Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Re-enlistment flap at Fort Carson. Were they threatened?

by Angeline Booher / September 17, 2004 12:45 AM PDT
COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.

Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity.



A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty.
"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html

It seems pretty plain to me after reading the bottom of the article.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Re-enlistment flap at Fort Carson. Were they threatened?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Re-enlistment flap at Fort Carson. Were they threatened?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: Re-enlistment flap at Fort Carson. Were they threatene
by Dan McC / September 17, 2004 1:50 AM PDT

What a great way to treat our boys in uniform. And a great way to recognize their service.

*sigh*

Dan

Collapse -
Re: Re-enlistment flap at Fort Carson. Were they threatene
by Angeline Booher / September 17, 2004 2:05 AM PDT

IMO, it would have been proper for them to be well informed about the end result of the 2 options.

But it appears that was not the approach.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU!!!
by Catgic / September 17, 2004 2:43 AM PDT

Angeline?now you went and do?ed it. You clicked on one of my citizen duty ?hot buttons.? Let me comment in 25 words or less?not a chance?but I will exercise key board rattling self control.

What?s being done to soldiers from Fort Carson is an All-American travesty. I know the story is true, because I have Rummie?s likely behavior calibrated from back in 1976, when he had the same job in the Ford Administration.

This problem is just the tip of the Military Service Manpower System iceberg.

Yes, we beat Iraq and the Taliban down to ?parade rest? with our smart weapons and world-class military might. It was no contest. I also knew of an 8th Grader in my Grade School graduating class who used to regularly beat up on 3rd Graders. It was no contest either.

The problem with today?s military service manpower system is an insidious one. Let me focus on the true health and history of Our Military Manpower System.

21st Century USA society-culture no longer believes in the concept of a Citizen Army, raised and pressed into SERVICE to defend God, Country and Constitution, as was the case in our 1776 Revolution; War of 1812, Civil War; Spanish American War; WWI; WWII; the Korean War and for Vietnam?s War.

In all wars fought using conscription, special laws and regulations were created by the government (under voting faction-lobbyist pressure) that made it easy for the wealthy and well connected to escape military service through deferments. Of course, all drafts over the years had various types and levels of deferment.

In the Civil War, it was even possible for one citizen to pay another citizen to do THEIR military service for THEM. WWII used a lottery system based on a ?draft the oldest man first? concept, with special subcategories of deferments running from 1A through 4F. If you were a ?milkman-teamster in New York? you were considered ?critical to national defense,? and could get and maintain a ?critical skills? draft deferment.

In the ~15-years of the Vietnam Era, they had a deferment system, as well as a lottery system that was used. The deferment system was similar to the one used in WWII. The Lottery System used later, was based on a random drawing of 366 plastic capsules. Each ?LOTTO? number representing the ?Julian-Calendar Date? of each day of the year including the extra ?leap day? in a Leap Year. Vietnam?s draft system included the well known, and much publicized student deferment and other special deferments such as critical skills, etc. This system of deferments still exists (though the draft is currently in the head-count only mode), and is still largely an ?elitist? one structured and designed to give those deemed ?more valuable? or of higher socioeconomic status ?deferments from death.? Those who can afford to go to and stay in college-school, and ?get good grades? or ?good jobs? can escape or delay being drafted.

President Clinton?s much publicized ROTC and student deferments, and Bush II's ANG Service are examples of such deferment ?escape? vehicles used, by some during the Vietnam Era to legally get ?deferments from death.?

Military conscription was not an issue 200+ years ago when our United States fought and won our War of Independence-Rebellion against Great Britain. If the U.S. Constitution had authorized a draft, there would have been no union of the 13 rebellious states.

Historian Jack Franklin Leach observes that, ?It is quite likely that, had the delegates at Philadelphia expanded the power ?to raise and support armies? by adding the phrase, ?by voluntary means, and if necessary by draft upon the male population,? to it, they would have generated insurmountable opposition through out the country and in the state ratifying conventions.?

Many federal powers that would once have been inconceivable in the past seem normal today, including ?the draft.? The very first U.S. draft was instituted to raise an army to fight the Civil War. The next major conflict was the Spanish American War, but it was fought without compulsory military service. Hence, Teddy Roosevelt?s now famous ?volunteer Rough Riders? came to the rescue?charging up San Juan Hill.

The U. S. Congress and FDR had already technically entered the U.S. into WWII when, in 1940, Congress passed, and FDR approved, the first ?peacetime? draft in stealth preparation for the U.S. formally entering WWII. The Lend-Lease Bill passed with FDR signing it nine months before Pearl Harbor. As a point of data, the U. S. Census form for the 1940 Census (crafted, approved and printed up back in 1939, long before Pearl Harbor), made a point to count and track those Americans-Residents of Japanese racial origins. So FDR & Company was already covertly spinning up for Pearl Harbor?s ?Surprise Attack,? way back in 1939.

