In a recent story on MSNBC, and an editorial in USA Today, it seems the Pentagon is creating our very own "POW's".

Up to 40,000 servicemen due to retire, or whose Guard and/or Reserve contracts are up, are being forced to remain in the service because their loss would be deemed critical to the military, as they are not getting enough volunteers to replace those due for discharge . The story is here, and the editorial is here.


The story talks about three soldiers in particular who were due to be discharged from the service either sometime last year, or this year, and who are still in Iraq, or are in the process of being shipped there, and have no idea of when they will be getting out, because of the stop-loss orders.



The questions to debate are:
1. Is this fair? Should the military be able to break the contracts made with servicemen for specific length of service, forcing them to remain indefinitely?

2. If we are really that short-handed in the service, should we consider re-instating the draft, for say, a two year term of service, to maintain and build trrop strength? If not, why not?

1. Is this fair? Should the military be able to break the contracts made with servicemen for specific length of service, forcing them to remain indefinitely?

No it's not fair. It's an awful thing for the government to force people to be in a "war" zone after their agreed-upon date of release from such activities.

But, in the military, you're taught to shut up and follow orders. Who ya gonna sue?

If we are really that short-handed in the service, should we consider re-instating the draft, for say, a two year term of service, to maintain and build trrop strength? If not, why not?

No, the draft is NOT needed. What's needed is the money to pay our servicemen/women enough to support their families, especially the Reserves who often have to exist on reduced pay after they get called up. If I'm being paid properly for something that I was doing yesterday, I won't complain if I have to do it again today and tomorrow. At least I'm getting paid. (You can tell what motivates me to work ; most people aren't motivated by being stuck in uncomfortable gear in the middle of the desert and being shot at).

1. Is this fair? Should the military be able to break the contracts made with servicemen for specific length of service, forcing them to remain indefinitely?

Sadly, it is indeed fair. It's a fact of military life that you may not be able to retire or leave the service exactly when you want to if we are in a time of war or national emergency. Military members understand this, or if they don't, they're naive and uninformed. Unfortunately, not everybody reads the fine print in the contract, or even looks at the actions of the past few decades to see what contingencies may arise.

2. If we are really that short-handed in the service, should we consider re-instating the draft, for say, a two year term of service, to maintain and build trrop strength? If not, why not?

I don't think the draft is necessary at this point in time. And you wouldn't find any heartache from me if congress decided to up the pay and benefits to keep more people in, or to increase recruitment rates.
To address what amf said: Yes, I believe the military is underpaid, but many members choose to live outside their means and have more children than they can properly care for, just like in civilian life. That goes equally for reserves and active duty alike. Don't think all families of deployed members are subsiding on food stamps or are standing in line for government cheese. My wife (in the reserves) just mobilized and will head to Iraq in weeks. She left a well paying, professional job. But with hazardous duty pay, active duty pay, foreign area pay for Iraq, and it being tax free.....she will be making substantially more while she is deployed.

1. Sadly, fair or not, this has been the policy of our military for decades. As far as I know, it has always been the policy of our military. The present 'war on terror' confuses the issue, because there is no definitive END in sight, unlike the historical precedents which allowed for the termination of the stop-loss when the direct hostilities ceased. Fortunately, most everyone that I know has been able to successfully petition out of it. I'm not sure of those whose service is crucial, though, the story is probably different for them. This is another reason the 'it's an all volunteer force' excuse for overburdening our forces boils my blood. Many have reached the end of their commitments and are not permitted to leave...They can even be recalled and forced to again enter the service against their will, should there be a case of compelling national emergency.

2. I don't think we need to reinstate the draft, unless we invade yet another country or end up in a war with China over Taiwan or something equivalent, but we probably do need to increase our forces. Every able-bodied soldier is tied to a stop-loss, and even the part-time reserve units have been activated. Reserve units are designed to be activated in times of emergency and necessity. Supposedly, the hostilities have ended. If we still need 'em, we need more troops on active duty.

