Reservist fighting his fifth war call-up

Source: Miami Herald

PORT ST. LUCIE -- Erik Botta believes he's done right by his country.

Days after 9/11, as a young Army reservist, he volunteered to go to war. He was soon in Afghanistan.

The next year, he was sent out again, this time to Iraq, part of a Special Operations team.

In the next two years, he was sent to Iraq again. And again.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/163895.html

:sarcasm:

Until Bush is impeached and imprisoned in the Hague, I will reserve my rights to refuse to go.

Hawkeye-X

knows you forfeit all your rights when you join up. He isn't getting a fair shake obviously but in the end he has no rights.

it will no longer exist.

This administration has abused the Reservist as no other has in the past. This administration then fights the reservist when they come back injured claiming they are not Full Time Active Duty....

Yes. He's getting screwed over. By Dick and Bush. These folks have done so much for these two assholes. All we can do to thank these military folks over in Afg and Irq is to impeach cheney and bush and then bring them home.

The military would be certain never to allow a gay man to serve.

:sarcasm:

snip
He had completed five of his eight years in the service,.....

snip


Nowhere else in the article does it mention the length of time he signed up for or what kind of college tuition assistance he is getting from the reserves.

snip

...Botta notes that he is attending school on the GI Bill, maintaining a 3.9 grade-point average, and is grateful that he can use his Army skills in his work with military contractors.

If he signed up in 2000, his duty should be comming to an end by the end of 2007. imo if the unit he is attached to is going back overseas... looks like he will finish up his time while overseas as opposed to stateside.

hmmmm...

they may even offer him a generous signing bonus to re up while deployed..
He should blog his personal story

...trapped in a made-up war.

So when he comes home, he'll be snapped up by Blackwater at a huge salary, made a commandant and deployed to the next New Orleans incident to shoot looters. :eyes:

It sounds like Uncle Sam is making him play Russian Roulette.

after viet nam, enlistment dropped to an all time low.

moron* and his room full of dopes know this. Once we pull out, our military will be in a very sad state of affairs.

In steps Blackwater. Mark my words.

Rewatch robotcop. corporate police.

Interesting point you made about Robocop. The company that built the robocops was also responsible for dismantling the Detroit Police Department. I wonder if the premise of that film will become a reality.

:shrug:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Army is not a democracy. And sometimes it just ain't fair. As civilians, its our responsibility to fight the fight to end the war. But this Sgt signed up. He is to do as he is told. The last thing we need is soldiers making decisions about their own deployments. That's for civilian leadership and most importantly, the public.

To the Sgt, I'd say: You wanna come home, vote for the nearest Democrat with balls. Not a 'moderate.' I mean a reliable Democrat. And encourage your friends to do the same.

I would tell you voting for people with "balls" is how we got into this war, and the democrats have been voting for it all along, with a few notable exceptions.

I think the first thing we need is soldiers refusing to deploy, not the last. I'm fine with troops making their own decisions not to be part of this. The oath isn't to do whatever asinine and illegal thing the president says to do. It's to protect the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the mission's not related to that, it's fair game to question it.

The folks that fired at Kent State should have refused orders. A whole lot of folks throughout history should have refused orders. I don't fault those who sign up and do what they're told, the training sets you up to do that, but I have a special respect for those who have spent jail time rather than deploy over there. The decision to go to prison instead of kill Iraqis impresses me far more than any medals.

We got into this war by voting for Republicans with only balls. Balls are required. But so is a brain.

Legal orders have to be followed. From the top on down. There isn't any alternative to discipline in the ranks. Once you inject choice into the equation, then comes the real danger. What do you do? Give your troops an order and wait till they talk it over? That's not an Army, that's an armed mob.

If this soldier is willing to go to jail, I accept that. But under no circumstances should he be excused from his obligation.

Only if you think men's genitals prevent wars in some way. That hasn't been my experience, but you go right on believing it if it makes you happy.

"Legal orders have to be followed. From the top on down. There isn't any alternative to discipline in the ranks."

Yeah, see, I don't view the whole Abu Ghraib thing as "discipline" in the ranks, even if Gonzales did say it was legal. And I don't view blanketing a city in white phosphorus as discipline in the ranks. Ditto for free-fire zones, our behavior at check points, and occupying countries that never attacked us.

Let's be realistic, sometimes the Army IS an armed mob.

I’m usually just an observer here, but this particular topic has special interest so I thought I’d dive on in with my two cents.

Some facts that are relevant to the case are; Congress has only granted partial mobilization authority to junior (turns out it’s a whole lot cheaper than a full mobilization since the guard and reserve get a whole lot less benefits under a partial mobilization) and under that law the military can mobilize one of its members for no more than two years. A service member in a volunteer status won’t count toward that two years maximum.

In my case, I volunteered for duty after Sept 11th and a month later I was mobilized to active duty for a period not to exceed two years. I served twelve months under that order, was released from that order and later served another year voluntarily, but the potential for another one year of mobilization was still there.

I saw first hand how 'policymakers' in Pentagon / guard / reserve have been trying to skirt that law (prompted by jaded opinion provided by the junior’s legal team) by attempting to rule that the mobilization authority is granted for each contingency. Meaning for example a reservist or guardsman could face a two year mobilization for Operation Noble Eagle, a two year mobilization for Operation Enduring Freedom and a two year mobilization for Operation Iraqi Liberation. From what I’ve seen and heard I’d be willing to bet there has been serious abuse and exploitation of our service men and women via this loophole.

It seems the military lost a pool of manpower available to it after September 11 when guardsmen were posted in the airports, and then used to augment security on stateside airbases. And it turns out two years is two years, and some were no longer a mobilization resource for the Army.

Every few months I see a news article floated discussing a high level military official wanting modify this 'policy'. I took the time to write a letter to Speaker Pelosi and the Washington Post letters to the editor to advise of the underhanded attempt to change law into policy.

I say if junior really needs the manpower, a full mobilization authority should be voted on by the members of Congress and they all should be held accountable just as the law intended. Otherwise stop the backdoor draft of guard and reserve members.

This should be an interesting case.