Marines Set to Call Up Thousands

Colleges & Universities Service Academy Parents
1

<p>Marines Set to Call Up Thousands for Iraq, Afghan Duty
By Julian E. Barnes
Times Staff Writer
6:15 PM PDT, August 22, 2006</p>

<p>Washington — The Marine Corps said Tuesday that it would begin calling thousands of Marines back to active-duty service on an involuntary basis to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan – the latest sign that American armed forces are under strain and a potential signal of the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war among young veterans.</p>

<p>Marine commanders will call up formerly active duty service members now classified as reservists after the Corps failed to find enough volunteers among their emergency reserve pool to fill needed jobs in combat zones. The call-ups will begin in several months, summoning as many as 2,500 reservists at a time to serve for a year or more.</p>

<p>The military has had to scramble to meet the manpower requirements of the Iraq war, which have not abated in the face of a continuing insurgency and growing civil strife. Earlier this year, the military called forward its reserve force stationed in Kuwait, sending one battalion to secure Baghdad and two to Ramadi. Last month, the yearlong deployment of the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker Brigade was extended by four months in order to provide extra troops to roll back escalating sectarian violence in Baghdad.</p>

<p>For much of the conflict, the Army has had to use “stop-loss orders,” which keep soldiers in their units even after their active-duty commitment is complete, and involuntarily call-ups of reservists to supplement their forces…<a href=“http://www.latimes.com%5B/url%5D”>www.latimes.com</a></p>

2

<p>

I wonder what bodily orifice Julian pulled THAT little nugget from. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>No bias, of course. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

That’s life as a Reservist.</p>

3

<p>Zaphod, lololol… where does it come from?</p>

4

<p>So, in the all volunteer armed services, you are considered a “volunteer for life?”</p>

<p>Bring back the draft, because as things are now we are kidding ourselves. If we’re “at war”, and the mission is not really “accomplished” yet, lets behave like it. If the number of “volunteers” isn’t adequate we need to either draft them or reassign sailers and airmen to the Army and Marine Corps, train them to walk on dry land, shoot, and turn 'em loose on the ground in Iraq and Afganistan. Allow women Marines and soldiers to serve in “official” combat roles instead of just putting them in harms way and then “officially” saying they are not because we have a congress and civilian leadership that is still hung up on protecting our women folk from danger.
We are weakening the morale and sapping the strength of the Army and Marine Corps, forcing them through a revolving door with no end or relief in sight in the way of adequate numbers or replacements because we are not facing facts as they are, and we are not providing the solutions that are painfuilly obvious.</p>

5

<p>What are the enlisted ranks saying? If they’re reenlisting, what’s their motivation? Finances, patriotism, loyalty to their unit? I’d like to hear what others are experiencing in their communities around the nation, because the enlisted Marines that I know are NOT reenlisting and those in the reserves are praying that they won’t be called. </p>

<p>You’re right Shogun, bring back the draft and the war in Iraq will come to a screeching halt when it starts to affect the middle class. Can you just imagine university students having to interrupt their studies to serve in Iraq? Let’s face it; we’ve currently got a back-door draft with the stop-loss orders, extended deployments, and multiple combat tours for reservists. Here is an opportunity for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld supporters to demonstrate their true commitment to policies of the current administration by putting their kids on the front lines. Talk is cheap. We are at war, and the generals say we need more troops than are currently volunteering for duty. Put democracy to work and reinstitute the draft.</p>

6

<p>Tours of Duty</p>

<p>The Marines are calling back about 1,200 reservists to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two guests discuss the situation tonight on The News Hour With Jim Lehrer.</p>

7

<p>Don’t worry, there are plenty of Americans with wealth whose kids are willing to serve…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-27-soldier-edit_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-27-soldier-edit_x.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

8

<p>

No, just as long as you remain in the Reserves. It’s not like they’re pulling Korean War vets out of their homes and sending them off to find mines the old-fashioned way; they’re calling up RESERVISTS.</p>

<p>But hey, anything to slam the war effort… :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

Oh, for the love of God. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Yeah, the middle class hasn’t been touched by this war. Nope, only those poor decrepit souls who have nowhere else to go join the military these days. The recruiters sweep in to the projects and under the overpasses to scam them into thinking that joining the military is a noble thing. They’re just a bunch of helpless dupes. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

