NEWS: US Army to summon 5,000 people from Individual Ready Reserve

The US Army is ordering approx 5,000 soldiers who have already completed their volunteer active-duty service commitment to serve involuntarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) is seldom used, it does provide the Army with a pool of soldiers who remain eligible to be called back and do not need to be re-trained. Currently there are 150,000 troops in Iraq, but that number is expected to drop to 138,000 this month.



With recruitment numbers dropping, and fewwer soldiers re-enlisting the Army seems to running out of options to keep enough boots on the ground to fight an effective war.

Another round of mobilization from the IRR is expected this summer.
[edit on 25-3-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by negativenihil]

Good article ,I hope this doesn't happen. I know some guys who are waiting to get out, and this would muddy the waters for them.

[edit on 3/25/2005 by phreak_of_nature]

Good report!

There is something about the words "serve involuntarily" that bother me.

Sounds kinda drafty'

Ha, the military most be really in trouble when they have not choice that to raised the age limit to 40 and then come out with recalls like this.

That tells how the views of our fights against Terror may have change since the terrible days after 9/11 when Americans felt patriotic enough to go to the recruiting offices to offer their services.

Even my husband did it, to be told he was already retired and over 40.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Good report!

There is something about the words "serve involuntarily" that bother me.

Sounds kinda drafty'

When people "voluntarily join the military", they know they are available to be send anywhere the armed forces need them, even if they don't want to go there. It is part of the contract which they signed "voluntarily".

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
When people "voluntarily join the military", they know they are available to be send anywhere the armed forces need them, even if they don't want to go there. It is part of the contract which they signed "voluntarily".

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Muaddib]

This is true... however, the people being called up have already completed the service they had agreed to.

These aren't people trying to back out of active duty.

- ROUND 2 of more intense worrying-
my brother is over 40 and he is going back- he says it won't be anything like the first time-

Read the fine print.

The government is well in its rights to do this according to the contracts signed by the affected people. This is still a far cry from a draft.

Guys...seriously...get over the use of the word "involuntarily". You're getting hung up over nothing. When I signed up in the National Guard for "Six years", I KNEW that if all heck broke loose, I'd be eligible for an EXTRA two years to be called back. We all knew it, and we all signed. We're over it. I wish the civilians would get over it too.

Originally posted by negativenihil

This is true... however, the people being called up have already completed the service they had agreed to.

These aren't people trying to back out of active duty.

You are reading it wrong, they have not completed the service...they just completed their active duty service... normally when you join in the military you have to serve about 4 years of active duty and then 4 more years in the reserves, where the armed forces can call you if needed. i think in the army is like 3 years of active duty and 5 years in the reserve?... i am not sure, I was never in the Army.

When you sign the military contract you sign for 8 years, or however long you sign for, not only the 4 years or so of active duty, but also for the duration of the individual ready reserve time.

BTW, the time you serve depends pretty much on what rating (Job) you sign for, in some ratings you serve more, in some others you serve less.



[edit on 25-3-2005 by Muaddib]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Muaddib]

this is something the media loves to put out. Like the government is going out and kidnapping ex-military people and throwing them in an van against their will. I served 10 years in the Air Force, when I signed my original enlistment, I knew that I would have 4 years active duty and 2 years inactive reserves where I could be called back if needed. The fact that I served 10 years active duty satisfies any inactive service that I would have owed.

This is not some secret conspiracy by the government. It is part of the contract signed by military members.

Originally posted by Muaddib
When you sign the military contract you sign for 8 years, or however long you sign for, not only the 4 years or so of active duty, but also for the duration of the individual ready reserve time.

Ok, i probably could have worded my last post better, my bad.

I am fully aware of how these contracts work, as I have several friends and family who are active in various branches of the military. The article makes it sound as if they are calling people up WAY after the fact.

Originally posted by negativenihil

Ok, i probably could have worded my last post better, my bad.

