NationStates Jolt Archive

How desperate are they to get more troops over there? And how do they feel about it?

Well, the National Guard has put all 635 soldiers of a battalion of the South Carolina National Guard scheduled to depart Sunday for a year or more in Iraq under a disciplinary lockdown in their barracks for the past two weeks.... to make sure they go! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31689-2004Sep18.html)

You see, apparently this Guard unit was put on an accelerated training schedule -- giving the soldiers about 36 hours of leave over the past two months -- because the Army needs to get fresh troops to Iraq quickly. So, with a couple of weeks left to go until departure 13 members of the unit went AWOL to actually get to see their families before being sent off for at least a year.

Said one member of this unit:

"Our morale isn't high enough for us to be away for 18 months," said Pfc. Joshua Garman, 20, who, in civilian life, works in a National Guard recruiting office. "I think a lot of guys will break down in Iraq." Asked if he is happy that he volunteered for the deployment, Garman said, "Negative. No time off? I definitely would not have volunteered."


Oh yeah - GW is the guy who treats the military right.... :rolleyes:

Other quotes from the soldiers:

"There's a federal prison at Fort Dix, and a lot of us feel the people in there have more rights than we do," said Spec. Michael Chapman, 31, a construction worker from near Greenville, S.C.


Sgt. Kelvin Richardson, 38, a machinist from Summerville, S.C., volunteered for this mission but says he now wishes he had not and has misgivings about the unit's readiness. Richardson is a veteran of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which he served with the 1st Cavalry Division, an active-duty "regular" unit. This battalion "doesn't come close" to that division, he said. "Active-duty, they take care of the soldiers."


Pfc. Kevin Archbald, 20, a construction worker from Fort Mill, S.C., who was transferred from another South Carolina Guard unit, also worries about his cobbled-together outfit's cohesion. "My last unit, we had a lot of people who knew each other. We were pretty close." He said he does not feel that in the 178th. Here, he said, "I think there's just a lot of frustration."


"I think before we deploy we should be allowed to go home and see our families for five days, because some of us might not come back," said Spec. Wendell McLeod, 40, a steelworker from Cheraw, S.C. "Morale is pretty low. . . . It's leading to fights and stuff. That's really all I got to say."

If Bush wins the election, then some people might be nervous about possible moves to conscription aka Vietnam. He won't say it now, but it might be planned already.

oh my god, they weren't even letting these soldiers go home to their families before sending them to Iraq?! some of those soldiers may be killed, and would never see their loved ones again...how could ANYBODY think that is an appropriate way to treat these men and women?!

oh my god, they weren't even letting these soldiers go home to their families before sending them to Iraq?! some of those soldiers may be killed, and would never see their loved ones again...how could ANYBODY think that is an appropriate way to treat these men and women?!

That's war. The Iraq invasion is now civil war and they're just cannon fodder really. The military REALLY don't care about the soldiers as long they do their job.

That's war. The Iraq invasion is now civil war and they're just cannon fodder really. The military REALLY don't care about the soldiers as long they do their job.
no, that ISN'T war. it doesn't need to be. that is how THIS war is being pursued, and i have a major problem with that...there is no justification for abusing the men and women who make such sacrifices for their country, and whoever passed those orders should be immediately exiled to Iraq for the remainder of their lifetime, with no possibility of ever seeing their family again.

no, that ISN'T war. it doesn't need to be. that is how THIS war is being pursued, and i have a major problem with that...there is no justification for abusing the men and women who make such sacrifices for their country, and whoever passed those orders should be immediately exiled to Iraq for the remainder of their lifetime, with no possibility of ever seeing their family again.

To me, it's war in all but name. If you have cities with rebels running about with weapons and the authorities resorting to bombing their own cities to fight it, it is war. Soldiers are people like any other and they have families like any other occupation, but tell that to those US pollies who pretend otherwise.

