Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

IRR MERITS STOP-LOSS PAY

There has been a lot of news recently in Army Times about the stop-loss pay, which “provides $500 monthly to soldiers who have been extended beyond their enlistment or voluntary separation or retirement dates” [“Seize the pay,” June 15].

This pay could be significant and is worthy recognition of those who serve beyond their commitment. The only problem is that this special pay seems to have forgotten about activated Individual Ready Reserve soldiers, all of whom have completed their enlistment or have voluntarily separated.

IRRs are those soldiers who literally got a letter in the mail to go to war. And though it turns out that an IRR could have ignored those orders with little repercussions, as many did, many still came.

If not for IRR soldiers, shortages would have to be filled by soldiers plucked from other units (active, Reserve or National Guard) some of which may have just returned from a deployment.

There are IRRs that have been out for more than 10 years, some only six months. Some are grandpas or new mothers, and some have already served multiple deployments, but all have had to make drastic changes in their lives to do what is asked of them by their country. I know most IRRs have yet to complete their eight-year commitments.

But ask yourself which you would prefer: being forced to stay with a unit you know, or being ripped from your civilian life to serve wherever the Army requires you? I would be surprised if anyone would prefer to be called from the IRR. And yet the Army recognizes the sacrifice made by stop-loss soldiers but not the very real sacrifices made by IRRs.

I am an IRR call-up, and I have the honor of serving with just under 200 IRRs preparing to deploy to Iraq. They know what is required of them, and you can see it in their eyes that they don’t need awards or accolades to complete the mission.

However, a little recognition would certainly raise their morale and make them feel that their sacrifice is at least appreciated (and understood) by the Army.

-- Capt. Ian Baierlipp, Keller, Texas

STRAINING THE RESERVE

Planning for the call-up of the Reserve components of a period of 12 months every five years looks great on paper, but is not practical. The reserves were wisely created years ago for one reason — to be a strategic asset in time of national emergency.

To intentionally deploy this force on a routine and recurring basis will essentially reduce the force to rubble. Recruiting and retention, already in decline, will only worsen.

Further, the new five-year training cycle increases the annual training requirements from 14 days in the first and second years to 21 days in year three, and to 29 days in year four. This policy places an unrealistic burden on civilian employers. We cannot expect civilian employers to look favorably on employees who can only work four out of five years, and must spend increasing time away from the job for annual training. This increased annual training requirement and one-in-five-years deployment philosophy will subject employees who are reservists to discrimination. They will leave the Reserve.

If you had a choice of hiring someone who must be replaced one out of every five years versus an employee who had no expectation of deployment, who would you hire? Small-business entities just cannot survive if their only employee (in the case of sole proprietorship) or a key employee (in a small business) has to be away for a year.

Such a strategy of planned deployments once every five years will, over a short period of time, lead to attrition and result in a Reserve force comprised mostly of federal, state and municipal employees. Governmental employers are less likely to discriminate. I’m not discounting the value of government employees, but I submit such a policy will cause us to lose the variety of experience and knowledge our civilian citizen-warriors bring to the force.

-- Lt. Col. David S. Miller (ret.), Newton, N.J.

BERET SURVEY NEEDED

I think it’s about time for Army Times to do another survey on the black beret. I still feel that there should only be two berets in the Army — one for Special Forces and one for the Rangers.

I know that then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki felt this would be a unifying symbol for the “Army of One” campaign, but I believe that the beret never lived up to expectations and created more controversy than help in recruiting soldiers.

The patrol cap should be the only headgear worn with the duty uniform. The beret should become a Class A/B item and should only be worn with those uniforms. The ordinary soldier needs to be able to go from the office to the motor pool to the field without having to worry about what headgear he has to have on. The beret does not unify today’s Army — training and camaraderie does.

Do the survey and let the field tell you what I have been hearing. We need to look like soldiers in order to act like soldiers.

-- Master Sgt. David Shiroma, Kaneohe, Hawai

ADVICE FOR LEADERS

It’s a shame these days that our leadership defines its preventive measures on how often they give a class on an issue. Every year, it gets more ridiculous with all the “don’t beat your spouse,” “don’t drink and drive” and suicide prevention classes, etc. The officer corps and many of the senior enlisted soldiers are out of touch.

• Senior noncommissioned officers should eat in the mess hall once a day with their soldiers. One of the best indicators of morale is our mess halls.

• When there is no place to consume alcoholic beverages, soldiers will overindulge and abuse the substance, to include drugs. Leadership calls them men and treats them like children.

• Standards are not enforced by the new breed of NCOs or officers. We need to quit coddling our young soldiers and treat them like the men and women they are.

• Basic training should be the most trying and stressful time in a young soldier’s life and a time to weed out the weak links.

• An outdated system puts a 22-year-old in charge of a 36-man platoon and sends them into war. How much sense does it make to put that young officer with one year of experience in charge over an NCO with 15 or more years in the same job?

When your unit has a high DUI, suicide and AWOL rate, it’s a direct reflection of the leadership in that unit. If you don’t eat, sleep and train with your soldiers, how can you prevent problems with your soldiers and within your units? They are soldiers, not babies. They are to fight battles and wars and not to be coddled. Truth hurts.

-- Sgt. 1st Class Ryan Cain (ret.), Georgetown, Ky.