From the AOL newsfeed:
(Sept. 28) – Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.
The former soldiers, part of what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), are being recalled to fill shortages in skills needed for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of the 1,662 ready reservists ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., by Sept. 22, only 1,038 had done so, the Army said Monday.
“The numbers did not look good,” said Lt. Col. Burton Masters, a spokesman for the Army’s Human Resources Command.
As an example of the challenges they faced, Masters held up a note from one Private Avon which simply read, “I’m not stupid, I’m not expendable, and I’m not going.”
PAD
• 
Meanwhile, Corporal V. Restal reported for duty.
Another of the IRR’s reportedly managed to get pregnant just in time to avoid the recall order. Granted, she and her husband had been trying for a while before news of the recall came out, but I suspect they redoubled their efforts once it did.
Someone’s going to say it soon enough anyway, so here it is:
“Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.”
Not showing up for duty during wartime? Who do they think they are – George Bush?
For the talk radio crowd:
“As an example of the challenges they faced, Masters held up a note from one Private Avon which simply read, “I’m not stupid, I’m not expendable, and I’m not going.”
Why does Private Avon hate America?
———
On another note, how about being sent to Iraq with no weapons?
http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/1029996.html
Greattt, so Private Avon is leaving his responsibilities for his fellow soldiers to now handle. “Not stupid?” -debatable. Selfish? Definitely.
Certainly makes one question the repeated messages of the administration that our fighting forces are united and believe that they are there for the right reasons…… that is, if one hadn’t questioned it before.
Well, let’s face it, with the IRR, threats toward soldiers to reenlist or be sent to Iraq (which is where they’d end up even if they reenlisted), and more threats toward Iraq…
… yeah, Bush, the Peace President.
He has no answers, save to throw more bodies in the way.
Most people who join the military these days are there for one of two (or both) reasons:
1) Defend America
2) Get money for college
Iraq was no threat to America, they have/had no weapons that could reach us. Why should people be ripped from their families and sent to a country we have no business occupying where we’ve lost more soldiers “post Mission Accomplished” than during the “war” itself?
I think Private Avon not only hates America, he hates humanity as a species. Just sayin’.
Dave:
>I think Private Avon not only hates America, he hates humanity as a species. Just sayin’.
How do you get this from one very brief statement about not wanting to die in a war?
Sigh.
“Private Avon” is Kerr Avon from the British SF series Blakes 7.
Good lord, some of you really need to brush up on your l33t Anglophile skillz.
JSM
(Headin’ down to Fiji with me cat…)
Bush philosophy about liberating Iraq:
“There’s no one as free as a dead man.”
Hey, is that window open?
I feel a draft coming on.
The draft is way too much of a political nightmare for anyone to ever re-instate.
Regardless of your reasons for joining the reserves, the obligation to serve the military in whatever capacity they command over-rides it. This is not a ‘back-door draft’, nor is it asking anyone to do anything beyond what they signed up for. If they didn’t want to do the work, then they should not have signed on the dotted line!
Somehow, I’m getting flashbacks to, of all things, Hogan’s Heroes when Klink and Co. were threatened with being sent to the (Mid-)Eastern Front.
And those people who aren’t showing up as ordered deserve the prison time/dishonorable discharge/reduction in pay that they get. They knew from the moment they walked into basic what they could possibly be in for, had chances to leave then for different reasons (and I know from experience that there are a thousand and one ways to get out- that recruits talk about) and continued on with their service. They finished their normal commitment, had the option of going reserve or IRR, and choose IRR.
And, I have doubts about the type of service shown by Private Avon. Given that the shortest service a person can give is two years, and within those two years it is possible to work yourself up to Private 1st class and way more than possible in more than two years, I have to wonder exactly what kind of service she or he gave.
“Certainly makes one question the repeated messages of the administration that our fighting forces are united and believe that they are there for the right reasons…… that is, if one hadn’t questioned it before.”
As I understand it, there are what, 100,000 troops over in Iraq right now? To find out that 600 (if I did the math right) are not wanting to go hardly suggests the overwhelming majority of the military are not united. You have 1,000 showing up for duty. Whether you think they are stupid, fulfilling their promise, or patriotic, they showed up.
“Iraq was no threat to America, they have/had no weapons that could reach us.”
Whatever your thoughts about WMD’s, etc., this is a rather ignorant statement in light of September 11. You might argue that we have made Iraq more of a threat, but to say it was not a threat is not looking at reality. Or have you forgotten the fact that Saddam gladly provided a refuge for one of the planners of the first attack on the Twin Towers? Have you forgotten his attempt to take over oil fields that led to the first Gulf War?
