Okay, it's a volunteer military we have in the U.S. Everyone knows that there are things you have to endure in military life that you don't have to deal with in the civilian world.

If your boss is a jerk or you don't like your job you can quit. Nobody's going to come looking for you and drag you back to work. In the military, you have to snap to attention and salute when the man says you're going to some God-forsaken place on Earth to do a job nobody else would do willingly. That's just the price of the ticket.

But what happens when you've volunteered, you've held up your end of the bargain and you're ready to get out of the military and get back to the real world and as you're ready to ship out, Uncle Sam says, "Not so fast."

Army Program to Keep Some Soldiers on Duty

(AP) - Thousands of soldiers who had expected to retire or otherwise leave the military will be required to stay if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan. The announcement Wednesday, an expansion of a program called "stop-loss," affects units that are 90 days or less from deploying, said Lt. Gen. Frank L. "Buster" Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel. Commanders can make exceptions for soldiers with special circumstances.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_us_military_6

The "Stop-Loss" program meets two needs. One, is that it enables the Pentagon to keep experienced troops together instead of suddenly rotating in new and untrained replacements. But it also, dodges the big question of are there enough troops in the military to meet the demands of Iraq, Afghanistan and the numerous other assignments presently on the Pentagon's plate.

A retired officer writes in today's New York Times that there are political motivations at play as well.

Stop-loss and the activation of the inactive reserve show how politics has taken priority over readiness. The Pentagon uses these policies to meet its needs in Iraq because they are expedient and ask nothing of the civilian populace on the eve of a national election. This allows us to put off what is sure to be a difficult debate: whether our volunteer military is adequate to meet our foreign policy commitments. Meanwhile, in the absence of this debate, the men and women of our armed forces languish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/opinion/02EXUM.html (registration required)

Captain Andrew Exum, a former Army captain adds......the stop-loss policy is wrong; it runs contrary to the concept of the volunteer military set up in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Many if not most of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq.

I agree with Captain Exum. The Pentagon, the Bush Administration and Congress are avoiding the issue of troop strength and do not want to bring up the possibility of reinstating the draft during an election year.

The question for debate is:

Do you believe the Pentagon's expansion of the "Stop-Loss" program is simply a matter of necessity to maintain current levels of troops on the ground and stability OR it is a easy way to dodge long-term issues of troop strength and reinstating the draft?

Do you believe the Pentagon's expansion of the "Stop-Loss" program is simply a matter of necessity to maintain current levels of troops on the ground and stability OR it is a easy way to dodge long-term issues of troop strength and reinstating the draft?


This is a very good question and I believe the answer in the present term to be for the former - ie. the necessity to maintain current force levels in theater. However, I believe it to be the result of a failed and short-sighted policy by the Bush Administration (the FIRST one) back in the late 1980's crafted by then Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Colin Powell. With the end of the Cold War, it became official policy that a large share of the burden of defense would be shifted from active-duty to reserve forces. This was a part of the so-called "peace dividend" which was vastly over-rated in my opinion. It was cheaper to do it this way and we did things on the cheap. A large number of fine career soldiers, enlisted and officers were "RIFED" (reduction in force) out of the service and bascially told to go find something else to do with their lives. Some of them maintained a connection by joining the reserve, others didn't and have since gone on to do other things. I thought it was a huge mistake then, and I think that's being demonstrated now. The short term solution is "Stop-Loss" orders and we need a short term solution right now. In the longer term though I think we need to understand and recognise the need for a strong, well-equiped and well-trained ACTIVE DUTY military - not a draft.

Do you believe the Pentagon's expansion of the "Stop-Loss" program is simply a matter of necessity to maintain current levels of troops on the ground and stability OR it is a easy way to dodge long-term issues of troop strength and reinstating the draft?

Great question nighttimer, it seems to me that we don't have any choice but to accept this as a short term solution to our problem. With the various military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no choice but to retain the small number of soldiers that we have.

As Aquilla alluded to, the reason we are in this bind is because of the policies of several administrations dating back to the end of the cold war.

However, if we truely want to commit to this war on terror, this must be addressed in this election and put to the voters as a component of the WOT. To skirt this issue would be completely irresponsible, regardless of who is in office the next four years we will need to deal with this issue. That is either going to mean a draft of some kind or a huge recruiting drive for the military.

