Day by Day

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Why the Military doesn't trust the Media

Maybe it's because the Media doesn't have a f**cking clue about the military? Hmmmmmm?

WASHINGTON Â? As many as 7,500 retired and discharged soldiers who are not members of the National Guard or Reserve will be involuntarily recalled to active duty for possible service in Iraq or Afghanistan, Army sources told FOX News Tuesday.


It will be the first time the Army has relied on the Individual Ready Reserve, as this category of reservists is known, in substantial numbers since the 1991 Gulf War.

And this is from Fox News, supposedly the bastion (if you listen to the moonbats) of conservative press.

Let's clear this up right now. Individual Ready Reserve, also known as Inactive Reserve, IS NOT RETIRED OR DISCHARGED TROOPS! Every initial enlistment is for EIGHT YEARS. You can serve anywhere from two years active to eight years active, but you must serve EIGHT YEARS. If you choose to serve less than eight years on active duty, your enlistment continues, either in the National Guard or Active Reserve (which is entirely voluntary) or in the INACTIVE READY RESERVE. Just because you are not on active duty does not mean that your enlistment is finished, you are simply inactive. If PFC Snuffy gets out of active duty in four years, he does not receivee his discharge papers until the entire enlistment is completed. It will come in the mail in four more years. Does everybody understand this now?

You don't drill. You don't train. You don't wear a uniform. All it means is that should the military need troops, you will get called. That's the entire function of the IRR. It does not apply to retirees, or any military service member who has already completed their eight years of service. If you do ten years in the Army, and then get out of the service, you are NOT on the IRR because you've already finished the initial eight years. Any voluntary extentions after those eight years to not tack any more time onto the IRR. That eight years is set in stone, and once you complete it, you're finished with it.

Anyone familiar with the military knows this. Anyone with a compter, internet connection, and fifteen seconds of free time can find this information. So what does it say when the Media gets a simple fact about the military such as this completely and utterly wrong?

It proves that the Media doesn't know jack shit about the military, and doesn't care to learn anything about it. THAT is why the military distrusts the media. And they have a damn good reason for it.

Hat tip to Blackfive.

UPDATE: Via Instapundit comes yet another reason why the Military is begining to loath the Media.

Don't take my word for it that the Post’s reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news. In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation." Translation: we are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting. (emphasis mine)


Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either.

No comments: