|
Author
|
Topic: Stop-Loss (Again)
|
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted June 02, 2004 12:48 PM
 
I know that some of ya'll might roll your eyes at the following article and say something to the effect of, "Well, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up," but the fact is that many would-be soldiers did not know that multiple stop-loss measures were a possibility, nor that they would be expected to be deployed multiple times in a few year period to conflict zones because of "reorganization" and/or a lack of funding and a initiative where it counts.The Army will prevent soldiers in units set to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the service at the end of their terms, a top general said Wednesday. The announcement, an expansion of an Army program called "stop-loss," means that thousands of soldiers who had expected to retire or otherwise leave the military will have to stay on for the duration of their deployment to those combat zones. The expansion affects units that are 90 days away or less from deploying, said Lt. Gen. Frank L. "Buster" Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel. Commanders have the ability to make exceptions for soldiers with special circumstances; otherwise, soldiers won't be able to leave the service or transfer from their unit until they return to their home base after the deployment (...) (...) In an opinion piece in Wednesday's New York Times, Andrew Exum, a former Army captain who served under Hagenbeck in the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, called the treatment of soldiers under stop-loss programs "shameful." "Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan," he wrote. "They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq." (...)
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040602/D82UVNS80.html IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 02, 2004 01:21 PM
You need to have a talk with Bill Clinton who reduced the American Army from 18 divisions to 12 with cuts in the other military services too. Kerry voted for those reductions. That's a 33% reduction and it's also the cause of multiple tours of duty in places some would rather not be.On the other hand, reenlistments are running ahead of the averages from the past. Some would rather not be there but it's been that way in all wars or conflicts. An obligation is an obligation and they did volunteer, for whatever reason. Time for a military draft, both women and men. Everyone within the age range goes through basic and advanced infantry training and serves somewhere in the military for 2 years, no exceptions. IP: Logged |
Isis
Newflake Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009
|
posted June 02, 2004 01:22 PM
Yes, my brother is in the AF, been in just over 20 years, and is due to get out I believe at the end of the year. He's been fearing stop-loss for the past couple of years. I've not gotten word on whether they'll prevent him from leaving or not, but I must say, in his circumstances (which obviously are diff. for everyone), he's better off in. Esp. in the current economy. He's got no idea what the real world is like after never ever having worked in it (you know what it's like being in the military cocoon as it were), and he lives in a remote one-horse town in Southern New Mexico where there are hardly any jobs. But no, I wouldn't say, "well they signed up for it", because stop-loss is not something discussed with new recruits, and I would be ****** if I thought I had "done my time" and was about to get out only to find out I had to get redeployed to Iraq. ------------------
“The good things which belong to prosperity are to be wished, but the good things that belong to adversity are to be admired.” Seneca IP: Logged |
pidaua
Knowflake Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 02, 2004 01:29 PM
I didn't roll my eyes. I can see both sides to this. We are in the middle of a war, do we decrease our effectiveness by introducing new troops that are not ready to work in a cohesive manner with existing troops? Or do we keep the old guard there, while training the newbies?Big picture: If we handle this the wrong way, and introduce newbies, the fatality rate increases. If we handle it the right way, with proper training and timing - more soldiers return home and few fatalities arise. Personally am I affected? Yes, because they could send my guy over there even though he already served in Bosnia and Kosovo. It's tough. He knows the risk, he signed up for it and we've talked about it. Then again, it will be no different when he retires in 25 months and goes into law enforcement. Instead of worrying about a war killing him, I can worry about some dirt bag drug addict doing it. But, why worry - I knew what I was getting into- and my family grew up under that umbrella concerning my father. I am sure it will touch me even deeper after we are married and start our family. I am fortunate to have a strong family though that has gone through the same thing. I think one thing people may mistake is that although there are a fair number of people in support of what we are doing, that doesn't mean that the loss of life is not felt as deeply by us as by those that are against it. IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted June 02, 2004 02:19 PM
I doubt that anyone can fairly argue that a military company/division/etc wouldn't be affected by having to absorb new recruits (or even old hands new to their unit), but how much of this is due to past poor management of personnel resources and lack of foresight (both long-term and in the relative short-term)?I don't care who caused it - every admin I can think of has been beholden to more people and interests than it rightfully ought to be - I care who wishes to fix it, or at least take steps to ensure that it won't happen again. Re: the military draft: I have to disagree, primarily because of the fact that there are some who are genuinely opposed to participating in combat (not all COs are fake...). I can say this with my Mom's family having historically been practicing members of the Church of the Brethren (a "peace church", along with the Mennonites and Amish).
I'd be game for some sort of service requirement for "full citizenship" (barring extreme extenuating circumstances).
Two years of military service for some, a Peace Corps stint for others, or (perhaps especially for those who would fall under undue hardship if they had to leave their home area) service in a beefed-up and reorganized AmeriCorps. Gah, I'd write more but the Post sirens are going off - Tornado's probably been spotted in the area.
Fun, fun. Cheerio. IP: Logged |
OKANGEL
unregistered
|
posted June 02, 2004 11:15 PM
When the Dr. said "you have a boy Kim" one of the first things that popped into my mind was the fact that he may be drafted some day. That was in 1985 and he is now 18 years old. Now our young ladies may have to face that horrible fact. I have been against the war from the very begining and I hope and pray IT will be over soon! It's time for forgiveness, love and faith, NOW! Please hold the mental image of this whole wonderful planet holding hands. Please!
Love & Peace to you all,
KimProxieme, We are also having some really nasty weather here in Oklahoma. IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