I have a sister-in-law in the Navy who just told me they have extended the tour of duty on ships to nine months now...they were previously six. Is there some amphibious assault/ sea battle on the horizon? Why are they doing this? The only answer I can think of is, they are dramatically undermanned. I must disagree with amf on that note. The government cannot possibly pay a soldier enough to spend nine months every year at sea, for an indefinite number of years of his/her life. The same goes for any other deployment rate which is that demanding. I wouldn't sell my kidney for a million dollars, but I'd rather give away my kidney than spend seven out of the next ten years away from my family.

This is a cruel joke. I don't think any "contract" should be allowed that is all one-sided. To call such an agreement a contract is to use double-speak in its worse form.

Service personnel should be told what could happen at recruitment time. Maybe they are; I don't know. If future recruits didn't know, they do now.

I was thinking the other day that we may not be heading back to the draft but to mandatory service in one form or another for all citizens, at least those who can pass the clearance.

Bringing up the draft during election year won't do much for GWB's reelection, so it won't come up. Yet draft-age folks must be thinking that the draft will be coming back up after the election.



Are we now in a time of war? And what is our national emergency? Can these two things be defined without referring to threats of terror? Or is the war on terror carte blanche to keep people permanently in the military?

The cloth on this suit is wearing thin.

No contract no matter whom it is with should be broken. They may want to offer incentives to try and keep good soldiers but other than that you will tend to lose face if you break a contract.

I for one do not think the Draft is a bad thing. Of course I am beyond the years of being drafted myself. I have 3 daughters 21,16 and 4. The 21-year-old has joined the Air Force on her own free will, mainly because she was smart enough to realize she needed more structure in her life than she was giving herself. My 16-year-old NEEDS to join some branch of the military!

I am looking at a lot of kids these days growing up without supervision or direction in their lives. If the draft were instituted this would be the first time some of these kids would have any real structure and discipline in their lives, this cannot be a bad thing. It is my opinion we will get back better people in return for the most part. But that is just what I think, what do I know.

In response to all who believe Stop-Loss to be a violation of a military contract:

As per DA Form 3286-63, Nov 89, Statement For Enlistment United States Army Training Enlistment Program
Paragraph 4:

Military Service Obligation Understanding.
I understand that an original enlistment in the US Armed Forces obligates me to an eight (8) year Military Service Obligation. My term of enlistment in the Regular Army is credited towards that obligation as well as any enlistment in the Delayed Enlistment Program. In the event that the Secretary of the Army determines that military necessity of a national scope requires that soldiers be available for assignment/reassignment or training, any or all guarantees in this contract may be terminated. Under these conditions, I may be trained, assigned or reassigned according to the needs of the Army.

Wow! I LOVE the things I learn on AD!! Thanks, Dontreadonme!

However, a contract termination date is definitely not the same as a "guarantee" (which elsewhere in the contract would state what their role/assignment/training would be; e.g., if I want to be a pilot and they guarantee in the contract that they'll make me a pilot, but then the Sec. Army decides they need me as a cook). You didn't provide a link, but I'll bet that "guarantee" is defined elsewhere.

Also, since when did attacking Iraq become a "necessity of national scope"? As someone outside the military, no one has asked me to sacrifice ANYTHING (including driving my SUV! ), so how can this be "national" in scope?

But the original question wasn't whether it was legal to do this, it was whether it was "fair", which is more subjective than objective anyway.

I can understand the need to implement something like a "stop loss" order. If you didn't implement something like that, as the war raged on, our numbers would be dropping without replenishment - who wants to sign up for the army during war time?

However, bad planning on the Pentagon's part does not constitute an emergency on our service members' part. The war is over. This is not an emergency. If one of the service members could afford to bring a lawsuit against the government on this, I bet they would win.

The contract is along the same lines as those contracts that bowling alleys make you sign when you rent shoes - that you can't hold the bowling alley liable for any injuries, bowling is a dangerous sport, blah blah - and you may not sue us for negligence no matter what...blah blah. Those contracts are signed and overturned all the time. If the government wants to impose on service members, those people should be entitled to damages suffered during the inconvenience. In this day and age of lawsuits, anyone who doesn't legally fight a stop loss order is just shooting himself in the foot and doesn't deserve any compensation or release from contract. Perhaps after the fact someone will have the time to do so.

