelve months and will begin its own involuntary recalls. The specific problem seems to be that Marines who have served their active duty commitment, and were formerly quite reliable about volunteering when needed, have become steadily less reliable over the last two years. It's worth emphasizing that this affects only Marines who volunteered to serve four years of non-active duty in an Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) instead of the regular Reserves.
The head of the Marines' manpower mobilization planning said that President Bush has authorized this "until the GWOT is over with." Just in case you were wondering.
August 22, 2006 at 11:40 AM in Defense | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5761217
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0824/p02s02-usmi.html
US Marine call-up signals a long war
Troop levels in Iraq could remain at current levels for two years, experts say.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
With the "global war on terrorism" in Afghanistan and Iraq now well into its fourth year, the strain is starting to show on US troop levels.
The Marine Corps announced this week that it will involuntarily activate 2,500 reservists.
Briefing reporters Tuesday, Col. Guy Stratton, head of Marine Corps manpower mobilization, acknowledged that "this is going to be a long war" and that there is "clearly a need" for more marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. In essence, Col. Stratton said, there have not been enough volunteers among those in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) - marines who served four years on active duty but are eligible for recall for the next four years.
The Marine Corps call-up follows a pattern in military manpower in recent years.
Some of those in uniform are on their second or third deployment to the war zones. From time to time, the Army has had to recruit more soldiers from the "lowest acceptable" category based on test scores, education levels, personal background, and other indicators of ability. Some military recruiters - always under pressure to produce - have been reprimanded for illegally inducing clearly unqualified young men and women into signing up. "Citizen soldiers" in the National Guard have played an extraordinarily large role on the ground in combat areas.
To some experts, the call-up of Marine Corps reservists indicates that the war is likely to last longer and be more hard-fought than earlier official predictions.
"The most significant dimension of this to me is that it says there are no longer any rosy assessments about how things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. "The call-up suggests the Pentagon envisions current troop levels in Iraq through the summer of 2008, with these guys going in the summer of 2007 for one year."
Troop strength in Iraq today is back up to 138,000, notes military analyst John Pike of globalsecurity.com, a research and consulting firm specializing in security issues. "All that happy talk earlier this year about getting below 100,000 by the end of this year now seems premature."
At the Pentagon and within the military services, the debate over necessary troop levels in Iraq has raged both quietly and sometimes, not so quietly, with senior officers arguing for a more robust force and Bush administration civilians wanting to reduce American forces there as soon as possible.
Some observers note that calling up marines with their ever-ready image is less politically fraught than activating more National Guard troops, who tend to be older and more established in their communities. Recalled marines are entitled to five months' additional training.
"I would expect our National Guard soldiers and their families are wondering more than ever how soon they may be called up again," says retired Navy Capt. Larry Seaquist, who notes that individuals from the Army and Navy reserves have been recalled to active duty and sent to Iraq as well.
This latest recall of reservists may indicate problems in Marine Corps morale, according to some observers.
"Marine Corps spirit is legendary," says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, now a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. "But ... IRR members probably have been in Iraq or Afghanistan two, three, even four times already, and they feel they have done their duty, taken their share of the risks."
Following a serious shortfall last year, the Army now predicts that it will meet its 2006 recruiting goal. But the Army, too, has had to mobilize several thousand soldiers from its ready reserves. It's also issued "stop loss" orders for several thousand troops, extending their tours in Iraq.
Meanwhile, an Alaska-based Army "stryker" brigade recently was extended for four months in Iraq to address the growing violence in Baghdad.
US Marine call-up signals a long war
Troop levels in Iraq could remain at current levels for two years, experts say.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
With the "global war on terrorism" in Afghanistan and Iraq now well into its fourth year, the strain is starting to show on US troop levels.
The Marine Corps announced this week that it will involuntarily activate 2,500 reservists.
Briefing reporters Tuesday, Col. Guy Stratton, head of Marine Corps manpower mobilization, acknowledged that "this is going to be a long war" and that there is "clearly a need" for more marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. In essence, Col. Stratton said, there have not been enough volunteers among those in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) - marines who served four years on active duty but are eligible for recall for the next four years.
The Marine Corps call-up follows a pattern in military manpower in recent years.
Some of those in uniform are on their second or third deployment to the war zones. From time to time, the Army has had to recruit more soldiers from the "lowest acceptable" category based on test scores, education levels, personal background, and other indicators of ability. Some military recruiters - always under pressure to produce - have been reprimanded for illegally inducing clearly unqualified young men and women into signing up. "Citizen soldiers" in the National Guard have played an extraordinarily large role on the ground in combat areas.
To some experts, the call-up of Marine Corps reservists indicates that the war is likely to last longer and be more hard-fought than earlier official predictions.
"The most significant dimension of this to me is that it says there are no longer any rosy assessments about how things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. "The call-up suggests the Pentagon envisions current troop levels in Iraq through the summer of 2008, with these guys going in the summer of 2007 for one year."
Troop strength in Iraq today is back up to 138,000, notes military analyst John Pike of globalsecurity.com, a research and consulting firm specializing in security issues. "All that happy talk earlier this year about getting below 100,000 by the end of this year now seems premature."
At the Pentagon and within the military services, the debate over necessary troop levels in Iraq has raged both quietly and sometimes, not so quietly, with senior officers arguing for a more robust force and Bush administration civilians wanting to reduce American forces there as soon as possible.
Some observers note that calling up marines with their ever-ready image is less politically fraught than activating more National Guard troops, who tend to be older and more established in their communities. Recalled marines are entitled to five months' additional training.
"I would expect our National Guard soldiers and their families are wondering more than ever how soon they may be called up again," says retired Navy Capt. Larry Seaquist, who notes that individuals from the Army and Navy reserves have been recalled to active duty and sent to Iraq as well.
This latest recall of reservists may indicate problems in Marine Corps morale, according to some observers.
"Marine Corps spirit is legendary," says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, now a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. "But ... IRR members probably have been in Iraq or Afghanistan two, three, even four times already, and they feel they have done their duty, taken their share of the risks."
Following a serious shortfall last year, the Army now predicts that it will meet its 2006 recruiting goal. But the Army, too, has had to mobilize several thousand soldiers from its ready reserves. It's also issued "stop loss" orders for several thousand troops, extending their tours in Iraq.
Meanwhile, an Alaska-based Army "stryker" brigade recently was extended for four months in Iraq to address the growing violence in Baghdad.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article.../608230325/1068
Editorials
More Marines, Same Mission, in Iraq
August 23, 2006
Email this Print this A day after conceding that the war in Iraq is "straining the psyche of our country," President George W. Bush has authorized the Marine Corps to recall as many as 2,500 inactive Marine reserves at a time.
And the national heartache continues.
This marks the second time since the war in Iraq began that the commander in chief has made such a move. Back in 2003, he authorized calling up 7,000 inactive Marine reservists, but only 2,000 were eventually deployed. The families of Marines who thought they had served their duty to their country can only hope that the number of those given orders will again be smaller than the numbers announced.
The authorization would be for 12- to 18-month stints in specialties such as military police, communication specialists, truck drivers and intelligence. The Corps is about 1,200 volunteers short in those areas in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no cap on the total number of Individual Ready Reservists who will be reactivated. Inactive Army reservists have been called up in greater numbers: 14,000 to date.
None of that makes Bush's Monday message go down any easier.
"It's very important for the American people to understand the consequences of leaving Iraq before the job is done," Bush said during his 57-minute press conference. "If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here."
The last sentence is debatable -- an unsupported threat that was shaky when it was used to launch the war. Despite the president's use of it Monday, fear-mongering should not be part of the political debate this fall election season.
