Soldiers Challenge Enlistment Extensions

[raedyn]

Yes, that totally makes sense, Paul/Loki. You had me convinced before the date rape comparison, but that's a good way of thinking of it, too.

I don't doubt that the military does need all its people right now. My concern in the first place is if these guys were being held against their will and were not given a reasonable chance to know what they agreed to. But though the article doesn't show it, it seems that they did agree to this, and has reasonable opportunity to realise this was the case before they signed.

Thank you for helping me understand. Tgace, Sapper, Ryno, Loki. Cheers.

 

[Tgace]

No problem

Anybody who has "been in" knows what these guys are up to....we all knew about Uncle Sammies ability to "stop loss" us....extend our enlistments etc....these guys are just trying to worm out of it. Makes it all that tougher on the rest of the soldiers who want to go home just as badly but are standing by their honor and professionalism as soldiers.

One of my co-workers used to be in my old NG unit. His enlistment ended, he was stop lossed, deployed to Iraq for a year and a half, sent back home and got out. He sure as **** didnt want to go, but he did. He was a soldier, he did his duty.

 

[loki09789]

No problem

Anybody who has "been in" knows what these guys are up to....we all knew about Uncle Sammies ability to "stop loss" us....extend our enlistments etc....these guys are just trying to worm out of it. Makes it all that tougher on the rest of the soldiers who want to go home just as badly but are standing by their honor and professionalism as soldiers.

One of my co-workers used to be in my old NG unit. His enlistment ended, he was stop lossed, deployed to Iraq for a year and a half, sent back home and got out. He sure as **** didnt want to go, but he did. He was a soldier, he did his duty.

Amen to that. That was my point with the guy from our unit that, tragically, committed suicide. He was one out of about 150 people in our unit that just refused to perform.

This is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, since they are to be kept until "6 months after the war is over", when will the war be over, since it was never officially declared? (AFAIK)

If this is the "War on Terror", that will never end, so they will never be allowed out.
If this is "until victory is achieved" then what are the terms to declare victory so that they have an idea on when that mission will be over?

You can not expect people, loyal patriotic people, to just open-endedly give up their futures without a reasonable time-frame. "You will be in until we are done with you" is not something I would agree with, under any circumstances. Maybe I think too much, maybe I have the "softness" of someone who "couldn't hack it", etc. I don't know.

I just think that anyone we order into harms way deserves to know at what point their tour of duty will be done. I read the contract, it was surprisingly clear on the terms. I just think they need to know when they will be allowed to resume their lives and their families lives.

 

[Tgace]

Well, like in the case of my co-worker... when their rotation is done. While not really "in the contract", after a unit rotates out of theater the commander can (and at least in many NG units will) release some of the stop loss soldiers. Stop loss is typically a tool used by the military to keep a unit in a deployable condition. Once deployed it has a period of time to build up again...

These guys are still in theater...they just want out now.

Im fairly certain that our grandfathers didnt have any idea when WWII would end either. They were in it till it was over....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes, but WW2 had the finite end indicated "defeat the axis", that being Germany, Italy and Japan. What is this missions "mission"?

Restore the peace isn't a fair answer...that can take 40 years....is it right to expect these guys to spend the rest of their lives engaged?

The question I have is when will these units be rotated out? Even in WW2, if you did so much, you were rotated out. (I think it was 50 missions for a bomber crew?).

 

[Tgace]

Iraq units are typically deployed 12-18 months. Stop loss isnt being used as a "were keeping you till the war on terror is over" type thing. Its being used to keep units filled with soldiers so it can be deployed. Military units have a system of grading based on manpower, training, equipment etc. that determine if and how they will be deployed. After deployment they (most times) are released. Resulting in the large drop in NG soldiers that was mentioned earlier.


Infantry in WWII was rotated "off the front" but returned later. They didnt go home. Bomber crews? Im not really familiar with.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ahh. Much appreciated. That makes more sense that what I originally thought.

 

[Tgace]

Not that thats a "hard and fast" rule. Just what I have typically observed.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm

By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Army will announce as early as Tuesday new orders that will forbid thousands of soldiers from leaving the service after they return this year from Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war against terrorism, defense officials said Monday.
The "stop loss" orders mean personnel who could otherwise leave the military when their volunteer commitments expire will be forced to remain to the end of their overseas deployments and up to another 90 days after they come home. "Stop movement" orders also bar soldiers from moving to new assignments during the restricted period. The orders do not extend any unit's stay overseas.

Although the orders cover all the approximately 160,000 returning troops, the Army said it estimates only about 7,000 of the returnees will have their time in the service involuntarily extended. Most deployed soldiers are not affected because they have service obligations that extend beyond their current deployments, Army Col. Elton Manske, chief of the Army's Enlisted Division, said Monday.

