Originally Posted by
Jetjok
blastoff,
I wasn't trying to confuse anyone with my comment. But the way I see it, after serving this country for 2 weeks shy of 34 years, my take is that one of the major differences between the Guard and the Reserves is that, indeed, while serving in the Guard, a single individual (or a small group of individuals) cannot be activated and then deployed, unless of course they volunteer for such service, while on the other hand, while serving in the Reserves, a single individual (or small group of individuals) can in fact be activated and thereafter deployed. In other words, in the Guard, the government must activate an entire unit, whereas in the Reserves they can activate down to an individual Soldier/Airman/etc. Hope that's more clear. As for my license plate, no I was not being facetious, as I've had that plate on that car probably since you were born.
I know what you mean...however, I don't know of anybody, at least in the tanker community, that has been individually deployed against their will. There are so many guys volunteering to backfill active duty (especially now with all the furloughs) that it's not an issue. Talking to most guys at your age, there has never been a shortage of willing volunteers in their career...including times when units were "partially" activated, there have been more volunteers than taskings. The reality is the same, don't confuse the kids. Sometimes our senior officers (34+ Years) don't realize when they're talking right over the head of a recruit who knows nothing about the military...the guy who actually went through the current system in the last decade can give him useful information
. As far as he's concerned, his whole Unit can get deployed in the Guard, as can a Reserve Unit, while the vast majority of Reservists aren't getting volun-told to deploy as you imply. Besides, any SQ/CC worth a damn isn't going to send a guy who has a need not to go.
Side Note: Is it really a good idea to recruit a guy as a Military Officer by dangling the carrot that he won't have to go to war in the Guard? Are these the kinds of things we should be saying to recruit the right guys? Are we setting him up for failure when he asks the same question about going to war and it rubs guys the wrong way? I have sat on hiring boards and there is no way I'm voting to hire the guy who wants to know what the min run commitment is.
Sorry to take such a sharp opinion on this, but we had a UPT hire quit during UPT on us a few years back after realizing that she could actually go to war. That slot could have gone to a kid who was more committed, and I know too many kids who have been denied who really deserved to be here.