[Drew]

Korbain, not to be a prick, but in the words of the Big Lebowski, you're out of your element. there's a difference between being prepared to die for your country for nine months, and being prepared to spend an indefinite period of time overseas trying to stop a civil war between several ethnic groups who REALLY don't want you there. Civil disobediance is something that has a long and effective history within this nation and arguably can be considered part of our national heritage, from the Boston Tea Party to the writings of Thoreau up through the Vietnam War - personally, I'd have respected the guy more if he simply said "I'm sorry, I'm not going," but if this is how he had to draw the line, well, that's neither here nor there.

The upshot is, you're 20. You're not an American, much less an american soldier. I think it's not your place to say whether he's a "real soldier" or not.

[Rev2010]

Originally Posted by Korbain

You join the army, you have to be prepared to stick out what is due. He's a solider, if they need soldiers there, he has signed a bit of paper saying he'll be there for whatever is called of him.

That's easy for you to say, you're not over there fighting.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by Korbain

ofcourse i wouldn't feel that contracted had been honored. But its a war, things change. When soldiers joined to fight in the world wars do you think they expected to be fighting for some 5 years or so. Some a bit more. Things change, its a battle zone. A contract means shit all during a war zone. Your to do what is called off you. If he didn't realise shit doesn't go smooth in the battlefield, or in a war zone, he shouldn't have joined. Its as simple as that lol. Being in the army is a challenge, its not easy for anyone. You gotta do whats expected off you for yourself and others. Why should he be allowed to get out of it when his mates are still their getting shot at? I am sure they all would love to get out of if by getting shot in the leg, but they're the real soldiers.

Yes, it is a war, and yes, things change. We are also a fucking democracy with a volunteer military, so the federal government really doesn't have the authority to do what it is doing. If you need troop levels, you suck it up and institute a draft, just like we did in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. You don't over stress your resources to the snapping point.

It is easy for you to pontificate about what soldiers are required to do from the safety of your parent's house. You have no grasp of what sacrifice really means, and you will never have to face the hard decision of trying to make a life for yourself in the inner city, or joining the military and getting shipped off to fight a war you don't believe in. That is exactly what a lot of poor, urban high school graduates face every day. Consider that even with this harsh reality, enlistment standards have been drastically lowered in a desperate attempt to build up troop strength.

Unless you are willing to sign up and put your own life on the line, then maybe you should save your judgment and just stay out of this thread, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

[JBroll]

Originally Posted by Korbain

A contract means shit all during a war zone.

Well, then, he'd have no obligation to honor his end and he'd be on the same moral level as the government. Problem solved!

Jeff

[Holy Katana]

That's a little extreme, but at least he got out of Iraq. What if they made him go when his leg healed?

[HighGain510]

I get to see my brother next weekend for the first time in 7 months. This is his first time back home from Afghanistan and he gets to stay home for..... 6 days. Woo hoo.... *sigh* .... I really wish this crap would just end already. I miss seeing my brother.

[Korbain]

Originally Posted by noodles

It is easy for you to pontificate about what soldiers are required to do from the safety of your parent's house. You have no grasp of what sacrifice really means, and you will never have to face the hard decision of trying to make a life for yourself in the inner city, or joining the military and getting shipped off to fight a war you don't believe in. That is exactly what a lot of poor, urban high school graduates face every day. Consider that even with this harsh reality, enlistment standards have been drastically lowered in a desperate attempt to build up troop strength.

Unless you are willing to sign up and put your own life on the line, then maybe you should save your judgment and just stay out of this thread, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I understand completely what i am talking about. i loved your comment on me joining up in the army and fight or leave this thread because i have no idea what i am talking about? Are you over there fighting? I think not, so i'll put my oppinion out whether you agree with it or not. I have had family relatives fight in wars, i got mates over there in iraq now. I know any war/conflict isn't a walk in the park, its hell, but you'd be an idiot not to expect that. I'd happily sign up if i could, but i cant because i got spinal damage and the army is hell anal about any injuries here and probably everywhere. The army is a high risk job, your odds are always bad. I know its a shit situation. But is that really an excuse to be a pussy, shoot yourself in the leg while others stick it out and stay? Call me crazy, i am calling real soldiers the ones that stay and fight no matter what, but i'll let you defend this guy that shot himself in the leg so he could bitch out. There are other ways out instead of shooting yourself in the leg lol. Whether you agree with the war or not, you've joined as a soldier, you do as you are ordered, like it or not. And don't give me the whole poor urban high school graduates getting shipped over to iraq crap. There are other things to do besides joining the army. If they joined the army at this stage where else would they expect to be shipped off too?!

