History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
In November, the United States Army announced that it would no longer order soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve to active duty. As the Washington Postreported:
Army to Halt Call-Ups of Inactive Soldiers
The Army has suspended plans to expand an unwieldy, 16-month-old program to call up inactive soldiers for military duty, after thousands have requested delays or exemptions or failed to show up.
Despite intense pressure to fill manpower gaps, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said the Army has no plans for any further call-up of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) beyond the current level of about 6,500 soldiers.
Today, noting a projected shortage of 3,500 captains and majors by 2007, the Postreports something a little different:
In another sign of the pressing demand for officers, the Army is recalling hundreds of officers who had returned to civilian life but who are still subject to call-up, sparking protests from some who have already served in Iraq and now face more than a year of extended war-zone duty...
In addition to speeding promotions and rolling out incentives to entice officers to stay, the Army is also using involuntary 545-day call-ups to compel inactive officers to leave civilian life for duty in Iraq.
Since last fall, the Army has ordered hundreds of officers from the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to report to U.S. bases to prepare for Iraq deployments, according to interviews with more than a dozen officers and Army officials with knowledge of the call-ups. The IRR is a pool of about 111,000 trained soldiers who have left active-duty or reserve units but remain subject to call-up for a specified period.
The latest call-ups have targeted scores of officers who graduated from military academies or other universities in 1998, including at least 60 West Point graduates, who are less than four months away from finishing up their eight-year obligation in the IRR pool. Many are being called to serve as civil affairs officers -- a key shortage area for the Army -- but lack experience in that field. Most have already served in Iraq, Afghanistan or both, and many have requested congressional inquiries into the Army's call-up decisions, which they consider unfair.
If you read the story, by the way, you'll notice that Capt. Melinda Thein received her active duty notification on Christmas Eve.
RE: "Your initial post implied the Army broke *trust* because it reneged on a policy. That claim is not accurate. Now, you want to use the term to say the institution is not enforcing a policy up to the degree you feel is appropriate. Two different applications."
I'm making the same argument in both cases: I'm asking that the institution signal its soldiers regarding its intentions with clarity, consideration, and forethought, and then move in the direction it has signalled. It need not be up to us to "call HRC... Assignment branch...Ask your chain of command..." We shouldn't need to hunt out the intention of the institution we serve.
I'll always answer the call; I ask that the call be given clearly and well.
Chris Bray -
2/15/2006
But here's what I'm talking about: The link you provide re: "soldiers not reporting" gives us an Army press release saying that 7,200 IRR soldiers have been called back, and about 80 have ignored their orders. Meanwhile the November announcement was that the Army was going to halt IRR call-ups at 6,500. Yes, I see that they must have meant 6,500 bottom line, actually serving and not released on exemptions. But I'm talking about the need, at this pay grade, for Kremlinology and careful parsing to puzzle out what the institution is really up to: Okay, so here's what they said -- now, what did it mean?
The Army looks different to an E-5 than it does to an O-5, which is pretty obvious but still worth repeating.
Jonathan Dresner -
2/14/2006
Col. Steve,
I don't see any problem with the multiple valences of "trust" in Chris's original article. Trust is not a simple thing, and there are many ways in which it can be fulfilled or violated. Which is, I think, one of the most important elements of the post: the inconsistency and failure to plan of the military is putting an unnecessary strain on those who have placed their trust in the Army, etc.
Col Steve J -
2/14/2006
Melinda - I do not think it's unpatriotic for you to seek an exemption based on your individual circumstances. You should feel proud of your service. Thank you (and Chris) for your service.
Also, the Army is trying to change some things -recoding of 12,000 positions, the ARFORGEN model under the new modularity concept so units have predictable rotation patterns - either 1 in 3 (active) or 1 in 6 (RC).
Chris - Here's the link for Soldiers not reporting:
You use "trust" rather loosely in your last post. Your initial post implied the Army broke *trust* because it reneged on a policy. That claim is not accurate. Now, you want to use the term to say the institution is not enforcing a policy up to the degree you feel is appropriate. Two different applications. The Army is enforcing the policy - whether the punishment is satisfactory is another story. I'd prefer, just like in granting exemptions to policy, the Army gives due process and hands out punishment as appropriate with some regard to individual circumstances on a case by case basis.
Chris - with all due respect, your responses appear rather naive for someone with your background and experiences. I don't think you are, but you tend to make some strong statements without carefully reading what you offer as support.
