More than 800 soldiers refuse to report for duty

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-23 11:03am

It looks like George W. Bush really is a leader of men by example:

CNN wrote:843 ex-soldiers fail to report for Army duty

Friday, October 22, 2004 Posted: 5:14 PM EDT (2114 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 800 former soldiers have failed to comply with Army orders to get back in uniform and report for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Army said Friday. That is more than one-third of the total who were told to report to a mobilization station by October 17.

Three weeks ago the number stood at 622 amid talk that any who refused to report for duty could be declared Absent Without Leave. Refusing to report for duty normally would lead to AWOL charges, but the Army is going out of its way to resolve these cases as quietly as possible.

In all, 4,166 members of the Individual Ready Reserve have received mobilization orders since July 6, of which 2,288 were to have reported by October 17. The others are to report in coming weeks and months.

Of those due to have reported by now, 1,445 have done so, but 843 have neither reported nor asked for a delay or exemption. That no-show rate of 37 percent is roughly in line with the one-third rate the Army had forecast when it began the mobilization to fill positions in regular and Reserve units. By comparison, the no-show total of 622 three weeks ago equated to a 35 percent rate.

Of the 843, the Army has had follow-up contact with 383 and is seeking to resolve their cases, according to figures made public Friday. For the 460 others, "We are still working to establish positive contact," the Army said. Some may not have received the mailed orders.

Members of the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR, are rarely called to active duty. The last time was 1990, when nearly 20,000 were mobilized. IRR members are people who were honorably discharged after finishing their active-duty tours, usually four to six years, but remained in the IRR for the rest of the eight-year commitment they made when they joined the Army. They are separate from the reserve troops who are more routinely mobilized -- the National Guard and Reserve.

The Army anticipated, based on past experience, that about one-third of the IRR people it called up would be disqualified for medical or other reasons. The trend so far bears that out.

The Marine Corps, meanwhile, said Friday that a Marine killed in western Iraq earlier this week, Sgt. Douglas E. Bascom, 25, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. He was the first IRR Marine to die in Iraq, according to Gunnery Sgt. Kristine Scharber, a spokeswoman at Marine Corps headquarters in the Pentagon.

There are about 400 IRR Marines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Shane Darbonne, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Mobilization Command.

Army officials said they were uncertain whether any of their Individual Ready Reserve members have been killed in Iraq.

That the Army has had to reach so deeply into its store of reserve soldiers is a measure of the strain the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have put on the active-duty Army. When the American invading force toppled Baghdad in April 2003, the Army thought it would be sending most of its soldiers home within months. Instead, it has kept 100,000 or more there ever since.

While the number of IRR Army soldiers who have failed to comply with their mobilization order has increased this month, so has the number who have asked for a delay or to be excused from serving.

The number who have requested delays or exemptions has grown from 1,498 (out of a total of 3,899 mobilization orders) in late September to 1,671 (out of a total of 4,166 orders) as of October 17. A little over one-third of the requests have been acted on, with 584 approved and 21 denied.

The Army said some withdrew their requests even after they had been approved. It did not say how many.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-10-23 11:49am

The good news it that Bush is trying as hard as possible to kill the military's tendancy to vote Republican.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-10-23 01:56pm

As they said the problem with the IRR is that you almost expect them not to show up. A great deal do not report because they know they are medically disqualified (and don't realize they still have to show up and prove it). Additionally since you aren't really required to keep in contact with unis so getting orders to them is a pain in the butt. That said the fact that they are reaching into the IRR is a statement of how low they are going.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-23 02:16pm

Ah, here we go again. Mike pretending that the army's morale is low and doesn't support their commander in chief...

Perhaps the fact that a recent poll coming out showed Bush with almost 70% of the military vote doesn't mean anything?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-23 02:43pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Ah, here we go again. Mike pretending that the army's morale is low and doesn't support their commander in chief...

Perhaps the fact that a recent poll coming out showed Bush with almost 70% of the military vote doesn't mean anything?

Wow. What a rebuttal, considering that Mike didn't even say anything.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-10-23 02:54pm

wow. the op is practically unthinkable to me.

when was the last time we had awol numbers like this?

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2004-10-23 02:57pm

Ok that poll was complety messed up. Our base newspaper ran its own poll and most people are against Bush.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-23 04:30pm

In the military, 57% of enlisted are registered Republican, 13% are Democrat. Among officers, 66% are Republican, 9% Democrat. Only 56% of the military approves of Bush's handling of Iraq, and only 36% of their families do. Veterans and military families are 54% opposed to Iraq, with 31% approving, suggesting that veterans are particularly against the war.

Given that the failure rate of military absentee ballots in 2000 (before the Iraq war started the rapid redeployment of troops) was nearly 40%, I would not be surprised if half of all deployed soldiers don't have their votes counted this year.

According to the June 20 to 23 bipartisan Battleground Poll, military voters would go 52% to 44% in favor of Bush. However, this poll was reported back in early July, so the numbers could well have changed by now, though a 20% jump for Bush seems rather extreme.

One problem is that military votes are concentrated in a few states. If Eglin AFB were in Alabama rather than Florida, Al Gore would have been President. It was that little of a difference.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-23 04:31pm

Mike, what happened in 1990 that caused the call up of 20,000 soldiers from the IRR?

oh and

That no-show rate of 37 percent is roughly in line with the one-third rate the Army had forecast when it began the mobilization to fill positions in regular and Reserve units.

They've always expected people to not show up, that's why they called up more than they need.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-23 05:19pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Ah, here we go again. Mike pretending that the army's morale is low and doesn't support their commander in chief...