Jim in Iowa
I can see why he’s reluctant to go back, after seeing virtually his entire outfit gunned down around him, plus that friendly fire incident with Blake, his former commanding officer. I don’t think Avon ever really recovered from that.
“Or have you forgotten the fact that Saddam gladly provided a refuge for one of the planners of the first attack on the Twin Towers?”
Yes you are correct. He did, so I’m guessing that ties him in with 9/11.
Well if that’s ther case, how many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, or were Saudi’s??
Why wasn’t Saudi Arabia tied in with 9/11 as well?
“Yes you are correct. He did, so I’m guessing that ties him in with 9/11.
“Well if that’s ther case, how many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, or were Saudi’s??
“Why wasn’t Saudi Arabia tied in with 9/11 as well?”
It does not necessarily tie him to 9/11. It does show Saddam was a threat to America.
Saudi Arabia should have been help more accountable, but just because some hijackers were from Saudi Arabia does not mean the Saudi’s agreed or supported them. That is confusing the issue. Saddam clearly welcomed, agreed with, and supported terrorism, including acts against the United States. While the Saudi’s failed to crack down on the extreme elements within their borders, there is a clear difference between the two.
Jim in Iowa
Okay, some people are getting it, but others aren’t, so before an actual argument gets going about this aspect of it…
The part about Avon? That was fake. That was me making an in-joke reference to the character of Avon from “Blakes 7” who made that very well-known comment. The rest of the article was true, but not that bit.
PAD
me
>>”Certainly makes one question the repeated messages of the administration that our fighting forces are united and believe that they are there for the right reasons…… that is, if one hadn’t questioned it before.”
Jim in Iowa:
>As I understand it, there are what, 100,000 troops over in Iraq right now? To find out that 600 (if I did the math right) are not wanting to go hardly suggests the overwhelming majority of the military are not united. You have 1,000 showing up for duty. Whether you think they are stupid, fulfilling their promise, or patriotic, they showed up.
A clarification. I never said that they were stupid, fulfilling their promise, or patriotic. I never even suggested that the majority of the military are not united. I simply pointed out the administration’s repeated stance as well as the very logical questioning that comes to mind from this most recent report of 600 out of 1,300 soldiers having issues with going into this debacle. That is a statistically significant percentage that bears some consideration over the stance of the troops already engaged in this battle.
And how many people still won’t get it even after you’ve posted the disclaimer? Should be fun to watch.
Thankfully, although I’m not a big enough fan of B7 to recognise dialogue straight off, Kerr Avon was the first thing to come to mind when I read that.
Thanks for the giggle, Peter.
I think that by making that comment, Private Avon hates humans, little puppies, and all things that come in paper wrappers.
And America armed and trained Bin Laden and the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians, so I guess by your logic America is the enemy too.
So what if Iraq was letting Terrorism suspects stay there? Like living in Iraq under Saddam was a picnic. Call it Exile…
Private Orac deserted as well, but his capture is expected shortly. After all, a bald dwarf shooduln’t be difficult to spot.
Saddam clearly welcomed, agreed with, and supported terrorism, including acts against the United States.
And you’re clearly confused if you don’t think that, privately some of the Saudi royal family did the same thing.
But I suppose, 20 years from now if another Bush gets into office (god forbid), we can blow up Saudia Arabia then.
The Bush’s are good at making enemies out of those who were once friends, so it’s a good possibility.
From the local Crawford, Texas newspaper, W’s hometown, if anyone would care to read this editorial.
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Oh wow. An editorial against Bush and pro Kerry. I’m stunned.
Except for this not being an actual newspaper (it appears to be on-line only), and isn’t from Bush’s hometown (New Haven, CT) or where he grew up (Midland and Houston, TX).
Oops. I just read the news story on Yahoo, and it does appear that the paper is an actual print paper. After going and looking at the web link, there’s nothing I found to show that it’s nothing more than an e-paper. No subscription info or anything.
Kinda strange to me for a paper to not hype their subscriptions, but…
Gee, Dubbya’s Daddy said the Gulf war wasn’t going to be another Vietnam, and we we not going to make the same mistake twice. Apparently, since he didn’t get to go to ‘Nam, it was easy for Dubbya to make that mistake since he was oblivious to what was going on that time anyway. And Cheney and Rumsfeld are cut from the same cloth as the warhawks that sent young men into a meatgrinder they knew they could never win.
