It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Active Duty Time Limit Goes Bye Bye

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Only one day after President G.W.Bush demands more troops to fight his oil war in Iraq, the Army calls for Active Duty time limits to be extended to 24 months with a short break and then another possible 24 months in the war zone. The Armed services are also looking for authorization to increase their head-counts substantially.
 



hosted.ap.org
Jan 11, 7:08 PM EST


Pentagon Abandons Active-Duty Time Limit

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

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.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I remember a line from and old Chad and Jeremy song where a news announcer said "the war appears to spreading". A troop buildup, more time on the line for those already weary from years of service, and an escalation in the amount of soldiers serving. Where can this be going except down hill, with a recent strike and arrest of Iranian 'Diplomats', the rising power of Cleric Al-Sadyr, and the possible involvement of Syria in financing and training insurgent troops for the Iraq war.

Sorry there are no other links at this time, breaking news!

[edit on 11-1-2007 by 2stepsfromtop]

[edit on 11-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
SO, how do they propose to do this without "the draft"???

I cant wait to hear that the "Dems" are responsible for the draft...My foot they are. Its a freaking game between the parties. The whole thing was a set up. The president goes on record as saying he wants 21,500 troops, then the rest complain we need more troops. The president gets his troops plus more to fight in "his" war on"terror"....When is this madness going to end?

I do hope the Bush twins will be in the front lines in Iraq.

It has to be a draft- how else are they going to get anyone to join willingly to go die?????



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

SO, how do they propose to do this without "the draft"???


Thats what I was wanting to know. How are they going to increase troops by such a substanial number without using the draft? I know they have used sign up bonuses before but I am thinking that a draft is in the works.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Wow! So much for the neutrality of the opening paragraph, can't say that I'm surprised though.

Amway, the US armed force do no need a draft in order to send over an additional 20K troops to Iraq, nor do they need a draft to gradually increase the size of the active duty component of the military. It may surprise some of you to know that the active branches exceeded their recruitment quotas last year. Slowly by recruiting more the military will expand, no need for someone wet dream, aka draft.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Do not believe the lies about meeting quota Semper, the standards of recruiting has been lowered and before the people that join goes to boot camp many get eliminated and more will never finish boot camp.

Right now is no clear from what branch Bush will get his 20 thousand troops without hurting the military redeployment over all.

He no even have that many fresh troops in the marines alone.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Westpoint, I knew about them supposedly exceeding the quotas, but then the question becomes if they have more than ample recruits, why would they need to pull the crap they have been with extending troop deployments and breaking contracts? That part never made much sense to me. And where are all these star veterans who re-enlist on their own, and volunteer to go back? Between the new recruits and the re-enlisting veterans, I am really finding it hard to believe that they are forced to break contracts. Something is just not adding up here.

I can only imagine how a soldier would feel if he or she completed their deployment, was expecting to go home, forced to stay longer, and then got their ass shot off. After they fullfilled their part of the deal? I mean really. Let's add some more insult to injury. Assuming they were still alive, that is.


It'd be one thing if this country were being invaded. And we are: from Mexico. :shk: Well, what I mean is by a military force.
If it were that bad and we needed anyone and everyone to defend this country, I could see having to break contracts at that point. But to do this now? For this cause? When we can just look at Vietnam and see the results of a war attempted and then unsupported by the American people? That just pisses me off.

We all know where this is headed: down the drain. Why kill any more over there when you know here that popular support has pulled the plug? And further, why break enlistment contracts? It stinks I tell yas. Dead rotten.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Last year we were at the same number of troops we will be NOW when these troops get there...SO, Westpoint, are you saying that this time its going to be different than before??
How so?

And West, its this president who'se having a "dream" not us.
I cant even look at him...I had to listen...I can see past that facade of his...He's not even in his body. It gives me the creeps.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Right now is no clear from what branch Bush will get his 20 thousand troops without hurting the military redeployment over all.


By extending the tour for troops already in Iraq and stepping up the rotation dates for those already set to leave to Iraq is how it has been explained.

Only one element which was not to deploy this year will be deployed, the 2nd brigade of the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg. All other elements will deploy early.


mg



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
And West, its this president who'se having a "dream" not us.
I cant even look at him...I had to listen...I can see past that facade of his...He's not even in his body. It gives me the creeps.