Sadly, though, the first part of the president's quote is true. The consequences of withdrawing now are grave -- in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, and indeed everywhere extremists hope to see the United States fail.
But there are consequences to staying, too. And those got painfully clearer on Tuesday.
Editorials
More Marines, Same Mission, in Iraq
August 23, 2006
Email this Print this A day after conceding that the war in Iraq is "straining the psyche of our country," President George W. Bush has authorized the Marine Corps to recall as many as 2,500 inactive Marine reserves at a time.
And the national heartache continues.
This marks the second time since the war in Iraq began that the commander in chief has made such a move. Back in 2003, he authorized calling up 7,000 inactive Marine reservists, but only 2,000 were eventually deployed. The families of Marines who thought they had served their duty to their country can only hope that the number of those given orders will again be smaller than the numbers announced.
The authorization would be for 12- to 18-month stints in specialties such as military police, communication specialists, truck drivers and intelligence. The Corps is about 1,200 volunteers short in those areas in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no cap on the total number of Individual Ready Reservists who will be reactivated. Inactive Army reservists have been called up in greater numbers: 14,000 to date.
None of that makes Bush's Monday message go down any easier.
"It's very important for the American people to understand the consequences of leaving Iraq before the job is done," Bush said during his 57-minute press conference. "If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here."
The last sentence is debatable -- an unsupported threat that was shaky when it was used to launch the war. Despite the president's use of it Monday, fear-mongering should not be part of the political debate this fall election season.
Sadly, though, the first part of the president's quote is true. The consequences of withdrawing now are grave -- in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, and indeed everywhere extremists hope to see the United States fail.
But there are consequences to staying, too. And those got painfully clearer on Tuesday.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northam..._Marine_call_up
Analysis: The Marine call up
By Pamela Hess Aug 23, 2006, 23:51 GMT
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The Marine Corps announcement that it plans to involuntarily recall at least 1,200 Marines no longer on active duty highlights the growing strain on military personnel after five years of back-to-back combat deployments.
The Marines being called back, part of the Individual Ready Reserve, are not specialists with esoteric skills. They are at least two battalions worth of infantry and artillerymen, military police, intelligence analysts, communication system operators and combat engineers, all of which are within the standard capability of a combat unit.
'The bottom line is there is not enough active manpower (in the Marine Corps) and as the reserve pool dries up, we`re now having to search elsewhere,' a senior Corps official told UPI Wednesday.
There is a limit on how often regular reserve units can be tapped for deployment, and most have hit that limit, the official said.
'We`re straining at the seams to fill all the Military Transition Teams, staff augments to various staffs ... so we`re running out of folks,' the official said. 'We can do it (activate the IRR) year after year, but it`s a Band-Aid measure.'
The IRR consists primarily of young Marines who, having completed their active duty contracts of four or five years, still have three or four years to go on their eight-year minimum service obligation, which they fulfill by being technically available for activation if they are needed. They are required to report at least annually to a Marine base but do not drill or draw pay. Some are in the IRR but are not available for activation because of health, family or financial issues. The Marine Corps is not tapping those who have been out of the military for less than a year to prevent IRR Marines from having back-to-back deployments -- one on active duty, the next as a reserve.
The U.S. Army tapped some 5,000 IRR members beginning in 2004 because of difficulty in filling all the slots needed for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
That the Marine Corps and the Army do not have sufficient numbers to handle the combat deployments is not in dispute: the services and Congress have worked out an annual scheme to bolster their numbers to absorb the workloads that come with the war on terrorism. The regular budget pays for the first 173,000 Marines; the cost of additional Marines is covered in the annual 'emergency supplemental.'
But the supplemental is purposefully limited by Congress and the Pentagon in scope. To prevent the end strength increases from becoming permanent, the supplemental does not pay for things like new barracks to house the additional Marines or pay for extra gear to permanently outfit a larger force.
When the wars are over, or are less demanding of personnel, the services are meant to revert to their standard numbers -- about 175,000 for the Marines and 482,000 for the Army.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld opposes a permanent increase in manpower, largely for budgetary reasons. Every additional 10,000 troops cost about $1 billion a year to feed, house, pay, insure and provide health care. He is also intent on leveraging technology to reduce the number of troops needed, by automating ships, for instance.
The Marine`s activation of the IRR, however, may bolster the Marine Corps` argument that it needs a permanent increase to at least 181,000. In fact, if all the slots that need Marines are tallied, the Corps could employ about 190,000, a service official told UPI. Getting to that level is unrealistic, however: Attracting new recruits is manpower intensive and would divert too many of the best non-commissioned officers from combat slots and training toward recruiting, officials said.
'We can probably go up to 181,000 (permanently) and keep the quality,' the official said.
Copyright 2006 by United Press International
Analysis: The Marine call up
By Pamela Hess Aug 23, 2006, 23:51 GMT
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The Marine Corps announcement that it plans to involuntarily recall at least 1,200 Marines no longer on active duty highlights the growing strain on military personnel after five years of back-to-back combat deployments.
The Marines being called back, part of the Individual Ready Reserve, are not specialists with esoteric skills. They are at least two battalions worth of infantry and artillerymen, military police, intelligence analysts, communication system operators and combat engineers, all of which are within the standard capability of a combat unit.
'The bottom line is there is not enough active manpower (in the Marine Corps) and as the reserve pool dries up, we`re now having to search elsewhere,' a senior Corps official told UPI Wednesday.
There is a limit on how often regular reserve units can be tapped for deployment, and most have hit that limit, the official said.
'We`re straining at the seams to fill all the Military Transition Teams, staff augments to various staffs ... so we`re running out of folks,' the official said. 'We can do it (activate the IRR) year after year, but it`s a Band-Aid measure.'
The IRR consists primarily of young Marines who, having completed their active duty contracts of four or five years, still have three or four years to go on their eight-year minimum service obligation, which they fulfill by being technically available for activation if they are needed. They are required to report at least annually to a Marine base but do not drill or draw pay. Some are in the IRR but are not available for activation because of health, family or financial issues. The Marine Corps is not tapping those who have been out of the military for less than a year to prevent IRR Marines from having back-to-back deployments -- one on active duty, the next as a reserve.
The U.S. Army tapped some 5,000 IRR members beginning in 2004 because of difficulty in filling all the slots needed for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
That the Marine Corps and the Army do not have sufficient numbers to handle the combat deployments is not in dispute: the services and Congress have worked out an annual scheme to bolster their numbers to absorb the workloads that come with the war on terrorism. The regular budget pays for the first 173,000 Marines; the cost of additional Marines is covered in the annual 'emergency supplemental.'
But the supplemental is purposefully limited by Congress and the Pentagon in scope. To prevent the end strength increases from becoming permanent, the supplemental does not pay for things like new barracks to house the additional Marines or pay for extra gear to permanently outfit a larger force.
When the wars are over, or are less demanding of personnel, the services are meant to revert to their standard numbers -- about 175,000 for the Marines and 482,000 for the Army.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld opposes a permanent increase in manpower, largely for budgetary reasons. Every additional 10,000 troops cost about $1 billion a year to feed, house, pay, insure and provide health care. He is also intent on leveraging technology to reduce the number of troops needed, by automating ships, for instance.
The Marine`s activation of the IRR, however, may bolster the Marine Corps` argument that it needs a permanent increase to at least 181,000. In fact, if all the slots that need Marines are tallied, the Corps could employ about 190,000, a service official told UPI. Getting to that level is unrealistic, however: Attracting new recruits is manpower intensive and would divert too many of the best non-commissioned officers from combat slots and training toward recruiting, officials said.
