quote:
I agree they shouldn't join and not expect non-deployment, but that is different than what is going on. Maybe things have changed since 911 when some joined in the face of a tragedy and wanted to do something, and after all the press since the Iraq war letting everyone know that deployments are likely.
I'm not pleased with the way the govenment is using the military reservists.
Those in the reserves (whether directly or after regular duty) were told (not sure what they are saying to them now) that should they be needed they would serve in the States to fill the jobs so that the regulars could go overseas.
That said, once a regular has fulfilled his/her tour of duty, they are subject to a year or two (depends on the service) that they can still be called back to full duty. Once that time is up, they are not to be called back to full duty. Several people fought call backs beyond that point. The governments not keeping their end of the deal. I am beyond the call back point. (Hopefully)
The recruiting methods do need to be clearer so that people know what they are getting into.
This new use of the reservists I think also affects the workforce. Expecting an employer to hold a job for a year is rather unreasonable. Two weeks is one thing, but a year or more is unreasonable.
My cousin had trouble finding a job when she returned from one year overseas because she was a reservist and still stubject for another tour overseas. I think it was a year and she was called up again. Even after that tour, it was more difficult for her to find a job. She finally did.
They need to rethink their war logistics.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz