scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Taking advantage of being the government

Posted by Trevor in under other on Jun 19th, 2006 | View Comments |

Government can do things no individual can do, but that doesn’t mean it should take advantage of its power.

I’ve written about and am following the situation of Captain Brad Schwan, a reservist who has completed his obligatory service term but finds he cannot resign from the military.

Captain Schwan wrote recently to tell me that the Secretary of the Army thinks the policy of forcing officers who wish to resign after their legal obligations are over is unwise. From his web site:

Ann Scott Tyson of the Washington Post (she wrote this article about Reserve officers resignations also posted on the links page) recently interviewed Francis Harvey, the Secretary of the Army (and also a named party in my lawsuit). Here is the exchange:

TYSON (ph): Thereâ€™s been a little controversy with the Army Reserve requiring some officers to stay indefinitely in the reserves, which is a bit of an aberration from the active duty Army; do you think thatâ€™s a wise policy?

HARVEY: No, I think its unwise policy and that is not the policy of the Army. That was a policy of an individual who decided that was his policy, so we are â€“ and as you noted, we donâ€™t do that in the active, so we are in the process of reviewing that policy and I can tell you that the â€“ our approach is going to be that when a person meets their mandatory service obligation that by-and-large in the vast, vast majority of cases we will honor that and they can resign their commission and move on. Now, there may be an occasion where you may want to keep a person and maybe in a stop loss situation because of a skill requirement but those will be evaluated on an individual basis and theyâ€™ll be on a case-to-case basis and the authority and the final decision on that will be with the Department of Army, not the Chief of the Army Reserves or anybody in the reserves because we want to have uniformity both in the active and in the reserves, so not a wise policy in my opinion.

There are many questions that should be asked when military personnel who have completed their end of a contract find that the government doesn’t have an interest in honoring its end of that contract. Should the government have eminent domain over human beings? I’m dubious. Is an individual forced into extended military servitude likely to be the motivated, dedicated, committed professional we need on today’s modern battlefields. I’m dubious. Can we continue advertising that we’re an all volunteer force if we’re forcing people to stay beyond the terms to which they orginally agreed. I’m dubious.

When I have problems with the government honoring its obligations to me or following through on something like a promotion, I’m often told I’ll have to wait, or to suck it up. Basically, the government always has the upper hand in any dealings with me as an individual. That’s not very motivational since my entire raison d’etre is to protect the 280 million individuals who call themselves Americans.

There is a part of the NCO creed that goes thus:

My two basic responsibilities will always be uppermost in my mind — accomplishment of my mission and the welfare of my soldiers. I will strive to remain tactically and technically proficient. I am aware of my role as a Noncommissioned Officer. I will fulfill my responsibilities inherent in that role. All soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with my soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishment.

The Army should practice the same values it preaches at all levels.

Previous entries on this topic:

Captain Brad Schwan responds regarding his lawsuit to leave the service
Army Captain sues to separate

Army Using Policy to Deny Reserve Officer Resignations

Similar Posts:

Print This Post |

kitanis

Its interesting to read his case as it unfolds. The Army/Air Force Times misrepresented his case when I read it. I was under the impression that he was still in his obligation as a Officer. But that is not necessarily the case.

I also find it it interesting that the Secretary of the Army stated what he said to a reporter. But in the issue at hand.. has taken no action. Stop Loss is used in times of emergency or manpower influx. This case should be a sign of Stop Loss as used by the convience of the government against one indivdual, not a career field or a group of individuals.

The Army is scrambling to maintain its numbers. Meanwhile the Air Force is scrambling to reduce its end-strength numbers. I have a flight commander who is going to be promoted to Captain.. Active Duty. He gets to keep it for a whole Month before he is involuntarily Sperated from the Air Force. Reason Given.. We have too many officers as a result of 9/11 build up and and had to reduce numbers this year by 57,000 troops. So a person who became a officer to have a career in serving his country is declared surplus because of his stratefication as a officer by his commissioning date. On the enlisted side, there we force shapping seperations, deney first term airman re-enlistments etc etc.

This comming fiscal year.. the USAF is going to reduce their end strength again by about 40,000 troops. They are now trying to get high ranking colonels to retire early. The reason given is that the AF is trying to reduce personnel costs so they can purchase new airplanes.. F-22's and F-35's. The enlisted are again seperating by force shapping etc.

My own career field (Graphic Design in civilian paralence) is being deleted in the comming fiscal year. Photography and Video troops will be "rolled" into public affairs to make them more in line of what Trevor does in the Army. I am not sure of my status in the scheme of things in this turmoil. But the rest of the Air Force is going to be culled from 278 career field's (MOS in Army terms) to about 100 according to the Chief of Staff. This will more than likely bring on more personnel cuts or retirements.

Interesting to see two services be so different during the war on terror.