RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,172827,00.html
The Bush administration has done damage to our military that will take years to fix.

Stop loss has been around a lot longer than the Bushes! Don't like it, but hard to argue with.

Sends that "theory" of an all volunteer military down the drain.

STOP/LOSS been around and it's application utilized within the U. S. Army for many decades. The writer cites problems , current or history, rather than remedy'em let's provide perks .

Dosen't quite wash in the all volunteer Army's that's been around for 35 years now. As for the remaining Service's their tours are not as lengthy in support of OIF/OEF so should there be an added incentive for months Served, or possibly throw into the mix, added incentives for how combat tours Served on an elistment, or use a sliding rule for total months Served. And how about those that Served in OIF1, & 2 and told while they were back at garrison to head back to the tarmac and join their brothers that were told a week prior to their departure, you've been STOP/LOSS. Ya think maybe there is a program to pay them and accelarate their promotions? If yer talkin' STOP/LOSS we can go back to DS/DS.

Maybe within one of our Services their program is broke, and ain't taking care of their own, and this may all make it right.

However, I think the writer's heart is in the right place, but there a slew of other programs that could be used the efforts and funds to support & improve.

quote:

Yet, the cruelest part is not the involuntary service but that it is forced on military personnel and their families without proper notification, compensation or due diligence. For that reason Congress should demand and vote on a Declaration of War, or confirm a presidential determination that we're in a period of national emergency, before stop-loss programs are implemented. Barring these actions, service members within 60 days of separation or retirement should be exempt from involuntary stop-loss programs.

The most important paragraph of this article.

I'm a member of a national guard MP company that's heading over to Iraq before the end of the year. I was supposed to ets in 3 weeks, but I was told I was being extended. It doesn't bother me that much because I was planning on going active anyway and I'd probably end up going next year.

I can understand being upset about it. I can understand being demoralized. While the policy is severely flawed and could use a bit of modernization, I think it's a better option than the draft. Think of all the money that's being saved training draftees that the military can use to improve the equipment we're using or on improving our standard of living over there.

While stop-loss does have a negative effect on soldiers and families, I believe it helps to weed out the people who don't really want to be a soldier or who don't take being a soldier seriously. I've served on the active side and the part time side and no matter where you are, those two groups I just mentioned eat at the cohesion of a given unit. I would much rather fight alongside someone who has been around for a while and was stop lossed than someone else who isn't going to take things seriously.

( BTW... I'm married with a son. I do know how difficult a thing it is to have to leave when you weren't expecting to. I feel for all the families that have gone, are going, and will go through it. )

Stop-loss is something that was agreed to by the service members. But I am reasonably sure that in the future perspective service members will ask to have it removed from their contracts.

Members do not agree to stop-loss actions. There is nothing in the DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment document Armed Forces of the United States. The requirement for continued service is a declaration of War, or a National Emergency.

Compliments to you, Col. Stevens for serving both in the NCO ranks and officer ranks. It gives you more authority when commenting on military life. The stop-loss concept on a practical level makes sense. But practical for whom? and to what ends? If one looks at our engagement in Iraq as an irrefutable defense of our homeland, then stop-loss seems justified. If one looks at our engagement in Iraq as American adventurism or as serving the agenda of oligarchical neoconservatives, stop-loss is polticized and arguably wrong. One might even bring its legality into question. A concern I remember hearing from a career officer, WW2 Vet, about the all-volunteer military when The Draft ended was that such a military might have too much fealty to the President. Even when you insert the Oath Of Office, if a service member accepts the notion that the President "speaks" for the Constitution or has absolute authority then an important check on questionable orders is precluded. Those who could "vote with their feet" seem to be doing so, given the need for reenlistment bonuses. It seems that thousands of service men and women and their families are pawns in a game of high officials trying to make-up for bad decisions.

I am active duty and my original ETS was for this month. I was stop lossed not because of manning sensitivity (we are 1 more than our designated number for my MOS) but because I have always worked outside of my MOS to accelerate or facilitate mission success. I have even gone as far as getting civilian certifications to improve my skill set in my job. My CSM views me as purely a battalion asset in that I am highly trained outside of the army. I have been called upon by my brigade to fix problems where soldiers and civilians have failed. My civilian certifications are time sensitive and will expire before I return from deployment, essentially incurring more out of pocket expense on me to re-cert which will delay any civilian job opportunity's. After hearing that I was stop lossed (by word of mouth and not in any official capacity) I immediately asked for an exception to policy. The exception to policy was denied on a by name basis because I was recognized as being "The guy that fixes everything." Other, less visible soldiers, have been permitted to ETS on time. Is this a classic case of, do a good job and pay for it in the end? I sent my pregnant wife home to be with family because I am obviously not going to be around for the pregnancy. I am now stuck with the tedious process of clearing housing, moving my stuff to some sort of storage facility, shipping my POV, and finding some sort of hotel accommodations until I leave; all out of pocket expenses on me. My unit will not permit me to stay in the barracks for the last few days because I am receiving housing allowance for being married. All this stuff is a daunting task and I find myself perplexed on how I am supposed to get it all done. Every second of the day I think about why I ever contributed extra. I have tried to do everything I can to have a good civilian life after the army. I was ready to start a high paying job and welcome my son to the world without worry of any more unexpected deployments. I postponed trying for a child for 6 years so that I would be out and give the child the father he needs. Seems like even the best intentions are left hallowing in the end. I just wanted to put my story out there for purpose of sharing. I am still trying to cope with the new emotions brought on by "Stop Loss".