A precedent needs to be made to give service members the rights they deserve. And if that comes at the expense of the American public, its a small price to pay. And besides, its all monopoly money anyway.

I am retiring at 21 years instead of 20 due to the stop-loss. I feel no resentment against the system - but I am definitely retiring at 21 (May 05). The stop-loss now is unit-based; soldiers assigned to units designated to rotate into Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones affected. The rotation does affect a larger number of Reserve/Guard soldiers this time around.

Speaking from the viewpoint of a career Army NCO, I am vehemently against reinstituting the draft. We have a professional Army - and our operational successes are due to that very fact. The last thing we need is an infusion of people forced to serve against their will who do not want to serve. We already put out a significant number of enlistees throughout the training process; percentages varying by specific job.

However, I do believe that we need to restructure the force. We cut very deeply - too deeply in many areas. We do not need to simply reactivate units - as stated, the force needs to be restructured to meet operational needs. The Stryker brigades are a step in the right direction, but they still do not adequately address the problem. We definitely need more numbers - but of the right type. Highly mobile, potent combat forces, with leaner support elements and integral aggressive intelligence collection cability.

I think there are deployments around the world that could be reduced. (Don't we still have 70K troops in Germany?) I see the point for not using the draft, but since the needs on our armed forces have increased under this administration, shouldn't we be increasing the size of our armed forces. I think too much is being asked of those who are presently in uniform, active, guard, or reserve.

I agreed with the Clinton cuts in the 90s. I don't like a huge standing army. But we have active combat/ peacekeeping missions going on in Afghanistan and Iraq that are hot. We have other places where we want to be able to respond with lesser commitments (Kosovo/Bosnia, Liberia i.e.)

I think we should have been recruiting for higher numbers in our armed forces since 9-11. Give attractive packages including college money, sign up bonuses, whatever it takes. The armed forces should be temporarily increased while we are so active with our forces. This would be better for the personnel in uniform and I think it would help the reserve and guard systems for the long term if they only served limited terms and returned to their civilian life more quickly than many of them presently are.

I have never actually witnessed the above example happening, I think it's just legalese to cover any contingency without being specific. And you're right, I didn't provide a link....I copied it off of my reenlistment contract.


Fundamentally, I would have to say yes, it is fair. It's in the contract, and I don't view it as something that is beyond the pale....to extend forces in times of national emergency (regardless of whether or not you believe in the emergency.)


The reasoning given for the stop-loss orders concerns the overall war on terror, not specifically Operation Iraqi Freedom. So under those grounds, a lawsuit would likely fail. And service members are forbidden from suing the DOD.


Germany is not a deployment location. It's a permanent duty station, just as if they were stationed in Kansas. And most troops in Germany have had heavy rotations to Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, so they have in a sense been just as productive as troops from the states, not just sitting around going to Oktoberfests. But I do agree that we don't really need them stationed in Europe anymore.

So, considering that the War on Terror could last years, bouncing from one country to another, depending on the whims of our president, these people could be in limbo, discharge-wise indefinitely? And you think this is ok?

I can understand holding up the discharge of specialists like those involved in the search for WMD, demolitions, snipers, etc. But holding up the retirement or discharge of 20,000 to 40,000 soldiers seems a bit absurd.

I agree with Eeyore and Perspective. We made an agreement with these people for a certain length of time. Now we are telling them that we are breaking that agreement even though they kept up their part of the bargain. And we are doing this, even after announcing the "end" of the war.

Let congress authorize a higher troop strength, and active recruit with additional benefits if required to retain soldiers already in, and to bring new recruits into the system. To those that still want out after the additional inducements have been offered, we should be saying "Thanks for your service. Enjoy your civilian life."

