Hide Comments
Pretty much statistically the same as last year. Misleading headline though.
What is that a 3% drop?
Posted by David W at December 30, 2006 02:35 PM
What did they die for?
Posted by Martin Morgan at December 30, 2006 03:09 PM
Martin
Bullets hit some, IED's blew others up, many died in accidents.
Posted by Greyhawk at December 30, 2006 03:23 PM
Greyhawk,
You are unbelievable. No matter what happens "on the ground", you still toe the party line and contort facts to show that "we're winning." We're not. Iraq is a sinking ship and the Army is stretched to the breaking point.
This is similar to the shameful stunt you pulled after the abnorally low number of US fatalities in March of 2006. You tried to use this anomoly as "proof" that a corner had been turned. We all know what happened after that ... You looked like a blind "cheerleader" and whatever credibility you had outside of right-wing milblog circles was shot.
You want to talk trends? How about 106 US KIAs in October and 109 (so far) in December. Guess what? December 2006 is the third deadliest month of the war for US forces. Not exactly a great trend to begin 2007 on. Now, when placed in context, your post looks like delusion at best and outright propaganda at worst.
The final quarter of 2006 is a very bleak one as far as US KIAs is concerned. I wish you were as concerned about the alarming spike in casualties as I am.
Posted by IRR Soldier ... at December 30, 2006 03:44 PM
Not how did they die, why did they die?
Posted by Martin Morgan at December 30, 2006 04:32 PM
IRR Soldier:
Your comment is on some level unfair. Greyhawk may have been mistaken to point to an abnormally low casualty figure for March 2006 as "proof" that the war has turned a corner. But I'm not about to find fault with him for being optimistic-- I'd have to find fault with people in January 1945 who pointed to abnormally low casualty figures in the Pacific as "proof" that we'd turned the corner in the war on Japan.
Where your comment is unfair is that higher casualty figures for November and December DO NOT disprove Greyhawk's contention that we've turned the corner in Iraq, any more that appallingly high casualty figures in April and May of 1945 (think Okinawa) disproved the nearness of the end of WWII.
************
Martin Morgan:
If you have to ask, you don't get out much.
Couldn't it just possibly be that the Middle East is a backward, misogynistic, dictator-ridden swamp that needs draining?
Couldn't it just possibly be that that swamp is breeding people who mean to kill us, as with 9/11?
Couldn't it just possibly be that those people will stop at nothing to kill us all, as in "The Three Conjectures":
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/11/Threeconjectures.shtml
Couldn't it just possibly be that the liberalization of Iraq is the key to draining that swamp which breeds those killers, and that our efforts there are, in effect, an effort to save Islam from itself?
One would think that even the Michael Moore crowd would have enough wits to see that the reason that two of the most backward, misogynistic, and dictator-ridden countries in the region, Iran and Syria, are doing their damnedest to destablize Iraq, the better to preserve their own awful status-quo.
But no, it's all a Bushitler and Cheneyburton plot for oiiiilllll.
Feh.
Posted by Hale Adams at December 30, 2006 05:16 PM
Martin
They died fighting in the Iraq war, a conflict that began (for America) in 1990. I don't have time to re-hash the whole history here, and there's plenty of literature available. Start with google.
Posted by Greyhawk at December 30, 2006 05:16 PM
IRR, long time no see.
This is similar to the shameful stunt you pulled after the abnorally low number of US fatalities in March of 2006. You tried to use this anomoly as "proof" that a corner had been turned. We all know what happened after that ... You looked like a blind "cheerleader" and whatever credibility you had outside of right-wing milblog circles was shot.
Never happened, never said it - you're a liar.
You want to talk trends? How about 106 US KIAs in October and 109 (so far) in December. Guess what? December 2006 is the third deadliest month of the war for US forces. Not exactly a great trend to begin 2007 on. Now, when placed in context, your post looks like delusion at best and outright propaganda at worst.
The final quarter of 2006 is a very bleak one as far as US KIAs is concerned. I wish you were as concerned about the alarming spike in casualties as I am.
Delusional? The link you didn't read (links are integral parts of blog posts) actually leads off with exactly those numbers. Just a bit lower than the final months of '04/early '05 (last time I was in Iraq) when the actual highest casulties occurred. I don't expect significantly lower numbers when I go back in '07, but who knows?