'We can probably go up to 181,000 (permanently) and keep the quality,' the official said.
Copyright 2006 by United Press International
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/15345565.htm
'Back-door draft' shakes the military VIDEO
By SCOTT CANON and RICK MONTGOMERY
The Kansas City Star
This was the plan in 1973: Dump the draft. Count on volunteers. When something big comes up, rely on the reserves and National Guard.
A special commission had told Richard Nixon the country could suffice with a smaller all-volunteer, active-duty military unless something really big came up.
Only in the case of a long-term, large-scale foreign deployment — define that as more than six months and 100,000 troops — would there be any need to bother with a draft again.
Now three-plus years since tanks rumbled into Baghdad, with more than 150,000 U.S. troops deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, the Pentagon is making do with thinly stretched volunteers.
Most recently, the Marine Corps announced the involuntary call-up of 2,500 troops in the individual ready reserves — people clearly obligated to fight if called but also expecting that their days in uniform were behind them.
“Up until now the Marines were able to recruit plenty of people and get them to come back just by asking. They’re the most gung ho of all the services,” said Lawrence Korb, who specialized in manpower issues as an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration. “The fact that they’re forcing some Marines back into service is indicative of how military and former military people feel about this war.”
In a word, tired.
Already, the Marines had called some 5,000 troops voluntarily back into service. The Army has called back 5,000 soldiers from the ready reserves, most of them involuntarily, since Sept. 11, 2001.
In addition, so-called “stop loss” policies that protect the Army from losing people in high-demand specialties are freezing more than 10,000 soldiers in the service involuntarily and indefinitely. At times during the Iraq war, that number has risen to nearly 14,000.
Korb and others refer to it as a “back-door draft” — a means of putting enough boots on the ground without having to impose conscription on the general military-age population.
Nor are recruitment targets being increased to account for the 500 or so troops lost to battlefield deaths and injuries every month, he said.
“We can’t put in that factor because it would be too hot politically,” he said of the casualties. “It’s like the draft.”
While a few lonely voices call for a draft to spread the burden of military service and to force a national referendum on the occupation of Iraq, conventional wisdom in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill holds that such ideas will go nowhere.
Some in Congress have pushed to significantly increase the number of active duty troops, which the Bush administration has consistently resisted.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is a forceful advocate for military “transformation,” meaning using advances in weapons to rely on smaller and more quickly deployable forces.
The Army Times argued in an editorial this month that the U.S. needs either to beef up its force level or trim back its ambitions in the world.
“If Congress and the White House do not want to expend what is necessary to support America’s current global role,” the magazine editorialized, “then policy should shift toward an isolationist stance, which is all that declining force levels can support.”
To U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and an advocate for a larger military, the Marines’ call-up “is yet another reminder” of the Iraq war draining resources and manpower away from the larger struggle against global terrorism.
“We must be open and honest with the American people,” said Skelton. “This involuntary call-up serves as a warning that valuable resources are being misspent on the conflict in Iraq rather than being sent to the front lines in the war on terrorism.”
The administration’s plan, of course, was to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, using quickly trained Iraqi forces to replace them.
Even as recently as May, U.S. generals were talking about a drawdown this year. Similarly politicians in Washington expected it as the November elections approached and the war polled more unpopular. But the insurgency grew ever hotter, civil war threatened between Sunni and Shiite in Baghdad and the Pentagon committed its reserve forces stationed in Kuwait.
Many troops have had multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. Last month, the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker brigade was scheduled to return home after a year in Mosul, Iraq, when it was assigned to four more months in Baghdad in a push to improve security there. Similar stories are repeated in units throughout the military.
“The all-volunteer force is good for fighting short wars … but this is the long war,” said Bob Work, a senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.
“If you consider that the war on terror was declared shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, then this conflict already is longer than World War II, longer than Korea, longer than the Spanish-American War and the Civil War.
“The benefits of going to a small, all-volunteer force (versus the draft) are so great, nobody wants to change the rules and go back. The only danger, however, is having a manpower shortage in a prolonged war. You’ll see more of these stresses and adjustments the longer the fighting goes on.”
Meanwhile, the military’s current collection of active duty, reserves, National Guard and reactivated troops fills the rotations and plugs the gaps.
For his part, Marine ready reservist Cpl. Anton Petersen, 23, says, “Yeah, it’s very possible we could be heading back” to Iraq — even though he already spent seven months in a security patrol there and his active duty ended in May.
“When you agree to four years active duty, followed by four years inactive, you know you’re signing an eight-year contract,” says Petersen of Grain Valley, who now helps build homes to support his wife and daughter. “Nobody was forcing me to sign on the dotted line. … I wanted to be a Marine.”
By and large, military recruiting targets have been met, but with increasing difficulty.
The Army has begun to let in more people without high school degrees or who score poorly on aptitude tests. Tattoos that once would keep a young man out of the Army are being tolerated more often. Older recruits are being allowed to sign up.
Meantime, reserves have been called to duty in ways not seen in generations.
“In the past three years we’ve gone from strategic reserves” — troops called upon rarely in emergencies — “to operational reserves” used to fill ongoing manpower shortages, said David R. Segal, the director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. “That’s not what they understood when they signed up.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reach Scott Canon, call (816) 234-4754 or send e-mail to scanon@kcstar.com. To reach Rick Montgomery, call (816) 234-4410 or send e-mail to rmontgomery@kcstar.com.
'Back-door draft' shakes the military VIDEO
By SCOTT CANON and RICK MONTGOMERY
The Kansas City Star
This was the plan in 1973: Dump the draft. Count on volunteers. When something big comes up, rely on the reserves and National Guard.
A special commission had told Richard Nixon the country could suffice with a smaller all-volunteer, active-duty military unless something really big came up.
Only in the case of a long-term, large-scale foreign deployment — define that as more than six months and 100,000 troops — would there be any need to bother with a draft again.
Now three-plus years since tanks rumbled into Baghdad, with more than 150,000 U.S. troops deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, the Pentagon is making do with thinly stretched volunteers.
Most recently, the Marine Corps announced the involuntary call-up of 2,500 troops in the individual ready reserves — people clearly obligated to fight if called but also expecting that their days in uniform were behind them.
“Up until now the Marines were able to recruit plenty of people and get them to come back just by asking. They’re the most gung ho of all the services,” said Lawrence Korb, who specialized in manpower issues as an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration. “The fact that they’re forcing some Marines back into service is indicative of how military and former military people feel about this war.”
In a word, tired.
Already, the Marines had called some 5,000 troops voluntarily back into service. The Army has called back 5,000 soldiers from the ready reserves, most of them involuntarily, since Sept. 11, 2001.
In addition, so-called “stop loss” policies that protect the Army from losing people in high-demand specialties are freezing more than 10,000 soldiers in the service involuntarily and indefinitely. At times during the Iraq war, that number has risen to nearly 14,000.
Korb and others refer to it as a “back-door draft” — a means of putting enough boots on the ground without having to impose conscription on the general military-age population.
Nor are recruitment targets being increased to account for the 500 or so troops lost to battlefield deaths and injuries every month, he said.
“We can’t put in that factor because it would be too hot politically,” he said of the casualties. “It’s like the draft.”
While a few lonely voices call for a draft to spread the burden of military service and to force a national referendum on the occupation of Iraq, conventional wisdom in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill holds that such ideas will go nowhere.
Some in Congress have pushed to significantly increase the number of active duty troops, which the Bush administration has consistently resisted.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is a forceful advocate for military “transformation,” meaning using advances in weapons to rely on smaller and more quickly deployable forces.
