Military's Stop-Loss Orders Put Service Members' Futures in Limbo

Now this is really sad. The "Stop Loss" is something I don't like to see. Especially if soldier who have done their duty want to go home. It's wrong and unfair.

BY VINCENT J. SCHODOLSKI

Chicago Tribune


LOS ANGELES - (KRT) - Luis Prosper has spent more than half his life in the Army and was looking forward the prospect of a new life starting at middle age.

But that all changed when the Defense Department issued a "stop loss" order forcing some members of the country's volunteer armed forces to remain in service beyond their contractually agreed-upon term.

Like thousands of other men and women in the military, Prosper, 41, has had to rethink his future, at least for the time being.

"I was ready to retire, but I'm a soldier," said Prosper, a 25-year veteran who has reached the rank of sergeant major. "Before we give these soldiers bad leadership, I'd rather stay in uniform and do the job."

The ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are severely stretching the armed forces, a situation that some experts suggest may grow far worse within the next two years.

"In a year and a half or two years, there are going to be huge (personnel) shortages," said Andrew Exum, a retired Army captain who served in Afghanistan. "You can't keep these guys in for good."

www.tallahassee.com...

How can we as Americans just sit by and let the soldiers who want to come home just stay out there because the Pentagon won't let them leave the service?

It would be somewhat understandable if we were fighting a legitimate war. Under these circumstances, though, it's reprehensible.

This would not be happening if we had leaders at Defense who were remotely competent. It's past time for Americans (of all political persuasions) to demand a full and honest accounting of the leadership, disciplinary measures to be taken and NEW LEADERSHIP. Leadership that actually listens to the counsel of our MILITARY leaders and not a bunch of ignorant wonks from the American Enterprise Institute.

Originally posted by mrmulder
How can we as Americans just sit by and let the soldiers who want to come home just stay out there because the Pentagon won't let them leave the service?

Maybe because they (the service members) retire to the ready reserves with the knowledge that they may be called up if needed?

Every service members agrees to that when they sign up, that is why it is called a "contract of service."

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Maybe because they (the service members) retire to the ready reserves with the knowledge that they may be called up if needed?

Maybe but I support the troops, not the war right now. So if the troops want to come home, I say let them come home.

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Maybe because they (the service members) retire to the ready reserves with the knowledge that they may be called up if needed?

Maybe but I support the troops, not the war right now. So if the troops want to come home, I say let them come home.

So what you are saying is that you support the troops breaking their contracts with the government. Further, you don't think that there should be any punishment involved if they do. Did I miss anything?

How can you support troops without supporting the job they do (which this is all a part of)?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
So what you are saying is that you support the troops breaking their contracts with the government.

If they've served their time and believe, as I do, that they are fighting for a lost cause then "yes."

Further, you don't think that there should be any punishment involved if they do?

No not since the Pentagon put this "Stop Loss" into place. The government has no right to do that.

www.sorgen.net...
www.sorgen.net...
www.nytimes.com...://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-usa-reservists.html
www.fromthewilderness.com...

How can you support troops without supporting the job they do?

As I've stated before, I support the troops. Yes, they have a job to do but if they feel that they don't want to do their job anymore because they are fighting a lost cause, after they've fulfilled ther service, then I don't think they should be punished.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
How can we as Americans just sit by and let the soldiers who want to come home just stay out there because the Pentagon won't let them leave the service?

Maybe because they (the service members) retire to the ready reserves with the knowledge that they may be called up if needed?

Every service members agrees to that when they sign up, that is why it is called a "contract of service."

So you think it's ok to treat the troops like crap, just because they signed up? It's ok to get them killed, because they volunteered? After someone joins the military, it doesn't matter how we treat them, because they 'asked for it'?

Originally posted by mrmulder
If they've served their time and believe, as I do, that they are fighting for a lost cause then "yes."

If they thought they were fighting for a lost cause then all they need to do is fill out a transfer request or declare themselves to be conscientous objectors.

No not since the Pentagon put this "Stop Loss" into place. The government has no right to do that.

