1

Could someone explain how someone so far removed from military service can be called up involuntarily again:

http://tinyurl.com/6w6yh

After a certain period of time in the military does the government have the right to recall you at their whim? This guy apparently doesn't mind going, but what of the hundreds of thousands of other vets who may be put into the same situation just so that the Republicans don't have to reinstate the draft?

2

I don't have a problem with military recruiting, and they should be allowed into all college campuses. However, the advertising simply needs to be a little more truthful. Printing "No Faggots Allowed" in large red letters at the bottom of their ads ought to do the trick.

3

"No Faggots Allowed" in large red letters at the bottom of their ads ought to do the trick.

When they get desperate enough they don't care if you run into the recruiter's office in a pink tuto making out with your drag queen lover holding a photo album of you in your last all-male bath house orgy encounter. You're going to war. There was a really good book on the subject written when the hole "Don't Ask Don't Tell" thing hit the scene back in the early 1990's. They'll gladly take fags for cannon fodder when they *really* need it. Hell...they're "asking" 70 year old veterans to join back up!

4

Moderate: After a certain period of time in the military does the government have the right to recall you at their whim? This guy apparently doesn't mind going, but what of the hundreds of thousands of other vets who may be put into the same situation just so that the Republicans don't have to reinstate the draft?

These “the hundreds of thousands of other vets” as you refer to them are known as “retirees.” They are not just people who served one enlistment a dozen years ago and then are getting called back to duty. When these vets agree to take retirement they know that they can be called back to duty until age 60 (and 64 for general officers).

Patrick: Printing "No Faggots Allowed" in large red letters at the bottom of their ads ought to do the trick.

Actually, printing “No homosexual behavior allowed” would be more fitting.

5

aving served three years as a recruiter for the Marine Corps I can assure you that the point doesn’t need to be emphasized. When a prospective applicant has agreed to join for four years and notices that they are signing an enlistment for eight years the recruiter often has to do some fast talking just to keep the applicant from bolting for the door.

Fast talking?

I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of
the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me
God.

Interesting. I wonder if this contract is negotiable...

6

Yeah I hear recruiting is going great Joe. Almost hitting a full 60 % or so of targeted expectation right?

7

Yeah I hear recruiting is going great Joe. Almost hitting a full 60 % or so of targeted expectation right?

[sarcasm]I hear its great too! They are just trying to get these really old geezers off their duffs and make them productive members of society again. These other younger people who are being involutarily recalled or having their stays extended were really just going to be sitting around doing nothing as well so the military thought they would keep them busy doing some minor work in the soon to be more peaceful than Disney World Iraq. Any day now they should finish flushing out those last remaining pro-Saddam loyalists and then they'll start throwing roses at us! I can't wait![/sarcasm]

No draft coming? Please...

8

Mod the story that was out on some news prgrams was that if you tender your resignation wrong somehow you're subject to some kind of recall. I don't really udnerstand all the particulars.
Allegedly what's happened in a very few cases is that folks who did file all their paperwork correctly were recalled anyway. And if I understand their allegation correctly they were turned down on appeal even though they claim to have done evrything they were supposed to do. They allege that it's not an 'accident' that these mistakes are made. If they're correct, my wife could be subject to such an abuse, which will make me a rather nasty fellow towards anyone who still supports this stunning DoD and WH failure.
">i>You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and still get blown up" Don Rumsfeld

9

DS:Yeah I hear recruiting is going great Joe. Almost hitting a full 60 % or so of targeted expectation right?

Um, no. For FY 2004, every service (excluding the National Guard) exceeded their targeted recruiting goals. Wars don’t hurt recruiting, rapidly expanding economic growth does.

Moderate: No draft coming? Please...

As I’ve said probably a half dozen times on this blog: only gullible people who are completely ignorant about the military (i.e., Congressional Democrats) think there will be draft.

10

. If they're correct, my wife could be subject to such an abuse, which will make me a rather nasty fellow towards anyone who still supports this stunning DoD and WH failure.

Sorry to hear that. Hopefully this country will wake up from their collective coma and start noticing this group's shennanigans and get them to actually start taking accountability for their actions.

">i>You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and still get blown up" Don Rumsfeld

Did anyone see Jay Leno where he pointed out after the speech Rumsfeld got into an armored car. Hypocrite!