Thousands upon thousands have, and in a far larger proportion than the twits who support Kerry/Kennedy/Clinton. Or are you now going to tell me only liberals are in the military? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Sigh. The stupidity from the left continues unabated. :rolleyes:</p>

9

<h2>In reference to AFDAD’s remark about wealthy kids joining the military…</h2>

<p>I guess “wealthy” is a relative term. For me, a wealthy person is bringing in well over a million a year. Somehow I don’t see children of these families enlisting in the US Army to obtain the following benefits:</p>

<p>Earn a salary while learning a skill
High-quality medical and dental coverage
Free or discounted meals and housing
Earn college credits
Specialized job training
Vacation (30 days paid leave each year)
Retirement benefits
Thrift Savings Plan—the military version of a 401(k)</p>

<p>How many children of wealthy people, or even members of Congress for that matter, are serving in the US military as enlisted personnel, or even officers? (I know Senator McCain’s son recently enlisted in the Marines, but it was headline news because it was such an abberation.) Granted, the US military has basic recruiting standards, e.g., high school diploma or GED, ability to pass a physical exam, pretty clean police record (I don’t know what is acceptable here), but I still imagine that the vast majority of today’s military recruits are from modest/low income families living in rural areas of the United States. (Albeit, not the service academies.) Also, joining the military is the road to US citizenship for a growing number of resident aliens. </p>

<p>Moreover, the uber-conservative Heritage Foundation conducted the study you quoted. Here is their mission statement:</p>

<p>Our Mission </p>

<h2>Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.</h2>

<p>It just occurred to me that half of the people on this forum will support the Heritage Foundation after reading their mission statement, so now I’m inadvertently recruiting for conservative think tanks…</p>

10

<p>At least they’re honest about their mission and their goals, unlike so many others who claim to be “unbiased”.</p>

<p>So, to echo Shogun from a few weeks back: what does it matter who did the study if it’s true? :rolleyes:</p>

11

<p>"Thousands upon thousands have, and in a far larger proportion than the twits who support Kerry/Kennedy/Clinton.'</p>

<p>Actually thats not really an accurate statement. The same people who supported Clinton do not consider themselves in the same “camp” as Kennedy or Kerry. If they were, Bush 2 wouldn’t be the president now. I have found the two party’s to be much more diverse within as of late than even 2 years ago. Joe Lieberman and John McCain represent a very dangerous proposition for both camps–politicians that vote their conscience–HORRORS!!! Both the Republican and Democratic party are discovering that even members of their senior leadership are beginning to diverge from the “party line”. I predict that as we get closer and closer to both the election this november and the presidential election of 2008, we will find more and more of the neo-cons AND hardline liberals being shooed out of power in favor of more moderate (and intelligent) candidates. We are sorely in need of leadership that understands the world around us without being beholden to some political and religious dogma that by its very nature renders the world a more dangerous place and prevents the unfettered advance of scientific truth and medical advancement.
Call me an optomist…call me idealistic…but it is high time our political leaders “grew up”. More of the same is a depressing thought.</p>

12

<p>I suspect that the question of staffing our military on a volunteer versus draft basis has become rather moot. From my observation point, not only has the number of individuals willing to serve in our armed forces dwindled, there is now growing objection to the delegation of that responsibility to volunteers. The anti-war supporters not only don’t want volunteer troops in combat, they don’t want any troops in combat. </p>

<p>Their goal seems to be to make it functionally impossible for our country to successfully wage war. I believe with the intent to change the world’s perception of America as the “school-yard bully” to that of the world’s great mediator and negotiator. Underlying this credo is a total belief in the concept that all people/nations really can work out their differences in a peaceful manner. Only the less evolved nation must resort to violence to settle disputes.</p>

<p>While that may seem like a noble mission, I’m convinced it will ultimately lead to tremendously adverse consequences in a world where too many other nations are committed to getting a bigger piece of the "power pie” and are still willing to wage war (with its associated costs) to get it. Some of these Neanderthal nations are more than happy to use no-holds barred tactics to achieve their “unenlightened” ambitions for greater global domination. The odds that the non-violent, consensus-seeking approach will work are about as good as the odds of verbally negotiating the peaceful resolution of a heated barroom brawl. It ain’t gonna happen. Competing nations are seeking hegemony not harmony.</p>

