<p>The Army announced last year that it would involuntarily activate an estimated 5,600 soldiers to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Army officials would be tapping members of the Individual Ready Reserve - military members who have been discharged from the Army, Army Reserve or the Army National Guard, but still have contractual obligations to the military.></p>
<p>Involuntary- thats like forced right?</p>
<p>Emerald, No, not in the way you mean. The "ready reserve" are retired military, including reserve forces, who will receive retirement pay in the future with the understanding that they can be called up to serve at any time after retirement if the country needs them. It is not "involuntary" in the sense of a draft but rather in the sense of that they have already retired but remain on call. The key is they are "contractually obligated to serve if called" No one forced them to sign that contract - they did so voluntarily in return for reserve pay in the past and retirement benefits in the future. I know this because my husband happens to be part of the "individual ready reserve" and we know he could be called up at any time. He served 15 years in the navy and 10 years in the naval reserve and will remain in the individual ready reserve until he reaches full retirement at age 57.</p>
<p>toblin: What the heck was that (referring to post #48)!? Patients comments were in no way hurtful to anyone. In fact, her posts suggest sympathy for those that fight and are injured or killed. What she said is true; there is a higher % of minorities. Her point is that, though these people do volunteer, and do get many benefits from joining the military, and most do believe in what they're doing, they did have less choices and opportunities than others making the military more tempting. No one can deny that, though the military can be a wonderful thing for a person with many benefits, it also entails the possibilit of great risk, including death. It's sad that for some people, taking that risk is their only chance at a college education. And mostly, that it is sad to see those brave people who were trying to make a better life for themselves die.
I looked at the faces of the casualties, and they were all strong and brave. But, many of them were minorities, proving Patient's point.
I don't know where your attack came from, but it was out of left feild and totally uncalled for.
BTW, Patient, I spoke for you a bunch there and I shouldn't have. I was merely interpreting what I though you meant. So, if I was wrong about anything, sorry for implying that I could know exactly what you were saying : )</p>
<p>He says he was never told he was being transferred to the Individual ready Reserve unit )
So after a soldier has served in active duty and after they have served in reserves to fulfill their commitment, how long are they held in an inactive ready reserve status?</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Emerald,
According to my husband, once you have enlisted you had a six year commitment, 4 years active and two years reserve duty, you are clear - no ready reserve. If you are retired from either the active military or the reserves then you are commited until age 57 because your military pension commits you. He said that military recruitment officers are VERY clear about this when they sign you up and anyone who claims they were not told this when they signed their enlistment contract either did not read their contract or are just plain lying.</p>
<p>Patient, I'm curious as to why you believe that the majority of US military deaths in Iraq have been minorities. Here in San Diego - a military town - nearly every death has received an obituary and picture in our local paper. Based only on that, I'd say the majority of deaths have been caucasians. Do you have statistics to prove your statement that the majority of deaths in Iraq have been minorities? If so, could you please provide a resource that I can use to verify this?</p>
<p>64% of the current active duty military are white, 19.7 african american, 4% asian, 8% hispanic</p>
<p>Since the reserves are very involved in Iraq, let's add them in -- 69.8% of them are white, 16% are African american, 3% asian, .9% native american, 8% Hispanic</p>
<p>Unless "minorities" are somehow being put into dangerous positions out of proportion to their actual demographics, I would bet solid money that the numbers of deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan are not "primarily" minorities. This is NOT viet nam. This is a volunteer military. Minorities are not volunteering to the extent that non-minorities are. In fact, does any one know what the current minority population of the US is - how does it compare to the demographics of the all-volunteer US military? Just curious.</p>
<p>Whether the majority of US military deaths in Iraq have been minorities or not, it has been a fact that the minorities and lower income families have borne a disproportionate share of military service, particularly in the enlisted ranks. Not a startling fact. I do some work at an inner city school where very few of the kids end up at college and those who do go to a community or vocational type college with very few exceptions. A number of the graduates do end up going to the military, and the stats are much higher than those who enlist from our public high school which is bigger. And no one has enlisted directly into the military except as ROTC or academy types from my sons' private school. It seems to me, though there are no statistics on this that I have found, that those kids who do leave the neighborhood and join the military from the inner city school, are less likely to be in trouble and more likely to find gainful employment. Too many of the kids from this school end up in trouble. Too many are unemployed and finding ways to make money that are illegal. The counselors here celebrate when the these kids join the military; they are escaping their environment. And though there is a war going on now, there has yet to be a death from this school, though there have been casualties. There are deaths announced in our local papers as well, just the way it worked out that none have been from this particular high school. I have not made a headcount but in our area,too, I have not seen an abundance of minorities in the Iraq death toll. And our highs school is well integrated. Also because I know some of the kids from the city school who enlisted, I keep an eye on the city newspaper as well as the local journal so that I can keep apprised of what these kids are doing. The counselors at the school do the same and we often talk and share any news we get. But I have not seen any breakdown in stats anywhere about who is dying or getting injured.</p>
<p>There was a time when there were loopholes galore to avoid the draft, and though I'm sure there are still some left, it is not going to be as simple as being a full time student in college if the draft is reinstated. The Vietnam war changed that situation.</p>
<p>Jamimom, Please go to the site above. The fact is what you are saying is not true. While it is true that in certain branches of the military (the army) there are a somewhat higher percentage of minority enlisted than in other service branches, it is not correct to say there are a disporportionate share of minority citizens serving in the US military. That is an outdated stereotype.</p>
<p>uc_benz said: "Zante, that would be the most rediculous thing ever. I support the War in Iraq, but does that mean I should have to join the military and go over there? Absolutely not.
