QandO
Questions and Observations| « Lurch/Opie '04 | Main | Released Gitmo Detainees again fighting against US » |
|
July 06, 2004 Why the continued prevarication? Surely the NY Times can't be this studiously ignorant can they? The Pentagon's decision to press 5,600 honorably discharged soldiers back into service, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the latest example of President Bush's refusal to face the true costs of pre-emptive war. While technically correct ... these soldiers were honorably discharged from ACTIVE service ... the NYT is misleading the hell out of their readership. These 5,600 either have a contractual service obligation in the reserves or are part of a reserve program known as the Individual Ready Reserve, or both. Regardless the servicemembers are coming from the IRR, not retirement or discharge (i.e. no remaining service obligation). The IRR requires its members have "good years" toward their obligation (or toward retirement). What that means is they have to do enough duty to earn enough points each year to have that year count toward the end of their continuing service obligation. Let me make this as clear as I can: They are subject to call up at any time by the Pentagon, just as any other member of the reserves. Got it? They are no different than any other reservist! Part of their obligation and membership in the reserves, as members of the IRR, make them just another reservist. Secondly, not all IRR members are simply serving out the remainder of their service obligation. A good portion of the IRR is composed of reserve soldiers who, for reasons of location, MOS, rank or other reasons are unable to secure a slot in a local reserve unit. So instead of getting out of the reserves they join the IRR. What this allows them do is drill with a unit for points only (no pay) if they so choose and the unit is willing so they can work toward a good retirement year. It also gives them the opportunity to request equivalent or counterpart training, where they will be ordered to active duty for 2 weeks with an active duty unit and serve in a capacity comensurate with their rank and MOS. These are not guys and gals who thought their military days were over. They are not old geezers who have retired. They are members of the reserve forces of the US. And for the NY Times to continue to push this fradulent line is inexcusable. They're either deeply ignorant of the components of the reserve forces or they've got an agenda. My guess is it might be both. |
Actually it's not "technically correct". You don't get an honorable discharge until after your time in the IRR is up.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at July 6, 2004 03:07 PM
Not for a large portion of them. I was a regular army officer. I was honorably discharged from the active military. The discharge hangs on my wall as we speak. Then I was recommissioned as a reserve officer (which, btw, meant I lost all my time in grade for the rank I held in the regular army). I have since been RETIRED (after I did 21 more years) as a reserve officer of the United States.
A tremendous number of these people are active duty officers who have been discharged honorably and then recommissioned as reserve officers and are serving in the IRR. Most, like me, came to the conclusion they didn't want the military as a full time job, but enjoyed it and wanted to continue in some capacity in the reserves.
Posted by: McQ at July 6, 2004 03:19 PM
Quick quiz: what number is greater? The number of NY Times staff who have served in the military, or the number who have served as a volunteer in a Democrats campaign at one time or another?
Best guess will do... :)
Posted by: shark at July 6, 2004 03:43 PM
Didn't somebody say the bigger the lie, the more apt the masses are to believe it?
Posted by: Elliot Fladen at July 6, 2004 09:16 PM
If I understand correctly, McQ above resigned his commission, was honorably discharged, and then rejoined the military in a Reserve capacity. This is a little different from what the NYT is (uninformedly) saying.
I served in the old days - I only had a six-year obligation - and after 4 years of active duty, I was separated from active service, served two years in the reserves, and only then was honorably discharged.
I also read the NYT editorial, but stopped after that first sentence. I counted two errors - the other one was that these reservists were being "pressed" into service - shiver me timbers, didn't we fight a war over this a couple of hundred years ago?
Posted by: Ender at July 7, 2004 08:03 AM
My hubby's experience echoes Ender's. His original commitment was for 4 years active duty and 4 years IRR. 3 1/2 years into his service he re-enlisted for 4 years, so he served 7 1/2 of the 8 years on active duty and 6 months in the IRR. The date on his discharge papers is 8 years, not 7 1/2, from his date of enlistment.
Posted by: Wacky Hermit at July 7, 2004 10:05 AM
Understand. However there is a significant portion of the IRR which has the same background as I do. And there is also a significant portion that are in the IRR because they can't find a slot (for various reasons) in a reserve or NG unit but hate to give up the time in service and pursue retirement through serving in the IRR.
While in some cases the NYT assertion is not correct, in others it is. So its rather hard to say they're not telling the truth there ... however, IMO, it is correct to say they're misleading their readers because of the impression they're trying to leave (and because of their apparent abysmal ignorance of all things military).
Posted by: McQ at July 7, 2004 10:16 AM