11

As I’ve said probably a half dozen times on this blog: only gullible people who are completely ignorant about the military (i.e., Congressional Democrats) think there will be draft.

More gullible than the "they'll throw roses at our feet" neocons? Nice try Joe. For your sake I hope your number isn't called too. We may have disagreements but I'd hate to see you (or anyone else for that matter) turned into hamburger meat on account of these neocon S.O.B.'s

12

Joe,
Don't confuse us with pesky facts. :)

13

Um, no. For FY 2004, every service (excluding the National Guard) exceeded their targeted recruiting goals. Wars don’t hurt recruiting, rapidly expanding economic growth does.

Good thing we aren't using the National Guard for anything in Iraq or Afghanistan...oh wait a minute...that's right. We're using the regular Army (Navy, AF and Marines), and their active reserve equivalents and their national guard equivalents and their inactive reserve equivalents and forcing all of them to stay indefinitely and reactivating people who haven't seen a uniform for as long as eight years. Yep, no personel shortages here. No need for a draft, right? Keep on dreaming you two (Mark O included in that one).

14

http://tinyurl.com/4n3am

Once again...nothing to see here...everything is fine...just nod "yes" to everything your neocon "leaders" tell you.

15

Moderate,

Once again...nothing to see here...everything is fine...just nod "yes" to everything your neocon "leaders" tell you.

Yeah, we got it. You oppose the war, you hate Bush, blah, blah, blah. We caught on to that about four months ago. So why clog up this thread with more of the same? When you have something on point (as you did in your first comment) it's appreciated. But when go off on another one of your tangents it simply makes for more boring material that people have to wade through.

16

Joe I like you. I respect you. I think you're a good guy and you at least listen to critics which is more than I can say for many in your demographic. You have probably done more to disarm my greatest fears about the religous right than any other person I deal with online.
So I hope you listen now and understand that after statements implying "Iraq is an immediate threat" and "Mushroom cloud" and "Iraq was trying to procure yellowcake from Niger" and "Iraq has links to Al Qaeda" and "We're treating Iraqi detainees properely" and "Iraqi Oil will PAY for the invasion" and "Things are going remarkably well" and "Our soldiers have everything they need" and "The HDX was taken by Saddam/Russians/Blown-up [insert next in series of lies] before insurgents could get it"; I don't trust the WH or the DoD anymore at all.

I trust them less than Clinton, way way way less. And I really thought Slick Willy was about the biggest liar I would ever see in the WH. Right now I'd take a fib about a tawdry hummer from an intern in the Oval Office over the incompetence and dishonesty of this crew in a New York minute.

Recruiting on numbers, I don't know much about it and I accept that you would know more. So if you have some comprehensive data you trust that you're allowed to share, and that you're willing to personally vouch for (I won't hold it against you if the data was cooked without your knowledge) and shows the whole picture, I'd be willing listen with an open mind on that aspect. I don't even need to see the source. Just your personal word that to the best of your knowldge it's accurate and comprehensive is good enough for me. It also might be worth a post because some articles have been out lately showing alleged leaks of recruiting numbers and they don't look great. They're not horrible but they're not great either.

17

Joe,

I realized that military.com was a "civilian" site (although I didn't realize it was run by Monster). I presume that it's paid for out of the military's recruiting budget. Several government agencies use .com addresses for their recruiting. See fbijobs.com, for example. Everything on the site reflects the military recruiting pitch, though.

If one goes to the various military websites (goarmy.mil, for example) you'll see much of the same sort of half truths about the nature of the service. Even at this moment, the emphasis is on perks, not duty.

I don't dispute that the eight year commitment is included in the contract's language. But, rather clearly, most soldiers don't understand it. The furor over stop-loss and IRR call-ups makes that pretty clear.

18

So why clog up this thread with more of the same? When you have something on point (as you did in your first comment) it's appreciated. But when go off on another one of your tangents it simply makes for more boring material that people have to wade through.

To make sure that people on the right at least are aware of what their "great" leaders are doing. Did you read the article linked? I guess Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly, the top general in the reserves and heavily quoted in the article, is one of those "blind democrats."

You are trying to do a snow job on the recruiting issue. I'm trying to make sure those facts that are inconvenient to your ideological position are also put out there for your readers to see.

19

DS: I don't trust the WH or the DoD anymore at all.

