Life Sentences for Desertion...
Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism than the editorial pages do.
* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.
Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.
* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.
* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.
* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30.
Nig ol buddy,
The article you linked to states 135 Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) folks had been activated. What the article does not tell you is each one of them were volunteers and returned by request not be involuntary orders.
Stop Loss has occurred in peace time as well as war time when situations dictated that be done. It is part of the contract you sign upon enlistment. There is a clause that states: "The needs of the government shall be the determining factor."
Civilian employers change their minds about follow-on postings too. In the helicopter industry, Nigeria is not called the "Whiteman's Grave" for health reasons alone.
* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.
Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.
* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.
* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.
* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30.
Nig ol buddy,
The article you linked to states 135 Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) folks had been activated. What the article does not tell you is each one of them were volunteers and returned by request not be involuntary orders.
Stop Loss has occurred in peace time as well as war time when situations dictated that be done. It is part of the contract you sign upon enlistment. There is a clause that states: "The needs of the government shall be the determining factor."
Civilian employers change their minds about follow-on postings too. In the helicopter industry, Nigeria is not called the "Whiteman's Grave" for health reasons alone.
Last edited by SASless; 29th May 2006 at 20:04.
We have been on the "Lean" routine ever since Reagan left office. Our military is undergoing a fundamental change in force structure and organization. The change is supposed to convert a Cold War military into a modern force structure designed for operations more likely to be experienced than those previously planned for. We do not see a European conventional war the threat that it once was.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SASLess, at the risk of thread drift, buoyant recruiting to meet the persent danger is one thing. Retention of the boys and girls to face a future, unknown threat, is something else again.
One of your war plans in the not too distant past was to fight your closest ally. Later you were eyeball to eyball with us and that only 50 years ago.
Would you have fired?
We were eyeball to eyeball with our traditional enemy and they woul dnot back down. We fired and we won but it did not mean that we liked it. Had it not been to deny the Germans a lot of very useful warships then there may well have been a few who would not have fired.
One of your war plans in the not too distant past was to fight your closest ally. Later you were eyeball to eyball with us and that only 50 years ago.
Would you have fired?
We were eyeball to eyeball with our traditional enemy and they woul dnot back down. We fired and we won but it did not mean that we liked it. Had it not been to deny the Germans a lot of very useful warships then there may well have been a few who would not have fired.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
I probably deserved that! Strange that you are drawing down. i thought there was a demand for more boots on the ground?
Within USAF, only AFSOC is a growth organization - new planes, new squadrons, new toys, more people.
Personally, I think we're expanding too quickly - going against our "SOF Truths" - many changes on the horizon for AFSOC...
Talk about thread creep...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refering back up the thread to somewhere before the diversion on to the well-trodden ground of "Invading Iraq: Right or Wrong?" and taking up a previous deviation from the original post, "biased coverage by the BBC"...
Has anyone watched the BBC trailer for their available anywhere news coverage? (It shows people accessing BBC website news via mobile phones, PDAs and the like.) Of all the news stories glimpsed in the trailer, I have only spotted on military related (unsurprising, given how small a part the military plays in the life of Joe Public). Sadly, the story the BBC chooses to use is the headline "British Soldiers Beat Iraqi".
Total number of those stories run versus the number of dead servicemen stories? And yet it's the bad news sotry that the BBC pushes.
Has anyone watched the BBC trailer for their available anywhere news coverage? (It shows people accessing BBC website news via mobile phones, PDAs and the like.) Of all the news stories glimpsed in the trailer, I have only spotted on military related (unsurprising, given how small a part the military plays in the life of Joe Public). Sadly, the story the BBC chooses to use is the headline "British Soldiers Beat Iraqi".
Total number of those stories run versus the number of dead servicemen stories? And yet it's the bad news sotry that the BBC pushes.
