TOPICS
TOPICS
Policy change could mean recalls for thousands of reservists
Part-time citizen-soldiers who have already served a yearlong tour in Iraq or Afghanistan can now be recalled to active duty for a second year's tour, the Pentagon announced this week in a reversal of a long-standing policy that limited Guard and Reserve deployment times.
The policy that kept Guard or Reserve members' cumulative time on active duty to not more than 24 months in a 5-year period no longer applies, said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the move was intended to expand the pool of available troops to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and lessen the strains on the active duty military stretched thin by repeated combat deployments.
Previously, Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq typically served 18 months on active duty: six months in pre-deployment training and 12 months on the ground. That 18-month active deployment meant that they could not be called up again, as it would exceed the 24-month cumulative time limit.
The policy change, coupled with President Bush's announcement this week of an increase in the total troop numbers deployed to Iraq, means thousands of reservists can expect recall notices within the next few months. Gates said the increase in Iraq troop strength will require that "a number of selected Guard and Reserve units be remobilized," although neither he nor Pace would specify which units would be affected.
Gates said the policy change is a temporary measure necessary because of "today's global demands," and that the eventual goal is for Guard and Reserve units to be mobilized for one year, followed by five years of demobilization. Troops no longer will be called up on an individual basis, he said. Instead, entire units will be mobilized.
Guard and Reserve commanders have decried the Pentagon's policy since Sept. 11 of plucking individual soldiers out of reserve units for deployment on an as-needed basis. They said the practice leads to a breakdown in unit cohesion.
The increase in overall Iraq troop numbers announced by Bush Wednesday will be achieved by keeping some units already there longer than expected and speeding up the deployment times of units preparing to go. The president's plan calls for 20,000 additional troops to be sent to Iraq over the next few months.
The five active-duty combat brigades that will deploy already have been announced. A Pentagon statement Thursday said, "Other combat-support and combat-service-support units may also be deployed as necessary once new requirements are assessed."
Gates also announced other policy changes that affect the Reserve:
- A new program has been created to compensate individuals on both active duty and in the reserves who must mobilize or deploy earlier than previously required.
- Commanders have been directed to review their administration of the hardship waiver program to ensure that they have properly taken into account exceptional circumstances facing military families of deployed troops.
COMMENTS
- Charlie, I appreciate your e-mail but when I got to your sentence, "this is war." I had to respond. I must be really slow this morning. In every war America has fought there was a recognizable opponent-- the British, Spanish, Germans (twice), Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc. Who exactly are we fighting in this war? The Sunni radicals are blowing up the Shi'ites and the Shi'ites just hung Hussein and are terrorizing the Sunnis and in that other "war" over in the poppy fields of Afganistan our good friends the Pakastanis are supplying arms to the Taliban. Yes, we have managed to ensure that these radicals are being kept busy at home killing each other so they don't bomb America. But for how long will this "war" against an invisible enemy continue. And -- as the Israelis keep learning the hard way -- you can't defeat terrorists with tanks and planes. You can defeat it by giving people a reason to build instead of destroy. GovExec.com reader Posted January 19, 2007 7:10 AM
- Well, good volleys all around. Charlie and Vet both have valid points. First, a point of order. Perhaps I was asleep but, when was war legally declared? To my knowledge there hasn’t be a war in a number of decades. And we all know there are specific and legal reasons sitting presidents avoid that action. It’s due to the oversight requirements that automatically kick in. Yes, Reserve and Guard personnel have been paid retainers for services both rendered and due in the future. Right or wrong, the vision of that reservist in “Rambo” comes to mind, to paraphrase, “I didn’t sign up for this.” Despite the changing role and requirements put on both services, a commendable number of those soldiers have honored their commitments, often to the determent of their families, careers, and health. Still, Vet has a point. In a climate of growing disillusionment, with no end in sight, many soldiers will weigh their familial responsibilities with their retirement benefits and that balance is changing. Yes, for many it will come down to the fact that they must determine if the danger outweighs the benefit, for many are failing to see the justification and/or righteousness of that “war”. And I can’t blame a single one of them. GovExec.com reader Posted January 18, 2007 9:16 AM
- It would be nice if just one of the Bush twins would volunteer for military service. Both are 23 years old, and in the prime of their lives. They wouldn't have to join the Marines or the Army. They could join the Air Force, and be stationed in Germany. But at least this would show that there is something on the line here for the politicians. F. Johnson Posted January 17, 2007 4:21 PM