Read this, too:
...the number of those killed in action in Iraq (note to editor: insert here some mewling cliché about how every loss of life is regrettable) is minuscule, compared to other U.S. military actions, even those we are somehow forbidden from describing as “wars,” such as the Conflict in Korea, or the Viet Nam Conflict. 3,000 or so KIA is nothing compared to the 65,000 killed in Viet Nam, or the 35,000 KIA in Korea! The less-than-staggering loss of life in Iraq only underscores my first point: the insurgents are more lazy than lethal. As one US Special Forces soldier phrased this indelicate matter in a conversation with me earlier this year: “3,000! I could kill more than that in a week!”
You are unbelievable. No matter what happens "on the ground", you still toe the party line...
I'm not talking politics here - I'm talking about misleading headlines - but I understand why you "party-uber-alles" types see politics in everything. Here's something from a post that actually could be called "political":
Sap the will of half the people, and the other half will not be able to confront a (seemingly) distant enemy while being obstructed on the home front. Until now that split has been defined by political party affiliation. But any upcoming "compromise" will likely have the interesting impact of alienating half of Republican voters and half of the Democrats -each for different reasons, of course, but this promises a potentially interesting variation from the pre-election partisan separation.
...as individuals shift their positions on Iraq (centrist Dems, Repubs, and Independents seek common ground while extremists and "party uber alles" types on both sides move to the fringes) I predict the media will pander to the minority - those extremists, who will make great headlines.
You'll be able to identify the extremes - one side will call for "troops home now" while on the other side "don't listen to Democrats - they want the troops home now!" will rally the faithful.
The rest of us will work to "fix" Iraq.
But I acknowledge I could be wrong about your party first attitude, you might be more of a "me first" kind of guy.
...and contort facts to show that "we're winning." We're not. Iraq is a sinking ship and the Army is stretched to the breaking point
We? I'm an Iraq vet scheduled to go back - you and I are on different sides on this war and can't both be winning.
Here's another quote from the link above:
While I’m at it, I may as well reveal another ground truth: the Army is nowhere near “broken.” If, as is the case, approximately half of the active Army has never served in Afghanistan or Iraq, how can the Army be described as “broken”? In fact, those who’ve been sent overseas for successive tours might be close to the breaking point, but only because they’ve been denied the ability to go out and kill the enemy and destroy his hiding places. The other half of the Army – the combat avoiders, the physically unfit, those who are forever and conveniently in one military school after another – put them on troop ships and send them over. They can then either fight to survive, or perish. Either way, their shameful avoidance of the fight will end.
Posted by Greyhawk at December 30, 2006 05:17 PM
Sorry about the spleen above, Greyhawk. I'm not as charitable as you are. (wry smile)
Posted by Hale Adams at December 30, 2006 05:20 PM
I guess the water's getting too hot for us. Time to pull out. We must not have what it takes anymore.
I know a boy that grew up running around barefoot in rural Alabama. After his country sent him to college, one day he found himself in an idling Phantom in an aircraft shelter. Without going in to the details, he basically had a choice of flying and dying, or shutting it down and running away. The message had been transmitted in error, and was corrected two minutes later, or you would have definitely read about it in the papers.
I never thought about not going. You may think you know yourself, but unless you are in the crucible stripped of false bravery, bravado and pretenses, you get a rare moment of clarity to find out who you really are. Those two minutes were a gift to me. Men may say they have the courage of their convictions, but I know from the bottom of my soul that I do. Those who have been through similiar circumstances know what I'm talking about.
Well here we are as a nation in that same crucible. If IRR Soldier's musings are any indication of how our military men and women feel, words to describe my shame and disappointment escape me.
Posted by arlo at December 30, 2006 05:20 PM
Hale, just be aware the accusation from IRR you attempted to defend me from is actually a lie. In short, you were duped, but I recognize your good intentions.
arlo
"IRR Soldier's musings are any indication of how our military men and women feel, words to describe my shame and disappointment escape me."
Not even close. IRR is a guy who has spent most of his life the past couple of years in complete and total fear that he might actually have to serve his country. This now manifests as hate for said country.
Bear in mind that almot every GI serving now has either joined or had opportunity to leave the service post-Iraq invasion. Chickenshit there is in no way representative of us.
Posted by Greyhawk at December 30, 2006 05:32 PM
I disagree. I believe our soldiers have died and been wounded for absolutely nothing that will benefit the long term interests or security of our country.
