Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting-Extends Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the page at http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049117.htm the crude suicide rate for the United States is 12.0 suicides per 100,000 population.

Pursuant to the thread starter post, there are 500,000 servicemen in the armed forces of the United States.

Also, there are approx 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

20 soldiers commiting suicide out of 140,000 is just a little over the mean suicide rate for the United States.

The government is going to have a Hell of a time trying to keep well-armed soldiers from eating their gun. Now that they have reneged on their contract, I'm sure there are those who feel that this is the only way out.
 
I asked my dad what he thought about this stop loss action while I was visiting for Christmas. He said he understood their desire to go home, but there was a war on and he hoped they'd decide that they signed on to do a job and not just to have a job.

He enlisted in the Army Air Forces near the beginning of WWII and ended up working as a tech sargeant on radar/loran/radio, and some navigating, in the western Pacific. He was gone for 4 years and 29 days. At the end of the war he was sent to Florida and put up for promotion to Staff Sargeant and assignment to the Pentagon. He declined and they offered him 4 years at Temple University.

He went home. Told them he was almost 24 and he'd done enough travelling. :)

John
 
An enlistment contract has two parties, yet only the government is allowed to violate the contract
Click to expand...
Gee, how about that, the government lied. Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes:

Like JohnBT's father, my dad also was in the Army Air Force in the Pacific during WWII. At the end, they tried to get him to re-up, offering him - a sergeant at the time - an immediate promotion to 1st LT and a captaincy within a year. Knowing Army ways, he declined, and was home within a month or two.

One of his buddies took the army up on its offer - but the promotions were FIELD promotions, and he was back to sergeant a year later . . . and still in Japan. (Japan in 1946 wasn't a picnic station.)

Shortly after the draft ended in the 70's, the Army had a recruiting drive that said you'd get the Army job you wanted . . . GUARANTEED. When they commissioned a survey a year or two afterwards to determine why morale was so low, it turned out that well over half the troops who'd joined for a GUARANTEED job, and qualified for it, were stuck somewhere else.

So the military breaking faith with troops is nothing new. :(
I would bet a dollar to a donut that Bush instates the draft right after he is re elected.
Click to expand...
If that happens - and I don't think it will - Canada will become more popular than it was during Vietnam.
 
More frequently, the military response to griping about stop-loss is bluntly unsympathetic. "We're all soldiers. We go where were told," said Maj. Steve Stover, an Army spokesman. "Fair has nothing to do with it."
Click to expand...

I understand that this isn't sympathetic, but as the quote goes "We're here to protect democracy, not practice it."

The military is not a forum for you to gain education and skills without a price. Don't get me wrong, I would encourage anyone in the military to get all the training and benefits they can, but understand, there *IS* another shoe, and it often drops fast.

Consider that most contracts have an IRR (Inactive Reserve) term tacked on to their end where you are subject to recall; I had it happen to a couple of buddies shortly after 9-11 when it was decided their skills were needed again. I also believe that officers are indefinitely subject to recall.

It's called 'The Service' for a reason. The military and .gov will operate in the best interests of the military and the .gov. If they can do it without aggravating the troops, they will, but it doesn't always work that way.

Summary: The Mission of United States Marine Corps Leadership:
1. Mission Accomplishment
2. Troop Welfare.

The desires, needs, hopes and dreams of the individual Marine are subject to their compatibility with the mission requirements of the Marine Corps.

-Teuf

PS: That being said, I've never understood why something called "The National Guard" gets deployed overseas. It's just proof that the active side of the house is indeed anemic and needs to be brought back up to strength--of course, my liberal friends just see our scuffle over there as proof that we can't support such a fight and shouldn't be over there anyways.
 
Your military isn't broke...... yet

Despite the fact that some soldiers are having their post service plans disrupted by stop loss, morale is still high. Read the entire report at the link I posted earlier. That said, there are clear indications that the force can't sustain this OPTEMPO for ever. Official administration policy, as stated by Rumsfeld and Chu is that there is no problem. When you have a congress that is offering you increased strength and you turn them down...then implement stop-loss on a volunteer force, you are abusing that force.