Military conscription continued after WWII, with one short break, until 1973. In 1973 President Nixon inaugurated the All-Volunteer Force (AVF), largely in response to the decade of social conflict and protests over the Vietnam War.

This was the beginning of the end of the concept of a citizen soldier, drawn from a cross-section of our Nation, as well as the end of TRUE MILITARY SERVICE. Except for the professional Regular military, Duty, Honor, Country is now something we pay some other ?poor schlub? citizen to do for us. Kind of like the old Civil War approach of paying someone else to go serve and die in one?s place.

Back ?in the day,? the U. S. Navy used to have a recruiting slogan that went, ?It?s Not a Job, It?s an Adventure!!!? After inauguration of Nixon?s 1973 AVF, that slogan should have been turned around to say, ?It?s Not an Adventure, It?s a Job!!!?

Using the vernacular of the high tech world, beginning in 1973 the dirty business of war was out-sourced to volunteer African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Caucasian-Americans, Asian-Americans and Multi-Racial Americans who were looking for employment, upward mobility and opportunity.

As a result, our society today has devolved into maintaining an Armed Force of volunteer ?citizen? mercenaries. No longer is there a Pearl Harbor crisis call-to-arms answered by citizen militia, drawn from a cross-section of American citizenry, and led by a few military professionals like those who fought the Red Coats at Concord.

No citizen militia Paul Reveres were on duty 09112001 waiting and watching for a ?One if by land, two if by sea and three if by air? signal to warn us that the Rag-headed ?Red Coats? were coming to fly two fully fueled jetliners into the North & South WTC Towers located near the corner of Liberty St. & Joe DiMaggio Highway?Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

Today?s American Society, through our elected politicians, now uses a narrow sector of out-sourced employee-citizens to do the job of providing for the common defense. These employee-citizens ?volunteer? because, for the most part, their other upward mobility and opportunity options don?t exist or are very limited. WE as a Nation of self-centered Sheep, accept this communal unfairness because, as a group, we would rather watch CNN and see the ?other guy?s kid? return home at Dover AFB inside a flag draped coffin. WE are glad to go down to the local chain grocery store or florist shop, and buy a bouquet of flowers to pile up or a candle to burn at a curb side memorial, in front of someone else?s house. There is no longer any true ?military service,? rather the military has become just another government funded employment program for ?minorities.?

The U.S. Armed Forces have been transformed from a citizen army, populated by a cross-section of American citizenry fighting for their country, into a mercenary global police force, maintained and inordinately manned and wo-manned by society?s poor or under-unemployed citizens. These American volunteers consist largely of Blacks, Hispanics, the Multi-Racial followed closely by blue-collar Caucasians and Asians.

Beginning with Nixon in 1973, what I call the New Elite-Noble Class emerged to manage and influence the U. S. Congress, and the various Democratic and Republican Administrations into maintaining this patently unfair mercenary U. S. Citizen global police force structure.

The demographics of today?s Volunteer Military Citizen Employees do not come close to matching the cross-sectional demographics of the general citizenry in today?s U. S. society. This makes today?s military service manpower system unfair.

Collapse -
Re: UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU!!!
by Angeline Booher / September 17, 2004 4:49 AM PDT
In reply to: UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU!!!

I read every one of those 25 words! Happy

You gave an excellent review of military service over the years.

As my family is loaded with career military, I will speak only to that with which I disagree.

As there are none living from the Civil War, I'm going by "Gone With the Wind" which I think realistically showed how pumped up the young men were who rode off to save the South. I am old enough to have seen men forming a line outside of my local recruiting stations in WWII. I suspect that, in both cases, there was a cause worth fighting for. We gave up our seats on buses and trains for those in uniform.

We had little proper equipment to offer them at first, many using wooden guns to train. After all, WWI was "The War To End All Wars". Not learning our lesson, we disarmed and discharged too quickly after WWII. Then came the Korea "Police Action".

(The pre-WWII "stealth" draft ignored supplying the draftees properly.)

Between wars I vividly remember an attitude expressed that the only ones who were in the service were those who couldn't get a job, were illiterate. It was where parents put their unruly sons "to learn some discipline!"

I don't know if draftees or enlisted fought harder. Both died.

So, I have to say I approve of the all-volunteer services. They require a high school level education The technologies that have been developed cannot be handled by drop-outs. Some choose to make it their career. Those who do not are prepared for the civilian sector. Yes, there is a promise of reward - "Earn money for college". To that I'll add that college classes are readily available on or near the posts and bases while they are on active duty (if not deployed).

For my career-oriented officer daughter, a Masters Degree is required for her to be considered for high-level promotion. For those who say that this does not make a person smarter, it does speak to the self-discipline and dedication.