<p>I worry that there are few, if any, causes other than our own immediate physical demise for which a growing number of the American public are willing to incur extended suffering - or even allow other Americans to incur. Ironically, I believe this aversion to suffering pretty much guarantees that our nation will continue to “suffer” erosion of its global status.</p>

13

<p>Sadly Aspen, you’re probably right.</p>

14

<p>I also agree with Aspen. If we are not willing to shoulder the responsibilities of being the most free and powerful nation on Earth, then we won’t be for long.</p>

<p>

Then maybe the fact that they seem to worship Clinton as the return of the Messiah, and the fact that Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, and the rest of the extreme left seem to slobber all over him AND his wife, is all just a fluke, eh?</p>

<p>No, my friend, they ARE the same bunch. The difference is that the world has changed since the days when so little of consequence (in the headlines at least) was occurring that the President was more concerned with getting his knob polished by an employee young enough to be his daughter than in really governing or looking into the future to address the growing threats that were gathering against the country. Throw in a virulent hatred bordering on complete insanity by an entire political movement for a single man, and you’ll see we live in VERY different times.</p>

<p>

I doubt there is a correlation. It’s those “moderates” in the middle as well as the complete moonbattery of the left (that both energized the right and alienated “moderates”) that got the President elected TWICE (yes, friends, he won TWICE whether you like it or not). That, and the fact that they were sick of seeing the White House turned into the Whore House.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>LOL! </p>

<p>Have you seen what “voting your conscience” got Lieberman recently? From VP candidate to thrown out and reviled in less than 6 years. You seriously believe that bunch of nutcases is actually getting more diverse? OK, whatever. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>As for McCain, the only place he is even remotely popular is in Arizona (and that’s slipping) and the media, who adores any Republican that speaks ill of another.</p>

<p>

Really? Seems to me the DNC is diverging on only one direction, LEFTWARD, every day becoming more and more shrill and outrageous. Listened to Pelosi, Dean, Ried, et al, lately? The GOP, OTOH, seems to be reasonably steady, if not nearly Conservative enough, but they aren’t running in one direction or another blindly.</p>

<p>Again, look at the results: Lieberman gets tossed out on his ear, and excoriated by the rest of the party (including the base). Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani’s star rises on the right (despite being far from a solid Conservative). Which side is truly more diverse, then? </p>

<p>

Yeah, like Lieberman just was, eh? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>And don’t tell me it was just a primary. The latest polls m(if you can believe them, of course) show Lieberman being nearly tied with that completely-unqualified-yet-rich oaf they found to run against him.</p>

<p>I wonder where the “The GOP is the party of the rich!” crowd is? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

Oh, spare me! We have plenty of people who understand the world around us just fine, and just because they don’t want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the threats against us or just because they are not enlightened atheists who believe in nothing doesn’t make them inept or clueless. Talk about having a chip on your shoulder! The assertion that somehow they are standing in the path of scientific advancement is so baseless as to be comical.</p>

<p>But hey, I’m sure if Kerry and Edwards had been elected, Christopher Reeve would have been walking, Stephen Hawking would be cured, and JFK would have been resurrected, by now right? It’s those damned religious neocon nutcases who dare to believe in something greater than themselves that prevented it all. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

Yep. A government full of Reagans, Gingrichs, Thomas’, Scalias, Williams’, and Souls would be as close to political heaven on earth as we’re ever likely to get. </p>

<p>We can keep the Kennedy’s, Clintons, Carters, Deans, Pelosis, Murthas, and the rest of that bunch on display at the Museum of Diseased Imaginings, just so we never forget how inept and dangerous some folks can be. We can even throw in Cunningham in a side exhibit of how even good war heros can occaisionally go bad.</p>

<p>Tell you what, Shogun. If you could guarantee me that one party could be made up of nothing but Liebermans and Millers, I’d go for my party being made up of nothing but Reagans. But until that day comes, the FACT remains that they are further from being able to implement that idea than my side is. You don’t see Buchanan being taken seriously anymore (thank God - and I once supported him), and the only time you hear from Falwell is when the media decides to headline his latest statement (while ignoring moderate religious leaders like Jackson, Farrakhan, and Sharpton).</p>