PDA

View Full Version : US Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty


insanity
Jan 29th, 2006, 10:29 AM
Hopefully it will make others think twice before joining the US Army.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129/pl_nm/iraq_usa_stoploss_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.


The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the
Iraq and
Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.

"As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force," said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank.

"When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you're edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism."

When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military.

Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base.

With yearlong tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, some soldiers can be forced to stay in the Army an extra 18 months.

HARDSHIP FOR SOME SOLDIERS

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said that "there is no plan to discontinue stop-loss."

"We understand that this is causing hardship for some individual soldiers, and we take individual situations into consideration," Hilferty said.

Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002. An initial limited use of stop-loss was expanded in subsequent years to affect many more.

"While the policies relative to the stop-loss seem harsh, in terms of suspending scheduled separation dates (for leaving the Army), they are not absolute," Hilferty said. "And we take individual situations into consideration for compelling and compassionate reasons."

Hilferty noted the Army has given "exceptions" to 210 enlisted soldiers "due to personal hardship reasons" since October 2004, allowing them to leave as scheduled.

"The nation is at war and we are stop-lossing units deploying to a combat theater to ensure they mobilize, train, deploy, fight, redeploy and demobilize as a team," he said.

NO LUCK IN COURT

A few soldiers have gone to court to challenge stop-loss.

One such case fizzled last week, when U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington dismissed a suit filed in 2004 by two Army National Guard soldiers. The suit claimed the Army fraudulently induced soldiers to enlist without specifying that their service might be involuntarily extended.

Courts also have backed the policy's legality in Oregon and California cases.

Jules Lobel, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who represented the National Guard soldiers, said a successful challenge to stop-loss was still possible.

"I think the whole stop-loss program is a misrepresentation to people of how long they're going to actually serve. I think it's caused tremendous morale problems, tremendous psychological damage to people," Lobel said.

"When you sign up for the military, you're saying, 'I'll give you, say, six years and then after six years I get my life back.' And they're saying, 'No, really, we can extend you indefinitely."'

Congressional critics have assailed stop-loss, and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee
John Kerry called it "a back-door draft." The United States abolished the draft in 1973, but the all-volunteer military never before has been tested by a protracted war.

A report commissioned by the
Pentagon called stop-loss a "short-term fix" enabling the Army to meet ongoing troop deployment requirements, but said such policies "risk breaking the force as recruitment and retention problems mount." It was written by Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer.

Thompson added, "The persistent use of stop-loss underscores the fact that the war-fighting burden is being carried by a handful of soldiers while the vast majority of citizens incur no sacrifice at all."

UrbanPoet
Jan 29th, 2006, 11:13 AM
In the iraq war they have been recruiting alot of "Mercenaries" or pay for hire security groups in the states.

rb
Jan 29th, 2006, 12:23 PM
For 400bn a year spend the US does remarkably poorly in having enough men willing and able to fight ..army has been cut back to far. Sure they could defeat another regular army fairly quickly bit they must realise everyone knows this and will always fight the US unconventianally

UrbanPoet
Jan 29th, 2006, 12:34 PM
military training has shifted greatly...
My friend in the army said that the drills he does are very "Swat Team" like. VEry Tactical... Popping into buildings 1 at a time scoping out corners with a muzzle pointed in every direction... Smoke bombs, flash bangs, tear gas, etc...

They gotta prepare for modern combat which is "urban warfare".
People dont fight in jungles or trenches anymore.
Even in Africa ( i believe it was Somalia? refer to black hawk down the movie) they were duking it out in Buildings that used to be peoples houses and businesses.

hagbard
Jan 29th, 2006, 07:59 PM
They've got nothin' to worry about. Soon they'll have their "friends" send conscripts there to do the fighting for them. We're their "friend" aren't we?

doc_ock
Jan 29th, 2006, 08:12 PM
Forcing extended duty may be a result of the U.S. Army being stretched too thin. Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Posted: 4:08 p.m. EST (21:08 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/index.html

pd0x
Jan 29th, 2006, 11:26 PM
onwards to Iran!

FastFokker
Jan 29th, 2006, 11:29 PM
I guess the "enemy" is winning the war.

hagbard
Jan 29th, 2006, 11:35 PM
The "enemy" won the minute George Bush sent troops into Afghanistan.

slc95
Jan 29th, 2006, 11:38 PM
military training has shifted greatly...
My friend in the army said that the drills he does are very "Swat Team" like. VEry Tactical... Popping into buildings 1 at a time scoping out corners with a muzzle pointed in every direction... Smoke bombs, flash bangs, tear gas, etc...



I've done that training to as part of our Wing Auxiallary Security Force, well minus the tflashes and smoke bombs (I'm sure JTF does, though). In fact, I even have a picture of me carrying out a "terrorist" during an exercise...

Anyway, that's the way our military is heading. It's actually kind of "nice" to see that the US Army is in the same situation that the CF has been in for 10 years. Kind of like a "now you know what it feels like". It's too bad the US government can't do anything budgetwise for OUR military, though.

Nemodigital
Jan 29th, 2006, 11:43 PM
The "enemy" won the minute George Bush sent troops into Afghanistan.
Sorry but the "enemy" will win when all the 'arab' lands are under the totalitarian yolk of fundamental Islam.

hagbard
Jan 29th, 2006, 11:56 PM
Sorry but the "enemy" will win when all the 'arab' lands are under the totalitarian yolk of fundamental Islam.

Which was when Bush sent troops into Afghanistan, he set the ball in motion which will end where you describe. All very predictable.