What? Why does the government not have the right to carry out the conditions of a contract? When you sign up for the military it is with the full knowledge that you will go into the IRR for a set period of time or until you reach the maximum age. This has been in place for years and is not illegal. Might want to research it from the military sites and not from the propaganda ones.

As I've stated before, I support the troops. Yes, they have a job to do but if they feel that they don't want to do their job anymore because they are fighting a lost cause, after they've fulfilled ther service, then I don't think they should be punished.

They would not get punished if they filled out a transfer request like I said above. There is a reason why we say that military life is not for everyone.

Originally posted by curme
So you think it's ok to treat the troops like crap, just because they signed up? It's ok to get them killed, because they volunteered? After someone joins the military, it doesn't matter how we treat them, because they 'asked for it'?

Where did I ever say any of those things? I support the troops and what they fight for, after all, I am one of them.

Once again the arm chair quaterbacks are out in force on this one.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by curme
So you think it's ok to treat the troops like crap, just because they signed up? It's ok to get them killed, because they volunteered? After someone joins the military, it doesn't matter how we treat them, because they 'asked for it'?

Where did I ever say any of those things? I support the troops and what they fight for, after all, I am one of them.

Once again the arm chair quaterbacks are out in force on this one.

Hey look! It's me in my arm chair!

Originally posted by COOL HAND
What? Why does the government not have the right to carry out the conditions of a contract?

Well, instead of being up front with GIs at the time they enlisted, and pointing out that the enlistment contract had a clause suggesting that the government could change the conditions of their service whenever the President decided he wanted them to stay in, the government allowed GIs to enlist with the expectation that they could leave the service when their estimated date of separation arrived. Needless to say, the thousands of servicemen and women who have been subjected to Stop Loss orders, were shocked and angry at having been tricked into endless military servitude by an unappreciative and arrogant government. And I do hope you're right about them filling out a transfer request.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by curme

Hey look! It's me in my arm chair!

So you have a problem with how you are being treated by the military. What did you think would happen when you signed up? The military would bend over backwards to appease you?

Originally posted by mrmulder
Well, instead of being up front with GIs at the time they enlisted, and pointing out that the enlistment contract had a clause suggesting that the government could change the conditions of their service whenever the President decided he wanted them to stay in, the government allowed GIs to enlist with the expectation that they could leave the service when their estimated date of separation arrived. Needless to say, the thousands of servicemen and women who have been subjected to Stop Loss orders, were shocked and angry at having been tricked into endless military servitude by an unappreciative and arrogant government. And I do hope you're right about them filling out a transfer request.

They are upfront when they enlist these people. But of course you won't take my word for that.

It is the members responsibility to read and understand the contract that they are signing. I know I read mine very carefully when I signed mine.

What kind of moron does not read a contract before he or she signs it?

[edit on 30-9-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by curme

Hey look! It's me in my arm chair!

So you have a problem with how you are being treated by the military. What did you think would happen when you signed up? The military would bend over backwards to appease you?

I just get upset when they conduct policy, without considering the welfare of the soldiers. When the military makes decisions which harm soldeirs, which could of been avoided. When the people I promised to give my life for, don't give a crap about me.

It kind of puts a damper on the whole espirit de corps thing.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
They are upfront when they enlist these people. But of course you won't take my word for that.

It is the members responsibility to read and understand the contract that they are signing. I know I read mine very carefully when I signed mine.

What kind of moron does not read a contract before he or she signs it?

Well, since there's been a lawsuit filed against the "Stop Loss" I think I speak for many of the soldiers who want to come home. Suit yourself.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by mrmulder]

Did I read this right or is my dyslexia acting up again--this man's enlistment in the army was extended for 40 years?? Thats four-zero years, as in the two-year old kid that he is missing now will be 42 years old when his commitment to the army will be over.