I spent a good part of my career as an AGR trainer for the Guard. I doubt if our reserve components will be able to survive given what this administration has put them through. It's not a matter that they are less patriotic then the active component folks, it's that they didn't sign up to be active duty. Some people, particularly MPs have been deployed more then their active duty counterparts.

It was utter folly to think that we could fight the GWOT with the forces onhand. Bush had the opportunity in the days after September 11th 2001 to go to congress, get a declaration of war, and mobilize the nation. Yet for some reason he didn't. The way he's handled this is very similar to how another president from Texas handled his war. Lyndon Johnson was determined not to let the war in Vietnam spoil plans for the great society. Bush is determined not to let the GWOT disrupt any lives except for those in the military.

Rumsfeld very publically criticized senior officers who suggested that we expand the force structure so we had enough troops to do the job. Why, General Dynamics and Boeing don't make money off of a larger military. Rumsfeld actually believed them, when they told him that we could spend a lot of money on high tech munitions and have a bloodless campaign, and once we defeated the Iraqi army we could leave. The man is too stupid and arrogant to admit that he was wrong and Gen McCafferty was right. He's willing to break the finest force ever created to prove he's right. In the long run, this is bad for national security.

Things aren't too broke yet, but they are getting there. The hollow force of the 70s and 90s is starting them in the face.

Jeff
 
Several people have made comments about the government broke the contract, the government lied, etc. It's in the contract that you sign when you enlist. If we are involved in a conflict at the time of your ETS, or there is a critical shortage of MOS, you may be involuntarily extended. If you don't want to take that chance, DON'T SIGN UP.
An enlistment contract has two parties, yet only the government is allowed to violate the contract
Click to expand...
That is true, but again you know that before you sign the dotted line.
 
I'm not saying I like the situation, but I've read too much Kipling to be at all surprised. The troops are "...that thin red line of heroes" ONLY "when the guns begin to shoot."

Call-ups of those who thought they were all done with war is nothing new; neither is the extension of time of service. Ask KoreaVets, many of whom had thought that the end of WW II had been the last time they'd wear a uniform...

Doesn't matter whose fault it is. The excess zeal of downsizing our active military in favor of Reserves and the NG in order to provide social spending was plumb stoopid--which is now hindsight, but was predicted by many.

The real issue remains: Changing the numbers in order to deal with the reality of the world as it is.

Art

"No war is won until an 18-year-old grunt can sit on his helmet and eat his MREs without having to check his six."
 
I thought free societies rewarded RISK. Apparently not. Our military is grossly under-rewarded for what they do. Why should they protect the indifferent or even derisive American soccer mom and dad? If we are in a true world war, and I think we are, we are going to have more than a small volunteer military. That's fine for peacetime, not for a global conflict. Face it, most Americans are too soft, too selfish, too complacent to even consider military service for themselves or their kids. Let the other sap run the risk, they think, while they wave the flag.

Then there's the group that believes that the draft is involuntary servitude, etc. There used to be a time when people believed in their country and its radical principles strongly enough to be willing to fight. If that's gone, we are gone. Let's stop kidding ourselves.
 
"Why should they protect the indifferent or even derisive American soccer mom and dad?"

Because it's the right thing to do.

Because their loved one's are at home depending on them to do it.

And because somebody's gotta show some sense and backbone.

John

P.S. - A google search will turn up sites with military pay scales. Here's one I picked at random:

A Grade 4 (Sgt.) paratrooper in Normandy, June 20th, 1944, with 3 years of service would receive monthly:

Base Pay: $78.00
Foreign Service: $15.60
Parachutists Pay: $50
Combat Pay: $10

Total monthly pay: $153.60

(Edited to add that a male factory worker at this time averaged about $54 a week. That's over $220 a month for anybody too lazy to do the math. :) )
 
I think Jeff White pretty much hit the nail on the head on all counts. I never have thought much of what comes out of the Pentagon over the decades, and Rumsfeld is not the guy to make things any better. He's stunningly arrogant and doesn't really comprehend military affairs in my opinion.
 
Jeff, you're spot on. The OPTEMPO is killing our troops. We're all over the globe, and we don't have the personnel to support the missions that are being undertaken.

Nastiest words ever used in combination: "peacekeeping mission".

