Stop Loss orders

[longsuffering]

What is a "stop loss order" if not a draft?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

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.

I guess it's George Bush's way of 'thanking' those soldiers who served the country so bravely. "Sure you signed up for X years and those X years are over, but we'd like to keep you here against your will."

"An enlistment contract has two parties, yet only the government is allowed to violate the contract; I am not," said Costas, 42, who signed an e-mail from Iraq this month "Chained in Iraq," an allusion to the fact that he and his fellow reservists remained in Baghdad after the active-duty unit into which they were transferred last spring went home. He has now been told that he will be home late next June, more than a year after his contractual departure date. "Unfair. I would not say it's a draft per se, but it's clearly a breach of contract. I will not reenlist." Staff Sgt. Peter G. Costas, an interrogator in an intelligence unit, joined the Army Reserve in 1991, extended his enlistment in 1999 and then re-upped for three years in 2000. Costas, a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Texas, was due to retire from the reserves in last May.

Shameful.

[Cowperson]

There's a desperate element to it without a doubt. Evidence of pressure from being over committed.

Its also evidence of what some have been saying for about two years, that a price will be paid in terms of re-enlisting experienced people or even finding new recruits down the road.

Breaking the all volunteer army.

Still, it would have to go on a while yet, another year or a bit more, before that prediction would begin to look ominous. Just my guess.

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by longsuffering@Nov 12 2004, 08:50 PM
What is a "stop loss order" if not a draft?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

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.

I guess it's George Bush's way of 'thanking' those soldiers who served the country so bravely. "Sure you signed up for X years and those X years are over, but we'd like to keep you here against your will."

"An enlistment contract has two parties, yet only the government is allowed to violate the contract; I am not," said Costas, 42, who signed an e-mail from Iraq this month "Chained in Iraq," an allusion to the fact that he and his fellow reservists remained in Baghdad after the active-duty unit into which they were transferred last spring went home. He has now been told that he will be home late next June, more than a year after his contractual departure date. "Unfair. I would not say it's a draft per se, but it's clearly a breach of contract. I will not reenlist." Staff Sgt. Peter G. Costas, an interrogator in an intelligence unit, joined the Army Reserve in 1991, extended his enlistment in 1999 and then re-upped for three years in 2000. Costas, a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Texas, was due to retire from the reserves in last May.

Shameful.

I agree it's shameful but not untypical for the armed forces. Read the novel or watch the movie "Catch 22".

[badnarik]

i would guess that a large percentage of these people have "inactive reserve" time remaining on their contracts. it's all in the fine print. sneaky, but not really a draft if this is indeed the case.

[Daradon]

Semantics, semantics, semantics...

The lefties know what's going on.

The righties are buring their head in the sand, just like wiht the WMD's.