To me, it's war in all but name. If you have cities with rebels running about with weapons and the authorities resorting to bombing their own cities to fight it, it is war. Soldiers are people like any other and they have families like any other occupation, but tell that to those US pollies who pretend otherwise.
oh, no, i wasn't trying to claim the Iraq War isn't a war, i was just trying to say that this ISN'T just how war has to be. you said "that's war," as though this sort of mistreatment is simply a necessary part of being at war, and i don't think that is a valid excuse.

no matter what mission Bush thinks we have accomplished, i know the war in Iraq isn't over...my best childhood friend is in combat over there right now, and his letters make it abundantly clear that we are still at war.

oh my god, they weren't even letting these soldiers go home to their families before sending them to Iraq?! some of those soldiers may be killed, and would never see their loved ones again...how could ANYBODY think that is an appropriate way to treat these men and women?!

Oh c'mon - didn't you see GW speech to the Reserves last week telling them how sensitive he was to their plight?


I'd hate to see how things would be if he weren't so concerned...

If either party re-instates the draft it's political suicide. Hopefully they won't

oh my god, they weren't even letting these soldiers go home to their families before sending them to Iraq?! some of those soldiers may be killed, and would never see their loved ones again...how could ANYBODY think that is an appropriate way to treat these men and women?!
I know! They are the ones who are doing all the fighting and some faceless asshole in Washington is determining how many of them will ever get to kiss American soil ever again; how many of them will arrive back home in tact without limbs missing. Hopefully, not arriving home in a flag draped casket.

I mean, shit, the lowest positions are held by humans, just as the high posts are. But, the privates and all the shleps at the bottom get the rawest of deals.

Most of the people joining the army do it because there isn't much in the way of employment opportunities in their home towns, or because they can't afford post-secondary education and this is the only way they can get it...

Think about this, the poorest people are the ones usually fighting. They fight so the middle class and upper class can live their lives in peace.

If either party re-instates the draft it's political suicide. Hopefully they won't

It would be for Kerry, it won't be for Bush if he wins the next election. Given he can't run for office again any way.

It would be for Kerry, it won't be for Bush if he wins the next election. Given he can't run for office again any way.
But it would be for any Republican who voted for it, and they know it. They'll turn on their President in a heartbeat to save their own asses.

But it would be for any Republican who voted for it, and they know it. They'll turn on their President in a heartbeat to save their own asses.


You sure about that? Make a little bit of an uproar, get the entire party to support it together; then it becomes "legitimate" in the eyes of the people. Wouldn't be too hard to convince the people if most or all Republican leaders support it. Combine that with a President who is not beholden to the people for his job; I'd say the timing couldn't be better for them.

I know the US has faces a lot of trials, but I am truely worried about the future of the US, especially if Bush is re-elected.

You sure about that? Make a little bit of an uproar, get the entire party to support it together; then it becomes "legitimate" in the eyes of the people. Wouldn't be too hard to convince the people if most or all Republican leaders support it. Combine that with a President who is not beholden to the people for his job; I'd say the timing couldn't be better for them.
But why do they even want one? Most every Republican congressman and the military are against it. It is actually slightly more likely that there'll be a draft if Kerry gets elected, although the key word is slightly.

But why do they even want one? Most every Republican congressman and the military are against it. It is actually slightly more likely that there'll be a draft if Kerry gets elected, although the key word is slightly.

I doubt that. With Kerry in office, the rest of the world can be sure that we won't be pursuing endless wars around the globe without their support or approval, and they would probably be more likely to help us out in Iraq.

I doubt that. With Kerry in office, the rest of the world can be sure that we won't be pursuing endless wars around the globe without their support or approval, and they would probably be more likely to help us out in Iraq.
But I believe there is a difference of military philosophy between the two. Bush wants quality from the troops, while Kerry wants quantity. His proposed expansion of the army seems to confirm that. Not that there won't be volunteers, as there always seems to be plenty of them. But the Republicans aren't really interested in expanding the number of service personnel, with the exception of Sen. Jim Inhofe.