Can someone explain to me how this works? I know that people make 10 or 12 year commitments to the military when they enlist, with a few years of active duty and then a few years of reserve duty, but is it true that in times of need, those that are on the verge of retiring can have there contracts extended for any specified amount of time if a military need is declared by the President (or retirees can be recalled at will)? Perhaps I just misunderstood all of the legalese, but it seems as if this man enlisted for a finite term, with the understanding that his service could be extended if war was declared, which it was (although that is under dispute), however it was extended until the year 2043, meaning that he could be called to duty at any time pretty much for the rest of his life.

Is this the agreement that everyone signs up for when they enlist? When does the commitment to the military end--or is the contract worded in such a way that your service can be extended and/or you can be recalled after retiring if a military need is decalred (ie: war)?

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Did I read this right or is my dyslexia acting up again--this man's enlistment in the army was extended for 40 years?? Thats four-zero years, as in the two-year old kid that he is missing now will be 42 years old when his commitment to the army will be over.

Yes I'm afraid you did read it right. Sad. Huh?

Is this the agreement that everyone signs up for when they enlist? When does the commitment to the military end--or is the contract worded in such a way that your service can be extended and/or you can be recalled after retiring if a military need is decalred (ie: war)?

People don�t surrender (all) rights when they go into the military. The problem I have is the government can�t hold you indefinitely. If the war on terrorism never ends, things like the stop loss doesn�t end. These people never get out. The military is saying we control you completely. I just like that. It's scary.

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Did I read this right or is my dyslexia acting up again--this man's enlistment in the army was extended for 40 years?? Thats four-zero years, as in the two-year old kid that he is missing now will be 42 years old when his commitment to the army will be over.

Yes I'm afraid you did read it right. Sad. Huh?

An enlistment that ran until 2043 would put him well over the age cap for the military. It is a typo. There is no such thing as a 40 year extension to an enlistment.

People don�t surrender (all) rights when they go into the military. The problem I have is the government can�t hold you indefinitely. If the war on terrorism never ends, things like the stop loss doesn�t end. These people never get out. The military is saying we control you completely. I just like that. It's scary.

How would you know what rights are given up and what are kept in the military? Are you in it now, or have you ever been? If not then do not speak about subjects you know little about.

The military is not saying the control you completely. They are saying that they need you and your particular skills because there is a need for it. That is why it is used in a case by case basis. Otherwise you would have all retirements, resignations, and seperations cancelled.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
Well, instead of being up front with GIs at the time they enlisted, and pointing out that the enlistment contract had a clause suggesting that the government could change the conditions of their service whenever the President decided he wanted them to stay in, the government allowed GIs to enlist with the expectation that they could leave the service when their estimated date of separation arrived. Needless to say, the thousands of servicemen and women who have been subjected to Stop Loss orders, were shocked and angry at having been tricked into endless military servitude by an unappreciative and arrogant government. And I do hope you're right about them filling out a transfer request.

They are upfront when they enlist these people. But of course you won't take my word for that.

It is the members responsibility to read and understand the contract that they are signing. I know I read mine very carefully when I signed mine.

What kind of moron does not read a contract before he or she signs it?

[edit on 30-9-2004 by mrmulder]

my response to that would be an 18 year old moron, at least that was the case with me. how many kids straight out of high school are wise enough to read the fine print? the whole time I was being recruited the officer was adamant in insisting that my only obligation would be two years then I would owe no further debt to the U.S. Army. luckily I had a talk with my (much wiser than myself) grandfather and he explained to me exactly what I was getting into. I in turn broke a family tradition of 3 generations of enlisting based on advice from a decorated WWII vet. even after I decided not to sign I was pursued by the recruiters using strongarm tactics that nearly got me fired from my job. I would say you must be the moron if you think the way they recruit kids is either legal or ethical!

Like thousands of other men and women in the military, Prosper, 41, has had to rethink his future, at least for the time being.

"I was ready to retire, but I'm a soldier," said Prosper, a 25-year veteran who has reached the rank of sergeant major. "Before we give these soldiers bad leadership, I'd rather stay in uniform and do the job."


so this man enlisted when he was 16 years old? I am not aware of any circumstance that would allow this. can anyone clear this up for me? thanks