An 8 year MSO means you can be recalled to perform up to 545 days of services at any time up to the last day of the obligation. It does *not* mean, and it's pretty clearly stated, that your service obligation also includes the time you actually *spend* on duty (it may be concurrent in some cases, but may not be if you are called up on the last day). An 8 year MSO in the IRR means the obligation to serve up to 1.5 years at *any time starting* during the 8 year period.
From HRC website (post a year ago and still listed as *current* information:
How many IRR soldiers may be called to active duty, and who will they be?
We don't know, it depends on the needs of the Army. Those needs and numbers will change with time.
If your argument is now the Army can do a better job at communicating. Ok, I'll agree - that's hardly new. It's also hardly new that the Army reserves the right to assign people based on the Army's needs first ahead of the individual. Did you call HRC? Assignment branch? Ask your chain of command? If those sources told you there would be *no* more callups, I can understand better your criticism.
But as your last post notes, you can read the statements with a more critical perspective and realize your first impression may be incorrect.
Melinda Beth Thein -
2/14/2006
Hi Chris, That is crazy that HRC doesn't seem to know where you are and that they keep on sending you mail asking you to update your address. Geez. I think most people read all of those news articles the same way that you did. I know I did. All of us have been watching the word on the IRR pretty closely since 2004. Best of Luck to you!
Take Care,
Melinda
Chris Bray -
2/14/2006
I'm an IRR soldier who sent change of address notices to the army every time I moved, and am now back on active duty. Regarding your last point, my wife tells me that I keep getting letters back home from the Human Resources Command asking for my current address, so that they can reach me if they need to call me back to active duty. And I had an email in my inbox this morning, at the civilian email account that I provided to the HRC, telling me to contact a retention NCO and make sure my contact information is updated. I deleted it. The HRC cut my orders to come here -- if they can't figure out where I am...
A few things about trust: I understand the service obligation, and absolutely agree that there's a duty to report if ordered to do so. But the army very recently announced that IRR soldiers with active duty orders who haven't reported will be released with general or other-than-honorable discharges, and no other consequences, so it seems the institution doesn't agree.
And I saw that Secretary Harvey said the army wouldn't call up anyone "beyond" the original 6,500. But he was at least unclear about what he meant, and it's obvious -- I've seen other stories, too -- that many IRR soldiers thought he meant that they'd called that 6,500 and were done. (I called home, after reading that story in November, and told my family that the army had announced it was terminating IRR call-ups.) It was at least clumsy not to announce that new call-ups were in the pipeline: We're not going to expand our use of the IRR, but we are going to continue to call people back until we hit our original number, and new orders will be going out very soon. I don't see any sign that the army understands how closely people watch these announcements, and how much they mean as IRR soldiers try to plan their lives. The army announced, vaguely and clumsily, that it was stopping IRR call-ups. The announcement can be parsed, but I don't get the point of making it in the first place, with a new batch of orders headed for the mailbox.
On a related note, before I was called back as an 11B, I read story after story saying the army was only calling back IRR soldiers in specialized support units, and had announced it wouldn't call back combat arms soldiers. So. Yeah.
And the army is not asking soldiers to merely honor their eight-year contracts. An eight-year contract with the army is turning out to be a nine-plus-year contract, since IRR soldiers are being called back for 545 days of service when they only have a very few months left on their service obligations.
In short, I understand that the November announcement can be read more carefully. But I also think the institution can learn to speak much more carefully.
Melinda Beth Thein -
2/14/2006
Col, I thank you for your comments. I think you have some very valid points and are well versed and well spoken on this issue. If I might interject some thoughts please. You are absolutely right; it is completely legal of the Army to do this. But I think that when we talk contracts it’s important to keep in mind the “good faith” and equity issues that are at hand. I will only speak for myself. I feel it is not reasonable for the Army to call up soldiers four or five months before their end of IRR obligation in order to extend them for 18 months or more past what was their 8 year total obligation.
In my case I was once already extended past my active duty obligation because of the war. But I perceived that as being so different than how I perceive this now. I was a part of a unit and I was happy, no, I was honored, to serve with that unit. I too internalize “Duty, Honor, Country”…with all my being. Since then I got out in order to allow my husband to pursue his career and our dreams of having a family. It has been 2.5 years since I was in the Army. We postponed having children while I was in because I wanted to dedicate my whole self to the Army and I knew that it would be hard for me to do that with children. So we waited . My husband postponed his career as well. He was a civilian, but he recently got his first job as an attorney. After 2.5 years, people are at very different places in their lives. We now have a beautiful infant son. He is still nursing. I stay at home with Baby while my husband works. We live thousands of miles away from any support network like family who could help us should I have to leave.
