Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting

[zimv20]

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36979-2003Dec28.html)


According to their contracts, expectations and desires, all three soldiers [see article for descriptions of those three] should have been civilians by now. But Fontaine and Costas are currently serving in Iraq, and Eagle has just been deployed. On their Army paychecks, the expiration date of their military service is now listed sometime after 2030 -- the payroll computer's way of saying, "Who knows?"

The three are among thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions.

"It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants to admit," said Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a leading military sociologist.

To the Pentagon, stop-loss orders are a finger in the dike -- a tool to halt the hemorrhage of personnel, and maximize cohesion and experience, for units in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year. Hundreds more in the Air Force, Navy and Marines were briefly blocked from retiring or departing the military at some point this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of exceeding the limit by so much.


Some military officials have acknowledged that stop-loss is a necessary evil. When the Air Force announced it was imposing a stop-loss rule last spring, an official news bulletin from Air Force Print News noted: "Both the secretary [James G. Roche] and the chief of staff [Gen. John P. Jumper] are acutely aware that the Air Force is an all-volunteer force and that this action, while essential to meeting the service's worldwide obligations, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of voluntary service."


is there a draft on the way?

[mactastic]

Needing more soldiers means we are winning.... or wasn't that obvious to you?;)

[Daveman Deluxe]

Congress and the Pentagon have overcommitted our troops to overseas theaters of combat/peacekeeping/what-have-you. Commitments of troops need to be reevaluated and platoons in low-priority areas need to be brought home. Barring that, Congress should increase the limit. It's unfair and inhumane to keep soldiers from retiring on their appointed days.

I don't think there's going to be a draft. To make civilians combat-ready these days takes a minimum of six months and then specialty training on top of that. There's a lot more to military training than there was in Vietnam.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Congress should increase the limit.


yeah, i'm not sure what's up w/ that limit.

bottom line, though, is that this indicates to me that there are more people wanting to leave the army than are joining. that's why i wondered about a draft.

[mactastic]

Gen. Shiseki's words are sounding more and more prophetic everyday. Rumsfeld should apologize to the guy for publicly upbraiding him.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Gen. Shiseki's words are sounding more and more prophetic everyday. Rumsfeld should apologize to the guy for publicly upbraiding him.

Please quote exactly what the Gen. said.

If I remember he said some thing like over 250K for at least 5 years.

We have about 125K troops in Iraq and only 8 months have gone by. So Rumsfled can apologize in 5 years if we have over 125K in Iraq then. We should have about 105K by May of next year.

In regard to the post topic, it would not make sense to let troops go home while terrorists are roaming Iraq killing more Iraqis than US troops.. If Dean wins than he can bring them all home. But we know that will not happen:)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
Please quote exactly what the Gen. said.

If I remember he said some thing like over 250K for at least 5 years.

We have about 125K troops in Iraq and only 8 months have gone by. So Rumsfled can apologize in 5 years if we have over 125K in Iraq then. We should have about 105K by May of next year.

In regard to the post topic, it would not make sense to let troops go home while terrorists are roaming Iraq killing more Iraqis than US troops.. If Dean wins than he can bring them all home. But we know that will not happen:)

Here you go....
At his retirement ceremony, Shinseki fired a warning shot at Rumsfeld: "Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army. Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirements."

Shinseki's remarks were made as all or parts of seven of the Army's 10 divisions were in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, with another division in South Korea standing vigil for an attack from the north.

Emphasis mine.

I wasn't refering to his prediction that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq over several years, but to his warning to not overextend the capabilities of the current military, thus necessitating morale-killers like stop-loss orders and extended guard deployments.

Link (http://starbulletin.com/2003/08/06/news/story12.html)

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic

I wasn't refering to his prediction that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq over several years, but to his warning to not overextend the capabilities of the current military, thus necessitating morale-killers like stop-loss orders and extended guard deployments.

Link (http://starbulletin.com/2003/08/06/news/story12.html)

Ok I now understand. But I don't see it as an issue unless this pattern continues for about 2 years.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
But I don't see it as an issue unless this pattern continues for about 2 years.

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/05/national1433EST0600.DTL)

About 7,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan who were planning to retire or otherwise leave the service in the next few months are getting new marching orders: Stay put.

The Army is expanding what it calls a "stop loss" order to keep soldiers in uniform -- even those who have met their contractual service obligation or are scheduled to retire -- during a rotation of tens of thousands of troops that begins this month and is scheduled to finish in May.