It's sad, stupid, and maddening, but its reality.
Posted by Martin Morgan at December 30, 2006 05:46 PM
Well you see Martin, I suspected you were just pretending to be ignorant all along.
Posted by Greyhawk at December 30, 2006 05:55 PM
Not at all. I'm always ready to acknowledge when I'm wrong. And I'm quite capable of changing my mind, e.g. I supported our invasion of Iraq-but now I've concluded I was fed misleading information and since we're going to leave without "victory" whenever, just do it already.
So I'm totally sincere in asking for a good reason why we have guys dying in Iraq.
Here's what our President told People magazine ( December 15, 2006 issue)-four years after hostilities commenced:
"It's my job to listen to a lot of opinions and come up with a strategy that says we have a plan."
So if you got a good reason, forward it to the CIC.
Posted by Martin Morgan at December 30, 2006 06:19 PM
What did they die for?
-Martin Morgan
----------------------
Martin, For me, they died for pushing back against the forces that led to the murder of a family friend, Col. Rich Higgins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Higgins
Posted by Brian at December 30, 2006 09:00 PM
What did they die for?
-Martin Morgan
----------------------
Martin, For me, they died for pushing back against the forces that killed the innocents and deposited their body parts across my morning commute on Liberty and Church Streets, NYC on 9/11/01. It's funny, as I was chased and stuck in the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel after the South Tower collapsed, I remember cursing out against Bill Clinton (as I was and am well versed in all his lack of action against terrorists during his watch.) But lately, I have come to realize that Bill Clinton was only honoring your position all along, that it's better to do nothing at all then to be criticised by your detractors.
Posted by Brian at December 30, 2006 09:09 PM
What did they die for?
-Martin Morgan
----------------------
Martin, For me, they died for pushing back against the forces that led to our Marines getting blasted to hell in their sleep, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
Posted by Brian at December 30, 2006 09:16 PM
What did they die for?
-Martin Morgan
----------------------
Martin, For me, they died for pushing back against the forces that led to the U.N.'s corrupt Oil for Food Program, that led to corrupt government officals worldwide lining their pockets off of a system that rewarded Saddam Hussein (during a period of sanctions!) while starving uncounted numbers of Iraqis who were supposed to receive these provisions, but who didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme
Posted by Brian at December 30, 2006 09:23 PM
What did they die for?
-Martin Morgan
----------------------
Martin, For me, they died for pushing back against the forces that led to almost every other UN Security Council member's non-enforcement of every resolution that they passed against Saddam Hussein's regime (18 I believe?) Funny how every one of these countries (France, Russia, China) were either conducting 'under the table' business deals with Saddam, or were promising him non-action for future oil field deals (I believe France was the most blatent abuser of this situation, and therefore, committed no troops in Iraq.) Although, maybe this was a plus for our men and women in uniform, as it was General George Patton who once said something like, "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me."
Posted by Brian at December 30, 2006 09:45 PM
Hey Martin, Give me a heads up. Are you going to have a similar problem if our forces move en masse to another region like say, the Horn of Africa or the Phillipines? After all, the good people of these two regions didn't attack us on 9/11.
Posted by Brian at December 30, 2006 09:51 PM
IRR Soldier,
You faqiled to mention your criteria for KIAs.
A fact: In the last 3 years 9months, daily KIAs have fluctuated 2.0 to 2.2.
While it took 3 years 9 months for 3,000 KIAs, it took Planned Parenthood 20 hours to kill 3,000 babies.
Comment, IRR?
cs
Posted by gecko at December 31, 2006 06:14 AM
Poor Iris, her brain is imploding all over the place.
Posted by syn at December 31, 2006 12:21 PM
I've got to ask IRR and Martin how they define "losing" and what they would consider "victory." Consider that in the space of a mere few years we have removed a vicious dictator and replaced him with an elected, consensual government. Regardless of this government's issues, it is still a democratic one and is struggling to make changes not at the barrel of a gun, but in debate and at the ballot box. In addition, the invasion of Iraq has removed a significant supporter of global terrorism: you will remember, I hope, that Saddam was happy to pay out some $25000 to the family of each "shaheed" as well as allowing people like al-Zarqawi hide out in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq has given governments in Iran, Syria, and the like, pause as they have been put on notice that they are no longer secure as America cannot and will not tolerate the status quo that has kept them in power.