Our politicians have a duty to state their positions on this so the voters can decide which candidate they support on the issue. One of the current proposals being tossed around (and I believe debated in another thread) is some level of compulsory service for the 18 to 26 age group. The people in that age group have a right to decide if they think that is the right approach by endorsing either Bush or Kerry.

However, I have a feeling that both candidates will dodge this issue during the election and we'll be stuck with the philosophy of whoever wins.

For me my time in the military was the best time of my life. I was in the best physical shape of my life. I worked around some of the greatest guys and gals in the world and we worked together to get a job done. There were ample opportunities to travel, advance in rank, go to school, get training in everything from weapons systems to various trucks to drive and the good times far outnumbered the bad. Had I stayed in I'd be entering my 30th year in the military.

But two things changed my mind. The first was I saw my older brother's W-2 form with his college degree and my four years in the military and there was a wide disparity between the two. That's when I knew I was going to get out, use my G.I. Bill benefits to go to college and get my shot at some real money.

The second reason was that I found I was becoming very conservative in my way of thinking and that scared me.

But I agree with Aquilla. Short-term thinking by politicians of both parties have led to a drain of talented individuals out of the military. Of course, the pay in the military can't compete with the civilian world, but I don't think enough resources go to the care and compensation of American soldiers anyway. Ever see a military family that lives on base that is receiving food stamps or boxes of milk and cereal from the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program? I have and it's a shame.

We're paying now for mistakes by previous Adminstrations and Pentagon officials. The "stop-loss" order may be necessary but it's ruinous to the morale of the troops affected. It can't be helpful to efforts to entice young men and women to join the military when they know their rotation can be extended indefinitely when the politicians and brass don't want to make tough and unpopular choices.

The sad thing is neither Bush nor Kerry will level with the American people because they are afraid it will cost them votes. Politically, that is probably the smart thing to do. However, if you are looking for leaders that level with the people, both guys look like gutless wimps.

While I would agree with the second part of your response, Aquilla, how do you define "short-term"?

Short term for the Army may well be keeping people in for an additional 6 months or a year. But, considering the fact that we may be there quite a bit longer, what if these "stop-loss" orders keep folks in for 2 or 3 years? That may be short term for the military, but I can assure you it won't be considered such by those serving. How will that affect recruitment rates?

Also, as the story noted, the military is now beginning to call up inactive reserves.


I submit that if troop strength is so low that we have to resort to inactive reserves and additional year (or more) stop loss orders, that discussion of a new national draft, at least in the "short-term" should not be out of the question. To do otherwise, until troop strength can be increased voluntarily, is simply folly.

Do you believe the Pentagon's expansion of the "Stop-Loss" program is simply a matter of necessity to maintain current levels of troops on the ground and stability OR it is a easy way to dodge long-term issues of troop strength and reinstating the draft?\

A unit-based stop loss/stop move is logical - it prevents administrative loss of soldiers from units preparing to deploy, while they are deployed, and recovering from deployment, covering a 90 day window at each end.

If you read the stop-loss message, you'll see that there are a number of exceptions to the policy. It makes sense, given the situation.

The actions that could represent "dodging long-term issues of troop strength", are deploying troops from Korea, extensive long-term activations of Reserve and Guard personnel, call up of the IRR, deploying OPFOR units from the training centers, "temporary" expansion of end strength, etc. etc.

Short term is as long as it takes. How long depends on what we do NOW to fix the problem. Let me put on my "Bush advisor cap" and tell you what I would advise him to do. I'm not being flip here, I do like Mike's icons, but I am serious about this.

1. Recognise that our active duty troop levels are too low for the long term and seek to increase those levels. You do this in two ways....

1. You offer every member of the Reserve and National Guard active duty status with a committment for the entire term of their service. 2 or 4 years or maybe longer - maybe give them the option for the length of their hitch. They sign up, they are in for the full term of the agreement, previous credit for service is counted for promotion, pay and benefits purposes, full benefits for them and their families now like they never left the service. Iron clad contract between them and the US Government that they will not face the prospect of returning from theater in six months and finding out they don't have a job and that nobody will hire them because that employer doesn't know how long they will be available.

2. Extend the GI Bill benefits beyond where they are now. We can argue about the specifics, but at a minimum it should include a full four year college education - perhaps depending on time in service. It's one of the best investments this nation could ever make in our young people.


