Army delays retirements for Iraq-bound troops ‘Stop-loss’ order requires soldiers to deploy before leaving service The Associated Press Updated: 11:44 a.m. ET June 02, 2004 WASHINGTON - The Army will prevent soldiers in units set to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the service at the end of their terms, a top general said Wednesday. The announcement, an expansion of an Army program called “stop-loss,” means that thousands of soldiers who had expected to retire or otherwise leave the military will have to stay on for the duration of their deployment to those combat zones. The expansion affects units that are 90 days away or less from deploying, said Lt. Gen. Frank L. “Buster” Hagenbeck, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for personnel. Commanders have the ability to make exceptions for soldiers with special circumstances. But otherwise, soldiers won’t be able to leave the service or transfer from their unit until they return to their home base after the deployment. Objective: ‘Cohesive, trained units’ The move will allow the Army to keep units together as they deploy, Hagenbeck said. Units with new recruits or recently transferred soldiers would not perform as well because the troops would not have had time to work together. “The rationale is to have cohesive, trained units going to war together,” Hagenbeck said. Previously, the Army had prevented soldiers from leaving certain units scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq. But Wednesday’s move is the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, that the stop-loss program has been ordered so widely. The announcement comes as the Army is struggling to find fresh units to continue the occupation of Iraq. Almost every Army combat unit has faced or will face deployment there or in Afghanistan, and increased violence has forced the deployment of an additional 20,000 troops to the region, straining units even further. Some criticize the stop-loss program as contrary to the concept of an all-volunteer military force. Soldiers planning to retire and get on with their lives now face months away from their families and homes. Vet calls move ‘shameful’ In an opinion piece in Wednesday’s New York Times, Andrew Exum, a former Army captain who served under Hagenbeck in the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, called the treatment of soldiers under stop-loss programs “shameful.” “Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he wrote. “They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq.” Hagenbeck said the stop-loss move is necessary only because the Army is also undergoing a major reorganization that requires some units to be taken off-line while they are restructured. Hagenbeck had no numbers on how many soldiers would be affected. Without the program, an average division would have to replace 4,000 soldiers — perhaps one-quarter to one-fifth of its strength — before or during a deployment, according an Army press release. © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
compensated? sure, while they're on active duty... but when/if they retire, the VA's budget will have been cut by about oh... $600 million dollars. Way to take care of the troops!
rockHEAD, there must be other ways, not necessarily monetary. eg. VA loan is a very good programe. It helps soldiers to buy a piece of roof over their head. Also, I know our troops discovered tons of cash in US dollars during the conquer of Baghdad, shouldn't we keep a portion of that? Saddam has at least 60 million in his bank account. Not to mention millions his family accumulated over the years.
Er...spoils of war sort of further dillutes the war of liberation come lately premise, though, doesn't it? Anyways, this coupled with extensions of active duty is sort of what Kerry ( who, btw, impressed me as an extenpore speaker in Florida today) is talking about when he mentions a backdoor draft. Note this important part of the piece: In order to sustain military overextension while avoiding the political suicide of instituting a draft, they seem to be doing a lot at the expense of existing military personel.
It is sort of like a draft for the working class folks who enter often due to poor job prospects in their small towns or an attempt to get money for college.
It's called needs of the service. It's a fact of life in the military and nothing to b**** about. If you didn't want to deal with that aspect of it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I'm tired of this left-wing talking point of it's "a rich man's war and poor man's fight." Is everything about Marxist class struggle with you people? Geez. I can almost predict what you guys will say about an issue before you do.
Bamaslammer, You are the man. You say what I think only so much better. As you've probably read on the boards here I'm not very well read or informed, at least that's what Sammy tells me. Keep up the good work. It's good to see someone who makes sense and isn't blinded by their hatred of one man (Bush).
Or, conversely, if you didn't want to deal with the political fallout of a draft, don't overcommit our troops on a voluntary war while already engaaged in another. Or get actual as opposed to theoretical international support, and thereby relieving the strain on your own military. Needs of the service is not an infinite coverall, bama, and history shows that, if the cause is legit, a nation will support a war through various means. History also shows that, if the cause is legit, nations around the world will commit troops to said cause. In this case neither applies, and trying to excuse the burden of those errors being borne by the troops while simultaneously accusing others of prejudice is, quite simply, voluntary blindness.
It is a "cover-all" if you sign your name on that dotted line. Until you are released from your service, you serve at the whim of the govt. That's life and all the rationalizing in the world will not change that one iota. We don't need a draft and to think that the same people who favored cutting our forces so deeply after the Cold War so they could cash in on the peace dividend for various vote-buying schemes are now the same whiners who b**** that we don't have enough troops! Well, these are also the same folks who have squandered our troops in the Balkans and Kosovo to enforce a meaningless peace that will be shattered the moment we leave.