The military is for killing people and breaking things until the other guys give up. Leave the humanitarian crap for the Peace Corps and Red Cross. I would have thought that GWB would understand such a simple concept, but he's every bit the world builder/shaper that his dad and Clinton were, and Colin Powell is following Madeline Albright's lead very nicely.

:banghead: :cuss: :fire:
 
I've been thinking lately, which is a dangerous and unpredictable thing, in and of itself... I have found myself pondering the nature of our military. This article has helped to crystalize some of these thoughts.

When I ponder the nature of our military, my first thought is this: mercenaries. Our all-volunteer military is a large band of professional soldiers.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to paint the fine folks in our armed services in a strictly negative light. There has always been a place for the professional soldier. Without a standing army, we would have no way of maintaining the craft of war, keeping current with military technologies, or the best of our military traditions. These are valuable things that must be preserved. Some are drawn to, or stay in, the military for just these reasons.

However, I am increasingly concerned with the motives of a large number of our soldiers. Many join the military for two reasons: a job, and education/job-training/experience. Serving this great country is a way to put bread on the table, or prepare for post-service life in the corporate sector. Some even join the military because it will grant them citizenship.

I guess that this is the difference between the military, and the traditional militia. The professional soldier fights because it is his job. For his services he recieves monetary compensation. The militiaman of old fought because it was his duty to protect his family and his community. While he may have recieved some form of payment, it was for him to purchase his own supplies, and perhaps help alleviate his family's financial distress.

I find that I am morally opposed to the stop-loss rule. Once a serviceman's contract is up, it should be done. To selectively choose who can or cannot retire or end their contracted service is the same as selectively drafting those individauls, which stinks of foul play. If there is such need for fighting men, why aren't we reinstating the draft.

Oh, wait... It's because the draft is there for defense. We are waging wars of revenge and/or aggression.
 
Last edited:
Wingman,

This is not a flame, but I don't think that returning to the draft is the answer.

I retired from the Navy in 1995 as a Chief Petty Officer (E-7) with 23 years of service.

Most of the time, I had my hands full dealing with those "fringe" sailors who never really fully integrated into the Navy (read: disciplinary problems) And these kids all VOLUNTEERED to join the Navy.

Start drafting people who REALLY don't want to be there from day one, and you are burdening the chain of command with problem children. The more time spent on having to discipline / babysit these kids is time NOT spent training them to do their jobs.

Regan rebuilt the Navy into a 600+ ship strong force. At that time, we could fight and win full scale conflicts in two theaters.

With the military drawdown (spending the peace dividend), we downsized to the point where I believe that now we could fight and win in one theater, but only wage a sustaining action in a second, counting on the troops from the first conflict to come in and reinforce the troops in the second theater.

A good analogy would be be a CCW holder being confronted by 4 BG's who are intent on doing him bodily harm, but only allowing him to have 4 bullets.

I don't know about anyone else, but if the above scenario happened to me, I would want to have a fully loaded weapon and 2 spare mags.
 
Please remember that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the American soldier. If there were unlimited funds...I would give them everything they want....not just need.

But....

Sometimes I wonder if some of them read the brochure?????

I mean...I see these sob stories about mom having to deploy and I think...

Maybe it was the wrong job for her!

She like the paycheck but she doesn't want to ship out..I don't blame her...but my sympathy has some limits.

And when I read about how hard it is for a lowly enlisted man to support a family....maybe he should get a better job or promoted before he starts a family!!!

I know a lot of retired military that will tell you the biggest problem with soldiers is that most of them never save a dime....meals and lodging are covered and they spend it all.

It is the same tired minimum wage argument ...don't have kids if you work for minimum wage!!! Unless you can make it work.

The military is being forced to live in the real world....big companies do it all the time...cut wages or benefits while spending big bucks on new equipment....

I have had to let good people go simply because someone decided we could not afford the current staffing level and we had to "do more with less"

Let me tell you.....you almost always do less with less!

It sucks and everyone has to work way too hard...and often times they have to travel way too much....that is why it is called work.

I fault the pentagon.....just because they have to work within a budget does not mean they have to take it out on the people...not every time.

A couple less bombers will pay for a fair number of troops.