Pontius,
World politics is a very complicated topic. The French came to our aid in 1775 or so and joined with us against the British. We all came together against the Germans twice. We then all joined together during the Cold War. Those were the "big" events....numerous "small" events have shown us to be only somewhat steadfast allies (including the French, Germans, British, Italians, etc.)
A soldier does not have the luxury of picking his foe...that is done by the Diplomats and politicians generally. Many a Marine has seen combat in support of US Big Business such as the Banana Wars. I am sure your forces have been thrown into wars around the world during the Empire days.
As to who I would pull the trigger on in your question is simple. Whoever my Commander-In-Chief told me to is the answer. I might find it repulsive, I might find it against my desires. However, if the Big Boss let me and my brothers off the leash....I would do my duty as I swore to do.
Put yourself in the shoes of the American forces that landed in North Africa....to be fired upon by the French and take casualties and then in turn land on the shores of Normandy to liberate the very same people from the German Occupation. How did they feel about that bit of irony? The Germans sure put up a much more aggessive defense than did the French thus the cost was much higher.
The decision as to who is the "enemy" comes from on high. Those of us in the trenches have to believe the cause is just and do their bidding in as honorable a way as we can.
Just this week, I learned Henry Kissinger, while Secretary of State, told the Chinese in secret meetings the United States Government would have accepted a Communist South Vietnam if it happened a decent interval after we withdrew. Over 58,000 Americans died in that war....and the government had given up long before we pulled out. How many of my friends died after that conversation I wonder?
Do I believe everything I hear from my political leaders.....no. Do I have unfailing trust in my senior commanders from those days....NO!
Is it right to be critical of those who will send us off to fight and die.....absolutely. But...we have to do so in an honourable way. Once we get stuck in one of these wars, we should all focus upon "winning" and not do anything that undermines the troops that are fighting the war.
I fear this generation of war fighters will be defeated not by the enemy but by our own side. After serving in Vietnam and knowing what that feels like...it would break my heart to see it happen again. Our troops deserve better of those who voted so quickly to send them off to war.
World politics is a very complicated topic. The French came to our aid in 1775 or so and joined with us against the British. We all came together against the Germans twice. We then all joined together during the Cold War. Those were the "big" events....numerous "small" events have shown us to be only somewhat steadfast allies (including the French, Germans, British, Italians, etc.)
A soldier does not have the luxury of picking his foe...that is done by the Diplomats and politicians generally. Many a Marine has seen combat in support of US Big Business such as the Banana Wars. I am sure your forces have been thrown into wars around the world during the Empire days.
As to who I would pull the trigger on in your question is simple. Whoever my Commander-In-Chief told me to is the answer. I might find it repulsive, I might find it against my desires. However, if the Big Boss let me and my brothers off the leash....I would do my duty as I swore to do.
Put yourself in the shoes of the American forces that landed in North Africa....to be fired upon by the French and take casualties and then in turn land on the shores of Normandy to liberate the very same people from the German Occupation. How did they feel about that bit of irony? The Germans sure put up a much more aggessive defense than did the French thus the cost was much higher.
The decision as to who is the "enemy" comes from on high. Those of us in the trenches have to believe the cause is just and do their bidding in as honorable a way as we can.
Just this week, I learned Henry Kissinger, while Secretary of State, told the Chinese in secret meetings the United States Government would have accepted a Communist South Vietnam if it happened a decent interval after we withdrew. Over 58,000 Americans died in that war....and the government had given up long before we pulled out. How many of my friends died after that conversation I wonder?
Do I believe everything I hear from my political leaders.....no. Do I have unfailing trust in my senior commanders from those days....NO!
Is it right to be critical of those who will send us off to fight and die.....absolutely. But...we have to do so in an honourable way. Once we get stuck in one of these wars, we should all focus upon "winning" and not do anything that undermines the troops that are fighting the war.