It really pathetic that there are these simularities. Vietnam was always referenced to the american people as being a important standpoint to fight the overflow of Communism, and thats why we kept fighting. Now, replace Communism with Terrorism, and you get a peak at how the Administration is playing Iraq.
If we’re not 100% behind the cause, then how can we ask our soldiers to fight for it? And furthermore, how can we hold them accountable? You can’t just ask people to risk their lives for some dubious cause. It’s reckless and disrespectful towards people who would, under more united and less ambiguous circumstances, gladly defend their country.
Some very random thoughts:
Folks, it’s Viet Nam all over again. Canada stands to get a whole new crop of immigrants because you’re gonna have conscientious objectors and the whole nine yards.
It’s not, repeat NOT far-fetched to think that the draft would not reappear. If the idea can be floated on the basis of patriotism and not so much on the basis of a specific conflict….rather the all-encompassing war on terror idea…..then it will reappear, and possibly sooner than anyone thinks.
Last year when this all exploded I said that it would make ‘Nam look like a kindergarten exercise, and I hate to say it but I am being proven correct with every passing day. The difference here is that we’re not fighting a relatively concentrated group sharing the same political ideology with a specific goal of capturing one small piece of territory. We’re fighting a religious doctrine perverted to the concepts espoused by those who incite the conflicts yet remain in the shadows. Worse, it’s a perversion that will take more than one generation to erase, assuming that we can erase it at all. I estimate that the Iraq situation will not see an end for at least 25 to 35 years. Pessimistic perhaps, but more likely realistic based on daily events.
A comment on service: In Israel, everyone serves when they become of age. Everyone. The only ones exempted are some Chassidim, and even that’s a subject of controversy within the country. It’s not only required, it’s something that most look forward to.
A comment on Afganistan: Yes, the US funded and armed the Taliban because it was for the best at that point in time. And there you have the fatal flaw. Most of the problems that we find ourselves in are the result of short-term vision and perhaps a tendency to ignore the warning signs that advise against that short term thinking. Sure, the Taliban were convenient because everyone wanted to keep the Russians in check. Everyone ignored the fact that eventually these guys would turn out the way they did and spawn the offshoots that they did. Usually such short term thinking returns to bite everyone in the ášš, and once again that’s what has happened in Iraq.
So to boil things down: Is this really a dubious cause? It may have been that at the start but it certainly is not that now. We’re now caught up in a situation where we are dámņëd if we do and dámņëd if we don’t. Probably ŧwìçë-dámņëd in the latter case, because if we pull out anytime in the forseeable future, it’s likely that Iraq will really disintegrate and the problems caused by that will have world-wide effects. This is truly terrifying. But if we stay, we continue to lose lives. Day in, day out. Not to be crass, but it almost hearkens back to the days of the late sixties when we’d see guys like Huntley and Brinkley or Frank McCoy or Walter Cronkite reporting the daily body counts on the news. It’s almost nostalgic in a horrific sort of way.
And yes, I’m Canadian. But I say “we” because like it or not, it’s “us” against “them”.
And for those of you who might want to criticize me and enquire as to my qualifications for such commentary, (as in “Where do you get off with your opinions?”), my brother-in-law served in ‘Nam. My brother left home and went to the U.S. to enlist in 1961. My family literally lived American Dreams for real. So I know just a little of where I speak.
Boy, here’s something eerie. I just finished reading David Hackworth’s article on Page 70 of the October Playboy. It echoes everything I said above, and I had NOT read it prebious to my posting! Brrr……
you know, I have 0% agreement with the war, Bush’s polices, and blah blah blah. No support there. Ever.
But what I’m saying is I don’t think people should be deserting left and right. I think its as simple as you sign up, you do the time. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you join the army.
Even if there’s an argument for “But they need to pay for college!!” I still don’t think needing a college education means you can just up and leave the job you signed up for.
Wow. That sounded really neo-con of me. Holy šhìŧ, next thing you know I’ll start watching Fox News and Bill O’Riely.
I just heard it from Tony Blair again: Yes, we were wrong, there were no weapons of mass destruction. But it was right to go to war anyway because we got rid of Saddam.
I very much disagree with that but I think people who come with this argument are missing the point: The question is, was it right to get rid of Saddam the way it was done, mainly was it right to fight the war there the way it was done. And I think that answer is definitely no.
Now Bush is sending more and more people into this powder keg without having any idea how to fix this mess. But of course the problem is, too many mistakes were made at the beginning and now it is probably nearly impossible to fix them.
