Nat. Guard No credit for time served/all Units eligible return/Iraq

[MissWaverly]

Latest sleight of hand from Bushco.

National Guard Troops Face Early Redeployment to Iraq
More than 14,000 National Guard troops will be redeployed to Iraq next year, shortening their off-duty time, as the Defense Department implements President Bush's troop increase. The New York Times reporter who broke the story explains the development.
David Cloud of the New York Times, who broke the story today. (This was on the PBS NewsHour
Thursday, 2/22/07.)

They acknowledged at the time that essentially the deployments had gone on so long in Iraq and Afghanistan that there was no way they could live up to those promises anymore. And they've come up with a new set of rules, which essentially say, "We will send you for one year, a maximum of one year, every five years." But in doing so, they've wiped away the previous service so that any unit is now eligible to go back for another year to Iraq or Afghanistan.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/natguard_02-22.html

[newscott]

1. What was it Joseph Heller said?

There was only one catch....

[MissWaverly]

3. Yes, If I remember correctly

When he was out, he was out and when he was in he was still out, Catch 22.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. That's what you get for trusting Bush.

Surprised?

[MissWaverly]

4. No, but I am surprised that the military hasn't caught on

this is not about winning a war, it's about breaking the National Guard, he's paying
them back for his service in TANG.

[seafan]

5. More from the interview with David Cloud of the NYT on the early Nat'l Guard redeployment:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/natguard_02-22.html">National Guard Troops Face Early Redeployment to Iraq, February 22, 2007

.....

RAY SUAREZ: Now, what was the most recent policy of the Bush administration regarding how long it would be between overseas deployments for units like the ones that are being told to be ready to go back?

DAVID CLOUD: The policy for several years, since the Iraq invasion, has been that, for Guard and Reserve units, they were supposed to be deployed for 24 months every five years, no more than 24 months every five years. That was scraped in January when the president announced his surge plan, his plan to send more reinforcements to Iraq.

They acknowledged at the time that essentially the deployments had gone on so long in Iraq and Afghanistan that there was no way they could live up to those promises anymore. And they've come up with a new set of rules, which essentially say, "We will send you for one year, a maximum of one year, every five years." But in doing so, they've wiped away the previous service so that any unit is now eligible to go back for another year to Iraq or Afghanistan.

RAY SUAREZ: So for these time totals, we're starting from scratch, we're starting from square one?

DAVID CLOUD: That's correct.

.....

RAY SUAREZ: Well, help me understand the relationship between these units being asked to go back next year and the year after with the president's intention to increase the number of troops deployed in Iraq. We were told that it would peak by the end of this year and that it would be temporary. Does this mean that that surge could go on a lot longer?

DAVID CLOUD: There's no definitive answer to that yet. Commanders have said the surge will go on, and they'll look at conditions at the end of the summer and decide whether the 21,500 troop increase could come down at that time.

So, in effect, what the Pentagon is doing is preparing for the possibility that they will need this elevated number of troops next year by alerting these Guard units now that they might have to go.

.....

RAY SUAREZ: One term that keeps popping up in these discussions of unit strength and Guard deployments is Swiss cheese units. What are Swiss cheese units?

DAVID CLOUD: This is a term that's kind of come into vogue in the last year or so. Swiss cheese units are Guard units that have had individual members sent over to Iraq, and therefore been left at under-strength because individuals, and sometimes in large numbers, have gone over, but the whole unit hasn't.

And that's left units with some people who are eligible to go, others who aren't eligible to go, some with -- it also applies to equipment. Some equipment has gone; some has stayed. So you have -- essentially, it's a term that refers to the under-strength Guard units, many of which are prevalent around the country in many states now.

.....

RAY SUAREZ: Now, what has been the situation with attracting, recruiting, and training new members of the Guards and Reserves? People close to the situation have been saying the Iraq and Afghan wars have been very rough on those institutions. Are people still signing up in their hometowns?

DAVID CLOUD: They are signing up. The numbers aren't as good as for the active forces. The active forces are exceeding their goals in virtually every category. The reserve forces aren't, but the shortfalls aren't dramatic.

I mean, the concern in some ways is the concern of commanders that I talked to, particularly of units that are in this category of potentially going next year, is that, between now and then, Guard members who are eligible to retire, whose enlistments are up, may not re-enlist, and that they will then be forced to find replacements for them, you know, before they go.

RAY SUAREZ: Can they be compelled to stay in service like regular forces can?

DAVID CLOUD: They can. This concept of stop-loss, which the Pentagon can impose on Guard members to stop them from getting out, if they are scheduled to -- if they are mobilized. Again, it's a technical thing, but there are ways that the Pentagon can prevent members from getting out.

.....

This is a disgrace to our country and our people. * has intentionally increased our vulnerabilities both at home and abroad, to feed his lust for war and greed for power, money and control.

So he sends our families off to die.

[MissWaverly]

6. not only that but talk about morale/no credit for time served

how can this be, how can they get away with this deceit, it's outrageous.

:-(

[mediaman007]

9. Does that mean we're not volunteers anymore?

[MissWaverly]

11. well, it sure looks that way to me

if you get no credit for time served, when you are constantly redeployed with shorter and
shorter breaks, and you can't leave after your contract is up, sure seems that way,
and if they are so desperate for troops, why don't they bring back the draft instead
of breaking these soldiers.

[amandabeech]

14. The political old-wives tale is that anyone bringing back the draft

will lose the next election.