The point is: you don't necessarily have to be an active participant in something to be an advocate of it."</p>
<p>cherryberry said in response to uc_benz:
"if no you, then who should it be? children from low-income families? kids from the inner city? kids without enough money for college? </p>
<p>i guess you outsource this job too, no?"</p>
<p>uc_benz, you failed to answer the main question which is: are YOU willing to fight in Iraq? if not, WHY NOT? whether you are in favor of the war in Iraq or not is irrelevant.</p>
<p>and YES, i would be willing to risk my life to promote peace in the darfur region or wherever the case may be. would YOU be willing to risk your life in IRAQ?</p>
<p>Grammy, thank you so much for that nice post. I obviously felt awful to think that I had hurt someone by what I said and didn't know how to respond. </p>
<p>On reflection, the point was not directly on point with the original subject but I thought that it was related. It was the idea that it is unfair if leaders make a decision to go to war, and only some segments of our society must take the risks of dying in that war. I therefore put in a cite to an article on that point--there have been many such articles so I knew that my statement was right--that military casualties, both deaths and injuries, are incurred more by less affluent citizens. I know that I was right on that point, contrary to what the poster said, but I obviously hurt him/her in some way and I am sorry. I tried to send a private message but he/she has not turned on that function so I wasn't able to do so. Carolyn, here is another cite in addition to the one that I posted from the Kansas City newspaper. I don't think there is any point in debating minority versus non-minority, if I used loose language I apologize but there is a demographic difference as an absolute certainty. </p>
<p>I don't know that there is an answer to this issue, since the draft, at least as it was constituted last time, also was more easily eluded by the affluent. That is what makes me like the idea of universal national service. I think that it would bring us together as a nation. </p>
<p>So, I do think the original question is well-taken: if we are going to support a war in Iraq, everyone should be willing to go. The problem with this war on terrorism, contrary to wars in the previous era, is that it is hard to know where the enemy is, or how best to combat him. Was he in Iraq? Some think yes, others think no. Is it best to go in and try to destroy him with military might? Some think yes, others think no. But I do believe that if you support the war, you should be willing to volunteer, barring medical or social barriers to doing so.</p>
<p>I would be excited if there was true national required service.
My daughter spent one year with Americorps which is domestic and earned an education voucher of about $4,700 after her full time+ service.
I would love to see that program expanded to more cities and rural areas, not only did she get experience teaching to both homeless elementary and inner city high school students, she recieved training to do so.
I think if every single high school graduate was required to do two years of service we would have a more involved citzenry, and perhaps they would actually take up the slack that the government agencies miss.