I am not surprised that also enlisted people are refusing to be sacrificed there. Yes, they entered a contract but they first of all agreed to defend the USA. This has nothing to do with it. The war against Iraq was an illegal war and I am glad that more and more people are saying, enough!
Yes, the US funded and armed the Taliban because it was for the best at that point in time.
Excuse me? For the best of who? Do you think arming people has ever been for the best?
I’m glad to see soldiers deserting but I’d prefer it happening when they are told to kill, not when they are asked to die.
Baerbel Haddrell said: “Now Bush is sending more and more people into this powder keg without having any idea how to fix this mess. But of course the problem is, too many mistakes were made at the beginning and now it is probably nearly impossible to fix them.”
Well said.
The repudlickans love to say the Democrats love to spend and throw money at a problem even when they have no idea how to fix it, yet people out there mindlessly worship GWB for doing the same thing, but substituting HUMAN LIVES for $$$…
Well I think that if the quote added at the end of the story isn’t true, then the entire story is obviously fake. I think it proves that there are *no* soldiers who have misgivings about the war.
– Official Statement of the Liberator Commanders for Justice
Random soggy bloggy thoughts.
* It’s been pointed out before that a draftee is just a prisoner of war on his own side.
* Like a policeman or a fireman, a soldier should be esteemed for willing to go into harm’s way for a good cause. Unlike the other two, he’s been foolish enough to let Congress tell him what the good cause is.
A comment on service: In Israel, everyone serves when they become of age. Everyone. The only ones exempted are some Chassidim, and even that’s a subject of controversy within the country. It’s not only required, it’s something that most look forward to.
Just a little something to add to this –
I’ve chatted with a guy on a game on the internet that is from Israel, and I asked him about the mandatory service. He said he does it because he lives there, and that he’s no patriot. If he didn’t have to serve, he wouldn’t.
The Bush Admin can say all they want that the draft isn’t coming back, but I can’t take for gospel (pun intended) anything that comes out of their mouths.
Diplomacy in Iran? Sure, if it’s strapped to the front of a MOAB. 😛
Btw, has anybody given any thought to N Korea lately?
They supposedly had that mushroom cloud over a mountain, and everybody was saying that it wasn’t a nuke. Then the S Koreans said there was no explosion at all… HUH!?
The N Koreans are also claiming again that they have nukes as a “deterrent”.
Personally, I think they just have nuclear pëņìš envy toward Iran. 🙂
Slightly OT: But going from the way so many people here seem to be against war and that fighting back to protect yourself only makes the person you’re fighting against even madder, what would be your advice to Israel? Should they just pack it up, leave and let the Palestians have the land? After all these people have pretty much said that as long as Israel exists there will be no peace.
Mitch: Beautiful!
Craig: we americans are being kept distracted from N. Korea by Iraq and the “election” (Electoral college kinda makes the will of the people pointless though).
Clark: If the Palestinians refuse to allow the Isrealis peace, the the Isrealis have no choice but to WIPE THEM OUT. The PLO are to the Isrealis what the Terrorists are to the US. It disgusts me to see GWB talk about “America will do whatever it takes to stop the terrorists” then has the balls to tell Isreal, “Oh, don’t mind the suicide bombers wandering into civlian areas and blowing up your citizens, using force in return isn’t the answer.” Hypocrite.
Bladestar wrote:
>>>Iraq was no threat to America, they have/had no weapons that could reach us. Why should people be ripped from their families and sent to a country we have no business occupying where we’ve lost more soldiers “post Mission Accomplished” than during the “war” itself?
Using your rationale, i.e., “It’s dangerous and not a problem of my making,” a surgeon should have every right to refuse to operate on a patient with HIV. After all, one nick of an errant scapel and the surgeon very well may contract HIV as well.
By the same token, you must also think it’s justified for a cop or firefighter to refuse to respond to a 911 call in East Los Angeles because they might get shot.
And, of course, using your rationale, you would not at all think badly of the Coast Guard if they refused to send out a helicopter or boat to try and rescue those aboard a sinking boat in a storm because the owner decided to ignore weather advisories and go sailing anyway.
And, as you would apparently argue, why in the world should the Air Force’s “Hurricane Hunters” risk their lives flying into hurricane’s to get crucial weather updates for FEMA or other emergency officials? It’s not their problem.
You see, I look at things a bit differently. If I sign up to do a potentially hazardous job, I have a responsibility to do that job even when the conditions of the job put me in harms way.
