A Man Back From Iraq

M

munk

Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
15,742
We know a guy just back from Iraq. He's a medical guy in the Public Health Corps. I won't tell you what to protect all parties. The Public Health Corps are in some weird quasi-military designation, and have to wear uniforms. Yeah, real spiffy white uniforms. Their Superiors get jacked out of shape if a subordinate has a ruffled blouse.

So he goes to Iraq. I think he has to, but we're not sure. He just came back. He's acting a little goofy. He had two hernias and a STROKE. One of his facial cheeks is partially paralysed. You'd think they'd go a little light on him, right?

Uh uh. No. They want him to go back to Iraq. Seems you have to be WAY MORE MESSED UP than that. I'm thinking if he has a couple more strokes he'll be eligible for Administration.

Can you still walk? Words come out of your mouth? Hold a needle and a scapel? You're in.

Our Government can be real goofy. I'll always remember they wouldn't allow my brother in Civil Service because he scored too well; getting none of the questions on the Civil Service Exam wrong.


munk
 
I'm somewhat familiar with the Public Health Service. Yes, they are a uniformed service, just not usually called on to deploy. Usually wear a Navy type uniform.

Hope he's doing OK.

And just for worthless info NOAA is the 5th uniform service along with the PHS, Navy, Army, and AF.
 
Just heard a story on NPR abut a guy who came back from Iraq with post traumatic stress disorder. He tried to kill himself back in the states after his tour.
The army sent him back to Iraq, even after the suicide attempt.

I also have a former student who is now a soldier in Iraq and emailed that he was proud of what he was doing there. I have no idea about what he is doing, and he could not say.

I don't trust the news on anything. We don't know what is going on in Iraq, DC or Brooklyn.

The media seem to want us to think that everything is great - everywhere, but they don't really give us any sort of idea about what is really going on overseas.

I don't think that they know.
 
Got a high school buddy, EOD tech, just got back a few months ago. He'd been there pretty much for the duration.

He got his first purple heart when a prisoner he was watching threw a grenade at him. They slapped some bandages on him and put him back to work. The Bremerton Sun ran a "local boy" story on him.

Later, an IED put a few more holes in him. That didn't do the trick either. Again, he was back in service the same day. The Bremerton Sun ran their second "local boy" story on him.

Just when he was beginning to enjoy it, they sent him to Benning. Regardless, I'm glad that he's back. He seems far too crazy for combat...not much of a change from his high school days, now that I think about it. :)
 
Those guys have it so rough. And with the shortage of troops I'm sure it's hard to stay home. The guy had a stroke? How old was he? That seems strange.
 
And here I was, getting angry over being extended for 8 months. Some folks have even worse luck than I do.
 
Here's a story from our local news about a guy that signed up for 8 years, and got involuntarily extended for 27 more. They say he has a "critical" job, fueling aircraft.
Click to expand...

In 2001 my ETS (Estimated Time of Seperation) date was changed to December of 2025 because my specialty was placed under stop-loss. They weren't really planning to keep me until 2025, in fact I'll be getting out in less than 75 days. :D It's a record-keeping measure only, the longest that I know of anyone being extended for is one year. Now I do agree that it seems this guy is being asked to do too much, but please don't think that he's really going to be asked to serve until 2031. It's EXTREMELY unlikely.
 
I think it is a problem in almost every country - most armys try not to recognize injuries or damages of any kind. I knew a former radar technician from the German Bundeswehr who died of cancer - just like any of the 8 soldiers that served with him... And we have a very dear friend in France who paticipated in the second Gulf war 1991 - came back with the "gulf war syndrome". He can´t work two to three days per month because of headaches and other symptoms. As far as I heard the Czech army was the only one to recognize the gulf war syndrome as a reason to pay a pension - the returning French, the British and the US soldiers showing the same or similar symptoms were not released.

Andreas
 
I was extended 3 months and 28 days in 1975...so this is a long standing issue.

.
 
interesting. it is not possible here to be extended without wanting to.

we do have a mandatory military (or civil) service though, right now it's for 9 Months. No way to extend it if you don't want to.
 
richardallen said:
we do have a mandatory military (or civil) service though, right now it's for 9 Months..
Click to expand...

Although I would have never wanted to do it, I think that that is actually a good idea. That way everybody has to pitch in as a citizen. Would throw a lot of classes and races in together and (hopefully) promote greater understanding and harmony.
 
For years the National Guard was a safe way to draw benefits and money without risk to personal safety. That has changed.

Charles Rangel NY represents the radical position of bringing back the Draft. It is a strange observation that the party once so bitterly opposed to it now has a large faction inside that wants it back. The hope is to exert pressure on foriegn policy they can no longer set because of diminshed power in Congress. Therefore; the assertion of it being more 'fair' to have a Draft is disingenious. There are other motives for bringing it back that have nothing to do with Social Engineering and 'fairness'.

In an ideal, the all volunteer armed service makes sense. We should pay them more. The risk of personal injury has actually never been less, and it would represent a decent career with accetable risk to many.

I think the benfits of soldiering have not caught up to the All Volunteer concept. We could 'shortchange' the temporary soldier under the Draft; it is obvious we cannot continue that approach with the true professional soldier. Life had changed.

I'm pretty proud of our all volunteer forces. Like any big business administration, the Brass and politico's are greedy. They want something for nothing. It is not going to shock anyone that persons will not sign up for bad pay and long service for nothing. There are market and intrinisic laws in effect here.

