Welcome to ArmyAdvice Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

View from an Army Spouse

Army Steve's Wife, Michelle

Longer Tours for Reservists? Has anyone in Washington ever HEARD of Federal Law?

A news story which broke this evening has a senior general speaking anonymously with a small group of reporters.  The basic idea is that, with the current troops being stretched to the breaking point (confirmed by Gen. Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve in a Dec 20 memo), Army Reservists and National Guardsmen could now be activated more frequently, for longer tours and multiple trips to the sandbox. 

Currently, soldiers are to be activated for no longer than 24 months.  Contrary to what is being reported, this is NOT a policy set by Rumsfeld.  It is a requirement of Title 10 (federal law) that, unless war or other national emergency is declared by Congress, Reservists are limited to 24 months of consecutive duty.  I suppose that one could argue that, so long as the soldiers recieve a month off in between deployments, the letter of the law is being met.  And a volunteer military is one that freely signed an initial contract, to which they are held and the other party is not.

As I ponder what this change might mean to me personally and to others in similar circumstances, I have occasionally wondered what our Founding Fathers would have thought of this state of affairs.  And it occurs to me that even the indentured servants of their day, who sold themselves into temporary slavery for a ticket to the New World, only had a standard 7 year contract. 

Published Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:37 PM by msmith

Comments

 

msmith said:

Michelle,

I hate to tell everyone "I told you so" but this has been coming for a while - I warned everyone - I was dismissed as a "kook".
Most observers predicted the "24 month rule" would be scrapped some time after the election and our gut instincts are proving to be right on.

The law can VERY EASILY be changed and if a "star-spangled support the troops/liberate Iraq" spin is put on it the President WILL get the necessary number of votes to do it.

This is EXACTLY what John Kerry warned us of in a speech given in New Mexico in October. He, of course, was vilified by Limbaugh, Hannity and others as "fear mongering" for votes. Guess what? He was right then and is right now.

Not to rile you up, but I too worry for Steve and myself. Simply put - There are NO more Engineer LTs and CPTs left to recall in the IRR and I doubt they will let him resign. From the "no shit" file: A childhood friend and 1998 graduate of the Naval Academy has been cross-levelled to an Iraq bound Army Engineer Brigade to fill an 0-3 vacancy. While Mike holds a BS in Civil Engineering, he is a NAVY NUCLEAR SUBMARINE OFFICER!!!! If we are taking guys out of submarines to fill Army Captain slots in Iraq, you know we are in trouble!!

This is what you all got in electing Don Rumsfeld to a second term. That was my issue for this election -RUMSFELD. Screw Bush, Kerry, Cheney and Edwards. Rumsfeld needed to go and you in Ohio voted him back in.

As Malcom X once said, "The Chickens Have Come to Roost."

The legalese is simple. If the President changes the name of "Operation Iraqi freedom" to something else after January 30th elections, it is technically "a seperate deployment."
January 6, 2005 10:48 PM
 

msmith said:

Hi Michelle:

It's too late for "I told you so". This policy will destroy the National Guard and Reserves.
We need to contact our Congressman to let them know what such a policy will do to the lives of thousands of families.
My daughter-in-law is overseas right now and my son is taking care of 2 small boys. The thought that they might not see their mother for the majority of their childhood is sickening.
Incidentally she had fulfilled her commitment but was unable to resign her commission.
January 7, 2005 9:25 AM
 

msmith said:

This strategy was alluded to in a post on the AKO forums section back in October or November. I know Steve T. read it. Despite Title X, I think the method used will be a simple change in the name of the operation within the theater thus creating a new contingency eligible for resetting the 24 month mobilization clock. I don't know the legal mechanics involved but I trust the law is plastic enough to conform to the pressure for meeting manning requirements.

Interestingly, the Army is no longer numbering successive OIF rotations 1, 2, 3, etc... Now they define them by years i.e., OIF 04-06. I guess there is concern that people will start noticing we are still over here in Iraq when we get to OIF 23.

With soldiers and officers bailing out of the Army Reserve like rats fleeing a sinking ship, my fear is those of us caught by deployment are likely to be held involuntarily for a long time to come. I wonder when the situation will bottom out? I have a bad feeling it can and will get a lot worse.
January 7, 2005 12:03 PM
 

msmith said:

Wasn't it just back in October (pre-election) that Big Donny R. et. al were "studying" shortening the Army tours in Iraq (and presumably the Reserve/Guard callups that would go along with them)? Guess that's not gonna work out...

Note that it's only the Army that's chewing off its arms to try and feed itself long enough to turn the corner in Iraq. A gentleman I work with (Lt Col) is just back from his 4-month deployment with the Air Force Reserve, hale & hearty. Four months. My D&E case with HRC-STL has taken longer than that. I'd come out of the IRR for four months - no questions asked (my obligation ended in 1999), but 18, 24 or some indefinite period to be determined at the pleasure of the President? Sickening is a very good word for it.
January 7, 2005 2:27 PM
 

msmith said:

Today my soldier found out they are trying to extend his deployment... This after he has been active 24 months now. 13 months in the sand box...I am sick over it we have been counting down the days he was to fly outta the hole and today the countdown is in suspension till further notice. He was also told if he re-enlisted he couldnt be redeployed for 5 years so he re-enlisted for 6 ....Tommorow they officially bend him over for the next 6 years in formation... He would have never re-enlisted if we knew this shit! I am disgusted I want him home! His whole unit is upset, they are protesting by not shaving or showering...more power to them! These guys need a fnnn break!
January 9, 2005 9:44 PM
 

msmith said:

candi- Wow. I am sorry to hear about your situation. I don't know the specifics, and I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of Title X is that they CAN'T keep them active longer than 24 continuous months. I don't know if a call to your senator and congressman would help (I have always been a little afraid of creating that type of notice myself, fearing repercussions to my soldier), but it is an option worth considering. Clearly, SOMEONE needs to take a look at what is going on here. If they think the Reserves are at the breaking point, they should take a look at the individuals and the families. I really hope your soldier is home soon.
January 9, 2005 10:31 PM
 

msmith said:

I know I was afraid to post about his "protesting" on my blog for fear of getting him into trouble but that is what is happening. He has 24 months in now, active deployment 13 being in Iraq! I just can't believe it. He re-enlisted Saturday because he didn't thisnk he could be deployed for another 2 years! Today he finds this out ...nice timing on the armys part! I have found alot of blogs with this very subject today so maybe we can get something done. I just want to see him.
January 9, 2005 10:46 PM
 

msmith said:

Candi,

My heart goes out to you, but WHAT WAS HE THINKING IN REENLISTINING FOR SIX YEARS???

Anybody who even looks at the cover of the Army Times knows the Army has run out of people with stop-loss, IRR Recalls, cross-levelling and the Guard "borrowing" AD LTs.

I pray for you, but realistically he will be gone at least two of those six years.

Why would anyone put blind trust in these retention folks? They are looking to save their own ass, make their quota and keep their cushy jobs. They cannot be trusted.

"5 years of no deployments" for reupping - a pure lie. I wish you had posted that before he reupped because I could have saved you a lot of heartache. Sorry.
January 10, 2005 12:04 PM
Anonymous comments are disabled