Pentagon abandons active-duty time limit

Status
Not open for further replies.

geronimotwo

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
308
Location
delaware co, ny
does anyone have further details on this?


By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
20 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours.

The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars.

Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.

Members of the Guard combat brigades that have served in Iraq in recent years spent 18 months on active duty — about six months in pre-deployment training in the United States, followed by about 12 months in Iraq. Under the old policy, they could not be sent back to Iraq because their cumulative time on active duty would exceed 24 months. Now that cumulative limit has been lifted, giving the Pentagon more flexibility.

The new approach, Pace said, is to squeeze the training, deployment and demobilization into a maximum of 12 months. He called that a "significant planning factor" for Guard and Reserve members and their families.

David Chu, the Pentagon's chief of personnel, said in an interview that he thinks Guard and Reserve members will be cheered by the decision to limit future mobilizations to 12 months. The fact that some with previous Iraq experience will end up spending more than 24 months on active duty is "no big deal," Chu said, because it has been "implicitly understood" by most that they eventually would go beyond 24 months.

A senior U.S. military official who briefed reporters Thursday on Iraq-related developments said that by next January, the Pentagon "probably will be calling again" on National Guard combat brigades that previously served yearlong tours in Iraq. Under Pentagon ground rules, the official could not be further identified.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing with Pace, announced several other changes in Guard and Reserve policy:

_Although the Pentagon's goal is to mobilize Guard and Reserve units no more frequently than one year out of six, the demands of wartime will require calling up some units more often than that. They provided no details on how many units would be remobilized at the faster pace or when that would begin to happen.

Army officials had been saying for some time that more frequent mobilizations were necessary because the active-duty force is being stretched too thin. Gates' announcement is the first confirmation of the change.

_To allow for more cohesion among Guard and Reserve units sent into combat, they will be deployed as whole units, rather than as partial units or as individuals plugged into a unit they do not normally train with.

_Extra pay will be provided for Guard and Reserve troops who are required to mobilize more than once in six years; active-duty troops who get less than two years between overseas deployments also will get extra pay. Details were not provided.

_Military commanders will review their administration of a hardship waiver program "to ensure that they have properly taken into account exceptional circumstances facing military families of deployed service members."

As part of Bush's plan for boosting U.S. troop strength in Iraq, a brigade of National Guard soldiers from Minnesota will have its yearlong tour in Iraq extended by 125 days, to the end of July, and a Patriot missile battalion will be sent to the Persian Gulf next month, the Army said Thursday.

Maj. Randy Taylor, a spokesman for the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, at Fort Bliss, Texas, said the Patriot unit was aware of the announced deployment. He said no formal order had been received Thursday.

The dispatching of a Patriot missile battery, capable of defending against shorter-range ballistic missile attacks, appeared linked to Bush's announcement Wednesday that he ordered an aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East, which would be in easy reach of Iran, whose nuclear program is a U.S. concern.

Navy officials said the carrier heading to the Gulf region is the USS John C. Stennis, which previously had been in line to deploy to the Pacific. It was not clear Thursday how the Pentagon intended to compensate in the Pacific for the absence of the Stennis in that region, where a chief worry is North Korea.

The Marines announced that two infantry units — the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, and the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment — will stay in Iraq 60 to 90 days longer than scheduled. That will enable the Marines to have a total of eight infantry battalions in western Anbar province, instead of the current six, by February. Once the 60- to 90-day extension is over, an additional two battalions will be sent in early from their U.S. bases.

Also, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which combines infantry with a helicopter squadron and a logistics battalion, totaling about 2,200 Marines, will stay in Anbar for 45 more days.

Those extensions conform with Bush's announcement that he was ordering 4,000 more Marines to Anbar.

The military tries to avoid extending combat tours and sending forces earlier than planned because it disrupts the lives of troops and their families and makes it harder for the services to get all troops through the education and training programs they need for promotions. But in this case it was deemed unavoidable
 
There've been a few stories. They're all basically the same. Back-to-back deployments. Limited time between them at home. Limited training schedule. More reserves, IRR and Guard to be deployed. And they expect to ad 92,000 more to the Army and Marine Corps. Nobody knows from where.