Well, you certainly have that right. Fortunately, most of the people who most need to trust the WH and the DoD with their lives (i.e., the military) have a great deal of trust in both organizations.

Recruiting on numbers, I don't know much about it and I accept that you would know more. So if you have some comprehensive data you trust that you're allowed to share, and that you're willing to personally vouch for (I won't hold it against you if the data was cooked without your knowledge) and shows the whole picture, I'd be willing listen with an open mind on that aspect.

There’s certainly nothing secretive about the recruiting numbers. The Army’s numbers, for example, can be found on their website. They have always been reported but unless someone has a reason to pay attention to them they often go unnoticed.

It also might be worth a post because some articles have been out lately showing alleged leaks of recruiting numbers and they don't look great. They're not horrible but they're not great either.

That’s not too surprising. The fiscal year starts in October, right after the prime recruiting months of summer have ended. Few people are interested in talking to recruiters from Thanksgiving until New Years. In January you get a small bump from the kids who had a semester of college and are ready to try something else. After that is the dreaded FMAM (Feb, Mar, Apr., and May) when it gets brutal. Then you have the summer and early fall when the pickings are good and the cycle begins again.

The only significant change I’ve seen is in the National Guard. Since they get most of their new blood from soldiers leaving active duty they’ve obviously been hurting. Whether because of stop-loss or higher retention, fewer soldiers are getting out so they have fewer people taking over guard roles.

I can tell you with all honesty that most kids that come in are clueless about the military and what is going on in the world. The hardships that the soldiers and Marines are going through may have an effect on retention but it doesn’t have much impact on recruiting.

Like I said earlier, a hot economy is what recruiters fear most. When wages are high people, patriotic duty takes a back seat.

James: Even at this moment, the emphasis is on perks, not duty.

Unfortunately, that’s because perks sell and duty doesn’t. While most people will tell you they joined to “serve their country” once they are in the service, few of them enter the recruiter's office with such noble motives.

But, rather clearly, most soldiers don't understand it. The furor over stop-loss and IRR call-ups makes that pretty clear.

The same could be said about the reservists who were shocked to find that they would actually be called up for active duty. Many “scholarship mercenaries” were under the impression that they were only getting money for college and were befuddled to find that they actually had to do something to earn their paycheck.

The fuss over stop-loss was confined to the willfully ignorant or the whiners. While I know plenty of people who were affected by it none of them were unaware of the possibility that it could happen. Contrary to what many civilians might think, the military isn’t just a government work program. Sometimes the military actually is needed to do its duty.

Moderate: To make sure that people on the right at least are aware of what their "great" leaders are doing.

We know. After all, we watch FOX News. ; )

Did you read the article linked? I guess Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly, the top general in the reserves and heavily quoted in the article, is one of those "blind democrats."

I don’t know. What I do know is that he was trying to shakedown some “blind democrats” in order to have them give him more money.

You are trying to do a snow job on the recruiting issue.

If that’s true then prove me wrong. All the services met their recruiting mission for FY 2004. FY 2005 is only two and a half months along but if you think you can show that I am wrong about recruiting then let’s see some numbers.

I'm trying to make sure those facts that are inconvenient to your ideological position are also
put out there for your readers to see.

Well, let’s see some facts then.

20

Joe The reaosn I asked is Hackworth and others are reporting that numbers for 2005, which I take it started already, are well below projections. Do they take into accont the lean months you mentioned or do they just amortize the entire year straight out?

21

If that’s true then prove me wrong. All the services met their recruiting mission for FY 2004. FY 2005 is only two and a half months along but if you think you can show that I am wrong about recruiting then let’s see some numbers.

From the article I linked against article:

"For the first two months of fiscal year 2005, which began Oct. 1, the Army Reserve also has lagged, falling 315 recruits short of its goal of 3,170 -- a drop of 10 percent"

Followed later on by:

"Helmly said another problem for the Army Reserve -- one neither Congress nor the Pentagon has acted to solve -- is that he has no authority to force members of Reserve units to report for training. As a result, thousands of members are simply dropping out of their Reserve units and transferring into the Individual Ready Reserve, which reduces their chances of being called for overseas deployment. The number of such transfers during fiscal 2004 jumped to 19,200 from 10,555 the previous year, according to figures supplied by Helmly's staff."

