Sick of Reservists
One of the few sore spots I have about the current state of the Department of Defense is the heavy reliance on Reserve and National Guard elements. After the Cold War, there was a manpower reduction that continued through the Clinton Administration, and seems to be continuing to this day in some elements of the military infrastructure. A lot of the jobs that used to be done by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are now done by civilian contractors so that actual military personnel can concentrate on the jobs that only they can do.
Part of the fallout of this shift is a greater reliance on National Guard and Reserve elements. These are the folks that show up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year under normal circumstances. A lot of the time they'll fill sandbags when there's flooding, and after 9/11 a lot of them did airport security. In return, they get money for college, or job training, or something to write on a CV, with the understanding that they'll be deployed if and when America needs them.
I've known some great Reserve and National Guard folks. One of pillars of the conservative world at university is a now-discharged Marine reservist. One of my instructors in high school was an Air National Guard Master Sergeant. A former friend's former roommate was (much to my surprise) in the Army National Guard. They were all good folks, and with the exception of the third, probably very professional and capable.
That having been said, it seems that most of the problems coming out of Iraq are being caused by Reservists and National Guardsmen, not by active duty personnel. The guys who are expected to be disciplined and professional on a daily basis aren't the problem. Who's the guy who's on every newspaper and television news program for questioning Secretary Rumsfeld about the HMMWV armor? A National Guardsman named Specialist Thomas Wilson who's been coached by someone in the media; of course, nobody's publicizing this interview (link via Right Thinking) that says that Specialist Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about. Who were the folks who perpetrated Abu Ghraib? Reservists. What about those Quartermaster Corps folks who mutinied? You guessed it. Reservists.
Please do not get me wrong. I appreciate Revervists and National Guardsmen, and the majority of them are American heroes. There are two problems I seem to be seeing. First, all of the bad press about the military coming out of Iraq, the questioning of authority, the screwing off, the disobeying orders or regulations or laws, it all seems to be coming from the non-active duty side of the house. The second problem is that all of the folks who seem to be whining about wanting to go home are Reservists or National Guardsmen who signed on the dotted line to get their free T-shirt and a few grand for college, and now that they have to actually face some real action, they whine about not getting what they were contracted for.
Now hear this: if you weren't prepared to go, you shouldn't have signed up.
This is such a frustrating thing to post about, because it's another case of the few making the many look bad. It just seems to me that it's almost always the reserve element that's in the news for some scandal, or some story published by the mainstream media about how poorly equipped, or how unjustly deployed our troops are. It's a simple concept, particularly in an all-volunteer military: Reservists and National Guardsmen get a pretty sweet deal. The flipside of that deal is that they will be employed according to the needs of the nation if a need arises, and since they haven't made the jump to full-time active duty, providing them with brand new equipment is a lower priority than getting it to active duty folks. It doesn't matter whether or not they agree with being deployed; they serve at the order of the Commander-in-Chief. I'll guarantee you that there were a lot of aggravated military personnel whenever President Clinton sent the military on some hair-brained, half-assed mission to take the news off of his shortcomings. Military personnel have the legal ability to quit at any time, and if they choose to do so, they can suffer the consequences. They voluntarily signed the contract as adults, and as adults they are responsible for such actions. It's the irresponsibility that bugs me most of all.
If you're a Reservist or Guardsman, and you've read this, and you've done your duty to protect freedom, good on you and more importantly, THANK YOU. If you're a Reservist or Guardsman, you've read this, and you've whined about how the Pentagon has violated your contract as part of a "back door draft," please do us all a favor: do your job, finish your time, and don't reenlist. Save us all the money and the headache.
UPDATE: Just to prove that I don't see the world in black and white, here's an article reproduced at Free Republic about some gung-ho National Guardsmen.
For those of you unfamiliar with Free Republic, and thus wondering where I get off just quoting their stuff all the time, Free Republic has a lot of people who post a lot of articles; probably a few hundred per day. If I find something good on there, I link to it (though I try to use it as sparingly as possible) and add my own commentary. You're here for my commentary anyway, right?
Part of the fallout of this shift is a greater reliance on National Guard and Reserve elements. These are the folks that show up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year under normal circumstances. A lot of the time they'll fill sandbags when there's flooding, and after 9/11 a lot of them did airport security. In return, they get money for college, or job training, or something to write on a CV, with the understanding that they'll be deployed if and when America needs them.
I've known some great Reserve and National Guard folks. One of pillars of the conservative world at university is a now-discharged Marine reservist. One of my instructors in high school was an Air National Guard Master Sergeant. A former friend's former roommate was (much to my surprise) in the Army National Guard. They were all good folks, and with the exception of the third, probably very professional and capable.
That having been said, it seems that most of the problems coming out of Iraq are being caused by Reservists and National Guardsmen, not by active duty personnel. The guys who are expected to be disciplined and professional on a daily basis aren't the problem. Who's the guy who's on every newspaper and television news program for questioning Secretary Rumsfeld about the HMMWV armor? A National Guardsman named Specialist Thomas Wilson who's been coached by someone in the media; of course, nobody's publicizing this interview (link via Right Thinking) that says that Specialist Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about. Who were the folks who perpetrated Abu Ghraib? Reservists. What about those Quartermaster Corps folks who mutinied? You guessed it. Reservists.
Please do not get me wrong. I appreciate Revervists and National Guardsmen, and the majority of them are American heroes. There are two problems I seem to be seeing. First, all of the bad press about the military coming out of Iraq, the questioning of authority, the screwing off, the disobeying orders or regulations or laws, it all seems to be coming from the non-active duty side of the house. The second problem is that all of the folks who seem to be whining about wanting to go home are Reservists or National Guardsmen who signed on the dotted line to get their free T-shirt and a few grand for college, and now that they have to actually face some real action, they whine about not getting what they were contracted for.
Now hear this: if you weren't prepared to go, you shouldn't have signed up.
This is such a frustrating thing to post about, because it's another case of the few making the many look bad. It just seems to me that it's almost always the reserve element that's in the news for some scandal, or some story published by the mainstream media about how poorly equipped, or how unjustly deployed our troops are. It's a simple concept, particularly in an all-volunteer military: Reservists and National Guardsmen get a pretty sweet deal. The flipside of that deal is that they will be employed according to the needs of the nation if a need arises, and since they haven't made the jump to full-time active duty, providing them with brand new equipment is a lower priority than getting it to active duty folks. It doesn't matter whether or not they agree with being deployed; they serve at the order of the Commander-in-Chief. I'll guarantee you that there were a lot of aggravated military personnel whenever President Clinton sent the military on some hair-brained, half-assed mission to take the news off of his shortcomings. Military personnel have the legal ability to quit at any time, and if they choose to do so, they can suffer the consequences. They voluntarily signed the contract as adults, and as adults they are responsible for such actions. It's the irresponsibility that bugs me most of all.
If you're a Reservist or Guardsman, and you've read this, and you've done your duty to protect freedom, good on you and more importantly, THANK YOU. If you're a Reservist or Guardsman, you've read this, and you've whined about how the Pentagon has violated your contract as part of a "back door draft," please do us all a favor: do your job, finish your time, and don't reenlist. Save us all the money and the headache.
UPDATE: Just to prove that I don't see the world in black and white, here's an article reproduced at Free Republic about some gung-ho National Guardsmen.
For those of you unfamiliar with Free Republic, and thus wondering where I get off just quoting their stuff all the time, Free Republic has a lot of people who post a lot of articles; probably a few hundred per day. If I find something good on there, I link to it (though I try to use it as sparingly as possible) and add my own commentary. You're here for my commentary anyway, right?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home