.Schizophrenic Headbashing
"Schizophrenia loosely translates to "split mind".
From the comments I've received, it shows that I don't need to be cryptic anymore. There's a decent chance I could be stop-lossed and deployed again. Not five feet from me is a complete copy of my medical history from the past four years. Two inches thick, one sided paper.
Fuck them, dude, fuck all of them. Fuck everyone, you did what you said you would, your time is up, this is YOU now, they can all eat a big bag of dicks.
Yeah, and that contract I signed? You ever take a closer look at it? It's very OPEN on their end.
Are you fucking serious? Please, for the love of GOD, do not be one of those fucking tools who buys into that, "Well you signed a contract" bullshit.
...But I did."
The Unlikely Soldier
Someone told me the other day that the four year contract, was really about 29 years, if you know, they call you back on every "," in the contract. I wonder if that's true?
From the comments I've received, it shows that I don't need to be cryptic anymore. There's a decent chance I could be stop-lossed and deployed again. Not five feet from me is a complete copy of my medical history from the past four years. Two inches thick, one sided paper.
Fuck them, dude, fuck all of them. Fuck everyone, you did what you said you would, your time is up, this is YOU now, they can all eat a big bag of dicks.
Yeah, and that contract I signed? You ever take a closer look at it? It's very OPEN on their end.
Are you fucking serious? Please, for the love of GOD, do not be one of those fucking tools who buys into that, "Well you signed a contract" bullshit.
...But I did."
The Unlikely Soldier
Someone told me the other day that the four year contract, was really about 29 years, if you know, they call you back on every "," in the contract. I wonder if that's true?
posted by madtom at 8:37 PM
30 Comments:
Hi MT,
I'm writing to ask for your support of a petition I wrote to end stop loss.
I know! It's far fetched. But it's time someone did something.
If nothing else, I'll open some eyes.
You can follow this link, Online petition - End Stop Loss. Or find it on my blog.
www.infantrydad.blogspot.com.
I am really getting sick of this whining from a handful of these self important bloggers. They've served for how long and they still haven't figured out that it isn't about them? I read my enlistment and made damn sure mine knew to what they were committing when they sat down to sign and when they stood up to pledge an oath. We knew service in the military is not about you, and if you think it is, you are in for some moments of harsh awakening.
These guys will gladly take all the benefits added AFTER they made their agreement, even insist they have every right to them as if that was part of the original deal, but they'll stomp their boots when terms that were in effect at the time they signed are utilized for the benefit of the service they joined of their own free will. For every one whining there are probably a hundred or more that are accepting their duty as is expected of them, happily or not. I left a suggested alternative program for these guys in his comments, though it wouldn't let me post under my usual screen name for some reason.
Well you know I am against the stop loss crap, and IRR.
It's supposed to be a volunteer service, why do they need clauses to trick people into longer service than they thought they were singing for?
Did you understand all the clauses, did you know that your four years could be turned to 29 involuntarily?
alternative program? Will, your being polite right..I somehow doubt it. What did you say?
I understood that I could be stop lossed (and was 'voluntarily' held over for 3 months beyond my initial term, but my unit really did need me to stay on until our mission was done-- 3 more months wasn't a lot to ask, but I would have done as many as needed at the time). I knew that I could be recalled for a period of 5 years, I think it was. When my oldest daughter enlisted, we went through every line, asked questions, thought about the possible ramifications and did research. I pointed out the obvious bull shit that the recruiter had been spreading. What I did NOT know was that she would be effectively going into combat patrols, because it really was NOT the official policy. She knew exactly what could happen and would go again immediately if called up tomorrow. My second daughter pretty much knew from he sister's experience and because I directed her to some of the malcontents blogs before she signed up. I advised her to expect the most would be required and be relieved it if didn't come to that.
I suggest a program be initiated so that soldiers could opt to muster out the moment their initial enlistment is up, pay their own way home from where ever they happen to be, and they give up all the benefits otherwise due them, even those added AFTER the signed up initially. That seems more than fair. If the only reason they have is because they think they did their share and should get to reap the bennys ASAP, I have no patience. Lots have done a hell of a lot more, and they aren't whining in blogs, either.
Ok I read it, and it was polite.
What I don't understand is why you attack people that have served their time. They did the right thing, they went off to protect the rest of us, and now they are having their arms twisted, with threats of irr and stop loss. Why?
