I was in the Navy and all, but I've never heard this term before.
Does it apply to Army folks?
Is it basically inactive reserve?
Finally, is it a bad thing if they are abandoning the time limit?
Thanks guys and gals.
2007-01-11 15:43:32 · 4 answers · asked by powhound 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
National Guardsman.
No.
I don't like it. But since we're sort of running out of troops at this point, it's probably neccesary. Unless they want to just keep soldiers/Marines deployed on a semi-permanent basis. Or put airmen and sailors on the ground with rifles. Perish the thought! :)
2007-01-11 15:52:25 · answer #1 · answered by thelightedtorch 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is a term that applies to active reservists (both National Guard and federal Reserves). A soldier on active duty is a soldier 24/7/365. As such he gives up some of the rights afforded to ordinary citizens. A reservist can hold both roles. Mild mannered citizen by day, eagle eyed M1 gunner when the time calls.
2007-01-11 15:55:22 · answer #2 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A Citizen-Soldier was the term coined during WWII, when men went from being ordinary citizens, to soldiers in very little time. Then, after the war, the left their duty and went back to their normal lives.
Stephen Ambrose wrote a great book on them and since there is no longer a draft, it's tough to compare the soldiers/marines etc. of today, to the citizen soldiers of earlyl.
2007-01-11 15:58:30 · answer #3 · answered by goozeblahblah 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In today speak a citizen soldier would be called a terrorist.
I guess its anybody fighting for their country who isnt getting a wage.
Minute men,
IRA.
local militia
resistance groups.
I guess any volenteer who is outside the chain of command of the regular army.
2007-01-11 15:54:56 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