The Times’s Discharge
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
“The Pentagon’s decision to press 5,600 honorably discharged soldiers back into service, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the latest example of President Bush’s refusal to face the true costs of pre-emptive war.” That’s how the New York Times began yesterday its editorial, “Ill-Serving Those Who Serve,” complaining about the Bush administration’s decision to call elements of the Individual Ready Reserve, an action it asserts comes “uncomfortably close to conscription.”
A factual error in the Times lead sentence mars its argument, however. Contrary to what it says, members of the Individual Ready Reserve have not been discharged, honorably or otherwise. Brian Kappmeyer, a public affairs specialist at the Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis, explains it this way: “That ‘honorably discharged’ part of the article is wrong because they aren’t discharged soldiers. They’re still part of the Army. Individual reserve soldiers are soldiers that have less active duty, but still have a commitment to the Army left…They aren’t drilling with an Army reserve unit, and they aren’t actually going to the monthly drills that re servists normally go to. Discharged means that they’ve been put out of the Army. These soldiers are still in the Army.”
The Army spokesman called the Times’s error understandable, as some people going off active duty say they’ve been discharged, but an error nonetheless. It’s one that undercuts the entire premise of the Times’s argument. This is not conscription. It is using existing Army personnel for what they contracted to do. It is something the administration is entitled, even obligated, to do. There need not be the slightest hesitation on the part of the Pentagon to use the Individual Ready Reserve, apart from the reluctance any commander or government official feels to put anyone in harm’s way.
As for conscription, we’d be all for it if it would be a cost-effective way to win the war. The Bush administration, however, has stated it’s not necessary. Those, such as Congressman Rangel, who have backed the draft have done so in the hope that it will fuel anti-war sentiment. Which is no doubt why the Times is so eager to represent the Individual Ready Reserve as something that it is not.
