Army Stop Loss

[OneAccord]

Army Issues Order to Stop U.S. Soldiers from Leaving

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has issued orders preventing thousands of soldiers designated to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment ends, officials said on Wednesday.

The latest "stop loss" and "stop movement" orders, broader than others issued previously, were a further sign of increasing stress on the Army as the Pentagon strives to maintain adequate troop levels in the two conflicts.

Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief, told reporters it would be wrong to see the move as a symptom of desperation but acknowledged that the Army was "stretched."

The Army issued the orders for active-duty soldiers and reservists in all units that will deploy outside the United States for future missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hagenbeck said the orders were open-ended, and could be in place for several years while the Army reorganizes itself into smaller, more-interchangeable units. The orders were meant to protect the cohesiveness of deployed units by keeping together soldiers who have worked and trained together, he said.

The "stop loss" order means that soldiers who otherwise could leave the service when their volunteer commitments expire, starting 90 days before being sent, will be compelled to remain to the end of their overseas deployment and up to another 90 days after they come home.

A "stop movement" order blocks soldiers from shifting to new assignments during the restricted period.

The Army previously has issued such orders covering some troops in the two conflicts. Since the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, some 45,000 soldiers have been affected by such orders, Hagenbeck said.

ALL-VOLUNTEER MILITARY

Critics argue that preventing soldiers from leaving the military at the end of their contractual obligation was a breach of trust, and undermined the concept of the all-volunteer military.

Without "stop loss," the Army would be forced to continuously replace thousands of soldiers in deployed units as their service commitments expired, Hagenbeck said.

"The rationale is to have cohesive, trained units going to war together. What you don't want to have happen is to walk out on the battlefield and meet each other for the first time and shake hands. And that's happened to me and all my predecessors, and we cannot do that. That puts soldiers lives at risk," Hagenbeck said.

Troops were eager to go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. "Soldiers want to go do this. This, by and large, is why the joined the Army," Hagenbeck said.

Army spokesmen were unable to give a figure for how many soldiers would be affected beyond saying it would be in the thousands.

The Pentagon has already taken steps to meet its plans to keep the total of 138,000 troops in Iraq to the end of 2005.

About 20,000 troops in Iraq were ordered to remain three months beyond their promised departure date. The Pentagon is moving to Iraq 3,600 soldiers from South Korea, where they have guarded against aggression from North Korea. And the Army is considering deploying units that until now have merely played the role of "enemy forces" in training exercises in the United States.

[barracuda]

Outside of Reuters, what is the source of your information?

I can go to 10 other sources that tell me that units are meeting or exceeding the reenlistment quotas.

Sounds like more negative liberal spin to me.

[Steff]

Well I have a friend who was in the marines and they did this to him. He had to serve an additional 4 months because they were short on troops. He didn't complain too loud but he was annoyed that he didn't get some type of compensation since he was planning on going to college on his GI bill as soon as he was out.

I think it's stupid to expect volunteers to stay additional time unless they are going to compensate them in some way, especially so for families if they are KIA.

Edited June 2, 2004 by Steff

[OneAccord]

Outside of Reuters, what is the source of your information?

I can go to 10 other sources that tell me that units are meeting or exceeding the reenlistment quotas.

Sounds like more negative liberal spin to me.

Aarrgh! If you disagree it must be negative liberal spin or scripture twisting or out of context..........sorry you don't like the article.

[ted]

Ahhh... the ol' stop-loss rears its' head again. I got caught up in it during the first gulf war. I was in Korea at the time and was kept there 4 months past my year.

On the surface, it's insulting to those that it affects. Those that are entangled in its' web feel betrayed and not very appreciated. We should have a better way of dealing with the problem. The problem is not enlistment or retention. The problem is two-fold:

1. Troop strength (current allowed numbers)

2. Military planning

By troop strength, I mean that the numbers are too low to sustain this level of activity. It's time to reverse the damage caused by the mid 90's drawdown and bring the military back to strength. It's irresponsible to think that we have enough troops to maintain this level of activity. When you talk in terms of retention and enlistment goals, meeting those goals only keeps the current level. And that's not enough. There is alot of talk about a leaner, more specialized military based on Special Forces and such. It sounds cool in the news and does work on initial assault situations, but it's the average guy and gal that gets to do the mop-up and transitional stuff. That's where we need the help most. To think that we can continue this courageous war on terror with the current strength that is available is to not truly understand the load placed on those that have to fight it. Not to mention the impact on the families and employers of the troops. (Employers are mentioned for the case of the NG and Reserve folks!).

Military planning to conduct a war of this magnitude is done in terms of weeks, months and even years. In order to formulate plans and put them in place, the focus shifts from current ops for a moment in time. In order to make that momentary shift in thinking, planners have to be sure that current activities are stable. They have to know what numbers will be available to them in the future to implement those plans. Stop-loss is a measure used by leaders to be able to meet the immediate need for sustainment so that they may continue to plan for the future operations that will come ahead. Keep in mind that all initial enlistments, no matter the service, are for eight years. On the surface, you serve out what is known as your active service. That is the years you spend on active duty or reserves in uniform. Having to show up to work in other words. Whether it's 2,4, or 6 years or whatever is up to you and the needs of the service. The remainder of the time equaling the 8 years are spent in what's called the inactive reserve. You are released from active service and are no longer required to "show up in uniform". You go to school, get married, find a job, buy a house,- whatever. Thank you for your service. You are free------ALMOST!