I am fully aware of how these contracts work, as I have several friends and family who are active in various branches of the military. The article makes it sound as if they are calling people up WAY after the fact.

Actually, you can see in the article that whoever wrote it, was trying to make it sound worse than it really is... Unfortunately the media does this more often than they don't, even if they have to lie or exagerate what is really hapening.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by Muaddib
When you sign the military contract you sign for 8 years, or however long you sign for, not only the 4 years or so of active duty, but also for the duration of the individual ready reserve time.

The article makes it sound as if they are calling people up WAY after the fact.

this is my point exactly.

I hope it's just a case of media sensationalism, but it seems like every few weeks we hear about more and more reservists and retirees being called back to service...

WAR: 26 year Forced Enlistment "Stop loss" Plan
www.abovetopsecret.com...
40,000 US Troops serving in Iraq & the "War on Terrorism" may be forced into enlistment until 24 DEC 2031 or 26 years of further service!
Currently 7000+ Troops serving in Iraq have had their Enlistments extended past the Service termination date.

OP/ED: No back door draft?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WAR: Marines Fall Short of Monthly Recruiting
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I hope it's just a case of media sensationalism, but it seems like every few weeks we hear about more and more reservists and retirees being called back to service...

WAR: 26 year Forced Enlistment "Stop loss" Plan
www.abovetopsecret.com...
40,000 US Troops serving in Iraq & the "War on Terrorism" may be forced into enlistment until 24 DEC 2031 or 26 years of further service!
Currently 7000+ Troops serving in Iraq have had their Enlistments extended past the Service termination date.

26 year stop loss? that's just ridiculous. I was affected by stop loss when I got out of the Air Force after 9/11. It held me up about 6 or 7 months. The fact that it says until 2031 just means that they don't have an end date for stop loss. Stop loss is always open ended like that, but I assure you they are not trying to keep people for 26 years.



[edit on 25-3-2005 by trogdor]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by trogdor]

Why don't more people support our troops? When they really need it? Serving your active duty time honorably, you understand if you get called back for a national emergency, not gross incompetence. These men and women did their time, it's not their fault we are fighting a "war" that was poorly planned and executed. If you supported the troops, you'd be outraged that these servicemen and women aren't allowed to start normal lives. No, you don't support the troops, you don't have their welfare at heart, you support the government. Above the troops, and how they deserve to be treated fighting for you and your freedoms.

Originally posted by curme
No, you don't support the troops, you don't have their welfare at heart, you support the government. Above the troops, and how they deserve to be treated fighting for you and your freedoms.

don't tell me I don't support the troops. I have a brother who is an Air Force pilot and was taken from his job as a commercial pilot to fly in and out of Baghdad over and over again. Guess what, I support him and every one of the troops serving and sacrificing over there. Funny, I never hear the troops complaining about it, just the peacnik freaks protesting the war. I'm sure they just have the troops' best interest at heart though. I'm sure it's not political at all.

Why wasn't there such outrage when stop loss was implemented by Clinton? Did all the media just not notice? Where were all the protestors at that are all the sudden so concerned about the troops well-being?

www.defenselink.mil...

Originally posted by Ghaleon4
Guys...seriously...get over the use of the word "involuntarily". You're getting hung up over nothing. When I signed up in the National Guard for "Six years", I KNEW that if all heck broke loose, I'd be eligible for an EXTRA two years to be called back. We all knew it, and we all signed. We're over it. I wish the civilians would get over it too.

Thanks for the sacrifice Ghaleon4 & thanks from bringing some sensibility into this conversation (subject/thread). Yeah, I sure there's some service folks that would rather be home with the wife & kids rather than back out slaving for Uncle Sam again, but they all understand when they signed up it was a possibility. I think most of the whining is coming from people who are not even directly effected by this - they just hate the war machine and the administration that pulls its strings.


[edit on 25-3-2005 by outsider]