GH - could you please delete one of my TB's? Haloscan timed out on me. Thx.

Re: IRR 'draft'

Title X USC provides -

"§ 671a. Members: service extension during war

Unless terminated at an earlier date by the Secretary concerned, the period of active service of any member of an armed force is extended for the duration of any war in which the United States may be engaged and for six months thereafter."

Something about "...take this oath without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion" comes to mind. Since we are at war, per SJR:23 of September 2001, the fact that DoD releases as many servicemembers as it does, is the interesting observation.

Don,

The question is not what legal interpretation can be made of a statute. That is what lawyers get paid to do: help their clients get to "yes." The larger issue is, what is the government doing recalling soldiers with, in one case, only 3 DAYS remaining on his statutory IRR commitment. Clearly this is far different from the stop-loss of an active duty service member or drilling reservist.

In effect, the Army is admitting two things: 1) its personnel cupboard is bare and 2) that despite the "happy talk" coming out of the Pentagon, it has absolutely no clue how to "right the personnel ship", particularly among company grade officers. As Kevin so wisely points out, the obvious rationale for recalling men with weeks left on their MSO is to "save" those with 2, 3 and 4 years of IRR commitment for a later date - even if these more recent veterans may in fact be better suited to combat operations. Yet another example of the DoD just seeking a "body" to place in a slot.

Further, you misstate your application of Title 10. Despite our casualties, this is not technically "war." Any legal defense of the IRR recall would have to fall under the catch all term of "national emergency." Is this such a grave national emergency, when there has been only passing efforts made to encourage citizens to enlist?

Your excerpt from the oath of commisioning is interesting, but what is your point? You are quick to exhort the usual "suck it up, this is what you signed up for" line, but where does that really get us when the USAR is 5,000 CPTs short and the ARNG has nearly 6,000 company grade vacancies? The fact is that few are joining, less since pre-9/11 and the personnel crisis is worsening. Comments from "patriots" like yourself do not help matters. It may be worth mentioning that the men Kevin cites, signed ROTC scholarship contracts in 1993 and were commisioned in 1997. I don't think anyone, being honest with themselves, ever envisioned the US Army being engaged in ground combat for 2 years where the senior leadership flatly and belligerently refuses to increase force strength or ameliorate a growing personnel meltdown, particularly in the company grade officer ranks.

Even in my most cynical days on Active Duty ('98-'02), I never imagined our leadership, political and uniformed would betray us by refusing to acknowledge the simple truth: you can't fight a sustained ground campaign with a 10 division peacetime Army!

IRR Soldier,

"Further, you misstate your application of Title 10. Despite our casualties, this is not technically "war." "

No, it is in fact a war. The author of SJR:23, Joe Biden [D-Del], has specifically said that the legislation meets the requirement for the legal status of war. If you read the resolution, it specifically addresses the War Powers Act. People dance around that fact in order to avoid the consequence that such a state invokes in the conduct of government, law, and society.