When the US goes to war, citizen-soldiers get the shaft.

[Iceberg]

NY Times article (free registration required)

What the shit. We're talking about people who were promised one weekend a month, two weeks a year and maybe one six-month deployment, and they're being called up to serve year-long deployments (or longer) as if they were active-duty personnel. If it was wartime, this would be acceptable, but it's not.

This isn't okay.

[phongn]

National Guardsman aren't promised anything for deployment - despite what the ads will say. One weekend a month, two weeks a year when not deployed, and however long the brass deems neccessary when Over There.

This is one of the side-effects of the policy changes after Vietnam: there are certain billets only in the Guard to prevent someone from hiding in the NG when wartime comes. Thus, some people will, unfortunately, be called for longer deployments.

[Joe]

Post the article. I don't want to put my e-mail address on a bunch of new spam lists.

[Iceberg]

It's a three page article. That would be a bit unwieldy.

[Iceberg]

National Guardsman aren't promised anything for deployment - despite what the ads will say. One weekend a month, two weeks a year when not deployed, and however long the brass deems neccessary when Over There.

This is one of the side-effects of the policy changes after Vietnam: there are certain billets only in the Guard to prevent someone from hiding in the NG when wartime comes. Thus, some people will, unfortunately, be called for longer deployments.

It's more than unfortunate - their families are depending on their civilian paychecks to cover expenses, and their military pay doesn't even come CLOSE to compensating. Some of these families are facing certain financial disaster in the near future, because they budgeted for a six month absence and they're facing twelve to eighteen at least, possibly indefinite.

[phongn]

It's more than unfortunate - their families are depending on their civilian paychecks to cover expenses, and their military pay doesn't even come CLOSE to compensating. Some of these families are facing certain financial disaster in the near future, because they budgeted for a six month absence and they're facing twelve to eighteen at least, possibly indefinite.

I did read the article, Ice.

[phongn]

Article Link without Registration

[Stravo]

Some wives have complained bitterly that they were the ones who broke the news to their husbands that they would have to stay on longer. Now thats just shitty. How do you leave it up the wives to tell these men they're staying on for a longer stint. At the very least diseminate that among the men first.

I am soooo not happy with the treatment these men and women are getting out there.

[Iceberg]

It's more than unfortunate - their families are depending on their civilian paychecks to cover expenses, and their military pay doesn't even come CLOSE to compensating. Some of these families are facing certain financial disaster in the near future, because they budgeted for a six month absence and they're facing twelve to eighteen at least, possibly indefinite.

I did read the article, Ice.

I figured, but still... the situation is really rotten, and the government is screwing hundreds of thousands of people here.

[phongn]

I figured, but still... the situation is really rotten, and the government is screwing hundreds of thousands of people here.

I agree, its a hugely messed up situation, but what else can we do? We are in Iraq, for better or worse, and we do need warm bodies to do what we need to do. Certainly this could be conveyed in a better manner, but should we just stop sending out the Guard to Iraq?

[Wicked Pilot]

You sign the form, you go.

[Rubberanvil]

I figured, but still... the situation is really rotten, and the government is screwing hundreds of thousands of people here.

The families and businesses would be better off lobbying Congress to amend the way servicemen are payed during deployments.

[Stravo]

You sign the form, you go.

Does that also include you being treated like shit? All most of teh critics are asking for is that the troops be treated like the heroes Bush keeps saying they are.

[Stormbringer]

If by shit you mean long deployments and very little leave then that's part of being at war. Despite what a lot of reservists and Guardsmen believe it isn't always weekend warrior stuff. You get called, you've got to go.

[Kamakazie Sith]

NY Times article (free registration required)

What the shit. We're talking about people who were promised one weekend a month, two weeks a year and maybe one six-month deployment, and they're being called up to serve year-long deployments (or longer) as if they were active-duty personnel. If it was wartime, this would be acceptable, but it's not.

This isn't okay.

Being in the Air Force Reserve, we were never promised any sort of cap on our deployment. We go where we are needed.

[Stravo]

I think this is true but are reservists' employers required to keep their job for them no matter how long they're gone?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think this is true but are reservists' employers required to keep their job for them no matter how long they're gone?

Yes

[Sea Skimmer]

It's more than unfortunate - their families are depending on their civilian paychecks to cover expenses, and their military pay doesn't even come CLOSE to compensating. Some of these families are facing certain financial disaster in the near future, because they budgeted for a six month absence and they're facing twelve to eighteen at least, possibly indefinite.

Then they SHOULD NOT HAVE JOINED if military pay could not sustain them. They accepted money for who knows how many years and now its time to do what they trained for. The US National Guard is not some emergency force of last resort, it is a second line branch of the nations federal military called on as needed and that has been the case for the past several decades.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think this is true but are reservists' employers required to keep their job for them no matter how long they're gone?

Actually I should be more specific. There is a six year cumulative service limit on the amount of voluntary military leave an employee can use and still retain reemployment status.

There is also a five year cumulative total of military service an employer is required to support.

For more detailed information go here http://www.esgr.org/

So yes there is a limit, but unless all hell broke lose you would probably never exceed that.

[Wicked Pilot]

All most of the critics are asking for is that the troops be treated like the heroes Bush keeps saying they are.

Sacrifices like long deployments are what makes them heroes.

[Stravo]

All most of the critics are asking for is that the troops be treated like the heroes Bush keeps saying they are.

Sacrifices like long deployments are what makes them heroes.

Telling them before their wives know would be a step up. Even better yet why tell them something like two months in the first place? I do believe that almost all of these complaints would vanish if the soldiers had been told straight up, you're going to be here for a long time instead of telling them July...then as July neared telling them Sept and now we're in Sept telling them hey you know what, you'll probably be here until next year.

I think it is a perfect example of the utter fantasy land the Administration and the Pentagon were living in when the war started. They seriously thought these boys would be home by July, changed their minds when it was painfully obvious that was never going to happen.

They've been back pedaling since and who gets screwed? You or me? No. (Well maybe you) but the soldier, he gets screwed BIG time.

Every soldier and his wofe has said from the beginning, "If you told us we would be here for a year, we would have been ready, but don't tell us two months, then as its almost time to go home, pull the rug out from under us and tell us six months and NOW tell us a year. It's just not right."

[Wicked Pilot]

Plans can change and they change often. The Pentagon doesn't have a crystal ball. Moreover, it is not the Pentagon who signed the order to invade Iraq, that was the civilian administration's doing.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think it is a perfect example of the utter fantasy land the Administration and the Pentagon were living in when the war started. They seriously thought these boys would be home by July, changed their minds when it was painfully obvious that was never going to happen.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Horrors that one should change in wartime.

[Howedar]

However, a good plan will change a lot less than a bad plan.

[RedImperator]

I think it is a perfect example of the utter fantasy land the Administration and the Pentagon were living in when the war started. They seriously thought these boys would be home by July, changed their minds when it was painfully obvious that was never going to happen.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Horrors that one should change in wartime.

Replace the word "change" with "be made up at the last second because the administration was off in magical fairy land whenever the question of postwar reconstruction came up" and you'll be closer to accurate here. They should have expected at least six months, for Christ's sake.