Go click the link.

[conuly]

I don't know. Are they supposed to do this sort of thing?

Comments

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Ummm, it doesn't really matter what they're supposed to do. Remember what Captain Jack Sparrow told Will Turner? "All that really matters is what a man can do and what he can't do."

Obviously they can try to recall him, because they've done it. And equally obviously he can try to fight it, because that's what he's doing. Who'll win?

I suspect he will, because ONE soldier isn't worth the trouble of fighting a big legal battle, and also because the publicity from this is going to be very bad. Consider: just how many people are there, who did their service and returned to civilian life long ago, who now have to worry that they too may be yanked away from their families and sent back to war?

I say, spread this article far and wide - I can think of no better way to cut support for the war among veterans, than by causing them to consider that they may be first in line to go fight it.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Consider: just how many people are there, who did their service and returned to civilian life long ago, who now have to worry that they too may be yanked away from their families and sent back to war?

Not very many who don't already know about it. See my comments above--inactive duty status is not a surprise to these people, and if they're currently still in it, they've probably been expecting this for some time. Follow my link for more information.

I'm betting thatthis guy beats it. I'm seriously thinking that it's a glitch, that he wasn't dropped off the rolls when he was suposed to be, and that it'll get fixed.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Umm, my father is a Navy Commander (retired; he's 78) so I do know that inactive-duty status isn't a surprise to people who still are ON inactive-duty status. I'll bet it is going to come as a big surprise to people who are not still on inactive-duty status, to learn that they could be "re-activated" like that.

Oh, doubtless it's a glitch, but that's not the point. Did they say "Oops, sorry, our mistake" and drop the matter when informed that it WAS a glitch? No, they did not. This guy's having to pay a lawyer, engage in this whole big legal battle - and yeah, he'll probably win, but that won't make up for the fact that he had to go through it at all.

Seems like there've been a lot of "glitches" in this war, doesn't it? "Ooops, Iraq didn't cooperate with al-Qaida after all"; "Ooops, no WMDs in Iraq"; "Ooops, the war's not over after all"... not to mention all the other little "glitches" like hanging chads and malfunctioning voting machines and....

... and I think people may be losing patience with the "glitch excuse". Doesn't mean it's not perfectly true in this case, of course, but how often can the same excuse be used before it starts to wear thin?

One thing everybody in the military learns real quick: whatever can happen to someone else, can also happen to you.