Base closings were done because we didn't need them. There was a cry from the areas where they were located, and no doubt an injurious effect on their economy. Conversely, there were places where the civilians took advantage of the servicemen by charging outrageous rents, for example.

The draw-down was another matter. As you said, our role was becoming global, and we soon were spread too thin. As you pointed out, jobs were given to the civilian sector. This all was done to save money.

Tax payers were not that happy paying for a military after the Cold War ended.

The official web sites are now restricted, and so I cannot get the statistics. But, from the last time I saw them. I believe that your demographic break down is not correct.

In any case, I see nothing "unfair" about offering opportunity to those who qualify.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU!!! You?re a glutton for punishment .
by Catgic / September 17, 2004 9:43 AM PDT

Angeline, you?re a glutton for punishment Wink

Most faint of heart click open one of my 25 words or less e-tomes, then quickly gasp and launch them to the recycle bin before giving them a fair read. You?re gracious to not do so.

By any chance are you a ?divine? southern lady, with life membership in the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, like my Bride-For-Life?

You may have already guessed from some of my Shellback posts, I am Career Navy. I was pulled up from the ranks by King Neptunus on Terra Firma, Hymie Rickover, and educated in hard Engineering at that old Confederate Boys School, just down the pike from you there in the Volunteer State.

Congratulations to you on your successful, career-oriented officer daughter. Your daughter's Masters Degree will get her ticket punched for the race up the promotion ladder. Smartness comes from God and the dice throw at the edge of the gene-pool. Without self-discipline and dedication nothing worth while is achieved. I took my Masters in IT Technology and Management at USNPS. It gave me my proven subspecialty in Information Technology & Engineering, and was the launch pad for my post-Navy career.

Clearly, the Generation of the Great Depression ?form[ed] lines outside of my local recruiting stations in WWII? after Pearl Harbor, that?s why they?re called The Greatest Generation.

I saw no long lines forming outside of recruiting stations after 9/11, did you? Does that mean that this generation will be called "The All Volunteer Military Generation?" There were no queuing up of lines of Patriots, because John & Jane Q. Public thought it wasn't their "darling's" job to fight for Duty, Honor, Country. Rather, they believed it was the ?job? of that AVM "darling" volunteer-down-the-street to go fight and die for their country, while they got to sit and watch it on CNN each evening.

I must admit, the old sea dog in me awakened, and I got the "war horse's" urge to dust off my flight suit and pack my sea bag. But war is a very young man's and woman's game. I spent my youth ?fighting and winning? the Cold War, that?s enough for one lifetime. Of course, my Bride-For-Life's ?Come to your senses? order helped craft my decision not to pack my sea bag Grin

The draft years ?attitude expressed that the only ones who were in the service, were those who couldn't get a job? survives in today?s culture. Parents no longer ?put their unruly sons 'in-the-service' to grow up and learn some discipline!? Rather, today's young testosterone drenched boy-men, get lost in the Public education system or end up doing Juvee or jail time. In my observation of and dealings with today's AVM force members, they are smarter, higher quality, more focused and dedicated than the military member norms during the draft years.

I too, ?see nothing ?unfair? about offering opportunity to those who qualify." What is ?unfair? is many cross-demographic citizens ?are qualified,? but because of their family wealth, social class and the like, most don?t have to offer up the temple of their soul in exchange for ?opportunity.?

The AVM mechanism is just not egalitarian enough for me.

Here is where we really part ways, Angeline. You approve of (and I assume, believe in) the all-volunteer services. I also ?approve of? the AVM, but don?t ?believe in? the AVM.

I believe in some sort of universal national service obligation, much like I?ve observed in countries like Taiwan and Israel. No citizen is exempt, no lifelong or family influence deferments. All U.S. citizens must become stake holders by giving something to Uncle Sam's service.

This government service requirement could be fulfilled through military service, civil service or public service. Because of today?s national accommodation laws for the disabled, even the handicapped would be asked to serve in and contribute to Uncle Sam.

Thanks for your eye balls, time, assessment, opinion and polished key board rattling.

Collapse -
You should thank the radical 60s generation rather than
by Kiddpeat / September 17, 2004 2:31 PM PDT

Nixon for the all volunteer military. It was they who made military service a contemptable thing. They were in no small measure motivated to save their own butts. Nixon merely took the politically expeditious course.

Collapse -
I am a member of the real radical 60s generation.
by Catgic / September 17, 2004 8:20 PM PDT

I am a member of the real radical 60s generation. Marching in the streets isn?t ?radical,? dodging ?incoming? is. My Band of ?Radical? Brothers and Sisters were busy radically protesting ?incoming,? while trying to help the democracy inclined Vietnamese drain the swamp of Indo-China.