The Army Times argued in an editorial this month that the U.S. needs either to beef up its force level or trim back its ambitions in the world.
“If Congress and the White House do not want to expend what is necessary to support America’s current global role,” the magazine editorialized, “then policy should shift toward an isolationist stance, which is all that declining force levels can support.”
To U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and an advocate for a larger military, the Marines’ call-up “is yet another reminder” of the Iraq war draining resources and manpower away from the larger struggle against global terrorism.
“We must be open and honest with the American people,” said Skelton. “This involuntary call-up serves as a warning that valuable resources are being misspent on the conflict in Iraq rather than being sent to the front lines in the war on terrorism.”
The administration’s plan, of course, was to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, using quickly trained Iraqi forces to replace them.
Even as recently as May, U.S. generals were talking about a drawdown this year. Similarly politicians in Washington expected it as the November elections approached and the war polled more unpopular. But the insurgency grew ever hotter, civil war threatened between Sunni and Shiite in Baghdad and the Pentagon committed its reserve forces stationed in Kuwait.
Many troops have had multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. Last month, the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker brigade was scheduled to return home after a year in Mosul, Iraq, when it was assigned to four more months in Baghdad in a push to improve security there. Similar stories are repeated in units throughout the military.
“The all-volunteer force is good for fighting short wars … but this is the long war,” said Bob Work, a senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.
“If you consider that the war on terror was declared shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, then this conflict already is longer than World War II, longer than Korea, longer than the Spanish-American War and the Civil War.
“The benefits of going to a small, all-volunteer force (versus the draft) are so great, nobody wants to change the rules and go back. The only danger, however, is having a manpower shortage in a prolonged war. You’ll see more of these stresses and adjustments the longer the fighting goes on.”
Meanwhile, the military’s current collection of active duty, reserves, National Guard and reactivated troops fills the rotations and plugs the gaps.
For his part, Marine ready reservist Cpl. Anton Petersen, 23, says, “Yeah, it’s very possible we could be heading back” to Iraq — even though he already spent seven months in a security patrol there and his active duty ended in May.
“When you agree to four years active duty, followed by four years inactive, you know you’re signing an eight-year contract,” says Petersen of Grain Valley, who now helps build homes to support his wife and daughter. “Nobody was forcing me to sign on the dotted line. … I wanted to be a Marine.”
By and large, military recruiting targets have been met, but with increasing difficulty.
The Army has begun to let in more people without high school degrees or who score poorly on aptitude tests. Tattoos that once would keep a young man out of the Army are being tolerated more often. Older recruits are being allowed to sign up.
Meantime, reserves have been called to duty in ways not seen in generations.
“In the past three years we’ve gone from strategic reserves” — troops called upon rarely in emergencies — “to operational reserves” used to fill ongoing manpower shortages, said David R. Segal, the director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. “That’s not what they understood when they signed up.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reach Scott Canon, call (816) 234-4754 or send e-mail to scanon@kcstar.com. To reach Rick Montgomery, call (816) 234-4410 or send e-mail to rmontgomery@kcstar.com.
Hot digity dog, you mean they will reconsider my request for reinstatement?
YEEEE-HAAA............OOOOHRAHHHH
YEEEE-HAAA............OOOOHRAHHHH
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060824/ts_af...ry_060824000103
Marines call-up reflects deepening strains on US military
by Jim Mannion
Thu Aug 24, 2:14 AM ET
A decision to call former marines back to active duty reflects deepening strains on the US military amid spiralling violence in Iraq, a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and tensions with Iran, analysts said.
The US Marine Corps disclosed this week that it has been authorized to call up as many as 2,500 marines at a time from its inactive reserves to fill shortfalls in the elite force.
"It's no secret that we're very busy," said Brigadier General Michael Barbero, the deputy director of operations for the Joint Staff.
The marines have relied on reservists to volunteer for active duty when they had gaps to fill and have only rarely resorted to involuntary call-ups in the past, most recently during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Barbero said the number of volunteers has fallen off over the past two years while demands on the marines, which with the army have carried the burden of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, have increased.
"But this is what this tool is designed to do: afford the leadership the opportunity to access their total force," he told reporters.
Analysts said the uncertainty over how long US forces will be in Iraq forced the move.
"Nobody knows when we are going to be able to start drawing down forces in Iraq," said Michael O'Hanlon. "This is not about the 'long war'. It is about Iraq."
The involuntary call-up affects people who served in the marines but left the service before fulfilling their entire contractual obligation, usually about four years.
If called up they will have to serve a year to 18 months with duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa.
"The message that prospective recruits are getting is that if you never volunteered to serve in the military you don't have to worry about serving. But if you did volunteer you can be called back again and again," said Loren Thompson.
"That's not the message the military should be sending if they want the all-volunteer force to be viable for the long run," said Thompson, director of the Washington-based Lexington Institute.
Lawrence Korb, who served as the Defense Department's manpower chief during the Reagan administration, said the involuntary call-ups also reflect declining public support for the war.
"The marines had prided themselves on not having to do this," he said.
"But the fact that they have to do this shows what the people are thinking about this war and what this war is doing to the force," he said.
Both the active duty army and the marines have met their recruiting and re-enlistment goals so far this year.
The army in particular, however, has had to struggle to meet its recruiting targets as the war in Iraq has dragged on.
After falling eight percent short of its recruiting goal last year, the army started taking in more candidates with lower scores on aptitude tests, and it raised the maximum age from 35 to 42.
"Thus far in the war the army appeared to be the only service with a major recruiting problem," said Thompson.
"But what this latest move by the Marine Corps means is that it, too, is beginning to run into resistance from prospective recruits in terms of signing up and serving in Iraq," he said.
The war in Iraq has taken a toll on the army's and marines' equipment as well, raising concerns in Congress about the readiness of US-based units and their ability to respond to a crisis elsewhere in the world.
"We remain capable of responding to our regional and global responsibilities," said Barbero, noting the swift response by the US Navy and marines to the crisis in Lebanon.
But an estimated 40 percent of the army's and marine corps's equipment is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it is being used up five or more times the normal peacetime rates.
The army says it needs 17 billion dollars next year alone to replace and repair equipment -- and another 13 billion dollars a year until two or three years after hostilities have ended to keep pace with wear and tear.
The marines estimate their equipment replacement costs at 11.9 billion dollars.
A report by the Center for American Progress said Wednesday that the marines have been taking equipment from non-deployed units and from prepositioned stocks stored on ships in Europe.
"What that means is if you had to go someplace else now you might now have all the equipment that you need," said Korb, who authored the report with Thompson and Max Bergmann.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Marines call-up reflects deepening strains on US military
by Jim Mannion
Thu Aug 24, 2:14 AM ET
A decision to call former marines back to active duty reflects deepening strains on the US military amid spiralling violence in Iraq, a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and tensions with Iran, analysts said.
The US Marine Corps disclosed this week that it has been authorized to call up as many as 2,500 marines at a time from its inactive reserves to fill shortfalls in the elite force.
"It's no secret that we're very busy," said Brigadier General Michael Barbero, the deputy director of operations for the Joint Staff.
The marines have relied on reservists to volunteer for active duty when they had gaps to fill and have only rarely resorted to involuntary call-ups in the past, most recently during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Barbero said the number of volunteers has fallen off over the past two years while demands on the marines, which with the army have carried the burden of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, have increased.
"But this is what this tool is designed to do: afford the leadership the opportunity to access their total force," he told reporters.
Analysts said the uncertainty over how long US forces will be in Iraq forced the move.