But I believe there is a difference of military philosophy between the two. Bush wants quality from the troops, while Kerry wants quantity. His proposed expansion of the army seems to confirm that. Not that there won't be volunteers, as there always seems to be plenty of them. But the Republicans aren't really interested in expanding the number of service personnel, with the exception of Sen. Jim Inhofe.


If he wants quality he shouldn't be putting a group in Iraq that feels that they aren't ready and have low morale.

If he wants quality he shouldn't be putting a group in Iraq that feels that they aren't ready and have low morale.
Hey, there are anomolies in every system. Besides, I doubt either Bush or Kerry have given thought about the National Guard/Reserves, save for using them as political fodder.

My word, they really are scraping the barrel. I wonder what the public's attitude will be once they return and tell all. Can't see many people re-enlisting. Too late to make a significant impact on the election, though.

Indeed, it would be an odd state of affairs indeed if either group asked for a Draft. I merely stated it was entirely possible that the Republican leadership could pull it off with minimal political fallout. It would be an interesting view of a masterstroke if they could pull it off without sacraficing their control of Congress.

Purly Elucid, I question where you get your information on Kerry's slight prefrence for "non-volunteer" troop increases though. Got a link? I was under the impression that both sides had dismissed that idea as unrealistic.

Can you blame the soldiers???? They're being treated like POW's!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Yeah, Bush is the guy to run the military. :rolleyes:

Remember when the National Guard recruitment ads used to say "Serve at home...earn money for college." Think anyone feels like they got recruited under false information?

Now, of course, they are offering an immediate bonus of $8,000 (http://www.1800goguard.com/home.html) to get people to sign up, but recruitment and retention is still not meeting targets. Can't say as I blame people for not wanting to go to Iraq to risk their necks for a needless war...

Remember when the National Guard recruitment ads used to say "Serve at home...earn money for college." Think anyone feels like they got recruited under false information?

Now, of course, they are offering an immediate bonus of $8,000 (http://www.1800goguard.com/home.html) to get people to sign up, but recruitment and retention is still not meeting targets. Can't say as I blame people for not wanting to go to Iraq to risk their necks for a needless war...

:rolleyes:

With the cutbacks in the early 90's, more emphasis was placed on the National Guard and Reserves. Many of us on active duty at the time knew this would come to bite us in the ass one day. We voiced our opinions which was all we could do. Not that service in the NG or Res. is not an honorable thing to do, it comes down to motivation. Most of those in the NG or Res. joined for the benefits without the risk. They are the first to complain when the risks go up, but thats another matter.

If Bush wins the election, then some people might be nervous about possible moves to conscription aka Vietnam. He won't say it now, but it might be planned already.

Hillary Clinton has already hinted at re-initiating the draft. It's not just the Republicans....

Hillary Clinton has already hinted at re-initiating the draft. It's not just the Republicans....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Two DEMOCRATS proposed a new draft and drew up bills to implement it. They will not pass in any event.

I do like this though....

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

No more running off to Canada.....;)

Remember when the National Guard recruitment ads used to say "Serve at home...earn money for college." Think anyone feels like they got recruited under false information?

Now, of course, they are offering an immediate bonus of $8,000 (http://www.1800goguard.com/home.html) to get people to sign up, but recruitment and retention is still not meeting targets. Can't say as I blame people for not wanting to go to Iraq to risk their necks for a needless war...
I've seen enlistment bonuses as high as $16,000 during my tenure in the Navy. My personal bonus when I joined was only $2,000.

There have always been incentives, there always will be, the current situation isn't unique.

I've seen enlistment bonuses as high as $16,000 during my tenure in the Navy. My personal bonus when I joined was only $2,000.

There have always been incentives, there always will be, the current situation isn't unique.


