http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

What do you guys and gals think of the stop-loss policy?? It is explained in the Wikipedia article above?

Recently saw the movie Stop-Loss at the Rialto here in TV but thought it was a little heavy handed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489281/

Legally, I am having problems with how this could be challenged because of various separation of powers arguments. The US Constitution and cases on it give the President as Commander-in-Chief a great deal of power with respect to the military. Congress would not be able to do all that much because of all the power the President has in that area based on the US Constitution.

Looks like Senator Hillary Clinton has taken a stance of the stop-loss policy-- http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...s_policy/1244/

It's implementation would have a chilling effect on folks thinking of voluntarily joining if it is only to prolong our existence in Iraq. It's one thing to give your life over for a predictable period of time. It's quite another to sign up not knowing for how long.

However, a cataclysmic event, like an Islamic nuking in our country or prolonged hot multi-nation event in the middle east (like Isreal being nuked) would be another story. In this case 10's of thousands would sign up despite stop loss policies.

Ironically, the concept has been in effect for several decades, but under a different cover.

Initial military enlistments and officer commitments bring with them a period of active duty, followed by a reserve period (active and/or inactive). During that reserve period, folk have found themselves called back to active duty.

When career military folk retire at less-than-thirty years service, that delta period between retirement date and thirty years is a reserve period during which call-up can occur. Also, a person must "request" to be placed on retired status, and a decision as to when that date shall be is subject "to the needs of the service."

Joining the military brings with it a quantum of risk - physical and chronological. It's just part of the profession.

Not having "stop-loss" brings a very interesting military management question - would not having it result in such a personnel management risk as to require activation of the draft?

There just is no perfect solution to answering a response-based problem.

Stop loss is real and it can be hard on some people. But like SteveZ said "There just is no perfect solution to answering a response-based problem. " When my Guard unit was activated in 2004 to go to Iraq, we had 10 people whose MOS was needed to fill out the unit. 4 of those people were within weeks of retiring after having served their 20 years and 6 were younger soldiers who were thinking wether to reenlist or not. But they did not fight the stop loss order, they knew they were needed and so they went. The problem was on the other side (when we returned home almost 17 months later) in that those who were on the fence about reenlisting didnt..... the ones who were supposed to retire did just that, albiet a little later than they thought. It IS kind of spooky when you are told that you cannot get out because your MOS is deemed critical and you are in for the duration. This happened twice to me, the first time being the first Gulf War.... go figure

As an Army Reserve officer with nearly 30 years of service, I completely understand the WHY of stop-loss.

But, it's a policy which engenders concern not only for the future of the military in general, but of the Reserves and National Guard specifically. It's bad enough that the "civilan warrier" (now being called the "Warrior Civilian," by the way) must wrestle with military commitments far, far more demanding than they were a decade ago. Now, he/she has to face almost certain, repeated tours of duty which interrupt his/her civilian employment career and his/her home life.

I am increasingly worried, frankly, about the future strength and stability of our Total Force, not just the Reserves and National Guard. I believe that a draft will eventually indeed return, and that the increasing dependency upon our "home" forces, will contribute adversely to our at-home peacefulness.

Hate being so pessimistic, but there it is!



SWR

Originally Posted by swrinfla

As an Army Reserve officer with nearly 30 years of service, I completely understand the WHY of stop-loss.

But, it's a policy which engenders concern not only for the future of the military in general, but of the Reserves and National Guard specifically. It's bad enough that the "civilan warrier" (now being called the "Warrior Civilian," by the way) must wrestle with military commitments far, far more demanding than they were a decade ago. Now, he/she has to face almost certain, repeated tours of duty which interrupt his/her civilian employment career and his/her home life.

I am increasingly worried, frankly, about the future strength and stability of our Total Force, not just the Reserves and National Guard. I believe that a draft will eventually indeed return, and that the increasing dependency upon our "home" forces, will contribute adversely to our at-home peacefulness.

