Does this affect both current Reservists as well as new signups, or does it just affect new signups?
Army wants reservists for longer tours
Demands of Iraq, Afghanistan could mean multiple call-ups
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:00 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2005
WASHINGTON - Stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is considering a National Guard and Reserve policy shift that could result in part-timers’ being called to active duty multiple times for up to two years each time, a senior Army general said Thursday.
The officer, who discussed the matter with a small group of reporters on condition of anonymity because the matter has not been fully settled inside the Defense Department, said the Army would probably ask Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to change the policy in the next several months.
The officer also said it appeared likely that the Army would ask Congress to permanently increase the statutory size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers, to 512,000. He said that decision would be made next year.
The Army has the authority to add 30,000 soldiers, but it arranged for the boost to be only temporary because it did not want a long-term commitment to the cost of a larger force. But now it appears that the Army has no choice but to accept a permanent increase, the general said.
The Army estimates that a permanent increase of 30,000 soldiers would cost it about $3 billion a year.
Standing Army too small for long wars
One reason that the National Guard and Reserve have been used so heavily over the past three years is that the active-duty Army is too small to meet the demands of war — particularly in Iraq, where troop levels have far exceeded original predictions — while also maintaining a presence in traditional areas of influence, such as Europe and the Korean peninsula.
The Army now has about 660,000 troops on active duty, of which about 160,000 are members of the Guard and the Reserve.
The Army wants them to be eligible for an unlimited number of call-ups, so long as no single mobilization lasted more than 24 months, the general said.
Under current policy, set by Rumsfeld, a Guard or Reserve member is not to serve on active duty for more than 24 total months. Thus, for example, if a Guard or Reserve member was mobilized for six months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and later for nine months in Afghanistan, then that person is off limits for duty in Iraq because a yearlong tour there would exceed the 24-month limit. A standard tour in Iraq, for both active-duty and reserve forces, is 12 months.
If the limit were set at 24 consecutive months, with some break between tours, then in theory a Guard or Reserve member could be mobilized for multiple 12- or 24-month tours in Iraq or elsewhere.
That is the kind of flexibility the Army has decided it needs to sustain the forces needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the officer said. He stressed that the Army would make only sparing use of the authority to call up soldiers for longer tours because it would not want to alienate soldiers.
The National Guard, with about 350,000 members, and the 200,000-strong Reserve already are seeing signs of a slide in recruiting and retaining soldiers. Some may question whether a policy change that results in longer mobilizations could further erode the Guard and the Reserve’s ability to attract new soldiers and keep the ones they have.
The Guard in particular has been used so much in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army now has deployed — or put on notice of plans to mobilize in 2005 — all 15 of its main combat brigades.
It'll affect everyone.
My unit is theoretically exempt from another deployment, as we've clocked up most of our two years already, but we're still apparently on the rotation list for 2009 or so.
Just had drill this weekend and there was no mention of this,even though I brought it up as a possible scenario, coinidentally.