Tell, Martin, do you drive a car, fly in an airplane, take public transportation, use electricity, use any kind of (legal) chemicals? All these things rely on petroleum in some form or another. The Middle East, sadly, is a significant provider of this essential resource. Without it, our economy would stumble at best, collapse at worst. Securing the supply of oil IS an essential part of national security. Ensuring a stable Middle East is essential to securing the supply of oil. The best way to ensure a stable Middle East is to bring it into the 21st century and encourage the evolution of democratic governments by diplomatic and military means. A nation does not have to directly attack the United States to be a threat to our National Security and so deserve to have action taken against it. You coul make the argument that the Taliban in Afghanistan did not personally attack the US; however, their willingness to harbor and support Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda made them complicit in the numerous terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies, and so it became necessary to destroy them.
Contrary to the popular belief of the Left, very few problems can be solved by "dialogue." Totalitarian regimes are interested only in what they can get for themselves at the expense of their own citizens. They will never deal honestly unless there is a significant threat that they will lose power. If we want to change the nature of the Middle East, we must do it by force. If we do not answer with force we might as well all start praying to Mecca as that will be the inevitable result.
Posted by SGT Christopher Whitaker at December 31, 2006 12:26 PM
"Sap the will of half the people, and the other half will not be able to confront a (seemingly) distant enemy while being obstructed on the home front."
And this is why a second Revolution / Civil War against the Fifth Column has become unfortunately necessary. Once we clear out the Martins / IRRs / Irises in this country then we can actually fight our external enemies without sabotage. They aren't anti-war, they're on the other side.
Always remember, the first Revolution wasn't supported by a majority either. Guns and will are what's needed. I'm thinking we've got more of either than the Left.
Posted by SDN at December 31, 2006 04:37 PM
Greyhawk,
I'm flattered that you noticed my absence. Since your PCS back to CONUS, your blog has become even more of an "echo chamber" for increasingly unpopular (and delusional)views. I haven't felt compelled to post here until now. Why? This "all is fine, nothing to see here" post is in the same vein as the one you penned in early April 2006. You can deny that you wrote a post about March 2006 representing a "turn for the better" in Iraq, but I saw it, commented extensively and was vilified by you for my comments. Now, you deny making such a post. Perhaps I should start saving your comments in the event you attempt to revise history in the future.
1) I really don't see how 11/04 and 01/05 are relevant here, especially considering that a little offensive called Fallujah took place in November of '04. That period in OIF (late '04 and early '05) were marked by much more extensive offensive operations by US forces. Recent casualties are marked by a ferocious upsurge in IED and Sniper casualties ... not by large scale offensive ops like Fallujah I and II.
2) Your minimization of the US casualty count in Iraq defies logic and reveals a field grade officer incapable/unwilling to "peel back the onion" about what's going on. Our current Army is about 1/3rd the size of the one we had during Vietnam and concluded Korea with. Additionally, the terms of service were much shorter then (2 year draftees and 3 year volunteers). So, those that chose not to reup served only a single tour overseas and the number of personnel that came and left the service was far greater. Now, a smaller force is subjected to repeated tours, stop-loss etc. Adjusted for the smaller size of the Army and lower throughput coming into/leaving the service, the casualties are fairly significant because they are borne by a much smaller service population. There are only 49,000 active duty Infantry soldiers in the US Army!
3)By "party line" I wasn't talking politics ... I was talking the school of thought that is impervious to any suggestion that things are going badly, and getting worse, in Iraq.
4)You are an Iraq vet. Great. You're also a USAF officer and chose to stay in past 20 and go for a 2nd tour. Wonderful. That doesn't make your opinion any more valid. You'll never see another promotion and your middling career will end sometime between now and your MRD a few years down the road. It's wonderful that you revel in bashing the service records of others, particularly those that elected not to become "lifers" and chose to do something else after active duty. I'm glad you look at those that don't make the service a career with disdain. Do you have the same opinion about WWII vets that didn't stay in. How about MAJ Dick Winters, an IRR recall for Korea, that strenuosly fought to avoid going overseas (and succeeded). When is enough service "enough" in your eyes for the all-volunteer force?