Also, military leaders want volunteers, not draftees in an unpopular war who might refuse to fight and/or shoot their leaders.

It's all about Vietnam, still.

[MissWaverly]

15. well, I wish you could have heard Chris Shays

speculating that soldiers who emerged from 18-22 months of medical care could be shipped
back to active duty, Vietnam was bad but not this bad.

[amandabeech]

18. Good grief!

I didn't hear that one.

What was Shays doing in the '60s and early '70s?

[MissWaverly]

22. I heard that he was in the Peace Corps not Vietnam

here's a post from another blog on him.

If you had seen any of the dishonest, blatent lies being mailed out by and for the Shays campaign, and if you knew about his sucking up to GWBush at a $15,000 a pop fundraiser, and if you heard this former conscientious objector turned hard core hawk now that he is too old for the draft, you wouldn't mourn the loss of Chris Shays.

Maybe in the past he was a good guy, at least on a limited set of issues. Today he is another Republican party hack.

http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=20061106&s=franke-ruta110606

[noamnety]

7. The enlistment contract is very clear

1. Anything promised by the recruiter but not written into the contract isn't legally binding on the government.
2. Anything written into the contract isn't legally binding on the government.

[MissWaverly]

8. well, we have to stand for something

for a government to mouth "support the troops" and then do this is just not right.

[EST]

10. My, oh my!

This should really make people excited and enthusiastic about signing up to go "defend their country!"

[MissWaverly]

12. it's just another case of them using people

like they did during Katrina, they worried about lucrative contracts while people
were dying from lack of water.

[primative1]

13. Be the first in your neighborhood ...

to qualify for a nice post humus medal awarding, complete with a piece of paper signed by some guys you will never hear of and a genuine autographed photo of El Presidente'.
I heard that the beny's have improved so that now when they let you "BORROW" a flag for the burial, you get to keep it for 6 whole hours before they take it back.
Such an honor

[EST]

16. The anger is growing palpable, isn't it?

The "grand experiment" has, indeed, been destroyed.
The big question, now, is, "can we rebuild and install regular laws such that this sort of crap can never happen again?"

Or, will we even be able or allowed to?

[MissWaverly]

17. yes, what do we do

FDR would not recognize this place, oh, wait, maybe I am wrong, I am sure that he
would recognize the Grand Old Party.

[Jackeen]

28. OK, you need a reality check on that one.

As part of my duties, I conduct military funeral details. I'll answer any questions you have on the process, but I'll guarantee you that the conduct relating to deceased soldiers is something the Army takes very seriously. Whoever told you that crack about the flag is either seriously mis-informed, or outright lying. If your comment was made in jest, it was in seriously bad taste.

[zulchzulu]

19. Who needs a draft when you've got a backdoor draft

I'm not talking about something you can parts to fix at Home Depot.

[Jackeen]

20. It was only a policy, not a law.

Anyone in my unit that particularly objected to the concept of going back again and was eligible to do so has ETS'd and left the service. I don't think anyone was working on the illusion that 'if you've gone once, you won't be going back again.' If I'm sent back, I'm sent back. Part of the job.

[Karenina]

21. And what might that "job" be???

:shrug:

[MissWaverly]

23. well, I think that the National Guard has a policy of

timed redeployments for a reason, people who sign up know the rotation schedule, it's
unfair to ask anyone to serve 4 deployments for this war while others are not required
to serve, that is not what America is about.

[Karenina]

24. I have NO CLUE what America is about anymore.

I only know for SURE that the NG is being HORRIBLY ABUSED BEYOND MEASURE.

[MissWaverly]

25. I agree with you

and I think this war has been a super s****up, I can't believe the republicans didn't
try to take action long ago.

[Jackeen]

27. Call me old-fashioned if you will...

...But I always thought it was to execute operations as directed by the chain of command, under the ultimate direction of the political leadership. As the British would say, I've willingly taken the Queen's shilling until now, on occasion I have to earn it.

[MissWaverly]

29. these people signed up for the National Guard not slavery

If the situation in Iraq is so dire that world stability depends on it, institute the draft.

[Jackeen]

31. I'm not sure I follow the logic.

You suggest that using people who voluntarily signed the dotted line would count as slavery, but forcing people who have not shown any particular desire to be in the military at all to fight is acceptable? Would not the converse be more applicable?

[MissWaverly]

32. what I am saying is that the original policy should be followed

with timeouts for home leave and training, it's unreasonable to expect someone to do 4 deployments in Iraq while the majority of the population makes no sacrifice at all.
As one soldier said: We are in Iraq and America is at the mall.

If this battle is as critical as George W. Bush, John McCain and Dick Cheney say it is,
then the sacrifice should be shouldered by the entire country, not a small segment
overused until it breaks. My friend is 55 years old, he is in the National Guard and
he was sent over there and he has only 18 months left until retirement.

[opihimoimoi]

26. Recruiters gonna have a hard time making their numbers...Bush is killing

the deal...young peeps ain't gonna join for shit...

[MissWaverly]

30. do you think Bush would have signed up with TANG

if it was run back then like it is now, the answer to that question is NOT.

[opihimoimoi]

34. I think you are correct....the bum wouldn't join for shit and so are the rest of America today...

except for a few deluded peeps....most guys and gonna shy away from the death pit Bush has created...

[Vidar]

33. Because slaves make great soldiers.