BBC News: US troops sue over tours in Iraq
Last week the Pentagon announced that several units would have their tours in Iraq extended to cover the elections due in January.
At a news conference, Arkansas National Guardsman David Qualls, the only one of the group to reveal his identity, said he has been told that his one-year tour of duty, begun in July 2003, will not end until next year.
“What this boils down to in my opinion is a question of fairness,” he said.
“I served five months past my one-year obligation and I feel that it’s time to let me go back to my wife.”
“I am not against the war,” said Mr Qualls, who has been stationed north of Baghdad since March 2004.
“I spent the last nine months in that combat zone. I think I fulfilled my duty.”
Recruitment is becoming a major problem for the armed forces as increasing numbers of people say; “no thanks.” The Pentagon has hired additional recruiters but the major response has been “stop-loss” orders that basically say; “You will go home when we decide you will go home.”
It was all in the contract they signed, and it would be easy to say; “You knew the risks.” That is something the courts will figure out. But it is telling that inarguably brave, patriotic young Americans with long combat experience are risking their military records to say; “enough.” It’s a reality check for the nation, if not for the Pentagon, that they gave a war, and it’s getting hard to get people to come.
Qualls said he is not against the war – but it is not clear he currently has the freedom to say otherwise.
I firmly believe that if the US were really threatened by Iraq, recruitment wouldn’t be a problem; it wasn’t in Afghanistan. Doesn’t matter what spin they try to put on it, apparently a lot of soldiers and potential soldiers aren’t convinced.
I have to wonder, though. The cliche comment from back during WWII was serving “for the duration” [of hostilities], and I suspect the verbiage hasn’t changed dramatically. And while we tend to think of those brave kids from the 40s as the Greatest Generation, how many of them would have (had the legal environment permitted it) sued to be let out of their service after a year or two?
You could be right about the lawsuits. Any WWII vets out there who can fill us in?
The recruiting problem is telling, though. It’s getting very hard to get people to sign on the dotted line – I believe – because the case was not made that we were threatened by Iraq. Afghanistan, yes – and recruitment went up for a while during that conflict. Hmmm…
Is recruiting a problem? Last I heard, the services were meeting their goals. Are those goals artificially low? Or are they no longer meeting them? I ask to know; I don’t have any figures myself.
Recruiting has become a problem. Here are some informational links with the figures. I found the stories lined up pretty well across different sources:
In 2003 the recruiting effort was ratcheted up in response to the emerging shortfall.
Now The Army Guard is having problems and the regular army is working overtime to get experienced soldiers to re-up with mixed success. Not so easy to get qualified newbies to sign up, either.
Look on official Army websites, though, and everything’s coming up roses. Of course, I wouldn’t expect them to say otherwise – I wouldn’t if I were them. They are meeting this year’s goals by digging into next year’s recruits, so next year will be a really serious problem..
British army has been having problems too. I have not looked up figures for other countries.