"Nobody knows when we are going to be able to start drawing down forces in Iraq," said Michael O'Hanlon. "This is not about the 'long war'. It is about Iraq."
The involuntary call-up affects people who served in the marines but left the service before fulfilling their entire contractual obligation, usually about four years.
If called up they will have to serve a year to 18 months with duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa.
"The message that prospective recruits are getting is that if you never volunteered to serve in the military you don't have to worry about serving. But if you did volunteer you can be called back again and again," said Loren Thompson.
"That's not the message the military should be sending if they want the all-volunteer force to be viable for the long run," said Thompson, director of the Washington-based Lexington Institute.
Lawrence Korb, who served as the Defense Department's manpower chief during the Reagan administration, said the involuntary call-ups also reflect declining public support for the war.
"The marines had prided themselves on not having to do this," he said.
"But the fact that they have to do this shows what the people are thinking about this war and what this war is doing to the force," he said.
Both the active duty army and the marines have met their recruiting and re-enlistment goals so far this year.
The army in particular, however, has had to struggle to meet its recruiting targets as the war in Iraq has dragged on.
After falling eight percent short of its recruiting goal last year, the army started taking in more candidates with lower scores on aptitude tests, and it raised the maximum age from 35 to 42.
"Thus far in the war the army appeared to be the only service with a major recruiting problem," said Thompson.
"But what this latest move by the Marine Corps means is that it, too, is beginning to run into resistance from prospective recruits in terms of signing up and serving in Iraq," he said.
The war in Iraq has taken a toll on the army's and marines' equipment as well, raising concerns in Congress about the readiness of US-based units and their ability to respond to a crisis elsewhere in the world.
"We remain capable of responding to our regional and global responsibilities," said Barbero, noting the swift response by the US Navy and marines to the crisis in Lebanon.
But an estimated 40 percent of the army's and marine corps's equipment is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it is being used up five or more times the normal peacetime rates.
The army says it needs 17 billion dollars next year alone to replace and repair equipment -- and another 13 billion dollars a year until two or three years after hostilities have ended to keep pace with wear and tear.
The marines estimate their equipment replacement costs at 11.9 billion dollars.
A report by the Center for American Progress said Wednesday that the marines have been taking equipment from non-deployed units and from prepositioned stocks stored on ships in Europe.
"What that means is if you had to go someplace else now you might now have all the equipment that you need," said Korb, who authored the report with Thompson and Max Bergmann.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,110599,00.html
The Recall of U.S. Troops
Associated Press | August 20, 2006
CAMP ANACONDA, Iraq - Spc. Chris Carlson had been out of the U.S. Army for two years and was working at Costco in California when he received notice that he was being called back into service.
The 24-year-old is one of thousands of Soldiers and Marines who have been deployed to Iraq under a policy that allows military leaders to recall troops who have left the service but still have time left on their contract.
"I thought it was crazy," said Carlson, who has found himself protecting convoys on Iraq's dangerous roads as part of a New Jersey National Guard unit. "Never in a million years did I think they would call me back."
Although troops are allowed to leave active duty after a few years of service, they generally still have time left on their contract with the military that is known as "inactive ready reserve" status, or IRR. During that time, they have to let their service know their current address, but they don't train, draw a paycheck or associate in any other way with the military.
But with active duty units already completing multiple tours in Iraq, the Pentagon has employed the rarely used tactic of calling people back from IRR status, a policy sometimes referred to as a "backdoor draft."
According to the U.S. Army Reserve, approximately 14,000 Soldiers on IRR status have been called to active duty since March 2003 and about 7,300 have been deployed to Iraq. The Marine Corps has mobilized 4,717 Marines who were classified as inactive ready reserve since Sept. 11, and 1,094 have been deployed to Iraq, according to the Marine Forces Reserve.
The 1st Squadron of the 167th Cavalry RSTA, which is based in Lincoln, Neb. and oversees the New Jersey guard unit here in Iraq, has about 40 IRR Soldiers within its ranks of roughly 1,000 Soldiers, and officers in the squadron say the troops have merged into the unit without any problems.
Jason Mulligan, 28, of Ridgefield, Conn., left the army back in 2002 after two years in the infantry. He was working as a painting contractor while studying wildlife conservation when he received his letter last fall alerting him that he'd been mobilized.
The letter was followed up by another warning to Mulligan that if he didn't comply, the government would prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.
"My family and my fiancee were telling me 'Don't' report. Don't show up,' said Mulligan, who also serves with a New Jersey National Guard unit as a gunner on a Humvee helping patrol the territory around Camp Anaconda, a base about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "And I thought, 'Well I got that nasty letter saying they were going to put me in jail if I don't show up.'"
Anthony Breaux, 24, from La Place, La., said he had a feeling that eventually he would be recalled to service after hearing of so many other Soldiers who were pulled from IRR status. Breaux, who left active duty in September 2002, said he knew it was part of the bargain when he joined the army.
"Well, I signed up. I signed the papers. So you know what? I got to do what I got to do," Breaux said, before getting ready for a reconnaissance patrol around Camp Anaconda.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute, said part of the reason that the military has called up so many people who were on reserve status is that certain skill sets such as military police or civil affairs were concentrated in the reserves after the Cold War ended.
But he said the sheer numbers of IRR Soldiers being mobilized also are a sign that the military doesn't have enough people to fight this war, now in its fourth year.
"It seems clear in retrospect that the active-duty force wasn't big enough to sustain a 'long war' against global terrorism, and also lacked the proper mix of skills to wage that war with maximum effectiveness," Thompson said.
That thought is echoed by many of the IRR Soldiers. Mulligan said the military's reliance on IRR Soldiers shows how "desperate" the services are for troops.
"Maybe it says something for maybe the way the military is treating the people that are over here, because they're just not wanting to stay on," said Mulligan.
Some of the IRR Soldiers, such as Carlson, still will have time on their military contracts when they return from this deployment, meaning they could possibly be called back another time. But others will end their IRR status around the same time their deployment in Iraq ends next spring or will have so little time left that they would not be deployed again.
Spc. Mark Wiles, 27, of Phoenix, said his 6 1/2 years of active duty and the time he'll have served on this deployment mean that his reserve status will be over when the unit gets home. The only way that the military could keep him is if they extended the unit's stay in Iraq.
"Those of us who are IRR are seriously hoping they don't do that," Wiles said.
Are you thinking about joining the military or would you like more information about joining?
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Home/0,13387,,00.htm
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The Recall of U.S. Troops
Associated Press | August 20, 2006
CAMP ANACONDA, Iraq - Spc. Chris Carlson had been out of the U.S. Army for two years and was working at Costco in California when he received notice that he was being called back into service.
The 24-year-old is one of thousands of Soldiers and Marines who have been deployed to Iraq under a policy that allows military leaders to recall troops who have left the service but still have time left on their contract.
"I thought it was crazy," said Carlson, who has found himself protecting convoys on Iraq's dangerous roads as part of a New Jersey National Guard unit. "Never in a million years did I think they would call me back."
Although troops are allowed to leave active duty after a few years of service, they generally still have time left on their contract with the military that is known as "inactive ready reserve" status, or IRR. During that time, they have to let their service know their current address, but they don't train, draw a paycheck or associate in any other way with the military.
But with active duty units already completing multiple tours in Iraq, the Pentagon has employed the rarely used tactic of calling people back from IRR status, a policy sometimes referred to as a "backdoor draft."
According to the U.S. Army Reserve, approximately 14,000 Soldiers on IRR status have been called to active duty since March 2003 and about 7,300 have been deployed to Iraq. The Marine Corps has mobilized 4,717 Marines who were classified as inactive ready reserve since Sept. 11, and 1,094 have been deployed to Iraq, according to the Marine Forces Reserve.
