DOES THIS DEMAND A CORRECTION?

The New York Times claims that it will now issue corrections if it makes factual mistakes in its editorials. We'll see. As you know, I think the Times has happily been whipping its readers into a frenzy over the non-issue of an impending draft for quite some time.

This is the way today's lead editorial begins:

The Pentagon's decision to press 5,600 honorably discharged soldiers back into service, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the latest example of President Bush's refusal to face the true costs of pre-emptive war. As with other stopgap measures to paper over the poor planning of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, this one demands more from those who have already given the most: volunteer soldiers and their families. And because this call-up comes uncomfortably close to conscription, it highlights more than other emergency deployments the callousness of the administration's failure to budget for an adequate number of ground troops. (My emph.)

Let's take those one at a time.

Admittedly, only the first of those is factually incorrect, and we'll come back to that in a minute. But keep that in mind: according to the nation's leading newspaper, the soldiers being called back to service have all been honorably discharged. Now, you know and I know they went there for the memorable turn of phrase, but they wrote it, they printed it, they own it.

Second, excuse me, I understand that there are all kinds of things that critics of the war want to claim are a result of "poor planning," and that's a reasonable argument to make and a reasonable debate to have, but at some point the argument runs out of steam. You can't both say that the administration should have forseen there would have been resistance and argue that the resistance was born of the poor planning. This need for additional soldiers isn't a function of bad planning, it's a result of the fact that we haven't won against Zarqawi and the boys yet.

Does it require the most from those who have volunteered to serve? Uh, yeah, but that's kind of a tautology. Most wars demand the most in military service from those who are in the military. But, hey, thanks for the insight.

Is it conscription? I'll deal with that in a second. But is it callous? That's a matter of perspective. I would consider it more callous to send a platoon to Iraq without a medic then to ask someone to fulfill a contract they've agreed to. But that's me.

The Times editorial board continues:

Last week's mobilization decision involved the Army's Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of 117,000 former officers and soldiers who have completed their active or reserve duty, but still have time left on the eight-year contracts they signed when they enlisted. Given the urgency of the need for more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can see why tapping that ready reserve was so tempting. But that urgency is of the administration's own making. (My emph.)

That's borderline incoherent. If they have time left on their contracts, they, first and foremost, have not yet been discharged, honorably or any other way, nor have they, by definition, "completed" their active or reserve duty. That also means it may not be entirely accurate to refer to them as "former" soldiers, but I'll give that one a pass.

But let me quote from someone who knows the specifics even better than I:

The military is not calling back discharged and retired individual soldiers. They are dipping into the Individual Ready Reserve. There is a big difference between calling up IRR soldiers and recalling retired or discharged soldiers.

When you sign a contract to enlist or get a commission, it is generally for EIGHT years. You perform four years of Active Duy, then you have four left in the Reserves or National Guard. The branch of the Reserves and National Guard that does not have soldiers perform monthly or annual training is the Individual Ready Reserve. It's usually where the dead weight is put - where those who don't add value are placed to finish out their obligation. For instance, if you had a work conflict with your Reserve committment, you would be placed in the IRR to finish out your committment. If you were consistently absent from the monthly weekend training, you would get placed in the IRR.

Everyone in the IRR should know that they can get called to service just like any other Reservist.

There are no indications that the military is calling up 7,500 retirees or formerly discharged soldiers - people like me with a DD214 Form indicating termination of service. They are calling up Reservists and National Guardsmen who are in a pool of soldiers in the IRR. It's a resource that can be tapped and it's not a shock to many Reservists or Guardsmen.

I presume that means we can expect to see a correction from the Times any day now?

The Times then argues that this proves that we need to see an enlargement of the military's end strength. I'm not at all sure that's a bad idea. But they slip in this little gem:

In the meantime, overworked soldiers get orders for extended and multiple tours, even as new evidence shows that one in six soldiers who returned home from earlier tours in Iraq is showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or other severe emotional difficulties

Well, I'm behind on my reading but I can't imagine how broadcast missed that story. 1 in 6? I want evidence, and I want evidence that this is something chronic, something more than is to be expected upon return from a stressful deployment, something that won't quickly dissipate. This is just more, I suspect, of the media's effort to turn the American fighting man and woman into yet another victim group.

This is supposed to be the nation's leading newspaper. They should at least be able to get straight the relationship between the different categories of military service. We're almost three years into a period of war. Isn't it absolutely necessary that they do so -- reserve call-ups began within about a month of September 11th, and they've run articles about the impact on Guard and Reserve families on a regular basis. Now we find out they don't even know what a Guard or Reserve family is.

Comments

[Rebecca]

Every time I read a news story or editorial like this one, I always have the same thought: are they deceitful, or just dumb? Maybe both? I never can decide.

[Glenmore Shelton]

"...one in six soldiers who returned home from earlier tours in Iraq is showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or other severe emotional difficulties..."

I have read (Burkett & ?, 'Stolen Valor') that the PTSD rate among Vietnam vets was 1 in 3! And curiously, that rate did not correlate with rigor of the position (lower among Special Forces than among Saigon supply clerks). Also curiously, the rate skyrocketed once the diagnosis became accompanied by substantial financial compensation. And continued to rise even 20 years after the war. One suspects there is a relatively small (?10%) core of soldiers who need some significant degree of assistance re-adjusting to civilized life, but their needs get lost in the larger numbers generated by bureaucrats who want to inflate the numbers for their own purposes, and those who feel 'entitlement' to some money, and those who want sympathy - to make others feel 'guilty'. I suspect the perception of public opposition to the war effort - the 'belittling' of the soldiers' effort and sacrifice - may cause worse PTSD than the war experience itself for a lot of people. Could be something similar happening now?