I am not clear on educational inducements to join military, my brother joined military to pay for college, but for whether it was his planning or because he was transferred every year or so, he did not graduate from college until he had been in airforce for 17 years, this was about one year after it could have made a difference to his future career. :(
I don't know if he could have taken time off to attend school and then rejoin military, but his college degree didn't make much difference to his service although it does allow him now a pretty comfortable life in his 2nd career as an engineer and collecting retirement as well ;)
I think if we expand domestic peacecorps activites we should allow those who opt to joing military at least 1& 1/2 times larger voucher to reflect their greater commitment.</p>
<p>Carolyn,
With regard to your post #66, here are the Department of Defense statistics for US combat deaths in Iraq, broken down a number of ways, including ethnicity. 70% were white (in Afghanistan, 83% were white). The statistics more than support your position. BTW, since you mentioned it, the notion that ethnic minorities died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam is a myth, as well.</p>
<p>And, I posted this elsewhere but I will repost it here. I think this is fascinating as well:
Break down of US Iraq casualties </p>
<hr>
<p>In another thread, someone made the statement that "Iraqi's are killing US solidiers every day." Someone else posted a link to the CNN site (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ir...ties/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ir...ties/index.html</a>)
that showed all of the casualties in the war and listed the cause of death for each. As I read through the list, it began to occur to me that many of the deaths were not combat related, so I spent some time adding up the CAUSE of death of the over 1100 men and women killed to date.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, over 600 of the deaths - over 50% - were NOT directly attributable to Iraqi actions against our military troops. Instead, these military personnel died from things like vehicle accidents (lots of those), heart attacks, collapsing after training exercises, non-combat accidents (electrocution and drowning accidents), non-combat equipment malfunctions and a host of other things. Many of these deaths are things that occur with relative frequency among troops stationed here in the U.S. so to a certain extent, I'm not sure it's even fair to say being in Iraq caused some of these deaths.</p>
<p>My question: should the media be breaking the cause of death down in their coverage? Especially when they make a big to-do about "surpassing 1000 deaths" --- yet over 50% of those deaths were not combat related?</p>
<p>"My question: should the media be breaking the cause of death down in their coverage? Especially when they make a big to-do about "surpassing 1000 deaths" --- yet over 50% of those deaths were not combat related?"</p>
<p>Well since those troops would not be in Iraq except for the war , I think they are related , we don't know if a heart attack would have happened stateside, if care would have made any difference, but I don't think it actually matters what the cause of death is. If they died over there, they are dead, and it does matter to their families if it was friendly fire, enemy fire or an accident, but they are still dead.</p>
<p>OK, I was very curious about whether minorities are serving in disporportionate numbers in the military. Jamimom is right about African Americans.</p>
<p>According to the most recent US Census: </p>
<p>69% of the population is non-hispanic White - 64.5% of the current active duty military and 69.8% of the current reserve duty military are white. </p>
<p>13% of the population is african-american, 19.7% of active duty military are african american and 16% of reserve duty are. So Jamimom is certainly right about African Americans serving in a disportionately, especially compared to other ethnic groups.</p>
<p>13.5% of the population are Hispanic, 8% of active duty military are hispanic and 8% of the reserves. </p>
<p>4% of the population are asian, and 4% of the active duty military are asian, and 3% of reserve are.</p>
<p>Emerald, I agree - they are still dead, but should the media break down the total between "combat" or "non-combat" related deaths? I think they should still report the total but is it correct to lump someone being killed by a sniper with someone who drowns in a swimming pool? That's where we get statements like "The Iraqi's are killing our military every day" which simply isn't true. Also, there's another issue. I was shocked to see the number of equipment malfunction deaths - it really is outrageous and should be addressed - lumping all deaths together as if they were all caused by Iraqi insurgents hides issues that should be addressed.</p>
<p>And, think about it another way, should we lump all deaths that occur on college campuses together - if the media started reporting "1000 students die on college campuses every year" wouldn't you want to know HOW they died? Yes, they would still be dead, and they might not have died if they hadn't gone to college, but wouldn't we want to know if they died from alcohol poisoning or suicide or natural causes? Don't you think some parents would start keeping their kids out of college out of fear? (I know this example doesn't quite cut it but I'm trying to explain why I think it's important for the media to dig down into the reasons behind this).</p>
<p>i don't really see what's wrong even if a disproportionate amount of minorities are joining the military. a lot of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and military life would really be appealing to them. i totally agree with them and hope to join the military after college too. they're the ones who are enlisting, so what do people suggest we do?</p>
<p>here is information as related by dept of defense give more info on military casualties</p>
<p>The media does report deaths in a sensationalistic way when referring to student deaths.
If a student committed suicide, it often doesn't discuss ( nor do I think they should) mention previous attempts, medical treatment etc.
A death is a death, and while we like to think that we can screen so that nothing will happen to our kids, it just isnt so.</p>
<p>Two points here:
One: It is shocking how flip the kids on here have been. Interesting how they must assume that going to war will never happen to them. It will just happen to someone else.
Two: If you think eveyone is there voluntarily now, then perhaps you haven't heard of the Individual Ready Reserve. This has affected a member of my family, with very negative consequences. You really should educate yourself on it.</p>
<p>"If you think eveyone is there voluntarily now, then perhaps you haven't heard of the Individual Ready Reserve. This has affected a member of my family, with very negative consequences. You really should educate yourself on it."</p>
<p>Maybe you should educate us about it, since I really am that lazy.</p>