From Hackworth's website:
http://tinyurl.com/4qkue

“Hack, here’s a snapshot of how little of our 1st Quarter mission has been achieved,” says an Army recruiter. “Look at it from a perspective of a business releasing quarterly earnings information. To keep unit manning levels up out in the field, especially in Iraq, there’s no question our recruiting mission is in serious trouble.”

“These are totals for the 41 USAREC (Recruiting Command) Battalions, so these stats represent the USAREC mission accomplishment:

Regular Army Volume (all RA contracts):
Mission: 25,322
Achieved: 12,703 (50.17 percent)

Army Reserve Volume:
Mission: 7,373
Achieved: 3,206 (43.48 percent).”

The Army National Guard is faring no better. A Guard retention NCO says: “The word is out on the streets of Washington, D.C. ‘Do not join the Guard.’ I see these words echoing right across the U.S.A.”

“The bottom line is that Recruiting Command is in trouble,” says another recruiter with almost 30 years of service. “The Army has re-instituted ‘stop loss,’ which is basically a backdoor draft. They’re stopping people from retiring or completing their enlistment and leaving the Army. They do this fairly often, mostly in August and September, depending upon how far behind they believe they’ll be at the end of September.

From your own article:
"Recruiters are facing the new mission with less recruits in the Delayed Entry Program than in recent years, Rochelle said. The program allows recruits to enlist and then finish school or do other things for several months up to a year before shipping to basic training. The command likes to have about 35 percent of the next year’s mission already signed up for delayed entry, Rochelle said."

"As of Oct. 1, the DEP pool only had about 18 percent of the new 80,000 active Army recruiting goal. Rochelle explained that a change in the FY 2004 mission, from a 72,500 requirement a year ago to 77,000 in March, forced the command to ship more recruits to training earlier than might have otherwise been the case."

In other words...they flushed the queue out to meet their current requirements and are left with less people than they like. Following that:

"Additional resources for the FY 2005 mission includes the command getting an additional 1,000 recruiters and a budget $12 million larger than in FY 2004."

I guess they need all those additional recruiters and all that additional money because things are going so well. That says nothing for the people who are being turned into additional recruiters on the fly ("with two weeks notice" is what General Helmly said) in order to offered continue help on the recruiting side.

22

Hank:To make sure that people on the right at least are aware of what their "great" leaders are doing.

Joe:We know. After all, we watch FOX News. ; )

Well it was Jerry Falwell on Crossfire who said that the war in Iraq is going pretty well if you watch Fox News:

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/cross-200412020011.mov

23

DS:Joe The reaosn I asked is Hackworth and others are reporting that numbers for 2005, which I take it started already, are well below projections. Do they take into accont the lean months you mentioned or do they just amortize the entire year straight out?

In recruiting you have two separate quotas that must be met. The first is the recruiting quota – the number of total bodies you recruit. The second is the “shipping” quota -- how many bodies you actually send off to recruit training. (Obviously, not everyone who joins actually makes it to training.) Because the training depots can only handle a limited number of recruits at any one time, the number of new enlistees has to be spread throughout the year.

You can sign a kid up in June, for example, and have him leave in January or February of the next year in order to meet the individual recruiting station’s “shipping mission” for those months. What happened with the Army last year was that they bumped the original quota from 72,500 to 77,000 in the middle of the FY.

Since it’s hard to just pull enlistees out of thin air, they moved some of the people who were supposed to ship later in the year (in FY05) up to meet their quota. By using up some of the bodies in their “pool” they end up falling short now.

What does this mean? Mainly that the Army recruiters will have to work harder to make up the difference. Also, more recruiters will have to be put on the streets (they’re adding about 1000 more) to meet the new quota of 80,000. Will they make it? Probably. They were off to a bad start last year around this time and managed not only to meet their quota but meet the adjustment with the extra 5,000.

I suspect that Hackworth and others are focused on the story because – like bloggers – they need something to write about. If next October rolls around and it turns out that the Army failed to meet their recruiting goals, then they look prophetic. If the Army makes “mission” then no one will ever remember that it was ever questioned.

The real question that should be asked is why we the Air Force is still the same size as it was in the Cold War. The AF has as many people as the Navy but doesn’t have as large a mission as the Army and Marines have. Some of those resources should be moved to the services that are carrying the bulk of the load. After all, the Soviet air force isn’t going to be making a comeback anytime soon.

24

Joe says:

"Actually, printing “No homosexual behavior allowed” would be more fitting."

No. You are incorrect. And if this is what you have been telling your potential recruits, you are doing them a grave disservice. (Although technically, you can't be discussing it in the first place. Which is part of the problem.)

It's not behavior, it's identity. Being both gay and in the military is against the law, and/or any acknowledgment or indication of that fact. And what constitutes "acknowledgment" is played very loosely. Telling your mother you are gay is a violation of this law. Or getting married, as in MA or Canada.

The "Don't Ask" part incidentally, is administrative policy only. Not a law. It can be revoked by the President at any time. Which is irrelevant since it's usually ignored anyway.

I think you are confusing "sodomy" with the prejudiced anti-gay portion of the UCMJ.

Sodomy, which is a behavior, not an identity, is a crime no matter what sexual orientation you have. Married heterosexual couples can, and have been prosecuted and convicted of sodomy in military courts.

In fairness, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a complex and confusing mish-mash of laws and administrative policy, which should be re-examined whether you are prejudiced against gays being in the military or not. It's been presented as a simple way for gays and lesbians to serve, provided they keep their mouths shut about whom they are. In practice it's been a disaster no matter which side you look at it from.

25

Joe
The real question that should be asked is why we the Air Force is still the same size as it was in the Cold War. The AF has as many people as the Navy but doesn’t have as large a mission as the Army and Marines have. Some of those resources should be moved to the services that are carrying the bulk of the load. After all, the Soviet air force isn’t going to be making a comeback anytime soon.

That sounds reasonable to me. Related to the cold war is our forces in Germany. I take we have some sizable assets there? What is the rationale for keeping them there? Is there a threat I'm missing or a long standing agreement or what exactly?

26

What is the rationale for keeping them there? Is there a threat I'm missing or a long standing agreement or what exactly?

Simply put we're protecting the Europeans so they can spend their money on their bloated welfare systems.

From a strategic point though, it gives us some bases for forward deployment. However, based on the current conflict, their position is less important than it used to be and Bush announced a few months ago that we would begin drawing down forces.

"A tourist in France noticed a large number of blonde-haired blue-eyed children and adults. Asking a local if they were of Nordic descent, the local replied in the negative and pointed out the old German barracks from WWII."

Couldn't resist telling that one.

27

The problem with Hackworth is that he gets as much wrong as he does right, and he has only gotten more hateful and whiney in the last few years. Does he have "street cred"? Used to have a lot, by virtue of his service in Vietnam (and he was a good officer), but he suqandered most of it when he cut and ran, and then slid his way back in to the the States (one of the guys who pulled strings for him now regrets that he did it). The war effected him like it did a lot of other veterans, but on top of everything he has an ax to grind. I take anything he says with a large grain of salt.

DS: Joe The reaosn I asked is Hackworth and others are reporting that numbers for 2005, which I take it started already, are well below projections. Do they take into accont the lean months you mentioned or do they just amortize the entire year straight out?

28

Joe,

I have to admit, I didn't look at the papers either time I joined. I was only 17 at the first enlistment and that might make a decent excuse, but I was almost 40 at the time of the second enlistment and still didn't read the papers I signed. I suppose it should be noted, they don't draft 17 year olds and by the time I was 40 I had been carrying a 5-A draft card (that's a lower status than the sick, lame and crazy) for 14 years.

One of the major differences between today and the "old days" is the influence the John Kerry type "heros" have had on the general populace. Through the assistance of the MSM, the lies told about "war crimes" and etc. have undermined the will of the population to fight a war to its completion.

Greyhawk, at Mudville Gazette, has a lot of old recruiting posters on his site. SGT Alvin York was presented as an inspirational figure during the height of WWII, even though he was a hero of WWI. Do we see anything that would compare today? Certainly not from the MSM and the sheeple they have generated.

The movie industry was behind the efforts during WWII, but now you have Jane Fonda and others who do their best to aid and assist the enemies of the USA.

There are too many who have their heads in the sand and refuse to admit the need for the ongoing war. Was Saddam involved with 9-11? Well this site seems to indicate he took great pleasure in those events http://knighthawk.smugmug.com/photos/9488760-M.jpg
What! You didn't see that picture on the MSM? I wonder why?