If you want to be able to quit whenever you want to...the military may not be for you....

My brother in law got out (Army)under Clinton...because he saw the handwriting on the wall...increased deployments and decreased numbers....he got out while he could.

Now I am sure I managed to offend someone....sorry....I was really just trying to further the discussion....

But Katie Couric didn't call to interview me when I took a pay cut....so I guess I am a little sensitive....

And while my pay was cut I put my kids in private school because the local schools are overfull/underfunded.....Katie didn't call.

So I have a hard time crying when Rumsfeld says military kids should use the public schools....The public schools are the problem...not D.R.

Instead of blaming the current administration....I find myself wondering if I picked the right career....but I am thoughtful that way.

I suggest anyone that is really ticked off read my opening statement again.

Or just ignore me completely...that works;)
 
It was utter folly to think that we could fight the GWOT with the forces onhand. Bush had the opportunity in the days after September 11th 2001 to go to congress, get a declaration of war, and mobilize the nation. Yet for some reason he didn't.
Click to expand...

If we had tried to mobilize the nation after 9-11 we wouldn't be fighting the GWOT at all. We would have surrendered before it began because the public would not stand for the draft. Instead we would be sweet talking the arabs as worked so well after the Cole. Most likely we would be trying to fight a defensive action on our own soil instead of abroad.

Incidentally Bush did get a declaration of war. That is what the Congressional authorization of force was. You don't need a "we declare war on" statement for something to be a defacto declaration of war or a state of war.
 
Obiwan,

I don't think that you fully grasp all of the issues. Have you ever served?

The problem is, is that we have no real defense policy in this country. The Department of Defense is treated by congress and the administration the same way as any other agency. To Rumsfeld's credit, he's trying to establish a defense policy. Unfortunately he knows nothing of war or the military. He's bought into this high tech mumbo-jumbo that his cronys in the defense industry are selling. The current world situation has proven him wrong, but he refuses to admit it.

Pay and benefits are adequate. Rumsfeld and his minions in DOD have been trying to reduce personnel costs. So they float very stupid ideas while the men and women who work for them are bleeding and dying. It shouldn't take an uproar from legislators in the opposition party to keep combat pay flowing to people who are engaged in combat after the president declares major combat is over. Yet DOD was perfectly willing and even advocated letting it stop.

And using stop-loss authority to keep people serving at the same time you are testifying before congress that you have all the troops you need is just plain abuse. No one would be complaining if congress was refusing to authorize and increease in end strength. I think they have a very legitimate complaint at being held on active duty involuntarily at the same time the Secretary of Defense is telling congress there is no need to increase troop strength. If he doesn't need any more soldiers, it should make sense he can do without those who decide to ETS or retire.

The military is being forced to live in the real world....big companies do it all the time...cut wages or benefits while spending big bucks on new equipment....
Click to expand...

There is where you are wrong. The military is not a business. Name me a business that asks it's employees to kill and die for them? The nation owes those it sends into harms way the very best that it can provide for them. You don't cut people so you can buy expensive new equipment while those same people are fighting and dying for you. You make those kinds of decisions in peace time. Once you commit soldiers to battle you had better be prepared to give them everything they need. They are prepared to give you their lives.

So I have a hard time crying when Rumsfeld says military kids should use the public schools....The public schools are the problem...not D.R.
Click to expand...

Obiwan, this is another instance where you don't understand what's going on. The on post schools were not created to shield military dependents from the public school system. They were created to spare the public schools and taxpayers near large installations the costs of educating military dependents who's parents don't pay taxes in that district. Is any public school system prepared to accept a few thousand additional students with no increase in the tax base? Does Rumsfeld really believe that the public school systems outside of military installations would accept all those students with no compensation from DOD. Is he prepared to pay property tax on the housing on most of his installations? Is he prepared to pay tuition for all of these students. Or should the parents pay tuition and property tax on property they may own in another state, but don't live in because the military has sent them someplace else. Who do you think should pick up the tab? Your options are: Keep the system as it is. Have DOD pay tax or tuition for every student who lives on post. Have the parents pay tuition or a tax.

If you choose the latter, think about how much harder it might be to hire people to bleed and die for you in the future.

