When I was in, we didn't hear about deserters much. In the 4 different
units I was in from Basic all the way to short time, I think only one
baile and he came back after his girlie told him,
"no check, no lovie dovie".
Other than that, nada..I was pretty surprised to read this today..>
http://www.yahoo.com/s/277551 I knew of a few when I was in, post Desert Storm. On top of that, a few who went AWOL for more than a few days (as much as 3 months in one case I remember), she tried to act like nothing happened when she came back, just showed up for work.
So what happens when they show up? Do they just take them back?
Desertion, technically, = AWOL > 30 days. When I was in, it was typically court-martial, and jail time followed by bad discharge. Note that a courtmartial = federal criminal conviction. Dishonorable Discharge = federal felony conviction.
So what happens when they show up? Do they just take them back?
Desertion, technically, = AWOL > 30 days. When I was in, it was typically court-martial, and jail time followed by bad discharge. Note that a courtmartial = federal criminal conviction. Dishonorable Discharge = federal felony conviction.
That was what I typically noticed, too. The ones I saw were usually just AWOL. Generally not a Courts Martial, but some bad juju. NJP with lost rank, pay, restriction, and brig time.
Do the reporters really not believe that we're smart enough to see through this crap?
Unfortunately, many are not.
Do the reporters really not believe that we're smart enough to see through this crap?
Yes.
Ask a random left winger what the Assault Weapons Ban did. Ask a random right winger what the Patriot Act does. You'd sincerely be surprised at how inaccurate the answers will be.
It depends...
OK, makes more sense to know it is really AWOL and not desertion
If you hold a certain level of security clearance or higher, they actually skip the AWOL thing and go right to Deserter status. I had to remind a couple of my young airmen about that when they went on a trip and I thought they weren't allowing themselves enough time for travel.
Read carefully and you'll see that desertion rates are actually DOWN, but they spin it to look like the opposite.
Anyone else notice that they don't bother to tell the real story (desertion is down considerably in recent years) until the end of the article? The story creats the impression that soldiers are deserting in droves in protest over the Iraq war, yet the facts support exactly the opposite conclusion.
Do the reporters really not believe that we're smart enough to see through this crap?
Which article are you guys reading? I clicked the link, and the very first paragraph says this:
At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.