Monday, January 30, 2006

US Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty

"WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.

The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits."
Reuters
Can you say, "backdoor draft" it's not a volunteer force any more.
The fine print gets you every time. Amazingly these same people vote republican because of their "values" and because they support the troops.... I think we should take away their x-box, and make them read the paper.

5 Comments:

Blogger B Will Derd said...

Could you be more condescending? Don't know if that was your intent, but it sure comes across that way.

You take the bitches and moans of a minority who don't want to fullfill their commitment and paint the entire force with it.

There is good reason for the practice--you have units who train together for years, then just when it is time to put that training into practice with a one year deployment, some number of that unit will be coming up on the end of their enlistment during that deployment. So regulations say they can be extended through the deployment which seems neccesary and fair. I would bet that the majority effected have no problem with it at all and wouldn't leave their unit if they could.

I know two who are trying to transfer to deployed or soon to deploy units--they are in line behind others who are doing the same thing. They read the newspaper and one has already done a year tour and knows more about what such service entails than anyone writing in the newspaper.

1:37 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

yes but they have continued to do this through out this entire campaign. There was that excuses you just gave back at the beginning, but now. NOW three years into this thing they can't manage to fill the slots with people that will be in it for the duration? Come on Will who you trying to con.

I am sure that there are those who can't wait to get back, and they have every opportunity to sign up again, there are even big signing bonuses, in the neighborhood of $10,000, there should be no reason whatsoever to be stop-loosing people at this stage of the game.
While they were training and arming shouldn't someone have checked to see if anyone was short?

If I sound condescending is because it pisses me off something fierce when the man sticks it to you. And come on 50,000 people that's half the force, it's not the few and the proud, it's more like the most fucked.

7:31 PM  
Blogger B Will Derd said...

They are ALWAYS training, MT. And with the average enlistment between 3-4 years, 25 to 33% of the members of a unit are going to have their enlistments come to an end in any 12 month period. Do you think they should absolve all soldiers with less than 12 months remaining on their enlistment and therefore the most experienced from having to deploy? Or should they bring in a new recruit to take their place while they are in country? That would be sort of stupid, wouldn't it? Everyone who signs up knows it, and it isn't that hard to get out of it if you really want to, have a deficit of honor that would allow you to do that, or have a compelling personal hardship.

Your opinion of their intelligence and judgement is pretty surprising--OK maybe not as you seem to think we are a nation of mindless victims of Bush who lack your level of insight and love of liberty. Maybe particularly those who serve?

By the way, there are 12,000 currently under the stop loss program out of a force of 1 million +. That isn't half in this part of the country. Last I read, the average extension is four months, but I wouldn't know what it is today. It is intersting the article didn't contain that info--seems like an important part of the story. Instead they give the maximum possible--wonder why? How many of the 12,000 truly resent the program? I don't know, but if you discountined the prerequisite bitching that goes with the job, I'll bet it isn't many. I choose to think they are mostly honorable and noble people and deserve to be honored, not considered ignorant boobs who have been 'victimized'. But, others may have a different opinion. Sort of like the 'I support the troops but hate the mission' bullshit. 'I don't blame these poor, dumb country boys and girls who respond the the simplistic patriotism of their redneck fathers and don't have the benefit of the more sophisticated and liberally educated.' I have heard that said in those almost exact words and many times in ways more subtle.

Of course the handful of stop loss who do cry and moan--and bring suit--are the ones who get the articles written about them and are held up by a certain type of people. That is the con and just another front to undermine the effort (bush) at every opportunity and by any means neccesary, without regard to any consequences. Tear down the effort, the military, those who serve in it, and then blame those who supported it when those who fought have trouble coming to terms with what they had to do in that effort, in part because the society they return to is unappreciative and denigrating. Let's thin..when have we seen that before?

9:02 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

I'm not sure where your rant comes from, you keep, I don't know, reading right from a talking points.

"Your opinion of "their" intelligence and judgment is pretty surprising--"

" Maybe particularly those who serve?"

" I choose to think they are mostly honorable and noble people and deserve to be honored"

"ignorant boobs who have been 'victimized"

"'I don't blame these poor, dumb country boys and girls who respond the the simplistic patriotism of their redneck fathers and don't have the benefit of the more sophisticated and liberally educated"

"part because the society they return to is unappreciative and denigrating"

This is all straight out of some book they must pass out. I have looked to see where I wrote anything that would justify such a response. I'm going to have to start asking you to "quote" where I said anything of the like.
Now I know that this is a standard response, I hear it all the time, but I don't see where it fits in here.

"Let's thin..when have we seen that before?"

And that was a product of your generation not mine.

Lets say your right and only 12000 people are being stopped losses, "drafted" for 4 months. Why then exactly do you need them, it's only 12000 out of 1 million, I don't see the necessity of holding them in. Just replace them with all those that are lining up to go instead? and I remind you again, we are three years into this conflict, don't the high ups over there have a calendar, can't they count. Regardless of how much experience someone has should we not respect their wish to resign, if they have not reuped, I assume they want to resign, would it not be better to offer those highly experienced people the chance to train the newbies, to pass some of that experience along.
Their were benefits to the all volunteer force, don't we lose some of that benefit when we hold people back.

The reason I speak out is not because I hate the troops or think they are stupid, it's because they are voiceless in our system, or at least should remain that way.

Let's take a look at what you think of those that do speak up to defend their own rights. You said about them:

"who do cry and moan--"

Funny I never thought of someone standing up to defend their rights quite in that way. What else did you say:

" bring suit"

Oh that just awful, we need to reform that shit so they cant do that again.

"are the ones who get the articles written about them and are held up by a certain type of people"

Oh god I almost think you used the "L" word...watch you language. This is a family site.

"That is the con and just another front to undermine the effort "

Their terrible, something needs to be done to stop these freaks

"without regard to any consequences"

Stupid aren't they, they just don't understand like we do.

"Tear down the effort, the military, those who serve in it"

OH my that's almost treason, who do these people think they are asking for what's theirs and their rights and all.


So you can see why it's easier if I stand up and rant, you cant really attack me, you can call me names but it wont affect my job or my performance, nor will my higher ups look down on my with a big frown, I won't be passed up for promotion. You see why it's so much easier for me to rant.

10:55 PM  
Blogger B Will Derd said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home