People grow, they change their minds, now they want to move on and get on with the rest of their lives, find jobs start families, get educated, you know the normal thinks in life. Why do you attack them?
Maybe they did not have the benefit of an honest advisor on their side, maybe they bought in to all the bullshit the recruiter was spewing, or maybe they just wanted to do their part. I still don't see a reason to be angry at them, and all the reasons to be angry at the fucking lying government...
Because MT-- they signed the fucking enlistment-- they took the oath. Sure, it isn't perfectly clear and some might mislead, but it's in black and white and these guys clearly know how to use the internet to get all the facts. They have served their time when they terms of the enlistment are complete, not when they decide the changed their mind. You feel for these guys? OK, what about the man or woman that has to fill their spot if they refuse or weasel out somehow? Don't you give a shit about them? You can't have a military full of individuals who are concerned about 'fairness' to their own personal situation.
It is the mindset that is destroying the entire country--- make and agreement, but if you didn't understand the terms or didn't think the terms might come back to bite you in the ass, you demand a pass and let someone else take up the slack you refuse. It's unethical, it's immoral. And it's a damn shame that otherwise honorable service has to be lessened because some guys decide their needs and their judgment suddenly matter. They stopped mattering the day you take the oath. Get over it and do whatever duty happens to come your way.
And I take exception the characterization as an 'attack'. They choose to make their case in public and invited comment. I think I am being more than reasonable--- I'm suggesting we give them an out they are not entitled to. Army of Dude tried to tell me that he wouldn't object to IRR if it was to go to Afghanistan, because that was a just mission. I doubt he got to pencil that stipulation into his enlistment agreement. Either it's just or it isn't, but bottom line, just has nothing to do with it.
But when you sign, it usually says, "I read and understand", how is that possible?
And sure someone has to take their place, someone always does, but is that a reason to deploy people three of four times to combat. Don't those very same contracts say something like you get so many months stateside for every month you spend in combat? Why wont you hold the government to they very same rule you would hold a 19 year old?
it reads like an attack
"just has nothing to do with it."
That's a line from "Unforgiven" right. or words to that effect.
"he should have armed himself", my favorite line from the movie.
If it says 'I read and understand' and you sign, then either you read and understood, or you lied-- live with it. Here is is the relevant parts of what they signed: Look up part 10a ,b ,c. of the enlistment contract. 4 pages over all. It isn't tricky or hard to comprehend. I'd cut and paste, but it's in Adobe.
Is that a reason to send people 3 or 4 times? Maybe. I know how this sounds and damn Bush and congress for not rectifying the situation, but it was the Clinton/ Gore Making Government Smaller program that did away with 4 brigades. Remeber how they bragged how they lowered the govenment payrolls? It was all military, but party on!
There aren't enough people to occupy a country. With tech, we have plenty to kick the shit out of just about anybody, but occupying and rebuilding? No way. If you are serving and have something on the ball, you are going to be asked to do a lot. I don't see that changing any time soon.
No, the contracts don't say anything about guaranteeing any time stateside. If they can show that the military is violating the terms of their enlistment--- let them prove it and I will sign every petition they offer and call anyone they want called. They haven't done that because they can't.
There is good reason for stop loss in some cases. In Nam a guy spent 365 days and he went home. Bad for unit cohesion and mission efficiency. Now units serve deployments together and if your enlistment ends in month 9 of a 12 month deployment, I don't think it unreasonable that they hold everyone over until the deployment is complete or until all active missions are ended. Again, you may not understand how it works--- the military doesn't --can't--- shouldn't give more than an instant of consideration for what individuals want if there are mission considerations involved. That's why the enlistments are written with all the if's and's but's and however's.
You really ought to read the enlistment document. I just refreshed my memory by reading it and it isn't complicated. The addenda applying to MOS training is trickier, but the basic enlistment is what's relevant. Pretty plain that they own you for 8 years in a time of war or declared emergency. I know these guys didn't believe it would come to that or didn't realize what serving would mean, but that's on them.
Well the link to that Adobe file might help
Not Clinton again??? sure but he did buy the Strikers..and where would we be today without them?
"If they can show that the military is violating the terms of their enlistment"
But the government can change the terms on the fly, and act of congress or an executive order..by by terms. Ok I just remembered that was an amendment, to guarantee time off for time served in combat..my mistake, one that never passed by the way. I think Obama had promised to change that during his campaign.
