so you think you can leave at the end of your tour of duty?

[Charlie P]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has issued an order preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires, officials said on Wednesday.
The move to extend the service of some soldiers involuntarily was the latest sign of increasing stress on the Army as the Pentagon strives to maintain adequate troop levels in the two conflicts.

Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief, denied that the move was a sign of desperation for the Army, although he did acknowledge that the Army was "stretched."

The Army issued so-called "stop loss" and "stop movement" orders for soldiers in all units that will deploy outside the United States to take part in future missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army has previously issued such orders covering some troops in the two conflicts, but not as broadly as the latest move. Since the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, some 45,000 soldiers have been affected by similar orders, Hagenbeck said.

The "stop loss" order means that soldiers who otherwise could leave the service when their volunteer commitments expire, starting 90 days before being sent, will be compelled to remain to the end of their overseas deployment and up to another 90 days after they come home.

A "stop movement" order blocks soldiers from shifting to new assignments during the restricted period.

Army spokesmen were unable to give a figure for how many soldiers would be affected by the orders beyond saying it will be in the thousands.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/294628|top|06-02-2004::10:47|reuters.html

[eldeguello]

ORIGINAL: Charlie P

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has issued an order preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires, officials said on Wednesday.
The move to extend the service of some soldiers involuntarily was the latest sign of increasing stress on the Army as the Pentagon strives to maintain adequate troop levels in the two conflicts.

Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief, denied that the move was a sign of desperation for the Army, although he did acknowledge that the Army was "stretched."

The Army issued so-called "stop loss" and "stop movement" orders for soldiers in all units that will deploy outside the United States to take part in future missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army has previously issued such orders covering some troops in the two conflicts, but not as broadly as the latest move. Since the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, some 45,000 soldiers have been affected by similar orders, Hagenbeck said.

The "stop loss" order means that soldiers who otherwise could leave the service when their volunteer commitments expire, starting 90 days before being sent, will be compelled to remain to the end of their overseas deployment and up to another 90 days after they come home.

A "stop movement" order blocks soldiers from shifting to new assignments during the restricted period.

Army spokesmen were unable to give a figure for how many soldiers would be affected by the orders beyond saying it will be in the thousands.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/294628|top|06-02-2004::10:47|reuters.html

This is a half-vast measure! BRING BACK THE DRAFT! Why should a handful of volunteers be the only citizens carrying the burden of preserving our country????

[driftrider]

The reason the Army is doing this is to maintain unit integrity when those units are on the verge of deployment. Generally, except in the case of emergency, units with orders to deploy spend several months before deployment training and doing "work-ups" for deployment. The stop-loss is designed to ensure that a unit that has spent this time working up for a deployment doesn't lose a number of their already trained and prepared men right before the deployment happens. If these guys were allowed to EAS the unit would need to fill their positions with new guys who don't have a clue what's going on, and won't have time to get the new men up to speed before they're sent wherever they're going. This becomes a serious liability when you end up in a combat zone with and the guy next to you in the hole got out of boot camp literally last week.

Let's also not forget that stop-loss orders most often effect first term enlisted men. What most people don't know is that when you enlist in the military you are committing to a contractual EIGHT YEAR COMMITMENT. Alot of people don't understand that just because one may only serve four years of it actively doesn't mean that when that four years is up they have no further commitment to service. This is entirely untrue. Even after they are discharged a person who served for four years actively would have four more years service in the Individual Ready Reserve (a non-drilling reserve component), during which time they can be recalled to active duty at any time. A first term enlistment can be extended to as long as a full eight years if necessary. In the case of a stop-loss order, these troops would simply be extended rather than allowed to EAS and then get recalled back into active duty. This maintains unit integrity and allows a unit to function to full capacity when deployed.

Like we said in the Corps,

USMC stands for

U
Signed the
Mother*******
Contract!

As for reinstating the draft...I've said before and I'll say it again. As a former Marine I think that the draft is a BAD IDEA! Myself, and those I served with, all willingly volunteered to do what we were doing. Military life is hard enough without having a bunch of knuckleheads around that absolutely don't want to be there mucking things up. The draft is bad for morale, bad for dicipline, and undermines the effectiveness of our military. We have enough bodies to be an effective military force. Adding a bunch of conscripts would be nothing more than adding dead weight.

And to head off the "It'd be good for them" argument. I can tell you from my experience as a Marine and as an MP that one only benefits from military service if they are willing to give their best to their service. Tossing a lump of worthless coal into the military doesn't at all guarantee that you'll get back a diamond. Most of the people who create problems and get into trouble in the military are those that, despite the fact that they a one time volunteered, failed to adapt to military life and didn't want to be there. They were the dicipline problems and they were the ones who usually ended up in the brig. Now imagine what would happen if the military went from maybe 1-3% who didn't want to be there to say 40 or 50% because of a draft. I know that I wouldn't want to serve in a military with such a composition, especially as a military policeman trying to deal with the mess.

Mike

[trapper T]

Driftrider, you beat me too it, I was thinking of the IRR when I read this.

I didn't know the other stuff but makes perfect sense, my job in the military didn't require that kind of training, then again most Sailors have it a little easier than the BOys up front and on shore.


USN

[Tazman]

8 years now! Man when I was in it was a 6 year commitment, I enlisted for 4 years, but was in what the Air Force called "Inactive Reserve" for 2 years. The IRR makes sense and in reality this is not a whole lot when compared to WWII where no matter if you were a volunteer or draftee you were in for the "Duration" and you didn't get to rotate back to the states.

As long as the military has the needed man power volunteering I would not want to see the draft come back, mainly for the reasons Driftrider mentioned.

[PABuck_HNTR]

when compared to WWII where no matter if you were a volunteer or draftee you were in for the "Duration" and you didn't get to rotate back to the states.

Great Point Taz!

How everyone forgets the other wars we have been in.

[Charlie P]

Driftrider, Thanks for the explanation.

[bob d]

this is nothing new my oldest was in iraq last year and in jan 2003 the order was issued that everyone was extended it was called the stop gap order . so nothing new here happens more than you think it would

[Dave590]

driftrider, that was a very well put explination. I was not aware of the total obligation being 8 years, I thought it was more like six, but thats not really the point here.

The idea of being involuntarily extended has been around for a very long time...I seem to recall it being refered to in different terms, but then again I was a "deck plate" sailor, so what we called it then is probably not appropriate for a family oriented board like this. But at any rate, those that were extended did'nt tend to gripe too much, they generally wanted to be there anyway. (They griped, but it was just a "general" gripe, not a sure enough angry gripe, if ya' know what I mean)