Except for that whole "having nearly half of the troops in-theater in the actual combat zone being either Reservists or National Guard while the regular army keeps up those dangerous tours of Oktoberfest and the Okinawa Cherry-Blossom Festival" thing - you're right!


Which is not to disparage the regular army for the service they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq, but when was the last war zone that had over 40% of the soldiers there either Reservists or Guardsmen?

Except for that whole "having nearly half of the troops in-theater in the actual combat zone being either Reservists or National Guard while the regular army keeps up those dangerous tours of Oktoberfest and the Okinawa Cherry-Blossom Festival" thing - you're right!

:rolleyes:

Please....the military now is PRIMARILY made up of Reservists and the National Guard. The active duty side of the house is less than 50% of the force. Jumping at conclusions about such things is just not good form, you know that. We can squarely blame the cutbacks of the 90's for this. I said it then...and I will say it now. It was and is a bad idea to rely on "part-time" troops to do a "full-time" job.

:rolleyes:

With the cutbacks in the early 90's, more emphasis was placed on the National Guard and Reserves. Many of us on active duty at the time knew this would come to bite us in the ass one day. We voiced our opinions which was all we could do. Not that service in the NG or Res. is not an honorable thing to do, it comes down to motivation. Most of those in the NG or Res. joined for the benefits without the risk. They are the first to complain when the risks go up, but thats another matter.

Well, it was not so much the overall emphasis as opposed to the segregation of duties. I understand that nowadays it is almost impossible for the regular army to deploy without the reserves as almost all supply-line and maintainence duties have been entirely handed away from regular army troops and given to specialized reserve groups. An army won't go very far without that supply line following....

Well, it was not so much the overall emphasis as opposed to the segregation of duties. I understand that nowadays it is almost impossible for the regular army to deploy without the reserves as almost all supply-line and maintainence duties have been entirely handed away from regular army troops and given to specialized reserve groups. An army won't go very far without that supply line following....

Thats true. The support functions have largely been handed over to the Reserves and the National Guard. Therefore, those who are being sent over will be in rear support areas, not on the front lines. Not that there really are any defined lines in Iraq, but you know where I am going with that.

:rolleyes:

Please....the military now is PRIMARILY made up of Reservists and the National Guard. The active duty side of the house is less than 50% of the force. Jumping at conclusions about such things is just not good form, you know that. We can squarely blame the cutbacks of the 90's for this. I said it then...and I will say it now. It was and is a bad idea to rely on "part-time" troops to do a "full-time" job.


Errr.... why are you agreeing with my assessment of the situation... but also claiming that I am "jumping to conclusions"? I didn't comment on WHY the current deployment split is so heavily Reserves-based. Just stated it as fact. Which it is!

As is the current bonuses, the current failure to meet retention targets, and the story that started the thread.


Sometimes Bif, it seems that you are arguing just to be argumentative.

Errr.... why are you agreeing with my assessment of the situation... but also claiming that I am "jumping to conclusions"? I didn't comment on WHY the current deployment split is so heavily Reserves-based. Just stated it as fact. Which it is!

As is the current bonuses, the current failure to meet retention targets, and the story that started the thread.


Sometimes Bif, it seems that you are arguing just to be argumentative.

The "bonus" program has been around since the end of the draft. USAF "Crew Chiefs" qualified to work on F-16's were given $16,000 to reenlist for 4 years. That was in 1987. It has gone up since then. It is given to every AFSC (Air Force Specialty Code) that is critically manned. I missed mine by 6 months when I was an Armaments Systems Specialist, but it was a mere, $3500.

Yes, the deployment IS lopsided, but thats what Congress planned on having happen when they cut the military to the bone under Clinton. NOW people are complaining because the gamble they took did not go the way they wanted it to? Wake up people...militaries exist for fighting, not "going to school." If you join the military you take that risk.

Errr.... why are you agreeing with my assessment of the situation... but also claiming that I am "jumping to conclusions"? I didn't comment on WHY the current deployment split is so heavily Reserves-based. Just stated it as fact. Which it is!