I fear this generation of war fighters will be defeated not by the enemy but by our own side. After serving in Vietnam and knowing what that feels like...it would break my heart to see it happen again. Our troops deserve better of those who voted so quickly to send them off to war.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, sorry about the thread to some socialist rag, i just punched in US recruitment and retention problems and out of a long list selected the first one. I was mortified when US Herc pointed it out! Promise I will be more careful next time. I am also amazed by your recruitment figures. I questioned you because I spend a lot of time in US and I saw several news items about ever changing ways of trying to meet recruitment targets,.ie. providing college education etc. The UK would love to have your recruitment figures!
I don't think we are saying anything new on this thread, there was never a good feeling amongst my colleagues about this war, I think we see it quite differently from you. I fear the break up of Iraq is inevitable an event almost out of our hands.....
I don't think we are saying anything new on this thread, there was never a good feeling amongst my colleagues about this war, I think we see it quite differently from you. I fear the break up of Iraq is inevitable an event almost out of our hands.....
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to toss some gas/petrol into this fire, here is the US Uniformed Code of Military Justice article on desertion:
So as you can see the US already has a provision for a punishment of death for desertion during wartime. Now, when was the last time anyone heard them using it?
And here is the article that went along with that nice little graph SASless posted, titled, '8,000 desert during Iraq war'. While there may be only one known case of desertion in Iraq, a lot of people are still deserting long before they get there. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why wait until you are in a place where there is nowhere to go, and no way to get there?
And whereas the USAF is drawing down, the Army has stopped people from separating and retiring due to their retention problems. But I am in full agreement with your final comments to Pontius. I do not question the loyalty and dedication of the troops on the ground and in the air, I spent 25 years in a US uniform and know the vast majority of them are honorable individuals. However, I do question the political leadership of this country on a regular basis. As far as I am concerned, they have not earned the privilege to lead our nation's forces. We are our own worst enemy!
Cheers! M2
885. ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
And here is the article that went along with that nice little graph SASless posted, titled, '8,000 desert during Iraq war'. While there may be only one known case of desertion in Iraq, a lot of people are still deserting long before they get there. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why wait until you are in a place where there is nowhere to go, and no way to get there?
And whereas the USAF is drawing down, the Army has stopped people from separating and retiring due to their retention problems. But I am in full agreement with your final comments to Pontius. I do not question the loyalty and dedication of the troops on the ground and in the air, I spent 25 years in a US uniform and know the vast majority of them are honorable individuals. However, I do question the political leadership of this country on a regular basis. As far as I am concerned, they have not earned the privilege to lead our nation's forces. We are our own worst enemy!
Cheers! M2
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one area of UK forces were recruiting has slumped is for healthcare professionals in the UK reserve forces. This isn't being helped by the crisis in the NHS and the realisation that RFA 96 provides no protection at all. Trusts are using restructuring as a get out to dismiss reservists who have been called up for Iraq. I think the govts time would be better spent rewriting the reserve forces act to force government employers like the NHS to properly protect reservists civilian employment. Maybe making it a Criminal offence with an automatic 5 year sentence for heads of human resources and chief Execs of Govt orginisations and heavy fine (50% of expected profits) and loss of all government contracts to industry for dismissing a reservist whilst warned for operations, on operations or within 3 years of returning from operations except for cases of missconduct. And removal of all caveats in RFA 96 regarding dismissal whilst mobilised except for going out of buissness.
I have met more than one reservist that this has happened to and mostly they have been employed by NHS. But MoD has done the same as well.
I have met more than one reservist that this has happened to and mostly they have been employed by NHS. But MoD has done the same as well.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mums against the war
I think the Govt will regret drafting unpopular desertion legislation. MFAW has started a new movement by military mums to pull the boys out of Iraq. I don't for a heartbeat think it will work but I wouldn't underestimate the effect on recruitment and retention. Govt picked the wrong target here.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...icle624659.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...icle624659.ece
Last edited by nigegilb; 4th Jun 2006 at 09:37.