And lets remember one thing. These guys are not the stupid that enlisted before the war and then cried foul, "I only enlisted for the education" idiots we got at the beginning of the war. These guys enlisted during a war, knowing they would be deployed to a combat zone. They deserve our respect, they deserve to be treated as heroes, not stop loss'd or IRR'd or any of that shit. I don't know sometimes...Maybe when I'm your age I will understand, today it just doesn't fit.
Maybe, but I was 18 and understood it. I respect that they joined and served and part of my almost anger is that they are fucking that up for themselves. You don't need a link, MT. Google military enlistment-- it isn't a secret document. or dd form 4/1-- it'll probably be the first one you see. oh fuck it--here
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf
'But the government can change the terms on the fly, and act of congress or an executive order.'
Exactly! You do get it after all!
I guess I sound mean. These few malcontents who make all the noise could make the impression of today's vets as a bunch of self interested whiners. They deserve to be 'attacked' when they decide to throw public online tantrums. I served alongside guys who fought in places and in support of conflicts we don't even acknowledge (think south of here). Some of them suffered injury or death and no one patted them on the head and told them what great heroes they were and how unfair the government was to them. They would laugh if anyone tried to pity them. Maybe I'm too old to understand instead of your being too young.
Well I have to admit you were right. After reading that it's plainly clear.
Why anyone would sign such an agreement is beyond me.... My respect for you guys only goes higher..
Yet I still don't like treating people like pegs in a wheel, even if they "volunteered" to be a peg.
MT.
Thanks for the link...
Not sure if B Will is spewing his opinion at me, or at Suspect, but he sure is an angry dude.
My petition has nothing to do with me.
And while my son is being stop lossed, it has little to do with him. Even when the petition has enough signatures to carry any weight, it will be to late for most soldiers enlisted now.
I could understand the use of stop loss to hold an individual in a deployed unit. You wouldn't want to see several individuals in on company getting shipped home, leaving a unit short of man power.
However, when a Brigade has done 15 months, and is non-deployable for 7 more, because of the one home for one deployed rule, and they stop loss them, some with as little as three weeks remaining. It is just not right.
They have more than enough time to reassign personnel who haven't deployed from other units, assign soldiers coming out of AIT, and those who have been home for the allotted time due them. The issue is that the Army doesn't use they're resources properly. Rather, they chose the avenue the requires least thought.
It's been that way since I served, and will be forever. Unless someone forces change.
I will post some thoughts on this from someone that is a whole lot more educated in the subject a little later today.
www.infantrydad.blogspot.com
Thanks Tom.
Infantry Dad--- I wasn't directing my 'spew' at you or even your son's post in particular. His is one of several I've come across lately, along with the sycophantic commentary that follows them.
If you as a citizen think that the policy is counterproductive and want to make that known as a means to bring about change for the benefit of the service and the country, please do. Make your case as you tried to do here and with your petition.
Do you propose we change the enlistment contract? What would you change? Do you think we should grandfather all current enlisted so that those changes apply to them as we did with the GI bill and other benefits? I'd be glad to consider changes and might have one or two suggestions of my own, especially with regard to females in combat roles. But those discussions aren't what precipitated the discussion.
What brought about my response was yet another online tantrum and following comments claiming these guys have been lied to, cheated, or deceived. That's bullshit and they know it. Put up the enlistment terms and respond to the one(s) which are being violated. Make that case, and I won't respond by 'spewing'. Make the case and I will effort to help change the situation. Fact us, under the terms of the enlistment contract, they have no case and have no standing for the claims.
At its heart, it's about contract law and commitment. It is in many ways comparable to the trend among the greater population. We seem to think that contracts are only binding up to the point they become too uncomfortable for us personally. At this point we seem to think we can opt out or expect others to take up the slack in our behalf when we 'feel' we shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of our decisions. A free society can't last long when that becomes accepted. A functioning military would be impossible if that becomes accepted. Anarchy is the eventual result of that mindset.
Besides, in your son's case I could have advised him on the best way to avoid getting stop lossed and deployed at the end of his enlistment. If his unit was in line for redeployment towards his release date, he knew that long ago. He should have requested transfer to a unit deploying around twelve months prior to the end date of his enlistment, did his tour and mustered out without stop loss. Yeah, he would have done another tour, but he would have been able to move on. I could have advised him, but I bet he was fully aware of that option. That's what my oldest did. She did two full tours and another 8 months as a replacement in a four year enlistment so that her entire experience was deployed or training for upcoming deployment, but she got out 'on time" by being willing to deploy with another unit with less than a year 'off' between deployments. Being a medic with combat badges puts her high on the IRR call up list, but that was the deal she made. She knows it and of it comes her way will go without making her case a public call for action. A deal is a deal and it would be wrong to be using all the benefits of service but refuse to do more when asked under the terms of that deal.
