I'm back — just arrived home. Some photos of the day's work with a smattering of commentary will be up shortly (on that you can count). One brief political observation: last night, when I read that "retired and discharged soldiers" were to be called back to duty, my first thought was of how impolitic the move might be received by the American public. My second thought was that it couldn't be entirely true.

It turns out that my second impression was correct — Sergeant Stryker details how poorly the Associated Press understands military red tape:

That's inaccurate. When you sign your contract, you're agreeing to serve a specified period of time on active duty, and then serve the remaining time in the Inactive, or Individual Ready Reserves for a grand total of eight years Total Federal Military Service. It's not eight years beyond your active duty period, it's eight years TFMS with a certain period (4-6 years) on active duty.

As far as retirees are concerned, it's always been my understanding that you're on the hook for an additional ten years after you retire (I'm uncertain about the actual number of years). I know my father was placed into the Fleet Reserve for a time after he retired from the Navy, and I'm sure the other services have something similar to the Navy's program.

As to my first impression, there are people who will gladly grab this news and pin it to their official "Bush is Straining our Military" bulletin board. I had a conversation recently where my counterpart successfully turned every fighting man and woman into a victim who thought that the worst to face in Iraq was a stroppy camel. I didn't interrupt; a mind was made up and was going to lecture. Why challenge Newtonian discourse?

Stryker also mentions Stop-Loss, the military's ability to keep soldiers in rotation, which doesn't make for the happiest soldier &38212 but an order that appears to be rescinded as much as it is declared. Stryker's commenters, nearly all of them veterans, are just as insightful.