Do you think a Secret Service agent who votes for one political party would shirk his/her duty if the president he/she were protecting was from a different political party?
No.
Which is why no reservist should be coddled if they are called up and fail to report. They volunteered for the job, and they have a responsibility to do that job to the best of their ability even when the going gets tough.
“Using your rationale, i.e., “It’s dangerous and not a problem of my making,” a surgeon should have every right to refuse to operate on a patient with HIV. After all, one nick of an errant scapel and the surgeon very well may contract HIV as well. “
That wasn’t his rationale. You’re missing the point.
Everyone you listed does what they do because they BELIEVE in it.
They save people from fires, operate on HIV patients, everything you listed, because they believe its the right thing to do.
Now, can you guess why these soldiers are refusing to go to Iraq?
Reservists who refuse to answer the recall should be deal with appropriately….and that means discipline…by the book.
On the other hand, their superiors had better not dismiss this. That would be stupid, and flies in the face of a few centuries of military thinking.
Unfortunately, I am not hopeful that this administration knows what it takes to command a military and deal with discipline problems.
“And you’re clearly confused if you don’t think that, privately some of the Saudi royal family did the same thing.”
Your point is meangingless. I would not be surprised if this was true — as individuals. I have seen no evidence that the ruling Royal Family has done so. There is no evidence that the government is actively hoping for and in any way promoting an agenda to bring down America. Why can I be so sure? Because they know that to do so would lead to problems for them and their oil supply.
The Saudi Royal Family is a huge, corrupt mess. But they have not systematically and ruthlessly slaughtered thousands of people as Saddam did. They have not invaded another country as Saddam did (twice I believe–Iran and Kuwait). My point? They are not organized against America in the way Saddam clearly was.
Which takes me back to my root problem with some (not all) who oppose Bush and the war. Unless there is an honest acknowledgment of how evil, ruthless, and cruel Saddam really was, there is no perspective as to why we have now had two wars against Iraq. There is no context to understand why Bush would take even the threat of WMD’s in Iraq so seriously. This, in my opinion, is the clearest and greatest flaw of Farenheit 911. Moore has done the equivalent of doing a movie about World War II where he completely ignores Hitler’s invasion of Poland and the concentration camps that killed millions. His deliberate decision to not give the full context is inexcusable and exposes his true agenda.
Honest criticism about the war is fine. Dishonest attacks that ignore the truth about Saddam only set us up to repeat the same mistakes in the future and demonstrate a bias that has nothing to do with the protection of our country.
Jim in Iowa
I have seen no evidence that the ruling Royal Family has done so. There is no evidence that the government is actively hoping for and in any way promoting an agenda to bring down America.
And there is no evidence that, as of the time we invaded Iraq, Saddam had WMD.
So, why did we invade Iraq again? Why is Saddam so important compared to so many other things in the world?
Your whole basis for the war in Iraq is that the ends justify the means or what?
That doens’t fly in the real world.
As for the Israelis and Palestinians, it doesn’t matter what we think, because Bush doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ášš whether there is peace or they manage to blow each other off the face of the planet.
Craig: And there is no evidence that, as of the time we invaded Iraq, Saddam had WMD.
Already answered by Jim: Unless there is an honest acknowledgment of how evil, ruthless, and cruel Saddam really was, there is no perspective as to why we have now had two wars against Iraq. There is no context to understand why Bush would take even the threat of WMD’s in Iraq so seriously. This, in my opinion, is the clearest and greatest flaw of Farenheit 911. Moore has done the equivalent of doing a movie about World War II where he completely ignores Hitler’s invasion of Poland and the concentration camps that killed millions. His deliberate decision to not give the full context is inexcusable and exposes his true agenda.
Reading comprehension is such a lost art!
Jamie wrote:
“That wasn’t his rationale. You’re missing the point. Everyone you listed does what they do because they BELIEVE in it. They save people from fires, operate on HIV patients, everything you listed, because they believe its the right thing to do. Now, can you guess why these soldiers are refusing to go to Iraq?”
Actually, Jamie, you’re the one missing the point. I spent 20 years in the military and did my job to the best of my ability supporting a number of operations I thought were questionable, or even stupid.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Military people are supposed to be apolitical when it comes to doing their jobs. If the Commander in Chief orders the military into action, it goes into action. The last thing any democracy wants to do is politicize the military — that’s how coup d’ etats happen.
People in the professions I listed, and people doing hundreds of other similarly hazardous jobs, could rationalize away their responsibilities for any number of reasons, just like “Private Avon.”
Not everyone is in a hazardous profession because