The 1st Squadron of the 167th Cavalry RSTA, which is based in Lincoln, Neb. and oversees the New Jersey guard unit here in Iraq, has about 40 IRR Soldiers within its ranks of roughly 1,000 Soldiers, and officers in the squadron say the troops have merged into the unit without any problems.
Jason Mulligan, 28, of Ridgefield, Conn., left the army back in 2002 after two years in the infantry. He was working as a painting contractor while studying wildlife conservation when he received his letter last fall alerting him that he'd been mobilized.
The letter was followed up by another warning to Mulligan that if he didn't comply, the government would prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.
"My family and my fiancee were telling me 'Don't' report. Don't show up,' said Mulligan, who also serves with a New Jersey National Guard unit as a gunner on a Humvee helping patrol the territory around Camp Anaconda, a base about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "And I thought, 'Well I got that nasty letter saying they were going to put me in jail if I don't show up.'"
Anthony Breaux, 24, from La Place, La., said he had a feeling that eventually he would be recalled to service after hearing of so many other Soldiers who were pulled from IRR status. Breaux, who left active duty in September 2002, said he knew it was part of the bargain when he joined the army.
"Well, I signed up. I signed the papers. So you know what? I got to do what I got to do," Breaux said, before getting ready for a reconnaissance patrol around Camp Anaconda.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute, said part of the reason that the military has called up so many people who were on reserve status is that certain skill sets such as military police or civil affairs were concentrated in the reserves after the Cold War ended.
But he said the sheer numbers of IRR Soldiers being mobilized also are a sign that the military doesn't have enough people to fight this war, now in its fourth year.
"It seems clear in retrospect that the active-duty force wasn't big enough to sustain a 'long war' against global terrorism, and also lacked the proper mix of skills to wage that war with maximum effectiveness," Thompson said.
That thought is echoed by many of the IRR Soldiers. Mulligan said the military's reliance on IRR Soldiers shows how "desperate" the services are for troops.
"Maybe it says something for maybe the way the military is treating the people that are over here, because they're just not wanting to stay on," said Mulligan.
Some of the IRR Soldiers, such as Carlson, still will have time on their military contracts when they return from this deployment, meaning they could possibly be called back another time. But others will end their IRR status around the same time their deployment in Iraq ends next spring or will have so little time left that they would not be deployed again.
Spc. Mark Wiles, 27, of Phoenix, said his 6 1/2 years of active duty and the time he'll have served on this deployment mean that his reserve status will be over when the unit gets home. The only way that the military could keep him is if they extended the unit's stay in Iraq.
"Those of us who are IRR are seriously hoping they don't do that," Wiles said.
Are you thinking about joining the military or would you like more information about joining?
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Home/0,13387,,00.htm
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Aug 24 2006, 08:36 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060824/ts_af...ry_060824000103
Marines call-up reflects deepening strains on US military
by Jim Mannion
Thu Aug 24, 2:14 AM ET
A decision to call former marines back to active duty reflects deepening strains on the US military amid spiralling violence in Iraq, a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and tensions with Iran, analysts said.
The US Marine Corps disclosed this week that it has been authorized to call up as many as 2,500 marines at a time from its inactive reserves to fill shortfalls in the elite force.
"It's no secret that we're very busy," said Brigadier General Michael Barbero, the deputy director of operations for the Joint Staff.
The marines have relied on reservists to volunteer for active duty when they had gaps to fill and have only rarely resorted to involuntary call-ups in the past, most recently during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Barbero said the number of volunteers has fallen off over the past two years while demands on the marines, which with the army have carried the burden of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, have increased.
"But this is what this tool is designed to do: afford the leadership the opportunity to access their total force," he told reporters.
Analysts said the uncertainty over how long US forces will be in Iraq forced the move.
"Nobody knows when we are going to be able to start drawing down forces in Iraq," said Michael O'Hanlon. "This is not about the 'long war'. It is about Iraq."
The involuntary call-up affects people who served in the marines but left the service before fulfilling their entire contractual obligation, usually about four years.
If called up they will have to serve a year to 18 months with duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa.
"The message that prospective recruits are getting is that if you never volunteered to serve in the military you don't have to worry about serving. But if you did volunteer you can be called back again and again," said Loren Thompson.
"That's not the message the military should be sending if they want the all-volunteer force to be viable for the long run," said Thompson, director of the Washington-based Lexington Institute.
Lawrence Korb, who served as the Defense Department's manpower chief during the Reagan administration, said the involuntary call-ups also reflect declining public support for the war.
"The marines had prided themselves on not having to do this," he said.
"But the fact that they have to do this shows what the people are thinking about this war and what this war is doing to the force," he said.
Both the active duty army and the marines have met their recruiting and re-enlistment goals so far this year.
The army in particular, however, has had to struggle to meet its recruiting targets as the war in Iraq has dragged on.
After falling eight percent short of its recruiting goal last year, the army started taking in more candidates with lower scores on aptitude tests, and it raised the maximum age from 35 to 42.
"Thus far in the war the army appeared to be the only service with a major recruiting problem," said Thompson.
"But what this latest move by the Marine Corps means is that it, too, is beginning to run into resistance from prospective recruits in terms of signing up and serving in Iraq," he said.
The war in Iraq has taken a toll on the army's and marines' equipment as well, raising concerns in Congress about the readiness of US-based units and their ability to respond to a crisis elsewhere in the world.
"We remain capable of responding to our regional and global responsibilities," said Barbero, noting the swift response by the US Navy and marines to the crisis in Lebanon.
But an estimated 40 percent of the army's and marine corps's equipment is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it is being used up five or more times the normal peacetime rates.
The army says it needs 17 billion dollars next year alone to replace and repair equipment -- and another 13 billion dollars a year until two or three years after hostilities have ended to keep pace with wear and tear.
The marines estimate their equipment replacement costs at 11.9 billion dollars.
A report by the Center for American Progress said Wednesday that the marines have been taking equipment from non-deployed units and from prepositioned stocks stored on ships in Europe.
"What that means is if you had to go someplace else now you might now have all the equipment that you need," said Korb, who authored the report with Thompson and Max Bergmann.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Marines call-up reflects deepening strains on US military
by Jim Mannion
Thu Aug 24, 2:14 AM ET
A decision to call former marines back to active duty reflects deepening strains on the US military amid spiralling violence in Iraq, a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and tensions with Iran, analysts said.
The US Marine Corps disclosed this week that it has been authorized to call up as many as 2,500 marines at a time from its inactive reserves to fill shortfalls in the elite force.
"It's no secret that we're very busy," said Brigadier General Michael Barbero, the deputy director of operations for the Joint Staff.
The marines have relied on reservists to volunteer for active duty when they had gaps to fill and have only rarely resorted to involuntary call-ups in the past, most recently during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Barbero said the number of volunteers has fallen off over the past two years while demands on the marines, which with the army have carried the burden of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, have increased.
"But this is what this tool is designed to do: afford the leadership the opportunity to access their total force," he told reporters.
Analysts said the uncertainty over how long US forces will be in Iraq forced the move.
"Nobody knows when we are going to be able to start drawing down forces in Iraq," said Michael O'Hanlon. "This is not about the 'long war'. It is about Iraq."
The involuntary call-up affects people who served in the marines but left the service before fulfilling their entire contractual obligation, usually about four years.
If called up they will have to serve a year to 18 months with duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa.