As is the current bonuses, the current failure to meet retention targets, and the story that started the thread.


Sometimes Bif, it seems that you are arguing just to be argumentative.
Actually, the deployment is lopsided to the active duty side, if both of your numbers are accurate.
If 40% deployed in Iraq are reservists, yet reservists make up over 50% of total US forces, then doesnt it go to show that a higher percentage of active troops are deployed in theater?

Actualy Zeph, one of the other reasons the Army has a large group of regular Army here in the US is in case of another situation arising. The army can't just pack up and move soldiers already deployed in combat, as any former military officer will tell you, it would be a logistical nightmare. Because of this, the US Army has to keep a group of Regular Army, and Reserve, units in the US, remember if large scale rioting starts after a terrorist attack, who usualy gets called in?

Moving right along, I agree with you Biff, the Army is suffering from the cut-backs of the 90s. Ironic, that a Democratic President cuts the military, and gets praised, yet when the military is too small to handle a situation the Republican candidate gets blamed for it...

Again, the US Army is under-funded, contrary to what many peace-groups might say, the US military in general needs three things,

a. More Funding, yes, that's right, more funding for better tanks, troops and planes.
b. More men, again, linked to more funding, we need to raise the pay levels to be competative to the civilian market.
c. Better equipment, again with the 'more funding' bit, we need better equipment, sure, the stuff we have now serves us fine, but other, not so friendly nations, are developing the next generation of weapons, the latest Mig for instance outmaches anything the US currently has in common deployement, and you know how quickly those things get shared.

I am by no means a military officer, or a profecional annalyst, just a guy who gets fed up with the Democratic party crying about an increase in funding, and then blaming Bush for the poor condition of the military, when it was Clinton (*gasp* I just insulted the untouchable Saint!) who cut the funding.

The "bonus" program has been around since the end of the draft. USAF "Crew Chiefs" qualified to work on F-16's were given $16,000 to reenlist for 4 years. That was in 1987. It has gone up since then. It is given to every AFSC (Air Force Specialty Code) that is critically manned. I missed mine by 6 months when I was an Armaments Systems Specialist, but it was a mere, $3500.

Yes, the deployment IS lopsided, but thats what Congress planned on having happen when they cut the military to the bone under Clinton. NOW people are complaining because the gamble they took did not go the way they wanted it to? Wake up people...militaries exist for fighting, not "going to school." If you join the military you take that risk.
Not to be a nit picker (I cant help myself, my wife asserts Im **** retentive) but there are 2 different bonus programs being discussed here. Enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses.
The $8,000 is an enlistment bonus, as in a bonus on initial enlistment.
The $16,000 for crew chiefs is a re-enlistment bonus, as in for continued service.

My enlistment bonus (in 1982) was $2,000. The last re-enlistment bonus I recieved was $30,000 (naval nuclear power program)
The current enlistment bonus for NNPP is around $12,000-$16,000 depending on time of year. The current re-enlistment bonus is about the same, $30,000.

Not to be a nit picker (I cant help myself, my wife asserts Im **** retentive) but there are 2 different bonus programs being discussed here. Enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses.
The $8,000 is an enlistment bonus, as in a bonus on initial enlistment.
The $16,000 for crew chiefs is a re-enlistment bonus, as in for continued service.

My enlistment bonus (in 1982) was $2,000. The last re-enlistment bonus I recieved was $30,000 (naval nuclear power program)
The current enlistment bonus for NNPP is around $12,000-$16,000 depending on time of year. The current re-enlistment bonus is about the same, $30,000.

You must have gone to school here at OTC. You should see the housing they are building on that land now.

You are correct, the National Guard and Reserves do have "sign on" bonuses. The USAF never has needed those as they always seem to have a waiting list, but they have had reenlistment bonuses since the end of the draft to retain those with advanced skills.

You must have gone to school here at OTC. You should see the housing they are building on that land now.