I am starting to believe the alien conspiracy theories dg I think he is an alien.
a gray mask as human.

Missed_gear I understand, I imagine that having all this people with their redeployment broken is going to make our forces weak in case of an attack in our soil.

We have been invade from our borders and nobody cares, our president do no care at all.

Our nation is becoming very vulnerable and it seems that Mr. Bush likes it like that.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Missed_gear I understand, I imagine that having all this people with their redeployment broken is going to make our forces weak in case of an attack in our soil.

We have been invade from our borders and nobody cares, our president do no care at all.


These two issues are not related unless you would like to be specific on “been invade” and draw some parallels about “nobody cares”.


Originally posted by marg6043
Our nation is becoming very vulnerable and it seems that Mr. Bush likes it like that.


This nation was vulnerable, has been proven vulnerable; is vulnerable and will always be vulnerable as long as the populace allows it.

Blame others all you want…but understand first this is why the US is far less than before.


mg



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

These two issues are not related unless you would like to be specific on “been invade” and draw some parallels about “nobody cares”.


You are right is two issues one that TrueAmerican brought up.



This nation was vulnerable, has been proven vulnerable; is vulnerable and will always be vulnerable as long as the populace allows it.


Do not blame it only on the people, the citizens of this nation, blame it on the politicians that turn a blind eye and ear to the voices of the people the voters of this nation.



Blame others all you want…but understand first this is why the US is far less than before.


Like I say before . . . the corrupted politicians in our nation are destroying our nation.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by dgtempe
And West, its this president who'se having a "dream" not us.
I cant even look at him...I had to listen...I can see past that facade of his...He's not even in his body. It gives me the creeps.


I am starting to believe the alien conspiracy theories dg I think he is an alien.
a gray mask as human.

Missed_gear I understand, I imagine that having all this people with their redeployment broken is going to make our forces weak in case of an attack in our soil.

We have been invade from our borders and nobody cares, our president do no care at all.

Our nation is becoming very vulnerable and it seems that Mr. Bush likes it like that.


Perhaps you should do the arithmetic before jumping to conclusions-
There are approximately 100,000-120,000 Army and 20,000-40,000 USMC in Iraq.
There are approximately 20,000 Army in Afghanistan.
There are approximately 20,000 Army in Korea.
That leaves 360,000 Army not in Iraq/Afghanistan, and 135,000 USMC.
Then you have the National Guard, Reserve, and USMC reserve forces.
(some are deployed, most aren't). We will now be sending 21,500 more to Iraq. Explain to me how that leaves the continental US unprotected again. Are you worried about a ground invasion of the USA? There is no conventional threat to the US mainland, but we do have to be vigilant against terror attacks either by land, sea, or air though.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

SO, how do they propose to do this without "the draft"???


Thats what I was wanting to know. How are they going to increase troops by such a substanial number without using the draft? I know they have used sign up bonuses before but I am thinking that a draft is in the works.




The Army quota and USMC quota on new recruits and end strength, will be going up. More $$$ will be available for incentives to keep folks that are already in, in, as well as appealing to new recruits. As hard as it may be to believe, there are people that join the military to serve their country, and feel it to be patriotic. I know many of you think it's bogus patriotism, but there you have it.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV

Perhaps you should do the arithmetic before jumping to conclusions-
There are approximately 100,000-120,000 Army and 20,000-40,000 USMC in Iraq.


And you miss the point on the thread, extendig, adding or changing redeployment will put a burden on the exausted troops that are already oversea.

Now for the math,I got my husband and ex marine still actively working for the government.

He knows his math also about how Bush is going to get his bodies to keep his war and the marines will not be the ones putting out the 20 thousand troops.

thank you very much for the math class.


[edit on 12-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
GT100FV said:



That leaves 360,000 Army not in Iraq/Afghanistan, and 135,000 USMC.

Yes, but I believe that most of those are on rotation and are getting war weary?

Someone could expand on that?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
My point was that the US mainland wasn't devoid of soldiers and marines, that's all, in the event of a ground invasion.


I'm well aware of the US force being stretched thin, that's why I'm happy to hear that they finally want to increase the end strength for the Army and USMC, to relieve the stress on units. The additional 20,000 are going for a 90-180 day period, not a permanent augmentation by the way.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join