"This decision is really being driven by the readiness of units and the absolute intent to keep the units themselves intact down to as low as the squad and crew level, so we are assured of putting the best fighting force on the battlefield," Manske said.

Army officials also said Monday that the service is offering re-enlistment bonuses of up to $10,000 to soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Soldiers currently in those countries and replacements could receive $5,000 to $10,000 for enlisting for at least three years of additional Army service.

The latest stop-loss orders will be announced after Congress is briefed and affected Army units are informed, defense officials said. The new orders are an expansion of similar orders imposed Nov. 13 on more than 110,000 active duty soldiers whose units are preparing to go to Iraq and Afghanistan between now and May. They represent the first major changing of the guard in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1.

"The use of stop loss is often an indication of a shortfall of available personnel," says Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a think tank based in Arlington, Va.

The Army's commitments include about 130,000 troops in Iraq, 11,000 in Kuwait, 11,500 in Afghanistan, 37,500 in South Korea and 44,000 in Japan.

Congress first gave stop-loss authority to the military after the Vietnam War, when the Pentagon faced difficulty in replacing departing combat soldiers. The Pentagon didn't use the authority until 1990, during the buildup to the Persian Gulf War. All four service branches have issued stop-loss orders since then. The Pentagon issued stop- loss orders in November 2002 for Reserve and National Guard units activated for the war against terrorism. The orders remain in effect. A stop loss was issued for active troops in February 2003, but rescinded in May 2003.

 

[Rynocerous]

Man I love a heated debate!!! Excelent posts all, I'm really enjoying this thread. Tgace you have an excelent point about the National guard. There are lots of people who come out of the Regular military and still need that little fix of military, so they join the NG. I actually have a good friend in Las Vegas who is joining the NG to help him go through college. He can still collect his MGI Bill while he does this, it just makes sense. So yes, there are lots of good soldiers, and old priors wanting to still help out their country. Cheers to all of those who serve our beautiful country(I'm speaking as an American now).

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[michaeledward]

I suppose this is the most logical thread to add this .... don't know if it merited its own thread.

Donald Rumsfeld was asked by a soldier yesterday, why there is not enough of the proper equipment in Iraq; body armor, vehicle armor. Secretary Rumsfeld's response was you don't go to war with the army you want, but rather with the army you have.

The army he had to invade Iraq was Bill Clinton's army. The first Bush appropriations had not yet worked through the system by the time the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

However, now, two years later, Secretary Rumsfeld has had the time and money to direct spending, and it seems he is trying to blame Bill Clintons' army for the lack of the proper equipment.

Geesh!

Also, Retired Colonel Hackworth's article about the Brass appropriating C-130's for site-seeing trips, which prevented needed supplies from reaching troops was an interesting read this weekend.

Mike

 

[Sapper6]

I suppose this is the most logical thread to add this .... don't know if it merited its own thread.

Donald Rumsfeld was asked by a soldier yesterday, why there is not enough of the proper equipment in Iraq; body armor, vehicle armor. Secretary Rumsfeld's response was you don't go to war with the army you want, but rather with the army you have.

Mike

...this isn't all that suprising. i guess DoD told the reporters they weren't going to field questions from them, just the troops? i see they found a way around that one :idunno: .

RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER
Thu Dec 09 2004 11:49:38 ET

Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, now in Kuwait preparing to enter Iraq, and is filing articles for his newspaper. Pitts claims in a purported email that he coached soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld questions!

When reached Thursday morning, various Chattanooga Times Free Press staffers offered 'no comment' on the development.

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Staffers

Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.

The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[michaeledward]

...this isn't all that suprising. i guess DoD told the reporters they weren't going to field questions from them, just the troops? i see they found a way around that one .

Oh, I see ... the real problem is that reporters don't get access to the Secretary of Defense.

Good Grief.

 

[Tgace]

While the soldier had a valid question (prompted or not). If he's been in the Army any length of time it shouldnt have supprised him. Were always supplied for this fight with the last fights gear...heck the USMC has it even tougher...Cobra choppers and M60 tanks with reactive armor upgrades (they still do that?) ?? My USMC buddies like to joke that they can kick #$@ with the Army's leftovers.

Not that thats an excuse for poor supply, its just never been a suprise to me.

 

[Sapper6]

Oh, I see ... the real problem is that reporters don't get access to the Secretary of Defense.

Good Grief.

no, not really. you ever watch c-span?

i posted that article because of your previous post about that soldier's question, well actually, the reporter's question. just a reinforcement of how low the media will go to get in a quick question.

let's not take this too much further off topic, this all has nothing to do with soldier extensions, and i've clearly added to that problem. sorry, on with original programming :ultracool