The radical 1960?s were highlighted by: 1. The failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, JFK approved just four months into his Camelot reign; 2. JFK?s Cuban Crisis brinkmanship war games with Khrushchev; 3. The ?radical? stealth war plans, he and SECDEF McNamara developed to escalate our involvement in Vietnam after JFK won the 1964 Presidential Elections.

With JFK?s Assassination, LBJ inherited and implemented JFK?s Vietnam Albatross consisting of JFK?s Defense Team and the JFK-McNamara Post-Election, Vietnam War Escalation Plan. LBJ later regretted it, and sat out Election 1968 leaving Nixon to win it.

Once in office, Tricky **** went forward with a Kissinger inspired plan built upon deserting our South Vietnamese friends, allies and ARVN comrades-in-arms. RMN cut this unholy deal with Ho Chi Min?s North Vietnamese January 27, 1973, bringing the Vietnam War to a dishonorable end rather than an honorable one. Nixon instituted the AVM just a few months later.

?Nixon?took the politically expeditious course? because he was a politician. It was the troika of Republican Nixon, the Democratic Congress and the moderate majority Citizenry ?sav[ing] their own butts? that brought the AVM into existence, not ?the radical 60s generation.? The 1960?s cut-and-runners in the streets only helped Walter Cronkite?s TV ratings.

Military service is not ?a contemptible (sic) thing,? as you contemptuously opine. For a free-citizen, responding to the call of ?Duty, Honor, Country,? is the highest calling there is. Who else will assure their fellow U.S. citizens continue to remain safe, and free to enjoy the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness our Forefather?s guaranteed U.S. citizens in our Constitution.

If you feel you have special knowledge to share with the Speakeasy Forum about an important subject like the AVM, please do SE members the courtesy of offering more then just a brief key rattled three sentence over-the-shoulder e-remark about ?Nixon? and the ?60s generation.?

You could be right, I may be wrong, but three short e-sentences won?t win me over to your opinion.

Collapse -
Re: Re-enlistment flap at Fort Carson. Were they threatene
by Evie / September 17, 2004 2:52 AM PDT
"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months.

I don't really see the problem here. Am I missing something? It sounds like this particular outfit is going to be restructured. Preference to remain in the unit will go to those that elect to reenlist, and those that don't will be reassigned where the Army needs them. Last I checked, when you sign up, you are never guaranteed any assignment. We are at war, seems logical that given that fact, reassignment to "where they are needed" would include Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said.

Threat? Maybe. Or just saying it like it is.

Evie Happy
Collapse -
Sounds more like some misunderstanding...
by Edward ODaniel / September 17, 2004 6:04 AM PDT

because first of all re-enlistments can only happen during a very specific window near the end of an enlistment. This statement attributed to one of the enlisted soldiers is indicative of just such a misunderstanding because "whole platoons" very seldom are in the re-enlistment window at the same time--even just 10% would be unusual:
"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.

Options are always provided because depending on rank and specific window an option available this week may not be available next week.

The closer one gets to end of enlistment the less options are available and the more emphatic become the needs of the service.

TOE and TDA only authorize just so many slots per unit per rank so guarantees go to the early re-up personnel.

If a unit is undergoing reorganization there is a better chance that uncommitted personnel will be transferred BUT most in that position would also be too "short" to be considered for levy for any overseas duty. I can't remember the exact time constraints but I seem to remember that one had to have enough time remaining in their current enlistment to complete 2/3 of the normal tour before DA would consider them for levy.

The last paragraphs really demonstrate that the author of this piece saw a story and didn't do much basckground checking (and the elipsis in the quoted form raises questions as to what was not quoted). The "date certain" of 31 Dec, 2007 is also indicative of not enough fact checking again because one has to be in the proper window and it sounds like they are targetting those within the 90 day window who would be present to re-enlist with an enlistment expiration of 31 Dec, 2004 or later. Enlistments are in whole year increments only (for varying periods such as three years or six years).

I suggest keeping your eye on this and it will soon resemble a tempest in a teapot.

Collapse -
Re: Re-enlistment flap at Fort Carson. Were they threatene
by Roger NC / September 17, 2004 9:22 AM PDT

I'm not that familiar with procedures.

However, I suspect someone locally got a bit overzealous and over stressed the "carrot and stick" method of persuasion.

In reality, if I understand such, the promise to be locked into the current Bridgade could be re-evaluated any time it was determined the Arm's need was different.

And while I don't understand all the nuances, is the stop-loss limited to the troops actually in Iraq? I'd think it could be applied even here in the US if the specific job being filled was scarce on manpower because of all the deployments. I'm just as likely to be wrong as right on that I'll admit.

I strongly suspect that someone did imply if not state that re-enlistment would increase the chances not to go to Iraq. Enlistment officiers have been known to be overly enthusaistic in promises before in their discussions with new and re-elisting recuits. So I wouldn't put veiled threats out of the realm of possibilities.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.