http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_call_up
Looks like some more call-ups are on the horizon.
Looks like some more call-ups are on the horizon.
but for "wartime" or whatever passes for war today ???
It's "war" only for the guys who are getting shot at and/or their families --- for the rest of the populace, most of whom are clueless and really don't care --- except for occassionally mouthing some mindless "we support the troops" slogans --- it's business as usual.What, our little GWOT not good enough for you?
Piss and moan if you want but when you sign the dotted line and give power of attorney of your butt over to Uncle Sam you'd do well to take into account just what all capacities you can and will be obligated to serve in.
It's "war" only for the guys who are getting shot at and/or their families --- for the rest of the populace, most of whom are clueless and really don't care --- except for occassionally mouthing some mindless "we support the troops" slogans --- it's business as usual.
I didn't get that impression from the article. Were you referring to this one or something else you've heard. When I did my tour as an XO of a reserve center, we had a number of sailors called up who were in the IRR. The practice is nothing new. People may b!tch and moan, but eight years means eight years.I like how the press makes it out as if there was some sort of illegality to this whole process.
I didn't get that impression from the article. Were you referring to this one or something else you've heard. When I did my tour as an XO of a reserve center, we had a number of sailors called up who were in the IRR. The practice is nothing new. People may b!tch and moan, but eight years means eight years.
I see where you're coming from and can see how it could be misunderstood by J.Q. Public. I believe they ARE being forced back into service. HOWEVER, when they signed on the dotted line (and then subsequently left active duty) they knew (or should have) that getting recalled was a possibility. So in essence, they agreed beforehand that they could potentially be "forced" back into service. As for the phrase, "Involuntary Recall," that's exactly what it is. You can be a "Voluntary Recall" or an "Involuntary Recall."Little of Column A, Little of Column B. Its more from the language and choice of wording they use in the article (and others) that to Joe Q Civilian would look as though the military is out their screwing over people who dont actually still owe any commitment to the service.
Examples:
"there is no cap on the total number who may be forced back into service"
Could have use the term Reactivated but no that grabs the eye of the ever watchful libral reader who's looking for something else to complain about when it comes to the military. Even the phrase "Involuntary Recall" sets off a tone to it that it is wrong in some way.