At the same time we've taken over an Iranian consulate in Iraq, moved ships and Patriot missle batteries into position and seem to be planning for hostilities with both Iran and Syria. The obvious question is "Us and what Army?"
 
Yes, while I disagree that the way to fight the GWoT is with Big Army but rather it should be fought with a .22 to the ear in a bazaar in East Camelistan, if our Fearless Leader wants to fight it with Big Army, then let's finish the mess/fight we are in.

There's brave and macho, then there just reckless behavior.:uhoh:
 
Some Democrats (including Kerry) had said all along that the way to fight the WOT was as a law enforcement/intelligence operation and not with a big army. Given the way things are going in Iraq, it makes one wonder if they were right.
 
Given the way things are going in Iraq, it makes one wonder if they were right.

Gosh... ya think? Were we also right when we asked "Where does it end?" The problem with this Big Army strategy is that you have to have an Army that's Big enough. How much does it cost to have an Army that's Big enough to police the world? And how do we justify spending that kind of cash elsewhere when there are people in need right here in our own country? And where does the money come from? Whatever happened to "The Iraqi's will pay for this themselves by selling oil..."?

I heard an interesting point of view yesterday. The guy I was listening to said, "I don't care that we're buiilding schools and hospitals... some of our schools (up in the Appalachian areas) don't even have indoor plumbing yet... Spend that money here, where it's needed." My opinion is that we need to find the least costly (in terms of lives, equipment, and cash) way to get out of the Middle East, then mind our own business from now on.
 
They're all basically the same. Back-to-back deployments. Limited time between them at home.
I watched the speech, or at least this part of it

There were specific intervals between deployments mentioned 5 years for reserves and for every one year of deployment for regular army there will be two years stateside.
As always at times these intervals will be interrupted if dire need arises, with compensation

America used to have a big army.
After the Soviet Union fell there was a move to a small army.
Those of us with any sense at all saw this as a mistake and that the greatest threat to America had not come from Russia in many years.
We also knew that the next war would be a dessert war

Now that the government has realized this the same group of people that decried the minimalization of the military now decry bringing back up to previous strengths

If America is going to assume the role of protector of the free world we damn sure better have and ability the muscle to back it up
 
Seems more like back-to-back-to-back-to-back deployments. They're just kept OVER there.

And sending your military off to get in over its head in hopeless foreign quagmires while failing to defend your border against incursions at home was done by a certain other historical power we've borrowed a lot of symbols from. Hopefully, we'll not follow their fate as well by choosing the SAME FATAL MISTAKE.
 
Police action? No way. Covert action? Yes. But the Lefties killed that, didn't that, starting with Frank Church et al.?

Big Armies are fine until someone starts using tactical nukes. That goes for concentration of forces in any form.

If "asymmetry" is the new martial religion why aren't we doing it? IEDs and RPGs are the most primitive form. Where's our ingenuity when we need it?
 
Pentagon has abandoned it because the Congress is now completely
irrelevant. We have Pelosi already gushing over the "Novus Ordo Seclorum"
as stated in her House speaker acceptance speech and we have the
Whitehouse stating through Tony Snow on Jan 8: ""The President has the
ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the
wrong way."

So, no active duty time limits anymore (despite it being in the USC) because
Congress is no longer needed to declare eternal war without end. There are
no checks and balances and the Constitution for all intent and purpose is null
and void. All the people inside the DC green zone beltway get their check
(the kind you cash and spend) and none of them care. None of them have
any skin in the game when it comes to eternal deployments since not one
of them have family members in the NG and Reserve who are going to get
screwed over as a result of this.

Go ahead people --ignore the war powers in the Constitution. They'll be
coming for you and your guns in the future. Sorry I won't be there to
help you at that time because I will have already been ripped out of the
arms of my screaming family by the JBTs and shot in the head when I
refuse to deploy again and again and again for the never ending eternal
war for the "good" of mankind.

Yep, keep your gun close at hand in that dreaded dark future --I won't
be there to help you. I will already be dead in stage 1 of what Winston
Churchill had warned your grandparents about:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so
costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the
odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a
worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because
it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

:banghead: oops, too late...and many will choose to be slaves rather than perish.:evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top