"The message that prospective recruits are getting is that if you never volunteered to serve in the military you don't have to worry about serving. But if you did volunteer you can be called back again and again," said Loren Thompson.
"That's not the message the military should be sending if they want the all-volunteer force to be viable for the long run," said Thompson, director of the Washington-based Lexington Institute.
Lawrence Korb, who served as the Defense Department's manpower chief during the Reagan administration, said the involuntary call-ups also reflect declining public support for the war.
"The marines had prided themselves on not having to do this," he said.
"But the fact that they have to do this shows what the people are thinking about this war and what this war is doing to the force," he said.
Both the active duty army and the marines have met their recruiting and re-enlistment goals so far this year.
The army in particular, however, has had to struggle to meet its recruiting targets as the war in Iraq has dragged on.
After falling eight percent short of its recruiting goal last year, the army started taking in more candidates with lower scores on aptitude tests, and it raised the maximum age from 35 to 42.
"Thus far in the war the army appeared to be the only service with a major recruiting problem," said Thompson.
"But what this latest move by the Marine Corps means is that it, too, is beginning to run into resistance from prospective recruits in terms of signing up and serving in Iraq," he said.
The war in Iraq has taken a toll on the army's and marines' equipment as well, raising concerns in Congress about the readiness of US-based units and their ability to respond to a crisis elsewhere in the world.
"We remain capable of responding to our regional and global responsibilities," said Barbero, noting the swift response by the US Navy and marines to the crisis in Lebanon.
But an estimated 40 percent of the army's and marine corps's equipment is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it is being used up five or more times the normal peacetime rates.
The army says it needs 17 billion dollars next year alone to replace and repair equipment -- and another 13 billion dollars a year until two or three years after hostilities have ended to keep pace with wear and tear.
The marines estimate their equipment replacement costs at 11.9 billion dollars.
A report by the Center for American Progress said Wednesday that the marines have been taking equipment from non-deployed units and from prepositioned stocks stored on ships in Europe.
"What that means is if you had to go someplace else now you might now have all the equipment that you need," said Korb, who authored the report with Thompson and Max Bergmann.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
We recalled people in Gulf War One, why is this being portrayed as something new?
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 24 2006, 09:29 AM)
We recalled people in Gulf War One, why is this being portrayed as something new?
It isn't new, but with the trumpeting about meeting recruitment goals this and stop loss orders are at least the other side of the coin.
http://english.people.com.cn/200608/25/eng...825_296735.html
Reservists forced to fight in Iraq by 'back-door draft'
With bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stemming the flow of volunteers the US marine corps has been forced to call up reserves for compulsory service.
The involuntary call-up, seen as a "back-door draft" by Pentagon critics, is the first since the start of the Iraq war, and will begin in a few months when an initial batch of up to 2,500 reservists is summoned back to active service for a year or more.
The army has already sent 2,200 reservists back to the front of which only about 350 went voluntarily.
The marine corps announcement is in contrast to predictions by US commanders a few months ago that the number of American troops in Iraq could be reduced from about 130,000 to 100,000 by the end of the year.
Those plans were shelved as sectarian violence worsened.
There are now 138,000 American troops in Iraq, of which 22,000 are marines.
One mobile marine brigade due to return to base in Alaska last month after a year in Iraq has had its tour extended by four months, being sent to Baghdad to help Iraqi government forces try to stem the nation's slide towards civil war.
"All that happy talk about getting down to 100,000 by the end of this year, that's not on the cards for this year," said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington.
"Instead, they might bump up the numbers even further They are going to do whatever it takes to keep a lid on this damn thing in Baghdad, because if there's anywhere it's going to fly off the handle it's in Baghdad.
The marine corps will be drawing on its 59,000-strong "individual ready reserve," recent veterans who served in the corps less than four years ago.
The compulsory mobilisation of the reserve is normally ordered only in case of national emergency, but this year there were not enough reservist volunteers to fill the gaps in marine ranks.
Colonel Guy Stratton, who is in charge of the marine's mobilisation programme, said that the most urgent need was for engineers, intelligence officers, military police and communication specialists.
Gary Anderson, a retired marine colonel and now a Pentagon adviser on Iraq, said the call-up reflected the strain the Iraq war was putting on the force. "We're in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and we still have commitments in the Far East. I think if Iraq was the only game in town, it would be different," he said.
"Quite frankly some of these guys have gone to Iraq two or three times, and they feel they've done their bit It's going to put a strain on them. Both people and equipment are getting worn out. There's an old saying - long wars ruin armies, and I think that's an accurate statement."
Jack Reed, a Democratic senator on the armed services committee, said the marines and army were "stretched perilously thin and the equipment is seriously degraded."
Source: China Daily
Reservists forced to fight in Iraq by 'back-door draft'
With bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stemming the flow of volunteers the US marine corps has been forced to call up reserves for compulsory service.
The involuntary call-up, seen as a "back-door draft" by Pentagon critics, is the first since the start of the Iraq war, and will begin in a few months when an initial batch of up to 2,500 reservists is summoned back to active service for a year or more.
The army has already sent 2,200 reservists back to the front of which only about 350 went voluntarily.
The marine corps announcement is in contrast to predictions by US commanders a few months ago that the number of American troops in Iraq could be reduced from about 130,000 to 100,000 by the end of the year.
Those plans were shelved as sectarian violence worsened.
There are now 138,000 American troops in Iraq, of which 22,000 are marines.
One mobile marine brigade due to return to base in Alaska last month after a year in Iraq has had its tour extended by four months, being sent to Baghdad to help Iraqi government forces try to stem the nation's slide towards civil war.
"All that happy talk about getting down to 100,000 by the end of this year, that's not on the cards for this year," said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington.
"Instead, they might bump up the numbers even further They are going to do whatever it takes to keep a lid on this damn thing in Baghdad, because if there's anywhere it's going to fly off the handle it's in Baghdad.
The marine corps will be drawing on its 59,000-strong "individual ready reserve," recent veterans who served in the corps less than four years ago.
The compulsory mobilisation of the reserve is normally ordered only in case of national emergency, but this year there were not enough reservist volunteers to fill the gaps in marine ranks.
Colonel Guy Stratton, who is in charge of the marine's mobilisation programme, said that the most urgent need was for engineers, intelligence officers, military police and communication specialists.
Gary Anderson, a retired marine colonel and now a Pentagon adviser on Iraq, said the call-up reflected the strain the Iraq war was putting on the force. "We're in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and we still have commitments in the Far East. I think if Iraq was the only game in town, it would be different," he said.
"Quite frankly some of these guys have gone to Iraq two or three times, and they feel they've done their bit It's going to put a strain on them. Both people and equipment are getting worn out. There's an old saying - long wars ruin armies, and I think that's an accurate statement."
Jack Reed, a Democratic senator on the armed services committee, said the marines and army were "stretched perilously thin and the equipment is seriously degraded."
Source: China Daily
I'm still waiting for that recall. I even asks if they would take me back last summer. Just a reject notice, no reason given.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Rumsfeld.html
Saturday, August 26, 2006 · Last updated 7:57 p.m. PT
Rumsfeld defends extended tours in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS
AP MILITARY WRITER
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld waves a he leaves for Ft. Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska were he met privately with 172nd Stryker Brigade families, the unit's home base, Saturday Aug. 26, 2006. Rumsfeld will meet with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Sunday and will participate in a ceremony for a memorial of the World War II, Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease program in Fairbanks. Rumsfeld will also to tour the missile defense site at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)
FAIRBANKS, Alaska -- In a lively but polite give-and-take, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fielded questions Saturday from wives and other family members of Alaska-based soldiers whose combat tours in Iraq were abruptly extended just as they prepared to return home this month.
