BF2S Forums "They volunteered"

OrangeHound wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

Hey Dick, they volunteered to protect this nation and the laws (The Constitution) it stands for. Funny how you and your pal Bush shit on that silly document, right?

Is this what you think it means to serve in the Armed Forces?  Simply to "protect this nation and the laws it stands for" based upon your interpretation?

Those in the Armed Services volunteer to follow the orders of their superiors.  That's it.  And, if (a) our government declares war or (b) our government decides to do a "UN peace-keeping mission" or (c) our government decides to deliver humanitarian aide using military resources, or (d) our government decides to go fight in a European war, or retaliate because a Middle Eastern country whoops up on a small country ... then our military men and women respond with excellence to that charge.

The Armed Services does much more than defend this nation ... they enforce the policies of our government.

With an all volunteer fighting force, it is obvious that they all volunteered. However, when someone volunteers into the army, navy, marines, etc. there is a trust placed on those that command them that they will not be put into a deadly situation unless absolutely necessary. Our armed forces are the greatest in the world because they believe in what they are fighting and dieing for. But that belief is quickly eroded if that trust is lost. No one wants to fight for a commander who doesn't care whether you live or die, just as long as you do what he says.

So yes, they Volunteered. But this administration broke the agreement that they would use their lives only when absolutely necessary. That is why army enrollment is down. That is why so many that actually make it through this war in one piece want out.

Talking to many of my friends that are coming back from Iraq, no one gives a crap about the president, the VP, or their war on terror. If they go back, its to help their friends and keep them safe. It is to protect the trust that hasn't been broken.

Not that I like the guy but this is more about journalists going for easy hatelines headlines rather than being what he said....

Just watched the whole interview and hes nothing but thankfull (in a smarmy politician way) for the volunteers in a way sounding like' thank god we don't have to draft'. The issue to if they should have been in Iraq or not, to put there lives on the lines, is a different issue and not related to "They volunteered".

Protecus wrote:

I find it interesting that the army is already at 101% of its enlistment goal for 2008 when we are only 3 months into the year. Seems like there goals were a bit low.

But if recruitment is so fantastic, why is there the need to hold soldiers over that have fulfilled their contracts and want out?

As soldiers are finishing their tours, the army is implementing stop-loss orders, restricting many from leaving. The stop-loss orders have been in effect since 2004, even during your booming enlistment years. So of course enlistment is up. They are bolstering it with people who are already in and want to leave.

I can' pin down an exact number, but it seems to be floating around 50000.

“As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force,” said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank. “When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you’re edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism.”

Posted 1/5/2004 9:45 PM     Updated 1/6/2004 12:39 AM


I was stop lossed before, in 2004.  I might be facing a stop loss again because of my MOS.  But, since Gates has been the secretary of defense, he has drastically cut down the amount of soldiers falling under stop loss.  If today were 2004, I know i would be stop lossed.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-03-25 12:24:24)

Protecus wrote:

I find it interesting that the army is already at 101% of its enlistment goal for 2008 when we are only 3 months into the year. Seems like there goals were a bit low.

But if recruitment is so fantastic, why is there the need to hold soldiers over that have fulfilled their contracts and want out?

As soldiers are finishing their tours, the army is implementing stop-loss orders, restricting many from leaving. The stop-loss orders have been in effect since 2004, even during your booming enlistment years. So of course enlistment is up. They are bolstering it with people who are already in and want to leave.

I can' pin down an exact number, but it seems to be floating around 50000.

The numbers are prorated recruiting levels for 2008 ... the total Army recruiting goal is 80,000 for 2008 (the same as for 2007, which was exceeded).

Also, for 2007, the retention goals were also met or exceeded for all branches - the Marines were at 110% - so stop-loss orders were not needed (your reference on stop-loss is from 2003 data).



Your opinion of the Army (or the Armed Forces in general) is likely influenced by negative media reporting and 4 year old data rather than current facts.  Things are not that gloomy.

Edit:  I should note that one of the reasons that the numbers are not gloomy now is that today's situation is based on a war-time volunteer army, and not a peace-time volunteer army.  The vast majority of those who are in the services today go in knowing that this is a war situation ... thus reenlistment rates would of course be higher.

OrangeHound wrote:

The Armed Services does much more than defend this nation ... they enforce the policies of our government.

...which is kind of another way of saying that you also get to die for inane political agendas.