Knowing these guys could have done what she did if they were really all that concerned about their 'schedule' just makes me less open to their tantrums.
B Will,
First, you have to lose the attitude that all soldiers against stop loss are whiners, and contract breakers.
Matt was, and is totally aware of his contractual obligation.
You appear to be closed minded, in that you aren't reading what I'm saying.
Second, my son has made one post, two years ago, before deployment, and it was a rant against the protesters trying to block the loading of they're equipment at the Port of Tacoma.
Did you think that I am suspects dad?
Lastly, 2-23/4th BDE SBCT, deployed in April 07, and returned home June 08. Which means that they are not deployable until September of 09.
They have not received deployment orders as of yet.
Thus they should not be stop lossed.
They have plenty of time to reassign individuals with sufficient time remaining, and assign those coming out of training to the brigade and get them up to speed before they deploy. If they do in fact deploy.
In a contract, both parties are expect to perform by the contractual obligations. If one or the other does not, the contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
OK, show me terms of enlistment that are not being followed. Where does it say a soldier in your son's situation isn't subject to stop loss? I see nothing about exceptions for those in units not officially on notice to deploy. All the pertinent language on the issue is on one of the four pages of the enlistment contract. It's that simple, either the government is abiding by the terms, or they are not. And since the contract says straight out that they can change the terms unilaterally at any time they choose, the document could say 'you agree to be subject to our whims for a period of 8 years in a time of war' and leave it at that. Doesn't matter where you are or what you've done or what others haven't done--- if they want you, you said you'd be there.
Those complaining are either correct in their complaint because the terms are not being followed, or they are whining in my book. Of course they are going to be pissed off and disappointed and I don't begrudge any of them that right, it's the WWW publication of flat out self serving bull shit to which I object. Having read the terms myself more than once, I don't feel I'm being unfair. If that doesn't include your son, then I do not include him. I don't want to personalize it, anyway. I also know that many times there are existing regulations that can exempt soldiers from a generic stop loss order and maybe your son will find that to be true in his case. The command isn't going to bother to go through every individual case for exceptions--- they sort of expect the soldier to do that if he wants out. A little research might show him the way. I don't know what the appropriate form for appeal is, but I know it exists. Either way, I wish him luck.
Funny you would complain about soldiers airing in public. If soldiers had not published their concerns in public I would not have a blog, and I would not know anything at all about what is going on in this war..all I would have is what the media tells me. nothing.
So I find that complaint counterproductive.
We would have lost the war back in 04, there would have been no pressure on Bush to surge, and we would have been completely in the dark...
I don't mind the airing of the issue, but the ranting and repeating of outright falsehood either in the post or in the uncontested comments doesn't help, does it? I mean, if you hadn't read the enlistment contract yourself you would think these guys were being held against their will, with no responsibility for decisions they made, and with no basis in law. I'm correcting the record and calling them on their own responsibility for the situation they find themselves in.
Just because something is legal, does not make it good policy. These people did their time, they deserve their benefits and they don't deserve to be treated as pegs in a wheel. Like the dog biting the hand that feeds it.
Thousands have reenlisted, why not let the few that want out go their merry way.
Yeah, joining the military is serious business, though. The sooner you figure out that you aren't the point, the easier it is to cope. But, I've seen that most of the time these guys flip out, only to find out that there are regulations that cover them so they are exempted.
To change the subject, did you catch this in your Miami paper?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/936575.html
So, Will?
Sign the petition will ya?
:?)
All due respect, I counted at least 6 statements in your preamble with which I don't agree either on a factual basis or philosophically. So I'll have to pass. But I respect the effort and concern behind it. I like it when people take interest and action, even if to me it seems misguided. That's why I frequent MT's site so much.
I understand how some see this as unfair or maltreatment, I just can't agree. Stop loss isn't new but was power given to the military by the congress in the same legislation that ended the draft and has been used numerous times before this latest conflict. Just because you don't get to do the minimum doesn't mean you are being used like 'a peg in a wheel'.