Ideally, we should get to a point where we turn away many applicants because we want the best, and pay for them too. Three hots and a cot won't cut it. Either will free beer.

There are a lot of people who cannot afford college today. Spending money for their furthering education through armed service makes sense. We get professional service and an educated populace.

At any rate, there are growing pains with our current system. We've stressed the requirements of 'all volunteer' and must face reality. It will either grow to meet this new reality or collapse. Then we can reinstate the draft and pay more money for less productivity; but at least we'll have bodies.

I see no problem with this thread- the forum has many exmilitary persons and current forumites serving. No one has gotten angry and we've treated the topic respectfully.


munk
 
Interesting ideas here. As a disabled vet I get benefits....for now....read this and all of you fellow vets may have something to think about.

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Scott_032905-P1,00.html

Not sure what's going to happen, but it is interesting. Oh, yeah, I was extended too back eons ago. But it was for a good reason....I got to do a tour in Germany which I absolutely loved. Wish I could go back.
 
munk said:
Ideally, we should get to a point where we turn away many applicants because we want the best, and pay for them too. Three hots and a cot won't cut it. Either will free beer.
Click to expand...

No...but when one has neither three hots nor a cot, it makes for a very attractive offer.

I signed up back in '96. I remember making about $300 every two weeks during my initial training as an E-I-owe-you-1. I had a comfortable rack in open bay berthing, access to a pretty good gym, and I was on a base in a great area (Orlando) that was hosting a fifth of the people it had been built for...you did not wait in line for anything. The chow sucked but they'd give you as much of it as you wanted.

It was a pretty good deal for me at the time. :)

If they want more people, they will have to offer more. Offering more means paying more. A draft is a solution but you'll hear politicians discussing it far more than the military does - the fact is, most of us don't think it's a particularly good idea. (Of course, most of us don't think stop-lossing is a good idea either, but there you go.)

As far as turning people away, it largely depends on the branch of service now. The navy has a program in place called "Perform to Serve," currently applying (as far as I know) to first-termers looking to re-up. What happens is that some paperwork must be filled out, with the service member stating what other jobs they'd consider doing. The navy makes a decision based on the member's performance, the manning level of their rate, and some other factors - at the end of it, they keep their job, are given a new job, or are sent packing. There's been talk of applying this to second-termers as well but I don't know what came of it. I'll let the folks from the other branches explain how they're doing things.

For the record, while I gripe about my extension, I probably would've stuck around voluntarily had they asked me to. What else am I going to do? ;)
 
Roadrunner said:
In 2001 my ETS (Estimated Time of Seperation) date was changed to December of 2025 because my specialty was placed under stop-loss. They weren't really planning to keep me until 2025, in fact I'll be getting out in less than 75 days. :D It's a record-keeping measure only, the longest that I know of anyone being extended for is one year. Now I do agree that it seems this guy is being asked to do too much, but please don't think that he's really going to be asked to serve until 2031. It's EXTREMELY unlikely.
Click to expand...
This is good to know. I suspected as much.

However, I can't say I endorse such "record keeping measures" by my government.
 
Couldn't agree with you more Howard. Believe me, it was a heck of a shock to get a paycheck that stated I had another 24 years to go instead of 3.5. :eek: I think the idea is to enter a date so far out in the future that anyone looking at the record can tell at a glance that the servicemember is under stop-loss. Military finance works in strange and mysterious ways. My personal belief is that they limit their staff to those applicants who score in the bottom 50% of the entrance exam. If you score too high they push you into something else. Just a theory of mine. ;)
 
OK fellas, I've been doing a bit more research into this situation, as I have been seriously considering joining the National Guard when my enlistment is up this summer. Here's a link: http://koit.com/new_fall/headlines.cfm?id=78494

The thing that caught my eye about this article is that SGT Santiago signed up for eight years; the same time period that I enlisted for. You see, whenever you enlist in the US military, for any time period, you really enlist for eight years. You may have heard of the Inactive Ready Reserve, or IRR. This is comprised mainly of soldiers whose active duty obligation has been fulfilled, but who still have an additional inactive duty obligation to fulfill. Here's a link explaining further: http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Reserve_Ready.htm So even if you sign a four year active duty enlistment, like I did, you are obligated to serve for up to four additional years if the military deems it necessary, for a total of eight years. While I don't like this, I can see that it's a legitimate measure designed to protect the national interest. Also, I was aware of this obligation when I signed my contract and intend to honor that commitment if called upon to do so. HOWEVER, the government has absolutely no right to break that contract except in the most extreme circumstances (i.e. invasion of the continental United States by a foreign power). Basically, if they need to recall people who have no remaining IRR obligation, then they had better revive the draft to, because those folks have served their time, unlike so many of their peers. Once their eight years are up, they're up, and SGT Santiago's should be too. I no longer have any desire to serve in the National Guard if they now intend to extend contracts beyond the eight years we all sign up for. That is utterly and completely wrong and breaks faith with everything that America stands for. I urge all of you to write to your Congress-people about SGT Santiago's case and tell them what you think. It's a slap in the face to the American military, the same people who volunteer to risk their lives in the defense of their nation and it's people. As a volunteer I'm willing to help, but I have no intention of signing an open-ended contract if this is the way it will be abused. It's not right.
 
no it isn't right, Roadrunner I agree with you. But it seems that once they have you, they don't want to let go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top