2. Increase the pay and benefits for families of enlisted personnel. Nighttimer is absolutely correct. The very idea that the families of our soldiers who are risking their lives in combat should have to depend on food stamps and handouts is utterly disgraceful. THAT should not be allowed to happen, not EVER. It seems to me that when one of our people goes off to a foreign nation to fight for us the very least we can do is assure them that their family will be properly cared for. That's the very least we can do.

I know this proposal is expensive and we'll never be able to truly pay people in the military the kind of money they are truly worth, but you know what? I've never met a career soldier who did it for the money. They had other reasons. But, this is something we can afford to do because we have to afford to do it and it's the right thing for us to spend our money on. We'll find a way to do it because we can't afford not to find a way. Pure and simple.

edited to add......

I would title this proposal something along the lines of "If you fight for the American Dream - You should share in the American Dream".

Very good advice Aquilla, kind of makes me wish you were on Bush's staff

I would also add the following:
3. Set aside funds to step up recruitment into the various branches of service as required. Everyone realizes terrorism isn't a problem which will be solved in the short term and therefore we need to develop some capable career soldiers.

They could start by stepping up military academy admissions and contracts offered to ROTC programs as well as putting a big push on enlisted recruitment.

4. Take a stand on the draft/compulsory military service issue. Again this isn't a short term problem we are facing.

That would work in interests of the long term, which may be what is needed in terms of the war on terror. But for the immediate issues, it doesn't help. The length of the training pipeline for academy and ROTC cadets is from 2 to 5 years, depending on specialty training and branches.
My suggestion would be to comb through the services and find all of those who are 'hiding out' in extraneous jobs. Virtually all combat units in the Army are below strength, why shouldn't Range Control, Safety Offices and especially, various staff weenies be placed back in their original branch or MOS, and pick up a rucksack to help shoulder the load?
The Army is attempting to streamline and become more efficient by evolving Brigades into 'Units of Action'; this needs to take place throughout the military. It may not be the magic formula for increasing levels of front line troops, but it would be a start.

I agree that we have a force level that is way below what is now required. I was on the receiving end of a "Stop-Loss" back in the early 80s and it was no bed of roses. Luckily it only lasted 34 days, but still I had done my time and wanted out. I have a lot of empathy for the men and women on the receiving end. Yes the military needs them, but retention is going to suffer big time.

There are some good long term ideas out here, but I feel the fastest way to gain troops levels is to retire 90% of the Flag officers. Today there are more Admirals in the Navy than during World War II. The Marines has over 90 Generals for 4 divisions and 4 air wings, and they are the least over staffed service. The Air Force and Army are much worse. Retire the Flag officers and gain thousands from their staffs. Heck there must be a brigade or two of flag staff available for some serious duty

I think this will hurt more than help.

Face it, hardly anybody joins the service to defend our country. We join because of the benefits we could not normally get without service.

I joined the Marines...ummm...a long time ago because I grew up poor and stupid in the streets of Baltimore City. I had two ways out. Keep doing drugs and partying until 4 in the morning until I died of an overdose, or get out.

So, I figured 4 years was a good trade off to get me an education, some benefits, and cleaned up. And it worked. I'm now a highly successful anonymous internet poster.

Except for a very, very few, the reasons were pretty much the same with everyone I knew while in the service. Every reason except the patriotic ones.

However, if I knew I were going to join and not know when I would get out, would I have joined? Probably not. I was willing to take a known risk, but not knowing when I would get out would have been a show-stopper. I would think that would play in the minds of many considering service. The fear of getting stuck indefinetly in Bush's next nation-building exercise would scare anyone off.

Do you believe the Pentagon's expansion of the "Stop-Loss" program is simply a matter of necessity to maintain current levels of troops on the ground and stability OR it is a easy way to dodge long-term issues of troop strength and reinstating the draft?

I think the stop-loss issue as I understand it is necessary for our current situation.

I happen to have agreed with the peace dividend of cutting back military spending (although we stood far above the other nations of the world even with the cutbacks) at the end of the Cold War.

However, I have wondered from way back in the immediate aftermath why we didn't choose to expand the overall size of the military then. The struggle was posed as a long and hard one. The nation was united behind the need to do something about this threat of terrorism. That was an easy time to push for an expansion of the size of our armed forces.