5) Again, your comments about the Army not being broken are beneath those of a field grade officer. Are you that dense? Please tell me which of our RA combat units haven't served/are serving a second tour overseas. We are currently short over 3,000 RA officers and are recalling IRR E-5s to fill key NCO positions on deploying units. The Field Artillery branch is currently tasked with 8 Brigade equivalents of FA officers just to train the new Iraqi Army - above the regular 10 division manning requirement for this overextended branch. The very "12 division strategy for the 10 division Army" General Shinseki warned us about in his retirement ceremony!
We are deploying IRR support officers to fill key infantry advisor positions to the New Iraqi Army ... purportedly our #1 mision in Iraq. CPT Hayes Clayton II, was a Quartermaster IRR CPT recalled and killed these past week as a combat advisor to Iraqis. This is where our Army is reaching to man the most essential of our misions.
Furthermore, much of the Army is performing strategic functions, institutional assignemnets and supporting the training base ... the identical things that USAF Communications, Intel, Munitions and Maintenance personnel do. Are those USAF folks "shirking" by performing flightline Ops at McGuire, AETC misions at Little Rock or missle training at Vandenburg?
Very few RA E-6s and below have not served in Iraq. You can't throw O-6 Oncologists at Walter Reed, USAR personnel with medical problems and MAJs assigned to HQDA into the same pot as Infantry E-4s and declare that "1/2 the Army is sitting on its ass." If that were the case, we wouldn't be expanding an Infantry IRR recall nearly 4 years after crossing the LD into Iraq and our Chief of Staff would not be seeking Congressional authorization to lift the 24 month involuntary mobilization cap on Reserve forces.
The Army is a diverse organization with hundreds of officer and enlisted specialties. Most Company grade officers and junior NCOs have done/are doing a second 12 month tour. The combat arms have been hit especially hard.
6) A USAF officer with a dead-end career is calling me a chickenshit. Nice. I'm flattered that my years of service in a highly deployable light infantry unit means nothing to you. If only I aspired to the greatness that you've achieved.
I "hate" my country? Didn't know that I did. I've spent the last few years trying to allow the current personnel realities in our ground forces to be heard. If that's treason, I don't know what else to say.
Since you don't know a thing about Army recruiting, stop-loss or the numbers games being played with re-up/enlistment rates, I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
In closing, your suggestion that I'm lying about a post you made in April of 2006 is shameful. I challenged you on your thesis ... you attacked me and now deny making those comments. Who's the liar?
Posted by IRR Soldier ... at December 31, 2006 08:49 PM
IRR,
I'm not going to get into a poo flinging contest with you about Army issues. I'm not Army nor do I pretend to understand their complex problems. But you should be very careful about inferring that the USAF is "shirking" it responsibility. Not only is the USAF doing precisely what it is charted to do - Apply air power. We are also filling roles for the Army. Just ask the numerous Airmen that are driving convoy, or perform interrogation duty (BTW - The USAF has no MOS for this). Just ask this outstanding young Airman's family if she was "shirking" her responsibility - http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123011980
As for those "shirking" their duty by performing flightline operations at McGuire (Or as I like to say that would be an Air Mobility Command base with Airmen doing a lot of rotations to the desert moving a lot of tonnage of things like beans and bullets. I guess those aren't important.) or maybe the wonderful Airmen at Creech AFB that are flying those wonderful little UAVs that the troops on the ground can't get enough of, or the hundreds of sorties a day performed by combat, mobility, refueling, and intel aircraft, I guess they aren't contributing at all.
Maybe you should adjust your own quote and heed it -"Since you don't know a thing about (USAF deployments) Army recruiting, stop-loss or the numbers games being played with re-up/enlistment rates, I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance."
Posted by SpectreCode at January 1, 2007 10:33 AM
In closing, your suggestion that I'm lying about a post you made in April of 2006 is shameful. I challenged you on your thesis ... you attacked me and now deny making those comments. Who's the liar?
You are. No such post exists here or ever did. I've never even used the "turned a corner" concept in regards to Iraq or the larger war. Check the post reviewing February, 2006 below and you'll see it reflects the opinion I've always held regarding casualties. The variability of the numbers are chaotic, graphed they resemble nothing more than a saw's edge. Anyone who touts the peaks or valleys as representative is a fool. The media looks only at the peaks and declares them "trends". When the death toll plunged (predictably) after ths year's Ramadan surge the media ignored it. When it rose again in th past month the death toll became headline worthy again. When the annual totals turned out to be lower this year it was reported under a headline about the monthly total being almost as high as it was back during my first tour. It's called "framing" the news - and it suits a lot of people because they can pretend their cowardice is reasonable. Of course such people will feel threatened when anyone points out the flaws in the foundation of their beliefs and will respond in a predictable fashion.