"It is something we don't want to do," Rumsfeld told several hundred family members who gathered in a gymnasium at nearby Ft. Wainwright, home of the 172nd Stryker Brigade. The unit's deployment to Iraq was extended by up to four months to bolster U.S. firepower in the Baghdad area.
"But in this case we had to," he added, referring to the decision made in late July to extend the 172nd.
Asked whether the Army was preparing another brigade to take over for the 172nd in case the intended improvements in Baghdad are not achieved by mid-December, Rumsfeld said he could make no promises.
"I wish I had a magic wand and the power to say yes. I don't," he said. "I will do everything in the world I can do to see that they are not extended beyond the 120 days."
Reporters, including five who traveled with Rumsfeld from Washington, D.C., were not permitted to cover his meeting with the family members, which lasted about an hour. But a wife who made a video tape of the event showed it to reporters afterward.
One wife asked Rumsfeld why the 172nd was doing house-to-house searches in Baghdad instead of the kinds of combat operations they are trained to perform. Rumsfeld disputed her assertion, saying that 95 percent of the house-clearing operations are being done by Iraqi troops.
In an interview during his flight to Fairbanks, Rumsfeld said he saw no reason for the soldiers or their families to be angry at him.
"I don't put it in that context," he said. "These people are all volunteers. They all signed up. They all are there doing what they're doing because they want to do it. They're proud of what they do. They do it very, very well."
Asked why reporters would not be permitted to cover his meeting with the family members, Rumsfeld at first replied, "I don't have any idea. I haven't addressed the subject." Later he said he makes it a practice to make all family meetings private.
A newly formed Alaska chapter of the Military Families Speak Out group issued a statement in Fairbanks saying it would make a public call for the Bush administration to bring home the 172nd and all other U.S. troops. It quoted Jennifer Davis of Anchorage, whose husband is a member of the 172nd.
"I am totally frustrated, disappointed and heart broken," she said in the statement. "Just when I thought we were going to be able to resume a `normal' life and when I thought the nightmare was over, the nightmare was extended."
Rumsfeld said in the in-flight interview that the 172nd Brigade was an effective force during its nearly one-year deployment to the Mosul area in northern Iraq. He said the soldiers performed well in the short time since they shifted to Baghdad as part of an effort by U.S. commanders to quell sectarian killings.
"They did a terrific job in Mosul and they're already doing an excellent job in Baghdad," said Rumsfeld, indicating that commanders chose to extend the 172nd Brigade in part because of their extensive experience in Iraq.
The brigade's tour was extended by up to 120 days, bringing them close to a Christmas return date. Rumsfeld said he would make no promises that the full brigade would be back home by the holidays.
"I'd love to be Santa Claus. I'm not," he told reporters.
If it turned out that by December, U.S. commanders in Iraq felt they needed an unscheduled infusion of troops, "our first choice obviously would be to have them be someone other than the people we just extended," Rumsfeld said. "But I'm not going to get into the promises business. That isn't my style."
On Sunday, Rumsfeld and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov planned to participate in a ceremony in Fairbanks for a memorial of the Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease program. During World War II, nearly 8,000 U.S. warplanes were flown to Fairbanks by U.S. pilots and turned over to Soviet pilots for use against the Germans.
Rumsfeld also was to tour the missile defense site at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks, where interceptor rockets in underground silos are being developed for potential use in the event of a long-range missile attack on U.S. soil. A test of portions of the system is scheduled to be held in a few days.
Saturday, August 26, 2006 · Last updated 7:57 p.m. PT
Rumsfeld defends extended tours in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS
AP MILITARY WRITER
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld waves a he leaves for Ft. Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska were he met privately with 172nd Stryker Brigade families, the unit's home base, Saturday Aug. 26, 2006. Rumsfeld will meet with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Sunday and will participate in a ceremony for a memorial of the World War II, Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease program in Fairbanks. Rumsfeld will also to tour the missile defense site at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)
FAIRBANKS, Alaska -- In a lively but polite give-and-take, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fielded questions Saturday from wives and other family members of Alaska-based soldiers whose combat tours in Iraq were abruptly extended just as they prepared to return home this month.
"It is something we don't want to do," Rumsfeld told several hundred family members who gathered in a gymnasium at nearby Ft. Wainwright, home of the 172nd Stryker Brigade. The unit's deployment to Iraq was extended by up to four months to bolster U.S. firepower in the Baghdad area.
"But in this case we had to," he added, referring to the decision made in late July to extend the 172nd.
Asked whether the Army was preparing another brigade to take over for the 172nd in case the intended improvements in Baghdad are not achieved by mid-December, Rumsfeld said he could make no promises.
"I wish I had a magic wand and the power to say yes. I don't," he said. "I will do everything in the world I can do to see that they are not extended beyond the 120 days."
Reporters, including five who traveled with Rumsfeld from Washington, D.C., were not permitted to cover his meeting with the family members, which lasted about an hour. But a wife who made a video tape of the event showed it to reporters afterward.
One wife asked Rumsfeld why the 172nd was doing house-to-house searches in Baghdad instead of the kinds of combat operations they are trained to perform. Rumsfeld disputed her assertion, saying that 95 percent of the house-clearing operations are being done by Iraqi troops.
In an interview during his flight to Fairbanks, Rumsfeld said he saw no reason for the soldiers or their families to be angry at him.
"I don't put it in that context," he said. "These people are all volunteers. They all signed up. They all are there doing what they're doing because they want to do it. They're proud of what they do. They do it very, very well."
Asked why reporters would not be permitted to cover his meeting with the family members, Rumsfeld at first replied, "I don't have any idea. I haven't addressed the subject." Later he said he makes it a practice to make all family meetings private.
A newly formed Alaska chapter of the Military Families Speak Out group issued a statement in Fairbanks saying it would make a public call for the Bush administration to bring home the 172nd and all other U.S. troops. It quoted Jennifer Davis of Anchorage, whose husband is a member of the 172nd.
"I am totally frustrated, disappointed and heart broken," she said in the statement. "Just when I thought we were going to be able to resume a `normal' life and when I thought the nightmare was over, the nightmare was extended."
Rumsfeld said in the in-flight interview that the 172nd Brigade was an effective force during its nearly one-year deployment to the Mosul area in northern Iraq. He said the soldiers performed well in the short time since they shifted to Baghdad as part of an effort by U.S. commanders to quell sectarian killings.
"They did a terrific job in Mosul and they're already doing an excellent job in Baghdad," said Rumsfeld, indicating that commanders chose to extend the 172nd Brigade in part because of their extensive experience in Iraq.
The brigade's tour was extended by up to 120 days, bringing them close to a Christmas return date. Rumsfeld said he would make no promises that the full brigade would be back home by the holidays.
"I'd love to be Santa Claus. I'm not," he told reporters.
If it turned out that by December, U.S. commanders in Iraq felt they needed an unscheduled infusion of troops, "our first choice obviously would be to have them be someone other than the people we just extended," Rumsfeld said. "But I'm not going to get into the promises business. That isn't my style."
On Sunday, Rumsfeld and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov planned to participate in a ceremony in Fairbanks for a memorial of the Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease program. During World War II, nearly 8,000 U.S. warplanes were flown to Fairbanks by U.S. pilots and turned over to Soviet pilots for use against the Germans.
Rumsfeld also was to tour the missile defense site at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks, where interceptor rockets in underground silos are being developed for potential use in the event of a long-range missile attack on U.S. soil. A test of portions of the system is scheduled to be held in a few days.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.