# Inactive US marines face call-up



## big bad john (23 Aug 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5276938.stm

Inactive US marines face call-up  

US marines serve in some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq 
The US Marine Corps says it has been authorised by President Bush to recall thousands of inactive reservists to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Up to 2,500 of a pool of nearly 60,000 marines who have left active duty could be recalled to serve at any one time. 

Thousands of marine reserves have already served in Iraq, but they were active reservists who train regularly. 

Now inactive reservists obliged only to report one day a year may be recalled - against their will if necessary. 

The Marine Corps describes the move as prudent planning, but critics will seize on the announcement as evidence the US military is overstretched in Iraq, reports the BBC's James Westhead in Washington. 

The call-up, authorised by President George W Bush, will affect members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). 

Under a general contract, a marine serves four years on active duty, and then a further four years in the reserve forces. For this final four years, they can either elect to join the regular reserves - where they are paid and train regularly - or choose to join the IRR. 

Col Guy Stratton, head of the Corps' manpower mobilisation section, told the news agency Reuters that in recent times fewer marines had been choosing to volunteer for the active reserves. 

No expiry date 

The Marine Corps have now been given permission to recall up to 2,500 marines for duty at a time. 

But the authorisation is open-ended and will only expire once the so-called "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) - a war whose parameters are largely undefined - has ended, so many thousands could eventually end up serving. 

Reservists could be required to serve up to 24 months, but will more likely serve between 12 and 18 months, said Col Stratton. 

Our correspondent says the US army has already recalled around 10,000 inactive reserve soldiers. 

But he says the smaller marine force plays a key role in Iraq, shouldering a significant portion of the fighting. They also serve in some of the most dangerous parts of the country.


----------



## ghazise (24 Aug 2006)

Amazingly, it is the same number of Marines we had to source to SOCCOM.


----------



## ExSarge (24 Aug 2006)

This is interesting, 10,000 soldiers and now up to 25, 00 marines recalled to duty. Add to that the Air Force and the Navy have both announced that they are training their folks in ground combat operations to take over roles the Army and Marines no longer have resources to cover. Admittedly these roles will be air field and port facility protection and are not intended as front line combat. It is still an indication of how badly over stretched the U.S. military has become. Unless the U.S. scales back it’s commitments or manages to convince it’s allies to contribute more troops I see conscription coming in the near future ( 2 to 3 years). My understanding is the infrastructure is still in place, every 18 year old is still required to register. The basic legislation is in place, needing only I believe Congress to pass a resolution to reactivate it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Aug 2006)

The story says 2500 and not 25.000. Everyone that volunteers for military service knows up front that they have an 8 year commitment. The Army use of IRR personnel have been to serve in military specialities that are short personnel namely EOD, combat support and support specialties like military police, mechanics, truck drivers, combat engineers, supply clerks, carpentry and masonry specialists, food service personnel and cable system installers. The program is capped right now at 6500 at any one time, the IRR system is handicapped by poor record keeping basically the system has not been updated and the location of thousands of troops is frankly unkown. The Army has also brought back onto active duty officers and NCO's who have retired. Extended officers on active duty that had been passed over for promotion and would have been released. Same has been done for NCO's. We have an up or out policy and this policy has been suspended.

I am uncomfortable retaining people on active duty that otherwise would have been released. I guess having a mediocre NCO or officer is better than no one. In fact I would rather let them go and just promote promising NCO's or officers to fill vacancies.


----------



## Red 6 (25 Aug 2006)

I really douby we'll see a reinstatement of the draft. It's way too hot of a subject and would really ignite the antiwar movement. The IRR is a valid source of manpower and was used (to a lesser extent than today) in the Gulf War. I heard on CNN that the Corps has the authority to recall up to 25,000 in blocks of 2,500. I'm sure they won't use every one of those Marines because their call-ups are going by MOS. If you're a Marine enlisted MP, EOD tech, engineer or supply guy, and you have at least two years left in the IRR, don't get real comfortable in your current house or apartment.

BOHICA...


----------



## ExSarge (26 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The story says 2500 and not 25.000.



You’re right, that was a typo on my part and not an attempt to inflate the number! However I still hold, despite the arguments from Tomahawk and Red that with out some changes the U.S. cannot support the current tempo of operations without resorting to the draft. I’m not advocating that. Believe me, from one who served during that last years of a conscription army during an unpopular war, I’m not advocating it!  I cannot see any other choice. Of course it will depend on the course of action adopted by the next administration. With current deployment commitments and the potential for additional deployment requirements in Lebanon and god knows what other yet to erupt hot spots I see no other choice if the current Administrations policies are left unchanged. 

I truly hope it does not happen. First as previously stated the backlash from the American public will be tremendous. Secondly it’s my feelings that it will play right into the enemies hands. A war of attrition is what they want. To fight against an army composed of conscripts would make their day!


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Aug 2006)

Canada will see a draft before the US, thats how likely I see a draft. Look if you are a war planner and you have 150,000 trained personnel in the IRR that could be used why wouldnt you ? The National Guard has around 350,000 troops and the reserve has another 100,000 or so troops primarily in combat support units.
The active Army has 530,000 troops.

Despite transformation we have not been able to shrink the tooth to tail ratio of 10:1, which I think is a damn shame. It was the same in Vietnam with maybe 50,000 trigger pullers out of a 500,000 man force. People talk about being stretched thin, but that only is a reflection of the manning plan being used. We have decided that rotating troops every 12 months is the way to go. In WW2 troops never came home unless they were wounded or had cracked up, they stayed in the war zone. Worst case we could do that again.


----------



## Red 6 (27 Aug 2006)

No, the US public will not support a draft and President Bush won't authorize one— no way. The Army and Marine Corps will keep to the current rotational course as long as the mission remains. There isn't any other choice. 

Tomahawk, do you remember back int he late 90's when DA cleaned out the TDA Army to plus-up TO & E units to 100% manning strength? How long did that last? I forget. It was the big push for a couple of years amd that was when you started seeing all the civilian types doing jobs that had previously assigned to Soldiers. The issue with teeth to tail will never be figured out. To my way of thinking, it isn't a problem. Without a solid logistical support base, it's irrelevant how many combat units there are. In the current environment, about 500,000 is probably about the right size for the Army. 

Managed intelligently, the IRR is a viable source of Manpower. Let's just cross our fingers (especially little old me) that they have plenty of 11Z's out there so they don't have to dip much further into the retiree ranks. I dodged the bullet in '03 for involuntary recall and I prefer to stay off that particular range.  :warstory:


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2006)

Yes I do remember the TDA Army being realocated to combat units due to the shortage of personnel. To maintain our rotations to Bosnia we were stripping troops to fill up deploying units. Pretty sad but that was the Clinton Army. Could barely afford to replace the fluorescent lights in the buildings. No money for maintenance. Bad memories.


----------



## Old Guy (27 Aug 2006)

Red 6 makes the same argument I do.  The draft is politically unworkable and a dip into reserves is the correct way to deal with present imbalances in force structure.  Otherwise, why would we even bother with maintaining (however poorly) an IRR pool?  Besides that, an army of draftees is not what we need to deal with the type of warfare we are engaged in.

jim


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2006)

Only the left wants a draft so they can fill the streets with protestors.


----------



## soon_to_be_infantry (31 Aug 2006)

Maybe they should start sponsoring citizens from close allies, who want to join. Also give them a week to enlist. If they don't then they get deported.


----------



## Red 6 (1 Sep 2006)

You have to be a permanent resident to enlist in the US armed forces. I don't think we'll see  much of a change in that requirement. The number of potential enlistees is likely too small to make much of a difference in terms of numbers.


----------

