BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: Here's the gist to save you from reading the whole article. I was temporarily off the list to deploy to the Middle East since I have already been in the past 5 years. Now that the rules have changed (I knew it was just a matter of time) I am again eligible for another year (or two) in the sandbox. I'm not overly concerned as there are still a few of my peers who have not yet served in this particular theater but my name is now in the "hat." I'll keep you all posted (without breaching any security classifications). MAJ H. Military Eases Its Rules for Mobilizing Reserves By DAVID S. CLOUD WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 — The Pentagon announced steps Thursday to make more reservists available for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan by changing the policies that govern how often members of the Army National Guard and Reserve can be mobilized. The new rules mean that individual Guard members and entire units that have already been deployed in the last five years may be called up again for as long as 24 consecutive months, officials said. In practice, the Pentagon intends to try to limit future mobilizations to no more than a year, once every five years, Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters. The policy change was brought on by the prolonged American troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and military officials said it would have been necessary even if President Bush had not decided to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. The change, announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at a White House news conference, will enable the Bush administration to call up tens of thousands of Guard members who were off limits under the previous rules, without having to issue another politically delicate mobilization order. The decision to send five active-duty combat brigades to Iraq in the next few months means the Army will need to call up National Guard combat brigades that have already done one-year tours in Iraq, and to do so sooner, officials said. A senior military official said that by "this time next year," the Pentagon "probably will be calling again on Guard units that have previously done combat tours." General Pace told reporters that some of the Guard units “that will be mobilized in the coming period will not have had five years since their last mobilization.” Some, he said, will have been home for four years and some for only three. Until now, the Defense Department’s policy on employing Guard and Reserve units was that soldiers’ time on active duty could not exceed a cumulative total of 24 months in any five-year period. Under the new rules, the cumulative limit is removed. The result, officials said, is that soldiers who have already done a tour in Iraq in the last five years can now be sent back to Iraq if their entire unit is remobilized. The goal of limiting deployments to a year is meant to offset the burden on Guard members, who must leave civilian jobs to serve. Until now, many members of the Army National Guard, which has an authorized total strength of 350,000 soldiers, have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan as individuals, sometimes for 18 months or longer. Mr. Gates said the Pentagon would now mobilize units, not individuals. Any soldiers who have already done tours will again be eligible, regardless of previous deployments, if their units are called into service.
If you go you should remember this. On 911 we were attacked in an unprecedented manner. At that time, there appeared t o be solidarity in the country. People rushed out to buy their patriotic t-shirts. Previous to during and after that incident the world was announcing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Here is an example of actual quotes. October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats “We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Quote: Hopefully you noticed the trend with the names and also note of the dates it is a telling thing. The facts have been oppertunistically convaluted. But allow me to clear up some of the confusion. Beginning in the 60's America and the rest of the world started being attacked by Muslim terrorists. This escellated during the Carter administration. Reagan was able to use force to curtail that problem. Then during Clinton the problem began to arise again. A group that called them selves Al Quaeda led by a man named Bin-Laden leading a Sunni Muslim influenced terrorist group. Attacked a few embasies as well as attempted to bring down the world trade towers using a bomb placed in the parking garage. The American Intelligence community was able to track him down and have athorities in Somolia arrest him. The country offered Bin-Laden to the United Stated and Bill Clinton refused. Ever since Bush Senior left office the U.N. had grown to be a place of spite and hatefulness against the American government. During Clinton that U.N. made a joke and a mockery of the inspections in Iraq U.N. staff were profiting by the millions of dollars off of the billions of dollars America was spending to feed the Iraqi people while the country was under sanctions and instections. It had become apparent that the weapons inspections were not going to get anywhere. With U.N. staff being paid off, and shady backdoor arm deals going on between Iraq and France, Germany, Russia, and China. It was apparent that the whole process was a joke. U.N. inspectors