Col. Elton Manske, chief of the Army's enlisted division, said Monday that the move was deemed necessary to maintain the cohesion and combat effectiveness of units now operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He did not explain why the Army cannot manage the readiness of its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan without forcing soldiers to stay in the service beyond their scheduled retirement or enlistment period.

Well, it's not 2 years yet, but unless we get our troop commitments down this sort of thing will continue. And regardless of the political impact it has on GWB, the morale effect it will have on our military will be significant.

[manitoubalck]

How to respond:rolleyes:
a) Your country is run by a moron (don't worry so is mine)
b) Stop poking your nose where is doesn't belong
c) If they realy want all they have to do is walk out (it's not like the old days when you were shot for diserting, and if they are court marsheled then their defence is that there service had been done. (not sure if this is the best line of action)
d) you should have finished what you started back in 91.

[Desertrat]

The U.S. military has found itself in this situation several times. Many who served in WW II thought they were done with war--and then came Korea and "Hey, come back; we need you." While there was less of this during the Vietnam era, it happened.

To shift money from military spending to social spending, we drew down our forces after the Berlin Wall came down. The "Peace Dividend", remember? Then came Bosnia and the Balkans and the increased use of the Reserves and the NG. Prior to our present actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the lengths of active duty tended to be fairly short term.

I don't see any point to blaming Bush I or Clinton or Bush II for the present situation. Congress shares equally, along with the Pentagon. The Pentagon has two major problems, of course; it's subject to Congressional funding, and is subject to the policies of the Administration...

My personal opinion for a long time has been that we don't need to be in NATO or in the Balkans. I'd also like to see less U.S. military presence in other areas. Let the locals fight it out. However, I can see a national interest in the mideast, although I'm dubious about much of our methodology--which is another thread entirely.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

My personal opinion for a long time has been that we don't need to be in NATO or in the Balkans.

anyone know how many US troops are actually in the balkans now? i recently saw some ludicrously low figure, like 23, but i took that w/ a (boulder-sized) grain of salt.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The U.S. military has found itself in this situation several times. Many who served in WW II thought they were done with war--and then came Korea and "Hey, come back; we need you." While there was less of this during the Vietnam era, it happened.

Not sure if you are confusing stop-loss orders with conscription or a call-up of troops who just got back from somewhere else, but stop-loss is a relatively new phenomenon.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36979-2003Dec28_2.html)
Congress approved the authority for what became known as stop-loss orders after the Vietnam War, responding to concerns that the military had been hamstrung by the out-rotations of seasoned combat soldiers in Indochina. But the authority was not used until the buildup to the Persian Gulf War in 1990 when Richard B. Cheney, then the secretary of defense, allowed the military services to bar most retirements and prolong enlistments indefinitely.

[Desertrat]

I'm not confusing stop-loss with call-up so much as saying there's not a lot of difference to the folks affected by the action...

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I'm not confusing stop-loss with call-up so much as saying there's not a lot of difference to the folks affected by the action...

:), 'Rat

No there's not. But it's still a shabby way to treat your volunteers.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by mactastic
No there's not. But it's still a shabby way to treat your volunteers.

Volunteers is not the exact word I would use, since soilders on the fied of battle are paid extremely well. However your use of the word volunteer reflects te fact that the vast majority of service men and women in the armed forces today joined of their own free will.

[mactastic]

Well, volunteer sounds better than mercenary.

[Desertrat]

C'mon, mac, you're better than that. Unless you really believe there is no need for any military at all, intimating that volunteers might as well be called mercenaries is really a cheap shot at honorable people.

As far as "Stop Loss" is concerned, it's no different than the use of eminent domain to acquire land for a water treatment plant or a water line...Somebody is going to be discommoded by governmental needs.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
C'mon, mac, you're better than that. Unless you really believe there is no need for any military at all, intimating that volunteers might as well be called mercenaries is really a cheap shot at honorable people.

As far as "Stop Loss" is concerned, it's no different than the use of eminent domain to acquire land for a water treatment plant or a water line...Somebody is going to be discommoded by governmental needs.

'Rat

Hey, don't look at me! I was responding to Manitoubalk's comment that volunteer wasn't appropriate because they are being paid. For some reason he objected to my use of volunteer to describe our current military. I think you misread me, or misunderstood what I was trying to say.