[IceCold]

Kudos Cori for at least touching on the illogical mess that is the "poor planning" complaint. The militarily-illiterate masses in the elite press and Beltway circles virtually worship the aphorism that "war plans never survive first contact with the enemy", yet simultaneously carp that "planning" wasn't perfect. Planning is key, but adaptation to (typically) unexpected developments is far, far more important. Our adaptation in Iraq has been generally quite good, and any arguable shortcomings have nothing to do with numbers, but tactical and strategic choices.

The logically unavoidable implication of the view shared by the NYT is that Iraq should only have been taken down if it wouldn't be difficult, specifically wouldn't have required full mobilization of available assets and some stress on the force. A silly -- but typical -- process complaint. The objective isn't the point -- it's whether there's any sweat in reaching it. Dumb.

The virtual conspiracy of silence on another point you sort of touch on -- that the key variable in Iraq has not been our planning but the behavior of Iraqis and jihadis -- continues to vex. Yesterday I saw Dennis Ross on the dreaded FoxNews, and in his litany of the challenges facing us in Iraq he gently danced around this matter, as everyone does (the administration of course doesn't even mention it -- in public, that is). The brutal short-hand is that our flawed estimates were in fact OVER-estimates of the Iraqis themselves. They've been quite slow to break out of their brutalized-step-child syndrome. The politically correct b.s. on this is to point out how totalitarianism has made them careful hedgers of their bets -- but this is simply making excuses and actually puts them in an even worse light. In the end they'll probably redeem themselves and help shape their future -- but for much of the past year they've had the security situation they deserved. Common sense and lots of direct anecdotal info confirm that in areas where Iraqis were aggressively cooperative, violence (whether jihadi, Ba'athist, or -- the most common -- criminal) didn't last long.

I've spent a lot of time in recently post-totalitarian societies, and Iraq looks pretty familiar. It's not judging them to observe that they are simply refusing to step up and help create a better future for themselves -- it's just factual.

[Schwing]

On the IRR, I think the personnel procedures are more complex. I think Blackfive is dead wrong on part of his statement. He says one signs up for eight years, which is four active and four in the Guard or Reserves, and the "dead weight" goes to the IRR. That is not accurate. One owes 8 years, which include four active and four in the broadly-defined reserves, which could be in the Guard (state run), Army Reserves (Army run) or the IRR. Many of my ROTC colleagues served four years on active duty, and four in the IRR. It is not a matter of being dead weight; it is just another way to fulfill the obligation.
There is a bit more complexity with officers in the Regular Army (and perhaps enlisted, but I just don't know.) I earned a Regular Army commission from ROTC. I was commissioned initially into the Army Reserves, active duty. A few months later, I was commissioned into the Regular Army. I owed four years active, and four years reserves. I served five years active duty in the Regular Army, then received my DD214 termination of service papers upon resignation, and was commissioned into the reserves, and served out my obligation in the IRR.
I agree with the substance of what Blackfive said, and agree the journalists are missing the point entirely in the characterization of the IRR callup as some backdoor draft or involuntary servitude. I just think once it starts to get tough to understand, reporters consider it all mumbo-jumbo and give up trying to understand it, and go with the meme that brought them: the war is bad, Rumsfeld tries to fool us, and everything done with the war must be nefarious.

[IceCold]

Well put, Schwing! Your last sentence is a 10-megaton direct hit (and as we all know, a direct hit usually requires no more than a few kt).

[Richard Aubrey]

This is all very nice, telling each other once again that the NYT is a rag.
The real question is what happens when the paper is given the facts and a correction is requested.
Do we know for certain that the moron who wrote this and his/her editor have been given the facts?

[dauber]

Isn't it their job to go out and GET the facts? I understand that there's complexity in the system, but we're now three years in. They've run an awful lot of straight news stories about the impact of the war on the Guard and Reserve -- shouldn't there be somebody in the paper with a name and number in the rolodex that could answer the relevant questions? But that only happens if someone stops to ponder whether they might need to ask, whether they might not already know everything they need to know. And THAT'S the real problem here -- they assume that they know what they're talking about and that there's no need to check, they, as Schwing suggests, fall back on previous assumptions. But even in an editorial, when it comes to statements of fact, according to their policy THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. That's my beef about reporting on military issues in a nutshell.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Richard: Do we know for certain that the moron who wrote this and his/her editor have been given the facts?

Yes, we do. I wrote them personally.

[McQ]

There are two types of people in the IRR. Those who are simply working off their obligation and those who are unable, for whatever reason (rank, location, MOS, etc) to find a slot in a reserve or NG unit.

In each case the IRR soldier is obligated to have a "good year", i.e. earn enough points that the year counts as one toward either the end of his or her obligation or toward their retirement goal. There are various ways to do this.

The bottom line is this: IRR servicemembers are no different than any other reservist and subject to the same call-up requirements of the military as a reservist in a regular unit. To pretend they're being dragged back into the military unwillingly after they've been discharged is just pure and utter nonsense and flatly wrong.