Hate being so pessimistic, but there it is!



SWR

You said it as it is.....

Originally Posted by SteveZ

You said it as it is.....

Reinstituting the draft will engender domestic unrest UNLESS the draft is initiated in response to some clearly cataclysmic event such as that which brought this nation together a la Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, we have become so jaded about bad things happeining to us (9-11 brought us together for a week!) that there will have to be something much more dramatic than either event to get this nation behind a draft. Until that happens, our military capacity and effectiveness in the world will continue to erode.

Originally Posted by gfmucci

Reinstituting the draft will engender domestic unrest UNLESS the draft is initiated in response to some clearly cataclysmic event such as that which brought this nation together a la Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, we have become so jaded about bad things happeining to us (9-11 brought us together for a week!) that there will have to be something much more dramatic than either event to get this nation behind a draft. Until that happens, our military capacity and effectiveness in the world will continue to erode.

I would tend to agree, as the "me first" generation could not be bothered with something as trivial as 'public service" that did not involve exceptional personal gain.

One of the main problems in relying on conscription as a means of fulfilling the military ranks is the pipeline involved. By the time you establish from dead-stop the necessary induction facilities, equip and staff the training sites, train the draftees, and then assign them into a military unit, the timeline can be anywhere from a very optomistic 12-18 months to a more realistic 18-24 months. WWII and Korea demonstrated that.

Draftees by themselves do no keep a military from eroding - they just provide warm bodies in uniform. The volunteer force of today is so much better trained and equipped than the conscription forces of yesteryear, so just adding people (especially those who don't want the job for selfish reasons) won't improve things.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Draftees by themselves do no keep a military from eroding - they just provide warm bodies in uniform. The volunteer force of today is so much better trained and equipped than the conscription forces of yesteryear, so just adding people (especially those who don't want the job for selfish reasons) won't improve things.

Agree with what you and others have said. From what I've see and been told by those in a better position to know, the initial version of the volunteer army was extremely weak. However, the Army learned quickly and by the time I dealt directly with so many volunteers in the mid 80's thru the 90's, the improvement was amazing. Those are good kids, good men and women, good soldiers. It was my honor to have a company of wiredogs working for and with me for several years.

Re the draft, I have always favored its reinstatement, not so much for the sake of the military but for the sake of the individuals and American society in general. If I Were King, everyone, regardless of gender, social position, educational situation, marital status, possibly even physical status (to a degree) would be obligated to and would serve at least 2 years of government service at a site far distant from their home. As so many of us learned and accept when we look in retrospect, we profited tremendously from being removed from the comfort of our environment and placed with a cross section of people with whom we'd normally never associate into a strange situation. But I'll go along with those whose military experience is greater than mine. Don't screw up the military for yet another social experiment.

Great example!

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/324426.html

I guess letting felons etc. enlist isn't adequate anymore. Now it's time to get the disabled back into action.

Hope this makes all those with the "Support The Troops" ribbons on their Crown Vics happy!

Originally Posted by bimmertl

Great example!

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/324426.html

I guess letting felons etc. enlist isn't adequate anymore. Now it's time to get the disabled back into action.

Hope this makes all those with the "Support The Troops" ribbons on their Crown Vics happy!

Perhaps I just don't understand the sarcasm.

The individual has an 8-year commitment, fulfilled his active duty stint and was discharged with a 10% VA disability. He still has a reserve commitment and is called up, and at the reporting for duty he will be medically rated as to whether he can or cannot perform. He will be rated with a medical "profile" which will determine if he: 1) is kept on active duty in his military occupational specialty; 2) retrained into a different military occupational specialty commensurate with his medical profile, or 3) released from active duty. That's the system in place for at least the 40+ years I've been associated with the military, and probabgly a lot longer than that. The system really does work, and the military won't take him back if he's so unfit for duty that he can't perform.

What's the problem?