29

That isn't the half of it. I used to have pictures up on a old blog of mine of a terrorist training camp in Iraq, taken by some Marines that rolled through. And for those who want confirmation. Otherwise, to those who want to, go ahead an accuse me of making it up. I think I would have a fairly sound reputation around here by now.

30

When these vets agree to take retirement they know that they can be called back to duty until age 60 (and 64 for general officers).

How does that work?

Do you mean that if you put in 20 years and retire, you can still be called back at any time? Or is this part of some special early retirement program or something?

It seems odd that you can do a regular enlistment and your obligation expires after 8 years, but if you put in much more service you're then on the hook for life.

31

Kevin,

Do you mean that if you put in 20 years and retire, you can still be called back at any time? Or is this part of some special early retirement program or something?

Yes, but not exactly on a whim. There must be a national emergency for a general call-up or a shortage in a particular job specialty before they will bother. About the only people that this ever affects are highly skilled retirees (i.e., doctors, linguists) in fields that are difficult to replace.

It seems odd that you can do a regular enlistment and your obligation expires after 8 years, but if you put in much more service you're then on the hook for life.

Well, that’s because you get a paycheck for life. When I retire I will only be 39 but I will get a check in the mail every month until I die (which I plan to be at a very ripe old age). I accept the retirement package knowing full well that there is a small chance that after I leave I could be asked to come back. But that is a small price to pay and I would certainly have no problem extending my service when its needed.

32

that’s because you get a paycheck for life.

But that's not the way pensions typically work. If you retire from GM after 20 years, they can't just call you up one day and force you back on the assembly line on penalty of losing your retirement benefits. I assume (but I don't know) that civilian government pensions are the same way - retired postal workers aren't subject to involuntary recall and shipped out with bulging mail sacks for special delivery. A pension isn't "pay" in return for being on-call forever - it's part of what you earn as compensation while actively employed doing the job. The fact that some of your benefits come in delayed form as a retirement pension doesn't typically obligate you to come back and work some more, any more than the fact that you used the dental plan obligates you to lifetime service. While you work, you earn certain pay and benefits (some of which you collect immediately, some of which you collect later); after you retire, you're done, but you are still entitled to the benefits you earned while you worked. Collecting those benefits doesn't obligate you to keep working.

I'm not objecting to the recall provisions - as you point out, it's part of the package they sign up for. If that's the deal they agreed to, so be it. But this seems like a rather unusual way to go about things, and the justification that it's compensation for the "pay" you receive while retired makes it seem like the military doesn't actually have a retirement program - they just provide lots of people lots of pay for doing nothing, just in case. It seems like a very strange system.

33

Kevin,

But that's not the way pensions typically work. If you retire from GM after 20 years, they can't just call you up one day and force you back on the assembly line on penalty of losing your retirement benefits.

I certainly won’t argue that the military system isn’t peculiar. But I believe that one significant difference is that with most pension plans you don’t start collecting right after your 20th year. As far as I know, almost all of the major ones have some age limit that must first be reached before you start collecting on your pension. The military system is unique in that you get it right after you fulfill your obligation. (The exception, of course, is reservists. Once they complete 20 years in the reserves they can get a pension but don't begin collecting it until age 60.)

But this seems like a rather unusual way to go about things, and the justification that it's compensation for the "pay" you receive while retired makes it seem like the military doesn't actually have a retirement program - they just provide lots of people lots of pay for doing nothing, just in case.

Well, the military does have a large group that receives pay for doing nothing. We call them officers. ; )

34

"Well, the military does have a large group that receives pay for doing noting. We call them officers. ; )"

Even with the smiley, I find that remark offensive (and uncharitable). Especially so, since it includes all commissioned officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers. Let's see, that leaves E1s through E3s as the only people who are earning their pay.

Military "retirement" isn't actually retirement, and a military "pension" isn't actually a pension.

Military retirement pay used to be called retainer pay, since you are being retained. A lot of retired folk agitated to have that term changed to "retired" pay because they wanted to be exempt from income taxes in those states that exempt pensions. And they were successful.

People who are retired from the military are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but only until the day they die. And, they can be called back to active duty at the pleasure of the President at any age (and during W.W.II many were), also only until the day they die. If you are retired from the military and you know anything about cryptography, it would be wise to keep your uniforms and gear ready to go, even if you are in your eighties. Some people like that were involuntarily recalled during the Korean war. I know of one young man, aged eighty-three, who had to be granted a waiver in order to accommodate his wheel chair. At the moment he is no longer subject to recall or the UCMJ, by reason of death.

