That's a Crafty Draft


Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2006
Bush OKs involuntary Marine recall—

How long will it take until this shortage in manpower causes a need for compulsory enlistment?

My cousin is going to be re-deployed in September (we don't know exactly where he's going) for his third tour in the region since the war began. The Army, in the form of an overzealous Sergeant, shuffled him into a different unit only a few months after his return to the United States, one that is scheduled for deployment ot Iraq or Kuwait (or both). Now he'll be over there past the term of his enlistment, which ends early next year. It doesn't really make sense to assign a soldier to a task that will extend beyond his enlistment...unless the purpose is to keep him stuck in the Army longer than he is supposed to be.
All soldiers sign up for eight years, even if active duty service is for only 3-4 years. The other years are "per-diem" years. So if your cousin enlisted in 2000 the longest they are supposed to keep him is eight years. I think there are a couple laws that can keep him longer than his contract with the Army states.

That's the boring part. The more debatable question is the morality of it all.

I think that is sucks that Bush is keeping soldiers longer than they wanted. I also feel that the soldier needs to realize he/she signed a contract and must follow it. The only exception I would make is if the government pulled out one of those laws that can keep the soldier there longer than eight years. If that happened to me, I would fight it.
The upcoming milestone will be the end of his obligation to the government. He's been enlisted in the Army since before Bush was president; I don't know the exact date, but I imagine it's approaching eight years. This new tour will extend his enlistment past its term.
I think what is being done is a tricky and shitty way to con our soldiers into spending more time on the battlefront. There should be some way to get around this backdoor move.