Instead, our recent actions in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to being made into showcases of a sleeker, smaller force. But, even if we deploy less troops, the burden on individual families and reservists would be less if we increased our forces by 200-500 thousand soldiers. If this proved to be too, much, we could have reduced forces when that became apparent.

Instead, we are placing an incredible burden on our existing troops, and using part-time soldiers from the Guard and Reserves for long deployments.

I don't mean to sound like an expert on military matters (for I am not), but I have consistently wondered why we have not actively recruited a larger force. Had we done so immediately after 9-11 we could have a strong influx of highly trained troops arriving right now when they are needed most.

I would agree with the other military guys and say like over staffed positions in command staff areas and many others are needed right now. I know a very highly trained E-7 right now who's full time job right now is to referee soccer games. I am not joking, a former drill instructor etc, all he does is go from place to place referee-ing soccer games. Most choice post in the military I guess!

Of all the goverment agencies in the nation, the military is the most in need of efficiency consults, and a general audit of personel. I would be willing to bet if we had an IMMEDIATE audit of personel with re-assigning of staff to fill neccesary to mission jobs in Iraq and other hot spots, we could stop the stop loss (wierd play on words intended )

It is sad that so-called conservatives can't follow throught with basically fiscally conservative policies on this one.

Josh White's article in the June 3rd, 2004 Washington Post titled: Soldiers Facing Extended Tours, he lists the Army's main argument for the stop-loss orders:



I believe this explanation is such a farce, that it requires little refuting, but I'll handle it anyways. This action which is claimed to increase cohesion flies in the face of the brass's explanation as to why an all-volunteer force is needed. Namely, that a drafted individual will be compelled to fight not for an intrinsic reason, but due to a reason out of their control. The argumetn has been in the past-drafted individuals who do not want to be there should not be there since they will negatively impact cohesion and unity among a unit. How is the stop-loss order any different? The brass can't have it both ways in their explanations for why we shouldn't have a draft, yet maintain with a serious face, that a de facto draft is any different.

Do you believe the Pentagon's expansion of the "Stop-Loss" program is simply a matter of necessity to maintain current levels of troops on the ground and stability OR it is a easy way to dodge long-term issues of troop strength and reinstating the draft?

It depends what we hope to accomplish in Iraq. To provide troop coverage at Kosovo levels, we would need 526,000 troops in Iraq right now. Kosovo was far from a resounding success, but better than most of our other nationbuilding endeavors. It helped that the other NATO countries went in with us.

Like Eeyore, I supported the RIF implementation initially. It was a necessary step in the post-Cold war process, and saved us a lot of money. Unfortunately, during that time frame our military commitments overseas increased 500 percent. We aren't simply seeing the result of a personnel shortage, we are seeing a shortage in hardware too.

I generally agree that the military might be top-heavy, but I don't think removing the upper echelon and placing them in a position they are less suited, for the same pay, is going to help much. We could retire them if their jobs are obsolete, but I don't see how that would help much either. Retired commanders still get pay and benefits, as they should. We might gain some staff weenies, but will they help much? The real problem is a dearth in personnel for the experienced skill sets. It takes years and years to become proficient in the categories we need most. I don't see the draft helping this, unless it is a draft simply for people in those skill categories. I think the stop-loss is a bad deal, but there isn't much choice right now.

Obviously, this affects morale and retention rates. When a person enlists at 18, 19, or 20, four years seems like a long time. As DR mentioned, if they don't know when they're getting out, except that it will probably be longer than four years, it might impact their decision to join. I agree that increased pay and benefits help, but a person will only take so many carrots in exchange for a drastic decline in lifestyle and personal freedom.

I slightly disagree with my fellow Ohio tax payer.

Many of us who joined the armed forces did so for less than altruistic reasons. True, I had no desire to be either Sgt. Fury or a Howling Commando. I had screwed around in high school, wasn't prepared for much more than fries prep at Mickey's D and ended up in the Air Force.

However, I distinctly remember a particular time when the flag was being lowered for the day. When you hear the music that accompanies the retiring of the flag you are supposed to face the direction where the music is coming from, come to attention and salute. I felt a tremendous sense of pride and yes, a sense of patriotism as well.

