Stop Loss

[kellychaos]

Is it fair that soldiers whose term of service has ended, even those who have reached their retirement date or who have no more inactive reserve commitments to give, are forced to serve beyond what they had signed up for, are constantly given revised redeployment dates and are basically being held hostage at the mercy of the U.S. government? I know that this is a volunteer army but fair is fair. They did the time they were legally bound to do according to what was in their contract. True, there are those patriotic few who are willing to go above and beyond what they signed for and good for them. At the same time, there are those who had plans for what they wanted to do with the rest of their live and are, honestly, hoping that they have a "rest of their lives" to contiue with upon their arrival back here ... i.e. they don't arrive feet first onto the tarmac. This is just ... ummmm ... fucked.

[ranxer]

really fucked! especially since the people that ordered the war have lied about it and were told that we didn't have enough soldiers to cover the conflict .. this, as many other things was predicted by many in the anti-war movement.
also, it's not fair that the war/'chicken hawks' don't have their family members in the service for the most part.

the soldiers should be given a choice about staying past their discharge date.
the soldiers should be brought home and our no-bid contracts relinquished to the iraqis.

[kellychaos]

Actually, at the start, they didn't have enough people to carry out the mission they eventually undertook. In other words, the plan was undermanned from the start and that is part of the current problem. They are trying to insist that the keeping the current soldiers is not only more cost effective than training and deploying replacements but it also gives you an already-present population of soldiers that are experienced with the country's culture, terrain, ect. It's a quick cure to solve earlier miscalculation and poor planning.

[AChimp]

I think it's fair. Those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they enlisted.

[GAsux]

First, stop loss is not new. So let's not pretend like it's a big new thing. It's not so much. They did it during Gulf War I and they did it after 9/11. All four branches have various versions of it.

Second, by who's estimate was the force used to obtain military objectives in Iraq undermanned? Who determines the amount of soldiers required for a particular operation? Why aren't ground commanders all over Iraq complaining that they just don't have enough people to do the job? Why aren't the service Chiefs fighting for more manpower?

Congress authorizes overall end strength figures for each branch. How come the Marines aren't complaining about being undermanned? The Air Force has implemented plans to CUT 11,000 airmen during this fiscal year because they are OVER end strength projections.

As a person who has personal relationships with quite a few people negatively impacted by stop loss both this go around and the previous one two years ago, I'll be the first to say that it sucks doneky nuts. No doubt about it.

But point the finger where it needs to be pointed. None of the other three branches is implementing stop loss to the degree the Army has. The Army IS NOT any more committed than the Marines. The first issue is primarily one of internal imbalance. Clearly the Army doesn't have enough people in the career fields that are being heavily deployed.

Second, if there is now, or ever was a shortage of troops, Congress bears the brunt of that burden. I disagree with the fact that there needs to be more troops on the ground in Iraq, or that there ever needed to be more. Again war planners had their numbers and haven't deviated from them. The case could be made that each branch may have needed more end strength to rotate those people more effectively to share the burden, and again that's determined by Congress.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by AChimp

I think it's fair. Those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they enlisted.

Not really. I knew that this type of thing was possible only after I was already in service. Besides, this stop loss wasn't in place when they enlisted. So they probably thought that, having exhausting all legal commitments, that they would be rotated back when their term of service ended. Even given the fact that they are volunteers, how were they supposed to know that the time they enlisted could be and would be extended? They were honest in their intentions to sacrifice a set amount of time and I imagine that they expected that the government would hold up their end of the bargain and let them out at the close of that time. In other words, I disagree that this type of deceit is what they enlisted for.

[punkgrrrlie10]

If they let everyone go home, who's left? Does that not increase the chances of lives lost for the ones who remain? It's not exactly a food service job, where if a waitress is done with her shift they can just stress and pick up the slack when she goes home.

[AChimp]

Even given the fact that they are volunteers, how were they supposed to know that the time they enlisted could be and would be extended?

Then they didn't use their heads before they enlisted. Didn't the fact that the military can call your killing machine ass back into service, after you have been discharged, at any time for a period of two years NOT clue them in that something was up?

I've gone into this in other threads. When you enlist as a soldier, you know what you are getting into to begin with. It's not a "hey! let's have fun and shoot stuff and blow shit up!" club. An army is meant to fight wars. How do you not realize that if there's a war, and you're in the army, you're gonna be fighting?

I have no sympathy for soldiers who whine about how they didn't know what they were getting into after the fact.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by GAsux

First, stop loss is not new. So let's not pretend like it's a big new thing. It's not so much. They did it during Gulf War I and they did it after 9/11. All four branches have various versions of it.