1) Do we have a responsible government or not? If we do, then sidestepping the accountability of our government's decisions by simply excusing any repercussions those decisions have on the troops with a catchphrase is antithetical to our system. Your line might refute a degree of sympathy for the troops; as you say, to a degree, they signed up. But it in no way addresses let alone refutes the responsibility the administration has for it's decisions, or how those decisions have had to be borne out by our troops. If we invaded Mexico tomorrow, and as such had to keep our troops on indefinite service for 10 years, would 'needs of the service' cover it? In any society, the troops bear the burden of the decisions made by their government. In a responsible society, that burden is weighed against the validity of the action, and the competence of it's administration in leading same. To not even look at the cost because of a slogan is irresponsible in the highest degree, and surprising as hell coming from an ex-serviceman. 2) How the hell do you know what my position re: the military was after the Cold War? You may be right, you may not, and it may be irrelevant, but where do you get off making assumptions like that? Or any of the rest of us in here who have 'whined and b****ed" that we have enough troops? For the record, virtually every military expert of note agrees that we don't have enough troops, but obviously they are merely extending their prejudice against the military dating back decades... 3) Interesting depiction of the Balkan conflict. Can't wait to hear your version of this war in another decade.
We don't need a draft and to think that the same people who favored cutting our forces so deeply after the Cold War so they could cash in on the peace dividend for various vote-buying schemes are now the same whiners who b**** that we don't have enough troops! You realize Rumsfeld and this administration were at the forefront of the "cutting our forces" strategy right? A major part of Rumsfeld's "military transformation" was to have a smaller force in terms of manpower and more weapons and technology... http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0507/p02s02-woiq.html?related <I>Before the war, Mr. Rumsfeld floated the idea of eliminating 20 percent of the Army's combat units to pay for modernization and new weapon systems. Now, however, his staff is talking about realigning America's military toward smaller fighting units, not about deep cuts.</I> http://www.restoringamerica.org/archive/veterans/reduction_opposition.html <I>When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld convened a high-level Pentagon meeting Aug. 4, the goal was to win a consensus from the nation's highest military officers on cutting the U.S. military in exchange for requiring it to do less.</I> http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles and Notes/Rumsfeld Aides Seek Cuts in Armed Forces.html <I>Aides to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are calling for deep personnel cuts to the Army, Navy, and Air Force in order to pay for new high-tech weaponry and missile defenses that are cornerstones of President Bush's plan to "transform the military." The proposal to reduce manpower—part of a congressionally mandated defense review due next month—calls for the Army to trim as many as 2.8 of its 10 divisions, or about 56,000 troops. The Air Force would lose as many as 16 of its 61 fighter squadrons, according to the plan, and the Navy would drop one or two of its 12 carrier battle groups, defense officials said. Mr. Rumsfeld and top generals of each military service were briefed on the recommendations for the first time yesterday. </I>
Perpetual war demands a perpetual supply of soldiers. I hope it's worth it, because we're going to lose a LOT of Americans, money, and international respectability along the way.
Well, his iniatives were resisted (succcessfully) by the E-Ring of the Pentagon, so what's your point? I did not support his ideas, especially cutting CVBG's when we have so few foreign airbases in important trouble spots these days.
bamaslammer, how do you reconcile your continual accusations of votebuying schemes with the fact that poor, "red" states are predominatly net federal beneficiaries while rich "blue" states are predominatly net federal donors? Your beloved, rock ribbed republican alabama is a siphon on the federal government, which steals hard earned tax dollars (stolen by the "democrat tax", aka the AMT) from east coast urbanites like myself. Meanwhile, the empire state, despite its crumbling infrastructure and its expensive upkeep (when you're the number 1 terrorist target, it happens) is a net donor? While I can tolerate you and your states leeching (I'm charitable like that) off of me and my states hard earned dollars, I can't stomach your continuous, intentional, and blatant lying about it. Please cease, desist, or otherwise explain yourself.
Well, his iniatives were resisted (succcessfully) by the E-Ring of the Pentagon, so what's your point? I did not support his ideas, especially cutting CVBG's when we have so few foreign airbases in important trouble spots these days. Two points: (1) This is just another example of how this administration is wrong on just about every proposal they make, and every prediction they make for policy. (2) To point out that your statement: <I>We don't need a draft and to think that the same people who favored cutting our forces so deeply after the Cold War so they could cash in on the peace dividend for various vote-buying schemes are now the same whiners who b**** that we don't have enough troops!</I> was not really valid. It's not the same people b****ing. Everyone (Democrats and Republicans, as demonstrated by this administration) was for cutting troop numbers to generate financial savings.
Well, you just argued my point on why states should take care of their own needs. If we didn't have an intrusive Federal govt. reaching in your pocket to send money to Alabama (where I no longer live and haven't for several years now), your state would have more of its money to spend on their own people. I can argue about vote-buying schemes because new entitlements are simply that. This prescription drug plan is one, as was WIC, EBT and other in a long line of transfer to non-producers from producers. Farm subsidies and corporate grants are the similar. If states want to have Mediscare and EBT and all of these wasteful programs, they should pay for them and run them. The Federal govt. should not be in the business of wealth transfer.
If states want to have Mediscare and EBT and all of these wasteful programs, they should pay for them and run them. The Federal govt. should not be in the business of wealth transfer. The problem with this theory is that the needs don't match the resources. A poor state has the biggest needs, but would have the fewest resources to supply them. A rich state has the money, but it's not going to have much need. As a result, the rich continually get better off, and the poor states just get worse off. That's the argument behind running these types of programs at the federal level.