I agree with you that it is not right that people are not maintaining their records with the Army so that the Army cannot get hold of them. I did maintain my files. Hence the ease with which they could send me a nice “Merry Christmas” note. I do celebrate Christmas, but “Baby’s First Christmas” was a little sad and panic stricken this year  That’s ok. I truly believe that the Army will tweak this policy a little in order to take into consideration people’s past service (i.e. past deployments) as well as their current situations. It is the right and humane thing for them to do. I am heart broken because I know there are people who will think me unpatriotic because I am seeking an exemption. Just a short time ago I was so proud of my service to the country, especially of my service during the war. Now I feel like I am not allowed to feel proud. There are several people who have served honorably that are in this same boat as I am. This whole exemption thing is a very humbling experience. In any case I do thank you for your opinion and I especially thank you for your service to this great country of ours. BEAT NAVY!
Very Respectfully,
Melinda
Col Steve J -
2/13/2006
Chris -
I guess I read the stories different than your spin. You write:
In November, the United States Army announced that it would * no longer order * soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve to active duty
But that statement is *not* an accurate reading of the story.
The first story from Novemeber:
The Army has suspended plans to * expand * an unwieldy, 16-month-old program to call up inactive soldiers for military duty, after thousands have requested delays or exemptions or failed to show up.
Despite intense pressure to fill manpower gaps, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said the Army has no plans for any further call-up of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) * beyond * the current level of about 6,500 soldiers.
Note the difference. The Army never promised not to call up additional members of the IRR. The Army stated that the organization did not intend to expand beyond the current level. Of course, to maintain the level (or some level), the organization * may * have to call up additional members to replace the soldiers finishing their obligation, unless the Army has deleted the requirement or has opted for another source to fill the requirement.
The second story does not state the Army intends to break the policy announced earlier. The story merely focuses on the type of requirements (senior company grade, junior field grade officers) the Army is having to use the IRR to fill - within the existing program.
I read the *trust* issue different.
As a West Pointer, I recall signing my obligation that included 8 years in the IRR if I left after my active duty obligation. I strangely do not recall anyone saying "but we don't expect you to live up to your word," or "well, it says 8, but 7 and 1/2 is good enough," or "the 8 is conditional if you have been deployed, get married, have kids." I do recall repeatedly phrases such as duty, honor, and country and "take responsibility for your actions".
For YG 1998 officers, in the SecDef's annual defense report from that time period, the language is clear:
"For MRCs and national emergencies, ordering RC units and individuals to active duty without their consent will be assumed. For lesser regional conflicts, domestic emergencies, and other missions, maximum consideration will be given to accessing volunteer reserve units and individuals before requesting Presidential authority for an involuntary order to active duty."
and the law states,
Within the Individual Ready Reserve of each reserve component there is a category of members, as designated by the Secretary concerned, who are subject to being ordered to active duty involuntarily in accordance with section 12304 of this title. A member may not be placed in that mobilization category unless—
(A) the member volunteers for that category; and
(B) the member is selected for that category by the Secretary concerned, based upon the needs of the service and the grade and military skills of that member.
I have sympathy for the CPT getting a notice on Christmas eve (assuming she celebrates that holiday so the significance of the date). I did also feel the * trust * issue applies more correctly to the following:
- the over 50% (which would equate to at least a few thousand company grade officers) of her peers who have *failed* to live up to their responsibility to maintain accurate contact information with the Army.
- The Army leadership, especially in the personnel community, who have spent millions of dollars on human resource systems and programs and still cannot seem to manage and track (they have their SSNs - check other databases like the IRS perhaps?) thousands of eligible people in order to at least make a good faith commitment to make every effort to minimize hardships or repeated deployments, even if it is only a few hundred. Given the lessons learned from DS/DS in 1990 (20,000 + members of IRR mobilized), DoD has been less than stellar in this area over the past 15 years.
Jonathan Dresner -
2/12/2006
The change in policy isn't all that surprising, particularly given your descriptions of military personnel issues and other media reports; what was interesting was reading the article with the theme of "Trust" in mind....
Both excerpts benefit somewhat from keeping that in view.