Posted by Greyhawk at January 1, 2007 04:18 PM
While I don't remember Greyhawk making the "turning a corner" declaration, I am willing to agree with IRR, provided he/she give me a link where I can read it.
Unfortunately, I have seen many opposed to the Iraq Campaign tell me what supporters said only to find, when I do my own research, no such quote at all. For example, how many times have you read some detractor deriding Rumsfeld for claiming Iraq would be a "cake walk"? I've never found any actual quote by the former SecDef claiming anything even close. You see, this pattern of misrepresentation has jaded me, which is truly unfortunate because it only means that I'm less likely to believe a valid criticism. There was something about a boy, a wolf and a flock of sheep my Mama once told me that it seems many policy critics have forgotten.
Posted by submandave at January 2, 2007 02:19 PM
Hey IRR, since you took your exemption and have been spending all of your waking hours encouraging soldiers to get out of doing their duty, I was just wondering if you've bothered to resign your commission yet? What are you going to do when you get called again?
Posted by LJD at January 2, 2007 03:30 PM
LJD,
Never was recalled ... never filed for a delay/exemption. Must be atlking about someone else.
Posted by IRR Soldier ... at January 2, 2007 09:27 PM
Good riddance:
Brad Schwan went to the U.S. Military Academy because he thought the quality education and service to his country would make solid building blocks for his future. He never thought he might serve the better part of his life in the Army. Now, nearly a year after he says his eight-year commitment to the Army expired, the Simi Valley captain is facing the prospect of serving “for an indefinite term” because he can “be held during the pleasure of the President,” according to documents in the case of Bradley E. Schwan v. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, et al.
“I served my time, and I want control of my life back,” said Schwan, 30, who is graduating from the UCLA School of Law in May and serving as his own lawyer. “I’m being told that I have to serve involuntarily — that’s a draft.”
Later:
The Army Reserve officer who sued the service so that he could resign his commission has been honorably discharged.
Capt. Brad Schwan, who accused the Army of being in breach of contract and forcing him into “involuntary servitude,” had filed his lawsuit in federal court in California. He was waiting for a hearing before the federal judge to argue against a motion filed by the government to have his case dismissed.
Posted by BS at January 2, 2007 10:04 PM
Right, I did confuse you with another defeatist loser in uniform. Now I remember, you were the one that linked to the anti-military web site.
So to answer my question, what are you going to do when your number comes up? What kind of leader will you make with your shitty attittude?
Posted by LJD at January 3, 2007 12:05 PM
BS,
You leave some key things out of Schwann's bio.
First, he was stop-lossed and involuntary extended on active duty for a sixth year - one beyond his 5 year active duty service.
Second, he put forth his resignation requests AFTER completing his 8 year MSO.
Third, his resignations were denied TWICE even though he wasn't alerted/mobilized.
Good riddance to CPT Schwann? No, that's the Army's loss. Need I remind you that there are over 10,554 LT/CPT vacancies in the USAR alone.
The Army can't even sustain the current OPTEMPO and man its supposed "#1 manning priority" (MiTT training teams) without involuntary IRR Recalls. CPTs Shane Mahaffee and Hayes Clayton II are two KIA IRR Recalls that died doing the Army's "#1 priority mission."
Posted by IRR Soldier ... at January 4, 2007 12:42 AM
"First, he was stop-lossed and involuntary extended on active duty for a sixth year - one beyond his 5 year active duty service. "
But wait, there's more!
But a year into his IRR service, he said, he was told by a recruiter that if he didn’t join the Army Reserves there was a good chance he could be sent to the Middle East. He joined the Army Reserve but said that claim of being sent overseas was erroneous. If he had stayed in the IRR instead of joining the Army Reserve he would have already been discharged from service, he said.
In other words, he joined the reserves out of fear he'd have to serve "in the mideast" if he didn't.
Funny how people can be so easily manipulated by their fears.
It's you, isn't it?
Posted by BS at January 4, 2007 02:40 AM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(34) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