OK. Here's how it works. Whatever amount of years that you initially sign up for on your initial enlistment, you have a total of eights years. If you sign up four years, then you are commited to an additional four years of inactive service. In other words, they can call you back to active service within that four-year window. This is all explained to the new recruit and is fair. This new type of stop loss wherein they hold people past both their active and inactive commitment has not been used before to my knlowledge.

Originally Posted by GAsux

Second, by who's estimate was the force used to obtain military objectives in Iraq undermanned?

By several military experts both active and retired before the war, during the war, and during the occupation. In Desert Storm, troop strength was @ 280,000 and that was just to force the Iraqi military out of Quwait. The supposed mission objective in the current action was to not only crush the Iraqi military but also to occupy the nation while they set up their new government and they're planning on doing this using about a fifth of that troop strength. You do the math.

Originally Posted by GAsux

Who determines the amount of soldiers required for a particular operation?

The objective involved. This particular one involved stabilizing a country which calls for a lot of security and reconnaisance patrols wherein heavy troop strength is necessary. Low troop strength allows for the type of insurgency that is presently going on and makes the few troops that are patroling vulnerable. That's not even taking into account for the manpower needed to assist the public in rebuilding their country in a variety of ways.

Originally Posted by GAsux

Why aren't ground commanders all over Iraq complaining that they just don't have enough people to do the job? Why aren't the service Chiefs fighting for more manpower?

Some of the commanders were arguing for more manpower but were kept quite by the service chiefs. Others were too initimidated by these same service chiefs, who were insistent that they could do this job with less, that they were afraid to even complain. Only recently has Bush acknowledged the fact that additional troop strength was necessary. Odd thing was that he acted like it was a grievance that had never been aired before ... like it was some kind of freakin' epiphany.

Originally Posted by GAsux

Congress authorizes overall end strength figures for each branch. How come the Marines aren't complaining about being undermanned? The Air Force has implemented plans to CUT 11,000 airmen during this fiscal year because they are OVER end strength projections.

I'm not talking about overall strength for each branch. I'm talking about the strength needed for the current, ongoing action.

Originally Posted by GAsux

But point the finger where it needs to be pointed. None of the other three branches is implementing stop loss to the degree the Army has. The Army IS NOT any more committed than the Marines.

While it's true that the army has many more military members than the marines so that the percentage of the corps committed troops to the action may well be just as high or higher than the army, the fact remains that the army has three divisions plus deployed in Iraq to the marines one. Those are the troops affected by the stop loss. It's not that the army doesn't have more troops to give, it's that they don't want to replace the in-country soldiers with those not familiar with the culture, terrain, ect.

Originally Posted by GAsux

The first issue is primarily one of internal imbalance. Clearly the Army doesn't have enough people in the career fields that are being heavily deployed.

It doesn't take any certain career field (military occupational specialty) to be able to guard, patrol, or do various forms of physical labor. Any one coming out of basic training should be able to do those types of basic tasks.

Originally Posted by GAsux

I disagree with the fact that there needs to be more troops on the ground in Iraq, or that there ever needed to be more. Again war planners had their numbers and haven't deviated from them.

The same types of civilian war planners that tied the hands of the soldiers in Vietnam and got troops killed through politics and miscalulation. Great.

Originally Posted by GAsux

The case could be made that each branch may have needed more end strength to rotate those people more effectively to share the burden, and again that's determined by Congress.

They have the troops to give. They don't WANT troops new to the area. If they had committed more troops in the beginning they would be in their present predicatment of having less Iraqi-experienced people to let go.

[GAsux]

Sorry I'm not all about quoting and what not because then posts become 20 times longer than necessary. I know what I said. People who read what I said know it also so you don't need to state it back to me.

I'm not sure why you started by explaining how stop loss works to me. I'm well aware of it. I'm still active duty. I know how the process works. And I agreed. Stop loss sucks donkey dicks. It has a negative impact on morale and recruiting and retention in the long run. Agreed. That's done.

My point was, the blame here does not necessarily rest solely on the shoulders of the administration. Your assertion that those in command who did request more troops were merely stifled by the service chiefs is heresey that you cannot defend in my opinion. It may or may not be the case but proving it is impossible.

As for end strength, how can you say that's not a factor? If Congress approved higher end strength numbers, forces would not be subject to such long deployments because they could better rotate units in and out. If I'm not mistaken there are currently roughly int he nieghborhood of about 250,000 in the region now, which is not far from the GW1 number. Regardless, you cannot add anouther 100,000 to the region without significantly boosting end strength numbers.

Those bodies have to come from somewhere. That's my point. Without an authorization of a larger military force overall. Stop loss is not happening because there aren't enough troops on the ground in Iraq. It's happening because there aren't enough troops across the board to distribute the load. The President has made the decision to commit troops in more places. Congress needs to make the decision to fund more troops. Its that simple.