Perhaps the fact that a recent poll coming out showed Bush with almost 70% of the military vote doesn't mean anything?
Wow. What a rebuttal, considering that Mike didn't even say anything.

Care to tell me what his point was if it wasn't this?

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-10-23 07:14pm

Hell, his example is helping to inspire me not to be a scumfuck like him, so he is achieving something, in a bass-ackwards incompetent way.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-23 11:15pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Ah, here we go again. Mike pretending that the army's morale is low and doesn't support their commander in chief...

Perhaps the fact that a recent poll coming out showed Bush with almost 70% of the military vote doesn't mean anything?
Wow. What a rebuttal, considering that Mike didn't even say anything.
Care to tell me what his point was if it wasn't this?

Usually, when I post a news article without my customary commentary at the bottom, I'm basically saying that it's news, and I'm interested in what people think of it. That is instructive in its own way; for example, your reaction to it says a fair about you.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-23 11:20pm

Point of fact: you did have commentary at the top.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-23 11:25pm

Howedar wrote:Point of fact: you did have commentary at the top.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-23 11:32pm

Ummm....

You misspelled 'humor'.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-23 11:33pm

Glocksman wrote:Ummm....

You misspelled 'humor'.

Damned Yankees ... *shakes fist*

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-10-24 12:20am

Enforcer Talen wrote:wow. the op is practically unthinkable to me.

when was the last time we had awol numbers like this?

Our ship's Deck Division.

Percentage wise, at least.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-24 12:25am

Talon Karrde wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Ah, here we go again. Mike pretending that the army's morale is low and doesn't support their commander in chief...

Perhaps the fact that a recent poll coming out showed Bush with almost 70% of the military vote doesn't mean anything?
Wow. What a rebuttal, considering that Mike didn't even say anything.
Care to tell me what his point was if it wasn't this?

Do you seriously think that anytime someone reports news they are attempting to show their political agenda? Is reporting on the weather counter-revolutionary, or something?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-10-24 01:22am

The Dark wrote:One problem is that military votes are concentrated in a few states. If Eglin AFB were in Alabama rather than Florida, Al Gore would have been President. It was that little of a difference.

That is incorrect. I don't know if there are enoguh Floridians at Eglin to make a difference btu what I CAN tell you is that as a military memebr you vote based on your place of permanent residence NTO as you CONUS duty station (unless you make that your permanent residence). Thus when my buddy's parents moved to Georgia but maintained Maryland as their permanent address they voted as if they still lived in Maryland (hell they reigstered their cars and did liscensing through the state of Maryland). As a further for instance my unti is stationed in Folsom PA and I can tell you right away that I am not eligible to vote in Peenslyvannia.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-24 01:25am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote: Wow. What a rebuttal, considering that Mike didn't even say anything.
Care to tell me what his point was if it wasn't this?
Do you seriously think that anytime someone reports news they are attempting to show their political agenda? Is reporting on the weather counter-revolutionary, or something?

Do you seriously think the following statement preceding his news article doesn't imply a political opinion?

Darth Wong wrote:It looks like George W. Bush really is a leader of men by example

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-10-24 09:26am

No you dimwitted parrot, it means he was making a crack at George Bush's military record. How fucking stupid can you get?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-10-24 11:50am

Beowulf wrote:Mike, what happened in 1990 that caused the call up of 20,000 soldiers from the IRR?

I'm guessing that someone invaded Kuwait and set all this crap we're still dealing with in motion.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-24 11:56am

So, is it good that the Army is expecting less and less of it's called-up groups to show up(2% drop just mentioned in the article, and I've never heard of one-third of those called not showing before..), or bad that they are now able to forecast such massive absenses? Can anyone give me rates of absense in this sort of thing in the past, see if it's normal or above average?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-10-24 12:03pm

SirNitram wrote:So, is it good that the Army is expecting less and less of it's called-up groups to show up(2% drop just mentioned in the article, and I've never heard of one-third of those called not showing before..), or bad that they are now able to forecast such massive absenses? Can anyone give me rates of absense in this sort of thing in the past, see if it's normal or above average?

With the IRR the only thing we have to compare against is '90. Essentially there are two levels of Resrves in the US, there are the organzied reserves (Army Reserve, USMC Reserve, National Guard, etc) which I am a member of. THe organized reserves have units and drill every month...the absentee rate forthem is about as much maybe a little more than for active duty. The IRR or Individual Ready Reserve) is composed of people who are no longer with active duty units and are no longer with reserve untis. They are, quite literally, sitting at home doing their own thing. They belong to no paticular unti and are subject to recall only in desperate need (they are the third lineof defense if you will).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-24 12:09pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
SirNitram wrote:So, is it good that the Army is expecting less and less of it's called-up groups to show up(2% drop just mentioned in the article, and I've never heard of one-third of those called not showing before..), or bad that they are now able to forecast such massive absenses? Can anyone give me rates of absense in this sort of thing in the past, see if it's normal or above average?
With the IRR the only thing we have to compare against is '90. Essentially there are two levels of Resrves in the US, there are the organzied reserves (Army Reserve, USMC Reserve, National Guard, etc) which I am a member of. THe organized reserves have units and drill every month...the absentee rate forthem is about as much maybe a little more than for active duty. The IRR or Individual Ready Reserve) is composed of people who are no longer with active duty units and are no longer with reserve untis. They are, quite literally, sitting at home doing their own thing. They belong to no paticular unti and are subject to recall only in desperate need (they are the third lineof defense if you will).

I'm largely aware of what the IRR is(You basically sign a peice of paper saying you'll be there four years, and be on call another four years, yesno?), but was unaware it's never been called up before. I can see how that might be viewed very negatively. Do we have numbers for the number of folks not showing since they first started calling them in this boondoggle?