Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    is there a draft on the way?
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Needing more soldiers means we are winning.... or wasn't that obvious to you?;)
     
  3. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #3
    Congress and the Pentagon have overcommitted our troops to overseas theaters of combat/peacekeeping/what-have-you. Commitments of troops need to be reevaluated and platoons in low-priority areas need to be brought home. Barring that, Congress should increase the limit. It's unfair and inhumane to keep soldiers from retiring on their appointed days.

    I don't think there's going to be a draft. To make civilians combat-ready these days takes a minimum of six months and then specialty training on top of that. There's a lot more to military training than there was in Vietnam.
     
  4. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    yeah, i'm not sure what's up w/ that limit.

    bottom line, though, is that this indicates to me that there are more people wanting to leave the army than are joining. that's why i wondered about a draft.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Gen. Shiseki's words are sounding more and more prophetic everyday. Rumsfeld should apologize to the guy for publicly upbraiding him.
     
  6. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #6
    Please quote exactly what the Gen. said.

    If I remember he said some thing like over 250K for at least 5 years.

    We have about 125K troops in Iraq and only 8 months have gone by. So Rumsfled can apologize in 5 years if we have over 125K in Iraq then. We should have about 105K by May of next year.

    In regard to the post topic, it would not make sense to let troops go home while terrorists are roaming Iraq killing more Iraqis than US troops.. If Dean wins than he can bring them all home. But we know that will not happen:)
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Here you go....
    Emphasis mine.

    I wasn't refering to his prediction that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq over several years, but to his warning to not overextend the capabilities of the current military, thus necessitating morale-killers like stop-loss orders and extended guard deployments.

    Link
     
  8. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #8
    Ok I now understand. But I don't see it as an issue unless this pattern continues for about 2 years.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Link

    Well, it's not 2 years yet, but unless we get our troop commitments down this sort of thing will continue. And regardless of the political impact it has on GWB, the morale effect it will have on our military will be significant.
     
  10. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a

    manitoubalck

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #10
    How to respond:rolleyes:
    a) Your country is run by a moron (don't worry so is mine)
    b) Stop poking your nose where is doesn't belong
    c) If they realy want all they have to do is walk out (it's not like the old days when you were shot for diserting, and if they are court marsheled then their defence is that there service had been done. (not sure if this is the best line of action)
    d) you should have finished what you started back in 91.
     
  11. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
    The U.S. military has found itself in this situation several times. Many who served in WW II thought they were done with war--and then came Korea and "Hey, come back; we need you." While there was less of this during the Vietnam era, it happened.

    To shift money from military spending to social spending, we drew down our forces after the Berlin Wall came down. The "Peace Dividend", remember? Then came Bosnia and the Balkans and the increased use of the Reserves and the NG. Prior to our present actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the lengths of active duty tended to be fairly short term.

    I don't see any point to blaming Bush I or Clinton or Bush II for the present situation. Congress shares equally, along with the Pentagon. The Pentagon has two major problems, of course; it's subject to Congressional funding, and is subject to the policies of the Administration...

    My personal opinion for a long time has been that we don't need to be in NATO or in the Balkans. I'd also like to see less U.S. military presence in other areas. Let the locals fight it out. However, I can see a national interest in the mideast, although I'm dubious about much of our methodology--which is another thread entirely.

    'Rat
     
  12. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    anyone know how many US troops are actually in the balkans now? i recently saw some ludicrously low figure, like 23, but i took that w/ a (boulder-sized) grain of salt.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Not sure if you are confusing stop-loss orders with conscription or a call-up of troops who just got back from somewhere else, but stop-loss is a relatively new phenomenon.

    Link
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    I'm not confusing stop-loss with call-up so much as saying there's not a lot of difference to the folks affected by the action...

    :), 'Rat
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    No there's not. But it's still a shabby way to treat your volunteers.
     
  16. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a

    manitoubalck

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #16
    Volunteers is not the exact word I would use, since soilders on the fied of battle are paid extremely well. However your use of the word volunteer reflects te fact that the vast majority of service men and women in the armed forces today joined of their own free will.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Well, volunteer sounds better than mercenary.
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    C'mon, mac, you're better than that. Unless you really believe there is no need for any military at all, intimating that volunteers might as well be called mercenaries is really a cheap shot at honorable people.

    As far as "Stop Loss" is concerned, it's no different than the use of eminent domain to acquire land for a water treatment plant or a water line...Somebody is going to be discommoded by governmental needs.

    'Rat
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Hey, don't look at me! I was responding to Manitoubalk's comment that volunteer wasn't appropriate because they are being paid. For some reason he objected to my use of volunteer to describe our current military. I think you misread me, or misunderstood what I was trying to say.
     

Share This Page