From Army Link


I never claimed to be a great fan of stop-loss. I am merely rational thinking enough to realize that whether or not you agree with the present administration, we have troops in harms way, and we have missions to accomplish. While congress dithers about on higher troop strength and increased benefits, there must be a plan to keep men and materiel in theater. You have an opportunity to voice your displeasure at the current foreign policy next November. The Department of the Army doesn't really have any other options right now.


I don't know what war you're talking about, you acknowledged you knew that the stop-loss policy was in reference to the war on terror.

Yes, it is fair. No contracts were broken. No one is actually being kept past the expiration of their contract. For example when someone joins the military, they usually sign an 8 year contract. They may spend 4 years on active duty but the other 4 are spent on something called inactive reserve should they decide not to re-enlist. Basically they live a regular civilian life but could be recalled by the military during that time. Someone who is retained on active duty by stop/loss is not being kept in the military past his/her contract, since they would have been on inactive reserve. If anyone in the military was caught off guard by stop/loss they weren't paying attention to their recruiter or their contract.

Stop/loss is also a necessity to keep units combat ready. You may have units headed to war, that are due to lose most of their NCOs over the next couple of months. NCOs are the backbone of any unit, and their experience is invaluable. The importantance of non-commissioned officers can't be overstated, and units can't afford to lose them when being deployed to a place like Iraq.



Like Mustang I'm also adamantly against the draft, unless it's an absolute necessity like during WW2. A volunteer is normally going to be worth 10 times as much as any conscript. Conscription would only serve to lower the overall morale and combat effeciency of the armed forces.

DTOM,

I generally agree with your posts on this. You have the knowledge and the experience over me on this one.

But on this point I fall away from you. I don't think Congress holds the power on this one. They may have to pass the changes but it really can be an administration call. Can you imagine a majority of Congress not acting if the President made a speech saying that we need to draw in a larger volunteer force to relieve the stress on those already in uniform? I don't see this as an issue of Congress dithering.

The Army and other military branches could ask for more troops and they would probably get a response, but that doesn't seem to be a political reality. My impression was that the military would have wanted a more Desert Storm size force over there for the war and the occupation.

Rumsfeld Link(who I believe is a strong voice for a sleek, modern military) has essentially called for a voice from the army to step up and publicly express those sentiments, which seems to me to be a pretty confident approach that shows assurance that the brass won't cross the President.

If the president asked for funds for a larger overall army for the war on terror the funds would come. Heck he could probably get that and another tax cut to stimulate the economy. Or he could sell it as stimulation to the economy, it is more jobs isn't it?

Clark's take on Rumsfeld's army from an above link


Army Holds Its Ground in Battle With Rumsfeld



The former head of the Army asked for more troops and Rumsfeld said his replacement was misquoted when he said that his gut feeling was that the army should increase its troops strength.

Rumsfeld rejects case for boosting size of Army

While I have to agree with the concept of stop-loss, I disagree with the current application of it.

It was understandable if people were not allowed to separate right after 9/11. We just got attacked, nobody was quite sure by whom, or what would happen next. However, any time that our government throws a hissy fit and gets into a fight with someone (Iraq, Kosovo) does not, IMO, constitute a national emergency. I think that stop-loss should be applied only in case of a true national emergency. If our government wants to go and play "world cop", let them find another way to do it.

But this is definately an issue of right vs. wrong, not legal vs. illegal.

Sure it is fair in times of war. It may not be pleasant but neither were the other wars the US participated in.

As far as the draft I believe we should hold off on reinstituting as long as possible because putting it in place and maintaining it will cost billions.

We have the best and most professional army in the world. Let’s keep it that way.

But the thing is, right now we are NOT at war. A war can only take place between two sovereign nations. The fact that they call this "the war on terror" doesn't make it an actual war. It's just a misuse of the word. War on terror, war on drugs aren't wars. If the president refers to vacuuming as "The War on Dust", that wouldn't make it a real war, and wouldn't justify treating it as such.

So then are you arguing that due to a semantic disagreement, we are not engaged in a military campaign that is taking up resources and troops unparalleled in the last few decades?


I would love for you to say that with a straight face to the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is a difference between a war and an armed conflict. That's all I was trying to say. I in no way intended to downplay the hardships and dangers they face. All I was trying to say is that you can declare war on a country, not on an object or an idea.