were threatened using tactics such as "we know where your little girl goes to school, the other children she plays with and where she hangs out." Or "If the toothbrush you left in your hotel room while doing your inspections taste funny just pay it no mind" any sort of psychological angle they could use. in the end inspectors were providing to the Iraqi government the whereabouts of the next inspection place three months in advance. I watched video footage of an Iraqi worker at a chemical plant trying to break away and get with the inspectors he got in an suv and was frantically trying to tell them something in Arabic they just opened the door for him to get out. I remember the white knuckled grip he had on the door as three Iraqi solders jerked him out. I imagine that man had something to tell or inspectors who ignored him. I hate to imagine the torture he must have endured for his brave attempt. The first few short months after George Bush took office were spent trying to sort out the corruption going on in Iraq and with the corrupt U.N. Then before there was any real progress we were attacked by terrorists who flew commercial airline jets into the twin towers. At first we had our suspicions about who it was but was not sure. One thing that was already certain was that Iraq weapons inspections were a fiasco. Eventually Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks as intelligence had already started to indicate still one can never be sure for certain. As we were able to confirm this plans were drawn up to send troops into the mountainous region of Afghanistan to go after Al-Qaeda and the leader Bin-Laden. Meanwhile the Intelligence community were brainstorming likely scenarios of way we could be attacked of most concern were the possibility of a chemical or biological attack. Remember that inspectors in Iraq had verified the existence in Iraq of Tons of chemical munitions in Iraq before efforts were put in place to destroy these chemicals the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq and proof was never given that they were destroyed. This is not a disputed fact in the current debate the reason is because that it is an undisputable fact. Once intelligence had confirmed irrefutably that Al-Qaeda operatives were involved in training exercises on Iraqi soil and that there was an operation involved in the production of rican poison. It became apparent that before we allow Iraq to influence the Afghani operations by supplying weapons as well as troops and technology into an area that under that scenario would be like a death trap. We decided the only other alternative was to take the war to the enemy. This is the only real tactical strategy you Get rid of the threat hanging like a dark Iraqi cloud over the troops Confirm the location of the thousands of tons of chemical munitions that were known to exist Attract the enemy combatants from all over the globe to a better location to do battle from than the rocky mountains Since having done this there has been a relentless never ending propaganda war waged against our country and against the troops. Sadly while it would be expected that Muslim outfits like Al Jazerria would enlist into this anti-American effort and that other countries less friendly to the United States would be more sympathetic to the Al-Jazeria side of the story. The sad fact is that the largest driving force of this propaganda machine is right here on American soil. First it was the same radical leftist that found it acceptably to betray the very country that sheltered them during the Vietnam era. But then also a political party desperate and out of power decided to throw their lot in the hat also and see what kind of pay off they could get. Given coverage by the media they were emboldened into having dome so. And possibly even more sadly have profited immensely for having done so. Still you should focus on what is right and true and know that there are people here in the states and throughout the country. Good people, patriots who back you 100 percent. We do not get the advantage of a microphone in an award ceremony to say it. But we are here we are the silent majority.
I'm not going to retire and the well-wishers are apprectiated, but I haven't forgotten the feeling of kissing my two-year old daughter and my 9-month pregnant wife goodbye before boarding the bus to go to war. It's not something I look forward to doing again. If my orders are to deploy, I will. I doubt they'd ask me to feel good about it.
I not going to ask you to feel good about the possibility of leaving your family forever or to leave your family for a 6, 12, or 24 month tour whatever they may do. However I would say that you should feel good about what you do regardless of the rhetoric.
It's not that simple. It's like if my wife asks me if I want to go shopping with her. I don't want to go, but I will. I signed up for this duty and I will follow my orders. Leaving my family and going into a combat zone isn't something I want to do, but I will. I didn't go to war last time because I was fearless. Some people aren't afraid of stuff like that. Some people have fears and face them. Who is courageous? Who is stupid? Who is scared? Maybe I'm any combination or all of the above. I didn't run from my responsibilities last time. I answered the call, I did my duty, I faced my fears. Yes, I'm proud to have done it. I'll do it again. I do, however, lack the energy to pretend to like subjecting myself and my family to it. But that's what sacrifice is.