[Metal Ken]

You're missing the point entirely.

Originally Posted by Korbain

Are you over there fighting? I think not, so i'll put my oppinion out whether you agree with it or not.

He's not the one calling the guy out. You're ostracizing a guy in a position of which you know nothing of.

Originally Posted by Korbain

The army is a high risk job, your odds are always bad. I know its a shit situation. But is that really an excuse to be a pussy, shoot yourself in the leg while others stick it out and stay? Call me crazy, i am calling real soldiers the ones that stay and fight no matter what, but i'll let you defend this guy that shot himself in the leg so he could bitch out.

What the hell else are you supposed to do when your government shafts you? You totally missed the part about the contract. If any contractual obligation he had was breached by the government, he's no longer held to the contract, is generally how it would be read. But we got a "war" led by a Frat Boy D student president, who'se pushing the military to an extreme because of what HE wants to do and not the american people. I'd get the fuck out, too. I wouldnt shoot myself, but they'd be damned getting me to do something like going back without giving me my alloted time off and everything.

Originally Posted by Korbain

Whether you agree with the war or not, you've joined as a soldier, you do as you are ordered, like it or not. And don't give me the whole poor urban high school graduates getting shipped over to iraq crap. There are other things to do besides joining the army. If they joined the army at this stage where else would they expect to be shipped off too?!

I realize you live really, really far away from America, so you might not have perspective on this, but the recruiters here go to inner city schools to recruit people who'd be otherwise stuck in the ghetto the rest of their lives anyway.

Besides, there's plenty of places that American soldiers are stationed. Just cause you're in the military doesn't guarantee you go to Iraq.

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by JBroll

When the terms of your enlistment are shat on and you're that likely to be stuck there until you die, you do silly things.

Originally Posted by JBroll

Now, if the government held to their end of the contract, ...

Originally Posted by noodles

He signed a contract knowing what was expected of him. However, the government betrayed that trust and violated the terms of the contract by changing policy as they saw fit.

Originally Posted by Drew

... there are restrictions surrounding his mobilization such that when he's sent on active duty, he's guaranteed a tour of duty no longer than X number of months, and he's guarannteed X number of months' leave between tours ...

Originally Posted by JBroll

No, he signed a much more specific contract and he had much of it violated. They have extended many terms without permission and are denying the terms of the contract they gave him themselves.

Anybody have specifics from initial enlistment contracts? All I've seen recently are Enlisted re-enlistment contracts, my own (from 1985) Commissioned Officer contract and parts of the current Reserve Officer contract and none of that is specified. I haven't seen any Doctor, Dentists, Nurse Anesthetists (and select few other medical specialties) Officer contracts, so I can't say that the 90-day rotator "policy" is contractual or merely the current policy.

There are many policies, some of which may have changed since the person signed their contract, but they're just the modus operandi at that time, they're not spelled out in any contract that I know of.

I'm not aware of any contract violations and in fact the Army (can't say anything about the other branches) has been rather lenient in letting troops fade away into the Inactive Reserves that technically have Active Reserve obligations.

The biggest source of gripes like this come from confusion of terms and the "letter of the law" versus common interpretations. There's time before the actual deployment and after redeployment that people consider "The Deployment", but actually aren't counted because they're not part of the "boots on ground" days.

Also, the policies in place are "Mobilization Order" based. So, even though there's a 24 month limit, it's essentially per theater. Afghanistan (OEF) and Iraq (OIF) are part of the same Mobilization order. So, if you have 15 months in, they won't send you back (unless you volunteer) if the expected deployment is more than 9 months. There's nothing preventing them from sending you to Germany for up to 24 months, so the person you're replacing can go to OEF/OIF.

There are other policies that kick in at 30, 90, 180 days (Boots on Ground -- BOG). So they (more the politicians than the Pentagon) are "stretching" things by deploying folks with 60/150/179 days BOG.

There is also the "policy" that Reserve units get sent out no more than once every 5 years. It's not contractual, it's just policy and impossible to really apply. Hospitals aren't going to be needed every five years. A lot of the specialty medical units are going to be needed more often. My unit has been deployed twice with about three years between the first redeployment and the second deployment. On top of that, we've had to send folks that were not deployed to Central America for two-week "humanitarian" operations.

* ElRay Transitioning to another common gripe

The other key factor that far, far, far, far too many people are oblivious to (especially many that should know) and/or ignoring for political reasons is that the Army's Reserves (can't speak for the other branches) are not like the 2nd string of a sports team. The Reserves are all of the "Special Teams" players that are not needed on a daily basis. The National Guard is slightly different (they have Combat Arms and Combat Support units that are not in the Reserves), but they follow the same basic plan.