There are situations that may result in you being called back to active duty. It's no suprise to anyone that has raised his/her hand and was sworn in. You know it's there-but just hope it never affects you! The ones I truly have sympathy for are the ones that have put in their "twenty" and were ready to retire.

We could avoid stop-loss, for the most part, by giving commanders the numbers they need to sustain operations in today's world. If we are going to cunduct a war on terrorists, then let's do it right. WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE EFFORT IN THE CONDITION THAT WE ARE IN NOW. The impact has reached a point that needs to be fixed. The troops need a rest, along with their families. By infusing more troops and bringing back what we had ten years ago, the moral and war fighting capability of the service members will greatly increase on all levels.

My opinion of stop-loss, you ask? It's insulting and a slap in the face of those willing to serve, but it could be fixed. It's a sad reality, though. I just think we could thank those in the military in a much better way than this. I mean, at least give them some kind of higher compensation for the extra time. "Pain in the butt pay" maybe. A few more months on the DD-214 just doesn't cut it!

In His Love,

t.

[Work in Progress]

It's time to reverse the damage caused by the mid 90's drawdown and bring the military back to strength.

Thanks, Ted, for mentioning that. The military was totally degraded and harmed badly during that time, since they were neglected and shunned by that administration and , of course, we are now paying that price.

Always good to hear what you have to say Ted!

[OneAccord]

Thanks for your point of view, ted! So is this article negative liberal spin or is it really happening? :bright:

We could avoid stop-loss, for the most part, by giving commanders the numbers they need to sustain operations in today's world.

Seriously, though, what do you think needs to be done to bring the numbers up? I can't help but think "draft" when I hear this.

Also, by numbers you might mean military budget too. Where should this come from?

[ted]

No, this isn't liberal spin (this time. ) It is happening. I got caught up in it during the first gulf war while I was in Korea. It's something that happens from time to time. Just a sad reality of the times.

By "bringing up the numbers", I refer to both troops and budget. They kind of go hand in hand most times. We need more people. And we need to take care of those new troops along with the ones serving now.

During the mid 90's, congress decided that we could save some money by releasing around 400,000 troops and scaling back the armed forces. This basically began with the Graham- Rudman bill. (Republicans, by the way) Clinton signed off on it and the cutting began. (actually, it might have been before Clinton. I can't remember right now)Anyway, it seemed reasonable to some at the time because the cold war was over and we didn't really fully understand the terrorist threat yet. Sooo... out came the budget cuts. What many failed to see then was that it would leave us vulnerable and undermanned for any future need for a large force. That future, sadly, is now. Today.

We need to rebuild what we had. We cannot continue with what we have. It's simply too much of a drain.

I don't think that a draft would be needed or taken well. Enough people will join, if they feel they will be taken care of. It won't happen overnight, but would have to be phased in over a few years.

How do we pay for it? Well, we sacrafice here and there. I can think of quite a few Gov't programs that can be done away with to help. Do we really need to fund "artists" that make sculptures of Mary covered in feces? Do we really need to fund needle-sharing programs? Etc...

I think we can do a better job as a nation by providing support for this war. It's up to EVERYBODY that lives here to do there part, large or small. Though some bad things have happened during the war, I still think that it's the right course and will always focus on how we can do better. The cause is still valid. I wish that the people today had the same spirit of those during WWII. People were willing to sacrafice then, and we face an even worse threat now.

I'm not one to say that everyone must put on a uniform or move out of the US. But we can all do a little something to help. Just be creative.

Pray, if nothing else.

Whatever, his politics, Bush has done an outstanding job protecting us. I don't think we can fully understand what these people go through and the drain it is on themselves and families as they try to plan this stuff out. I'm blessed by only having a small part.

I'll let all of in on a little secret before I go too. The terrorists don't give a hill of beans whether someone is democrat or republican. They just care if we are Americans. That's all they need to know. We must climb above the politics of the war and understand that fact. Reps and Dems argue about how to deal with the threat and to what degree our response should be. The terrorists just laugh. They are kinda like mini satans in that their biggest victory is making people believe they don't exist in the first place.

They are out there folks. Believe it.

May the Lord come and deliver us from this evil.

t.

[tako]

HI TED, That was very interesting, I'd just like to add for the folks here that when I was in the Military, I was told there were two sets of rules, One for NORMAL TIMES, so to speak, and the Second for WAR TIME, And I guess since 9-11, The RULES CHANGED. And so I think what you were saying is now happening. I also agree that yes, we got to beef up our Military ASAP because I feel this is going to be a LONG WAR......THANKS AGAIN TED......TAKO