Jeff
 
MrAcheson said;

If we had tried to mobilize the nation after 9-11 we wouldn't be fighting the GWOT at all. We would have surrendered before it began because the public would not stand for the draft.
Click to expand...

You can mobilize the nation without resorting to a draft. You could have began expanding the force to the numbers that were actually needed to meet all of our commitments. Yet Rumsfeld was still talking drawdown as early as last February/March timeframe.

Incidentally Bush did get a declaration of war. That is what the Congressional authorization of force was. You don't need a "we declare war on" statement for something to be a defacto declaration of war or a state of war.
Click to expand...

This is true, but to get an actual declaration of war would have ended all this divisive debate over what is authorized uner the current authorization to use force. A declaration of war is open ended enough to allow the administration to prosecute the war anyway they intended. I don't seem to recall Roosevelt going to congress for persmission to conduct Operation Torch. A nice declaration of war on the terrorists where ever they were found would have been the hunting license they needed.

Jeff
 
A word to those GI's concerned about being kept in service after they throught they would be discharged: QUIT WHINING! You aren't the first and you probably won't be the last. The guys who served four years during WW2 and were then called back to active duty for the Korean War really had something to complain about!

It happened to me in 1966 when I was frozen for up to seven years even though I had signed up for only two. Fortunately, I was only kept in for one additional year. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who are complaining about their plans being changed. It happens, so just make the best of it.
 
"Is any public school system
prepared to accept a few thousand additional students with no increase in the
tax base?"

Yes, Los Angeles, apparently. Only it's not a few thousand, it's tens of thousands. They're called the children of illegal immigrants. And, no, they don't pay taxes that would defray an average hit of over $7K per student per year.
 
"Why should they protect the indifferent or even derisive American soccer mom
and dad?"

Because it's the right thing to do.

____________________________________

And it might be the right thing for all the American people to sacrifice a bit so that those who fight are adequately compensated.

I still believe that when we come down to things that are in the common good of all that all must be involved, directly or indirectly. A half-century of Consumerism has gutted the spirit of America. Even our Commander-in-Chief tells people who are supposedly engaged in a global war to just keep on a-shopping. That says it all.
 
"Stop Loss" has been around for many years. If the guys currently caught in the discharge hold want to complain, they need to look at the guys back in the 40s and 50s. In WWII, the troops were drafted and there for the duration. Even after getting out, some were orded back to active duty to go fight in Korea.

People need to learn about what the military can and can't do before voluntarily joining. Like the reservists that were called up after 9/11 complaining they never joined to go fight in a war, they just wanted the weekend work and money. Read the job description. The troops today are whining about have to spend a few extra months deployed. Part of being in the military is going where they need you. That doesn't include a guarantee of a 9-5/M-F job assignment at a base in the US for your enlistment.
 
There is nothing wrong with stop loss. The majority of people effected were first termers, or retirees.

First termers are required to serve 4 years in the inactive resever upon discharge from active duty, so they are just fullfilling their contract that THEY signed.

Retirees are also put on the inactive reserve rolls, so they are just serving out their obligations also.

The rest just got caught up in all of the fine print that has been in place before most of them were born. While I pity those who are ignorant, I will not excuse their ignorance.

All of this was spelled out in the contract that they, myself, and thousands of others have signed. I have no sympathy for them. If they didn't want to go to war, they should have never accepted that first paycheck.

I have a wife, have already been deployed within the past 8 months, and am getting set to leave again for a year. Neither me, nor my wife are seriously complaining. We both knew what to expect when I signed that dotted line for the second time.

The diffrence between them and me is that I am willing to reap what I sow, while they expect all the benifits, without any of the work. :fire:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
U.S. Soldiers Re-Enlist in Strong Numbers
Replies
11
Views
630
RED-DOG 40
R
H
  • Locked
US Army Raises Enlistment Age
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
5K
palerider1
P
M
  • Locked
Troop Morale in Iraq Hits 'Rock Bottom'
Replies
18
Views
648
DonQatU
D
F
  • Locked
National Guard
Replies
13
Views
698
CarlS
C
S
  • Locked
Vet Called Up Years After Discharge Sues
Replies
16
Views
770
Sergeant Bob
S
Back
Top