35

P. Hayes,

Even with the smiley, I find that remark offensive (and uncharitable). Especially so, since it includes all commissioned officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers. Let's see, that leaves E1s through E3s as the only people who are earning their pay.

As a staff non-commissioned officer myself, I would be thoroughly surprised if any NCOs or SNCOs truly believe that I was including them under the rubric of “officer.” And considering that even a boot 1st Lt. earns a higher basic pay than I do after sixteen years of service, I think they can afford to take a bit of good-natured ribbing.

Military retirement pay used to be called retainer pay, since you are being
retained.

I like the idea of calling it "retainer" pay. It seems rather silly to think that I'll be in my early 40s and telling people that I'm retired.

By the way, I noticed that your email address was from Military.com. Do you work for them? The reason I ask is because I was curious whether Dr. Joyner was correct in thinking that the military paid Military.com to have the information posted on their site.

36

Joe,

I work for the "military" end of the military.com address, not the "com" end. I don't know anything about who is paying whom for what, but nothing surprises me anymore.

37

Joe,

I have to agree, "officer" doesn't have any qualifiers,like "non-commisioned" or "warrant". I ETSed as an E-5 SGT and I sure didn't think you were referring to me with that comment!

38

Geez, the joke about the officers was just that, a joke. Look at the friggin' pay charts, for godssake, and you'll see that an O3 with four years' TIS makes more than the CSM of the Army. Again, it's something we signed up for and understand, and we know that most officers earn their pay. And we also know that many officers are so useless, such a waste of time and energy and funds, that the money would be better spent to send them to early retirement. So chill out.

I for one have no sympathy whatsoever with someone who doesn't carefully read an enlistment contract. Damn. This isn't like buying life insurance or something you can just return to the store--you are joining the Armed Forces of the United States, for a minimum of four years (in my case). Is your assignment guaranteed? Is you MOS training guaranteed? How about your enlistment bonus, if one applies? College loan repayment? It's all in there--take an hour and read it.

I did nine years' active duty, and so am no longer on the IRR lists. Presumably, the country can recall me in an emergency, and I will have a choice to make: do I return to the uniform and the lifestyle that I loved, but left? Or do I tell the government to go screw themselves, and face the consequences? It's free country, and I can do either. So can they.

39

I'm dissapointed - nobody took the obvious shot at W for going aWol when he had signed a contract for military service. Anyhoo, on Army recruiting:

Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - In the latest signs of strains on the military from the war in Iraq, the Army National Guard announced on Thursday that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the last two months and would offer new incentives, including enlistment bonuses of up to $15,000.

In addition, the head of the National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, said on Thursday that he needed $20 billion to replace arms and equipment destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan or left there for other Army and Air Guard units to use, so that returning reservists will have enough equipment to deal with emergencies at home.

The sharp decline in recruiting is significant because National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers now make up nearly 40 percent of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, and are a vital source for filling the ranks, particularly those who perform essential support tasks, like truck drivers and military police.

General Blum said the main reason for the Army National Guard's recruiting shortfall was a sharp reduction in the number of recruits joining the Guard and Reserve when they leave active duty. In peacetime the commitment means maintaining their ties to the military with a weekend of service a month and two weeks in the summer.

Over the last 30 years, General Blum said, the Guard has counted on these soldiers with prior military service for about half of its recruits. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, many of these soldiers have been hesitant to join the Guard because of the increasing likelihood that America's citizen-soldiers will be activated and sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for up to 12 months. Indeed, many of the active-duty soldiers the Army would like to enlist in the Reserves have recently fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and some have no inclination to do so again...

...General Blum's remarks come just a few days after the chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, told The Dallas Morning News that the Army Reserve recruiting was in a "precipitous decline" that if unchecked could inspire renewed debate over the draft. General Helmly told the newspaper that he personally opposed reviving the draft....

...Some military personnel specialists offered a much more pessimistic forecast and said the lower recruiting numbers were the harbingers of tougher times to come.

"I don't think this is an aberration," said David R. Segal, a military sociologist who directs the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "I think we're going to see significant shortfalls in recruitment, and I think we're to begin to see retention problems. We're also going to see increasing concerns at the state level about how the Guard will man itself and perform its state missions." ...