Talk:Individual Ready Reserve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The IRR is where an induvidual does the rest of his 8 year obligation. All people when they enlist incur 8 years of service, it's broken down anywhere from 2 years active and 6 years inactive on up evenly (2x6, 4x4, 6x2).

My point is, it's not 'normal' for 4x4, only in the Regular Army. In the National Guard, especially with new recruits, you will see a 6x2 contract (6 years in the ARNG, 2 in the IRR).

Will I still be put into the IRR if I am chaptered out involuntarily? I want to go reserves but the recruiter said I have to be put in the IRR to qualify.

[edit] Numbers

Article needs a lot of detail on how big this is. Currently the reader can't tell if it's 2,000 people or twelve million. Suggested details to add:

  • What percentage of enlisted men go into the program? (categorized by service)
  • What percentage of officers? (categorized by service)
  • What's the current number?
  • How many people sign up for an 8-year obligation when they enlist?

Tempshill 22:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all enlistments are 8 years. Those who enlist into active duty typically spend the first 4 years in active duty, and the remaining 4 in the IRR. Reservists typically have a 6 year "drilling reservist" status, followed by two years in the IRR. --User:Cuervo @ 76.212.167.62 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Should we expand this? The IRR is going to be playing a huge role due to the GWOT.

Hal06 13:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


The article claims that "Until the Global War on Terror, members of the Individual Ready Reserve had not been called up since World War II." Then the article claims that "approximately 20,000 IRR troops were called up in support of Operation Desert Storm." One of these claims cannot be true.71.40.72.189 17:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The IRR was called up during Desert Storm. Source provided in article. Gelston 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a wiki guy but the source on Desert Storm is mighty weak. It's a breifing on a study and has almost no information on the extent of the callup or what their role was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.116.93 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Army bias

The article reads like it was written by a soldier (as opposed to a Marine, airman, or whatever). --Cuervo @ 76.212.167.62 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)