You are correct, the National Guard and Reserves do have "sign on" bonuses. The USAF never has needed those as they always seem to have a waiting list, but they have had reenlistment bonuses since the end of the draft to retain those with advanced skills.

OTC? Orlando Training Center? If that's the case, then yes that's where I spent about 7 months. Loved Florida. Hated the 3:30 daily rain showers. Ruined more than one pair of "whites" running to my room from class.

OTC? Orlando Training Center? If that's the case, then yes that's where I spent about 7 months. Loved Florida. Hated the 3:30 daily rain showers. Ruined more than one pair of "whites" running to my room from class.

Yep, I live just a few miles from where the training center was. They have finally torn it all down and some developer is building some shoddy houses there and some that are pretty nice. I wish they had left the base open, I get tired of having to drive so far to a decent commissary and exchange.

Yep, I live just a few miles from where the training center was. They have finally torn it all down and some developer is building some shoddy houses there and some that are pretty nice. I wish they had left the base open, I get tired of having to drive so far to a decent commissary and exchange.
::getting off topic again, sorry :( ::
Speaking of Florida, how are you faring in the "Gods wrath of the Century" title fight going on down there?

::getting off topic again, sorry :( ::
Speaking of Florida, how are you faring in the "Gods wrath of the Century" title fight going on down there?

Just fine. I lost power with Charley for a few days but not at all with Frances. Ivan did not touch us at all. Jeanne is going back to Africa, but Karl and Lisa are out there churning this way. There is a HUGE amount of damage to various buildings still and if anyone wants a roofing job, there will be thousands avail. This could end the unemployment problem for a long time to come.

But it would be for any Republican who voted for it, and they know it. They'll turn on their President in a heartbeat to save their own asses.

As if any draft age kids fresh out of the liberal indoctrination camps known laughably as "schools" in America are voting Republican anyway.
I say offer four years of college for 2 years of duty following high school graduation.

The story about the NG in lockdown is an exaggeration, of course. Perpetuated by the ABB'ers, no doubt. They may be in lockdown during training, but that is everyday business in the military. One doesn't get leave during training cycles. Going AWOL gets you prison time. They will of course be allowed to have leave to see their families before they are deployed. They signed up for the service, they accepted the assignment and they damn sure cash their government paychecks without fail. They should kwitdabitchin.

To quote recruitment posters that say "serve at home" is just silly. This obviously refers to the fact that they are stationed at home for normal duty. Every AR & NG knew that federalized deployment was always a possibility when they signed that paper.

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." Benjamin Franklin

Just fine. I lost power with Charley for a few days but not at all with Frances. Ivan did not touch us at all. Jeanne is going back to Africa, but Karl and Lisa are out there churning this way. There is a HUGE amount of damage to various buildings still and if anyone wants a roofing job, there will be thousands avail. This could end the unemployment problem for a long time to come.
Good to hear you survived just fine. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and the rest of the region being unduely targeted by that mean ol' mother nature.

Good to hear you survived just fine. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and the rest of the region being unduely targeted by that mean ol' mother nature.

Thanks, it has been a wild time. many people have lost an awful lot. All I really lost was a few weekends of diving. But I will make up for that this weekend when I dive the wrecks off Deerfield beach.

If either party re-instates the draft it's political suicide. Hopefully they won't
IF George W. gets re-elected and re-instates the draft, I don't think he will worry about getting re-elected again.......because he can't run again. So there would be no political suicide for Bush per se.

IF George W. gets re-elected and re-instates the draft, I don't think he will worry about getting re-elected again.......because he can't run again. So there would be no political suicide for Bush per se.
Notice he said "either party".
As in they would lose seats in both House and Senate.

Guys, the US has a volunteer army. Everybody in it signed contracts. Maybe some of them rolled the dice for money and an education and it is paying off badly, but nobody made them do it. If you don't want to go where the US government tells you to, don't enlist.