Edited to add: Are our troops fighting a military out in Afghanistan and Iraq, or criminal organizations (which is what non-uniformed guerilla units are)?

Point taken. I realize you weren't slandering
I guess I just don't attach too much of a difference between declared war and armed conflict when it is involving so many troops, and the threat is deemed to be as dangerous as I see it being.
I do think that one can declare war on an organization or an entity. Al-Qeada is certainly not an object or an idea.
I actually see the current conflict as more of an argument for implementing stop-loss than during Desert Storm.

While Al-Qaeda is not an object or an idea, they are certainly not a country. They are a criminal organization. Would it not be ridiculous if the U.S. declared war on the Bloods? I really don't see this being a different situation, only a different type of criminal organization.

But we aren't at war even with Al-Qaeda. We are at war with terror. I just think that is a ridiculous statement, designed get an emotional response out of all those people who don't know better.

My biggest problem with the current application of stop-loss is this: we are not at war, NOR is this a national emergency. Stop-loss was fully justified after 9/11. Now, the simple reality is that our military is stretched too thin. We had no choice or control over when and how 9/11 happened. We DID have both over when and how Iraq happened (whether or not it needed to happen is a different issue entirely). What I have a problem with is our government saying "Let's just do Iraq now. We are already overtasked, but hell, there's always stop-loss." In a way that's exactly what happened, because in the months prior to the war many people were talking about exactly the issue of us stretching ourselves too thin. Iraq could have been planned our a little better, making stop-loss unnecessary.

I agree. We should have waited until operations in Afghanistan had either been resolved or come down fully to a point where the bulk of troops could have been fulfilled by NATO countries, as we are edging towards now.


OK, I guess you could then call it a police action or armed action against thugs or whatever. It doesn't change the fact that we should be committed to rooting out those who would commit attacks along the lines of 9/11, no matter where they reside. You say that stop-loss was justified after 9/11, but then up until what point? We are still engaged in actions that started after 9/11, what would your cut off date be?


Not really....it would have my vote. Gangs are probably more of a threat to our young men and women at this very moment than Al-Qeada.

That's a very good question, and it points out a big problem with this war on terror. In a true war, nation against nation, you can usually see a clear-cut victory, ie. WWII, we nuke Japan, they surrendered, we won, the war is over. This is not the case here, because Islamic extremism is an idea, and ideas tend to be bullet-proof. How would we know that we won this "war"? A week without an attack? A month? A year? A decade? I honestly don't have the first clue of what the victory would look like in this situation (obviously, we need to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice, but that would not be the end of it). That is why they need to find an alternative to stop-loss, because for all we know this war on terror could last until the cows come home. Every time a member of the Bush administration speaks of the war on terror, they say we are in this for the long haul. So should they not be doing things that will help increase manpower, i.e. more pay, more benefits, heftier enlistment bonuses? I think our money would be better spent on that than on more nukes. But so far I haven't seen a single step in that direction. So to me it looks like they are basically exploiting the stop-loss, and I don't think that's right.

In relation to the first point, it is very unfair for the government to infringe upon the contractual agreements it makes with individual soldiers. We are a very contract oriented country. From the magna charta to leasing agreements, we tend to honor contracts and require them for important decisions. I would like to believe that our government does not take such a light and transient attitude about contracts. The sad thing is, if a soldier breaks his/her end of the bargain, they are thrown in the brig. If the government breaks the contract then what? I think some people near retirement are due some grievances. At the same time, unless the contract spells out in writing that the "stop-loss" orders may be instituted, then I have no complaint. otherwise, it's an under-handed dirty track on the part of uncle Sam.

I'm rather ambivalent about the draft. I do not believe in the validity of the Iraq war and I believe that a draft would be unnecessary if the real war on terror was fought. With that being said, I oppose a draft because I do not feel that there is a compelling reason why more than 50,000 soldiers have to be in Iraq.

It is spelled out. From DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the Untied States:
For Active Duty


For Reserves and National Guard