Well I believe unequivocally that the cause is a righteous one. The cause has been pounded unceasingly as an unrighteous one since day one. There are some who have made public statements against it and dropped out. They will receive reward even if they loose some other benefits. In this day and age where half the population is of the liberal democrat persuasion. You would be required to stand in front of a video camera and they would coach you on what to say. In a few years you would get some phone calls asking you to be in a political office. You would be made out to be a hero. But beside all of that shit. It boils down in my opinion to one simple thing and all else be damned. Knowing what is and doing what is right. If you believe it is not right then don't do it quite simply. But remember we make the world today that our children live in tomorrow. I could go on and on as to the specifics of why it is a righteous thing but that is another story. By now that should be made up in your mind already. If you felt it was right and now the pull of media focus on all that feels bad and extreme apathy are effecting you then I think that it the greatest crime of the century. It is what makes my blood boil and it is very wrong.
Nursey your propaganda only manages to insight rage in the Muslim community. Look at this Nursey you should really cut it out
That's like saying the nutcases at 'Jesus camp' are representative of the world's Christian community. Ironically, it's people like that - the most fanatical, Iranian backed Shia (as opposed to the moderate ones) who Saddam prevented seizing power in Iraq, and who the American's have enabled to get into power. I'm sure posting the truth about the war on Iraq does anger people like that, seeing as they have so much to gain from the invasion.
You know there are some fanatical Shia in Iraq. They are great in number it is true. But then again in Iran until recently the predominant Shia government was headed in the right direction. And quite frankly I believe there is still a lot of hope there. Look at the most recent election and you can see that Armchairaman does not represent the mood of the country as a whole by a long shot. So what in your opinion and understanding of their culture is the best way to diplomatic approach? Assuming the objective is to prevent the risk of a fanatical megalomaniac having his finger on the nuclear annihilation button thinking he can hasten the coming of the 12th prophet.
Shut your trap and go fetusfisting Nursey ! Leave this to the boys. You dont like war, so why do you talk about it. Joe likes war and knows that if USA only fights MORE you will get peace. Let me ask a rethorical question using borrfowed logic: Are you a boy ? Or even better. You raghead-lover you < so the fetuses dont satisfy anymore. There sure is a mean bitch somewhere ;-)
Was that an attempt of being clever? or did you lose track of the thought after you typed Nursey? Either way great speculation on your part. Please spin the wheel again.
Yeah, but not all Shi'ia are fanatical. The more moderate amongst them consider themselves Iraqi first and foremost (many were in the Ba'ath party, sometimes in fairly influential positions). The fanatical ones tend to align themselves with the Persians/Iranians. I am able to identify with Iraqis, not with extremists (of any sort). In fact, i'd imagine, if anything, you are probably more in tune with those sorts of peoples' mindsets, Jesus-camp-Joe! Yeah, well...those cutesy little bottoms poking out of the hazardous waste sacks at the clinic were just asking for it! And anyway, it's more of a power thing than anything sexual. Damn! I've just been shamed into confessing! As for the 'boys and their toys'... Remind you of anyone, i wonder?
How about cutting me some slack Nursey I was asking a legit question and not trying to insult. I asked because I would value your opinion if you gave it to me objectivly. And I can be the judge of what is objective, not meaning to insult. Seriously Since you have some insight and I gathered much from your statement that the more radical Shia were the ones who identify with the Persian Iranian Shia. That being the case it is to bad I am really swamped for time but will be back tomarrow and would love to hear your view on Sadur(whatever I cannot keep up with the names) movement. How it it looked at by the Arabs as opposed to persians. And please honestly just tell me without trying to dig up sone odd Bush right wing persian connection. Honest I would liketo know you are the only "Iraqi" it frequently talk to. .... or bitch back and forth with. 8)
