http://www.katu.com/news/11914891.html

Thats their job, every one of them enlisted.
And if you could poll them, I bet most are looking forward to it.

3 tours of duty???

Agreed.

Nwokie writes:
Thats their job, every one of them enlisted.
And if you could poll them, I bet most are looking forward to it.

Going away from their families for a year, while their husbands/wives will need to support the family and pay the mortgage with one income? While young kids grow up without their father or mother around? Yes, I'm sure they're all really looking forward to spending a year in Hell, hoping to avoid a roadside bomb. I'll bet the families they are leaving behind are equally ecstatic.

Andrew

I'll bet they are ready and willing to go and get it done. No question.

A part of them is excited and looking forward to use their skills too. That's a big part of why they signed up, along with duty, wanting to support their nation, etc...

Any of them with families are worried and nobody looks forward to that.

Hey, if you are in the National Guard and you are called upon to help defend the nation (as after 9/11 when National Guard planes were patrolling the skies even around Portland) or if you are called upon to help in a natural disaster, that's one thing. No doubt the people in the Guard couldn't have been more eager to help in those situations.

But to have to go away for a year to defend an occupation that has nada to do with America's national security is something else. This is NOT what these people signed up for!

Andrew

United States Constitution: "Congress shall have the power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 15)

Every time I read this, I wonder: where the hell in the Constitution does it allow the Militia (National Guard) to to anything other than defend the nation? They are not an offensive fighting force, and are not empowered by the Constitution to be used by the President to go off and fight in other lands. Even if it has happened before in our history, it still sounds damned unconstitutional to me.

Well, we're certainly giving a lot of leeway to presidential dumpth. Are we not revolting in the streets because its not nice to challenge the mentally challenged?

I seriously hope that by 2009 we will not have the need to send our sons and daughters, moms and dads, or friends and neighbors into harms way for an issue the countries in that region should be able to police for themselves.

As Nwokie and I both remember, people hid in the Guard and Reserves to avoid Vietnam. When I came home to the Reserves and was outranked by jokers who gained their rank faster than I did without the war experience I gained, I did not re-enlist.

The Guard and Reserves of today are much different. They are not hiding and though I no longer support the war in Iraq, I salute each one for their bravery and commitment.

Because once the guard is called up, they cease being militia and are federal troops.

Guardsmen have both a state and a federal position.

I suppose a state could have a force that is strictly state, but then the state would have to pay for equipment and training and payroll.

I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers would consider fighting on foreign soil to be "defending the nation". Fighting in another country is by nature an offensive action.

Not really, George Washington ordered an attack on a foreign country as did Thomas Jerrerson.

The Guard served very well also in WWII.

Also Korea, and there were guard units in Vietnam.

"But to have to go away for a year to defend an occupation that has nada to do with America's national security is something else. This is NOT what these people signed up for!"

They signed up to take orders. They apparently may be given some new ones.

It has everything to do with the US's security, protecting US trade lines is why Jefferson sent troops to the Med.

If National Guardsmen feel like they've been bamboozled, they won't re-up next time around. Without even taking into consideration the difficulty of recruiting new members, one can argue that Bush has weakened our resources to deal with matters on the home front.

Fortunately for Bush, its another matter he's leaving for the next president to deal with.

Fortunately for Bush, its another matter he's leaving for the next president to deal with.

For which he has boasted about on many occasions.

I don't think it's that big of a deal to mobilize the National Guard, if they are needed. It is what they are there for.

It's a huge abuse of power to drain our military to the point where they are needed, and short a lot of gear. This Iraq clusterfuck is just not in our best interests. The treatment of our troops, after they've served (been burned out), makes it just that much more horrible too.

Heck, we've got people maimed in theater, unable to serve, scratching their heads with whatever limbs they have left, as to why they have to give back their signing bonus for failure to complete their contract!

(just what else are they to do?)

These National Guard members are gonna go and serve, follow orders and try to get it done. It's really too bad their leadership can't practice what they preach and honor their obligations with equal character.

Guard an active duty reenlistment rates are running about what they were, in some cases higher.

And the Pentagon has ruled, signing bonuses don't have to be given back to those injured.

Don't care who ruled on what. That's bunk, and they all should feel really horrible about it.

Thats their job, every one of them enlisted.

What about the ones that were/are being told if they don't re-enlist they'd be reassigned at what is otherwise the end of their enlistment period to a squad that was just being sent off to Iraq for however many years?

First of all, I know of no one that has been told that, and so what, they enlisted in the first place.

Hopefully, this is good news on the bonus topic:

www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004758.php

For once, a backpedal I'd like to see!

[ ;+) to Mrs. M for spelling comfirmation]

I gotta think about that one.

President Bush has already changed the rules, so if your injured, you get part of SGLI, up to 400 thousand. plus depending on the severity of the injury you get VA benefits.

Should you get the unpaid part of the bonus? Say you have 2 soldiers injured, one is in a bonus speciality and the other not. Why should one of them get more for being injured?

My daughter was seperated for a non combat related injury, and didn't get any of her future bonus, but she didn't have to give back any of the money received.

Nobody forced any of these men and women to enlist so lets all stop crying for them. Its their job, same as when you have to work overtime at your shitty job they do as well.

I think Soldiers are entitled to a lot, but there are some limits. In Vietnam SGLI was 50K, now its 200K and you can raise it to 400K for just a few bucks a month. In Vietnam SGLI didn't pay out unless you were dead, now its like regular insurance, and you get a percentage depending on the severity of the injury.

One thing I would like to see, someone go into the various federal agencies, and rip some new A-holes for not pushing hiring of vets. I would like to see all state governments give veterans preference to new hires, and some kind of incentive to private companies for giving vets hiring preference.

Another thing, I would like to see all veterans get a lifetime 1 or 2 percent tax reduction for life.

One thing that has not been touched on is the timing. I have had friends and family in the military for years. Heck, one of my first jobs was in the kitchen at the PANG base. Still, nobody I have talked to can remember a time when massive call-ups every Christmas were routine -- until this conflict.

Every single year they have hit tens of thousands of families at Thanksgiving with a nebulous "deployment is coming in the next little while so forget about Christmas with your kin" announcement. It is calculated and heartless, but then so are rubber stamped condolences to the families of the dead.

If over half of our occupational forces are private contractors, Guard soldiers take bigger risks for a fraction of the pay of the mercenaries. Never ending war is a really lousy way to make an honest buck. Especially for folks who had better jobs at home and felt it was their duty to serve in a domestic force.

When folks join the Guard, being sent into a foreign civil war is not what most of our troops intended to do for the duration of their hitch. It is shortsighted and foolish to perpetually send skilled and educated men and women with families, careers and small businesses into the meatgrinder.

I hope this is the last Christmas our brave men and women have to spend in the Middle East.

There is a reason for that, at the quad annual review, about 20 years ago, the Guard asked for a larger role in deployments. The guard argued for the +1 concept, Ie an active division has 3 brigades, or regiments, depending on its type. The guard asked that it be reduced to 2, with a guard birgade/regiment being the (roundout) for the active division.

The idea was for a smaller active force, with the guard being more of a equal partner, currently there is a bill in congress to make the senior Guard officer a member of the Joint Chiefs, currently the highest ranking Guard officer is a 3 star.

The Guard also asked to be allowed to have all the guard/reserve combat positions, with the reserve having support positions.