I guess if there is anything we might could agree upon it's that there should be a paragraph inserted in the enlistment that spells out worst case scenarios for those without the required imagination to understand the ramifications of the language they signed on to. Did your son really not appreciate the terms and, if not, do you think he would have enlisted anyway had he known that when the military said he owed eight years of obligation and as much as 2 more years of active duty, they meant it?
As for your son's case, all that I have read on the subject since this came up tells me that current regs with regard to stoploss say that only those deployed or officially notified they are scheduled to be deployed are subject to the policy. That doesn't mean they have to have seen official deployment orders, but their unit has to have been notified they are scheduled for deployment. Is that true in his case?
I won't go through my oldest's case again, but she knew the score and did more time in theater through transfer by choice just so she wouldn't get stoplossed towards the end of her enlistment, thereby allowing her to get on with her nursing degree. So maybe you can see my point of view? She could take the view that those who get out of stoploss just as another tour is coming up are getting the easy way out...compared to her way, it would be a hell of a lot easier one her---and the rest of her family. Is it really so hard to understand why I may not be all that sympathetic to those declaring themselves to be victimized by their own decisions?
My son knew full well what he was getting into.
During his first deployment half of his platoon was stop lossed soldiers.
I appreciate your opinion, and have not tried to change it.
You keep going off on these long drawn out explanation of your point.
When the fact is, I would rather soldiers vent their disappointment in the system, than run, or worse, commit suicide.
Venting is good.
I will continue in my effort to end stop loss.
Because, (and this is what I've been trying to get through to you), I don't like the policy.
Matt will do his time, and do so honorably. Of that I have no doubt.
Thank you for your service.
And thank your daughters for me.
I agree that combat is no place for women. Even with the knowledge that some women are tougher than any man.
Sorry, I do go on.... and on sometimes. I wasn't really debating you as much as venting towards those opinions made in the original post and especially some of the comments there. I jsut got a little fed up. And then MT seems to think I'm a hard ass. Sorry if you thought any of it directed at you personally or your fine son.
Thank you for your service as well as your son's. My girls don't want to hear my opinions on things like females in combat, so I get to do some venting here on that subject also and understand the benefits that come from venting at times. So thanks to MT for providing the space I've used on his site, sometimes no doubt way too much space.
The one reason I see repeated over and over by soldiers that find themselves on the wrong end of the stop loss order is that they can not plan the rest of their live. Always hanging there in the background over their heads is this thing. They never know when it's going to strike. I have heard this so many times. You would think the powers that be might know this too. If they could just find a way so that people could schedule their live. It's so strange. In the service, they schedule everything from the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed. Something that would drive me insane in less than a week. I hate structure. But can you imagine that after being lined up like good little soldiers, all of a sudden there is this big doubt hanging over your head. Something you cant control, you cant fill out and application or a form, and you have no idea when it's OK to get on with the rest of your life.....bad policy
And I know it's been around, but leave it to Bush to take anything and break it.
In my mind it would almost be better if they automatically stop lossed everyone, let no one out and just kept them in xxx number of years over their enlistment. So at least you know where you stand, and you can plan accordingly.
Is it really too much to ask.
Imagine if you asked for a transfer at work, and they said maybe, we'll let you know sometime within the next 8 years, it could go either way.
Well put Tom.
Just put in the contract, if a war breaks out while your in the army, nobody gets out until the entire length of the contract is honored.
Presently 8 years.
One thing the Army could do is make it more enjoyable to be in.
That would do wonders for their retention.
instead, they allow NCOs, (and I don't mean to insinuate all NCOs, because there are some great NCOs), to berate, and haze lower ranking soldiers.
This is a rite of passage in Basic training. All of us who went through it know of what I speak.
I'm no worse off for going through it. But once these guys get to their assigned unit that shit ought to cease.
Also, they need to improve the living quarters.
At least at FT Lewis.
I was in the barracks there, on the old fort, and I can tell you that they are deplorable.
Five miles down the road, in the north fort, the barracks are all new. When we were there last June, half of them were empty.
B Will, I never took anything you wrote personally.
You obviously put a lot of thought into your comments.
I've been known to run my mouth based on emotion, rather than researching what I'm ranting about.
But that's just me.
Your welcome to stop my blog and spout off until the cows come home.
Just don't be in front of the milking parlor door at milking time.
Post a Comment
<< Home