Back in the 80's, the Army started transitioning all of the units that were needed for full deployments, but not needed for day-to-day peacetime activities to the Reserves. This includes Postal, Shower and Laundry, Transportation, Medical, etc. and "new" units like Civil Affairs, etc. There's no point in keeping these folks on Active Duty, but the Army can't deploy without them. For a while, the joke was that if you wanted to be deployed, you needed to be in a Postal or Shower and Laundry unit.

Likewise, the Military Police, Supply and Transportation in the National Guard aren't needed unless there's a Natural Disaster or large-scale deployment.

The only real 20/20 hindsight here is that the Army didn't see soon enough and/or transition it's +/- half-million troops fast enough towards the multiple theater/non-linear battlefield we see today.

So, all these folks that are ranting about the fact that the Reserves are being deployed to the degree they are equates to the Army being over taxed, are either ill-informed, or intentionally misleading the general public. The Reserves are being deployed as designed.

The second bit of arm-chair quarterbacking here is that there are (IMHO) too many Combat Support Hospitals (at least the Army has gotten rid of the huge General Hospitals, too big to be useful Field Hospitals and out-dated MASH's) and not enough "full-up" Combat Stress, Civil Affairs, Veterinary Services (Food Inspection, Military Working Dog, host nation support), etc. units; however, if you consider the time and effort needed to get the Reserves where they are, there were plenty of bigger fish to fry. The creation of the new Field Surgical Teams, Combat Stress Care, Field Minimal Care Wards, etc., "right sizing" a number of other units to match how they're typically deployed, elimination of other "headquarter" units that are not needed with modern task force organization, etc. have elevated in theater Medical Care to levels not seen in any prior engagement.

* ElRay Drifts back to the actual thread

Originally Posted by noodles

Unless you are willing to sign up and put your own life on the line, then maybe you should save your judgment and just stay out of this thread, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Agreed, but I'll be a bit more lenient here. If you actually know what you're talking about, please chime in.

If you're basing your conclusions on the biased, filtered clap-trap that the US media passes off as what's really happening overseas, or the ranting of politicians that pull crap like being too lazy to read the actual intelligence reports and then being intellectually bankrupt enough to actually claim that they "didn't know" or "were lied to" when it was all spelled out in black and white and the real problem was that they got caught not doing their job, then, yes follow Noodle's suggestion.


Ray

[stuz719]

Perhaps some facts would help:

CITIZEN SOLDIER Recruitment Guide

Originally Posted by www.citizen-soldier.org

Does the military have to keep its promises of job training, assignment, etc.?

Maybe. If your enlistment contract contains a written promise to train you in a specific school or field, you may be eligible for discharge if the military breaks its promise. However, there are a lot of "if's." For one thing, each enlistment contract contains the following language: "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice...REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment document." For example, if a military school decides to admit no more students (or to raise its minimum scores for graduation) this may negatively affect your chances.

If you do not receive the training assignment you were promised, it's often difficult to do anything about it. Some soldiers have gone to federal court, seeking to have their enlistment voided but most judges have refused to become involved.

In other words the employer (the army/government) explicitly reserves the right to amend/alter your contract of employment unilaterally. This would appear to negate any argument that the army/government had violated the contract of employment. It is incumbent upon the person signing the contract (i.e. the person joining the army) to be aware of the terms and conditions of employment to which they are committing themselves.

For example my contract of employment states that I am of a "mobile" grade and therefore can be asked to relocate anywhere within the UK or elsewhere should my post be moved. In reality this is unlikely as it would (probably) cost too much to do, but if it were to occur then I have three options:

a) accept an alternative post if one can be found within "reasonable travelling time" (as defined by my contract of employment), although there is no obligation on the part of my employer to find and offer me one, or
b) move home to the new location, or
c) resign and find employment with another employer in my current locality

Workplace Prof Blog: Military Enlistment "Contracts"

Originally Posted by lawprofessors.typepad.com

Pepperdine Law Review just published a student comment discussing military enlistment "contracts." I put "contracts" in quotes because, as the comment points out, these are one-sided deals: the soldier is bound, but the government can change the terms (most importantly, the length of enlistment) at whim.

Not sure that it's strictly "at whim", but this again shows that the army/government explicitly reserves the right to alter/amend the contract of employment without consultation.

Job opportunities in the armed forces

Originally Posted by www.bls.gov

Some training and duty assignments are hazardous, even in peacetime; hours and working conditions can be arduous and vary substantially.

In other words you may get assigned to do something that you really don't want to do, but this is something that you should be aware of before you sign up.