Anyone who joins the military knows there's a bunch of goodies available for you at the end of your hitch. The only problem is you may get killed in a war. That may not be the purest form of patriotism, but it works.

Make military service even less desireable and they'll HAVE to start yanking young men off the street.

I agree with you on that. There was little justification for military spending that we'd been maintaining since the late cold war. Things like a 600 ship navy and space missile defense would've done us little good against the likes of the threat that we face today. Some would say that we have become weaker, but those weapons were meant for a different time and a different enemy.




The simple fact of the matter is that the brass wanted more forces, but Rumsfeld wanted to showcase the lighter, more agile, more lethal force.




I agree 110% on this one. I know several people who were planning(before the stop-loss orders) to leave ASAP. When the whole thing is over, they won't spend one extra day in the military due to their experience. It's sad when someone with only nine to ten years of experience wants to leave due to a war, and that it is enough inducement for him to leave eventhough a fat retirement pension would b e waiting for him if he played soldier for another ten to fifteen years. Is there anyone who seriously maintains that the national guard isn't being used as a rubber band on a problem created due to a lack of proper planning???? Lastly, the April 17th Washington Post article summed it up with a simple line:

You hit the nail on the head - who we are losing are some of our most valuable soldiers - the mid-level leaders, NCO's and officers. Most of'em at that stage are married, with families. Prior to OEF/OIF, deployments came and went, along with field time and all the other military duties that interfere with family life, but it was bearable to most. Being a military spouse has always been difficult. But with the current optempo, spouses and families are being separated for a year at a time - not just once, but gone, back for sometimes only a couple of months, and then right back out to the combat zone again. This is having a tremendous impact upon military families. This is what is driving a lot of our mid-career professionals out of the Army. And this will hurt us, significantly, over the long-term.

To hit on another thing that was mentioned in the thread, over-manned staffs are not just an issue in garrison locations. The CPA and CJTF-7 Headquarters in Baghdad had a surplus of under-employed officers (and other resources) while I was in-country (Jul - Dec '03), while most other military installations around the country and the governorate CPAs were struggling to operate with minimal staffing and begging for resources. The ones that did well were the ones whose leadership had personal connections in Baghdad.

TRADOC - Training and Doctrine Command - in the US, which is responsible for all military training courses from Basic Combat Training through Military Occupational Skill producing courses and other schools, is far from over-staffed. And TRADOC cadre are being deployed TDY in and out of theater on individual taskings to support current ops, leaving even more strung-out soldiers to take up the slack. Now we're being told that the Christmas Exodus - holiday leave - will be canceled, so that training may continue through the season. We'll still get 4 day weekends for Christmas and New Year, but no leave period, as is usually the standard. Very few able-bodied soldiers are exempt from duty in theater.

It's nearly to the point where seeing a soldier without a combat patch on his uniform is an unusual thing. There are still some die-hard holdouts who really know how to work the system though....

Do you believe the Pentagon's expansion of the "Stop-Loss" program is simply a matter of necessity to maintain current levels of troops on the ground and stability OR it is a easy way to dodge long-term issues of troop strength and reinstating the draft?



And I've been writing this same message for a while. Our Iraqi military force is woefully undersized to effectively carry out our current foreign policy. We have only three options here: either increase troop strength through additional recruiting, remove troops from other areas of the world, or re-institute the draft. Holding troops in-field longer does nothing to increase the strength to the needed numbers; it just prevents the numbers from dropping to where they would go in absence of those other options.

So, to answer the debate question: it's both a short-term necessity and a way to dodge the hard questions.

And it's a crying shame that the policians pushing a military-based foreign policy are also the same politicians who aren't providing them with the necessary means to do their jobs.

Sorry, I thought is was self explanatory-

we have all the calls for more and more oversight into "entitlement" programs, DOT programs, wanting to make goverment more efficient etc- why, as this is typically a conservative issue- are we not holding the military to the same standards of efficiency?

As they say "there is the right way, the wrong way, and the army way"- usually meaning massive inefficiency.

There is enormous room for improvement for placement of necesary full time military personel- an outside reviewer in efficiency is badly needed- so why, as this is a conservative goverment, is it not being done? We always talk about "cutting the fat" etc when talking about programs, well, there is alot of blubber up top!