Why the new stop/loss bill is ridiculous
A bill now in Congress would pay them an additional $1,500 a month of extended duty. The measure, introduced by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), also would make payments retroactive to October 2001, covering servicemen and women affected by stop-loss since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is being considered by committees in both houses.
Got that from a website I am not linking to, but they stole it from a Philadelphia Inquirer article which I couldn’t immediately locate. (Ok, now located)
Either way, this is wrong on several different levels. First off, you signed the enlistment contract either a) knowing that Stop/Loss could potentially effect you, or b) without doing even cursory/rudimentary research. I refuse to believe anyone who says they didn’t know about it who also claims to have looked into what they were getting into. Usually anyone saying that is of the “I joined the infantry because they said I would have a lot of field time, which I thought meant picking carrots and stuff” type of moran.
Secondly, because of my own personal situation, which as you will see would benefit me to the tune of $7500. I joined the National Guard in March of 05 on a “try one” contract. You essentially try out the Guard and see how you like it. I knew when I signed the papers I would be deployed in 1 week. I did the try one so I never had to do any of that home station crap I always loathed. I wanted to deploy, and deploy I did.
So you mean to tell me that because I signed on a “try one” fully knowing I would get stop lossed because the deployment was 18 months, that I should get an extra $1500 per month? That’s just ludicrous. If that were the case, I advise EVERYONE to get out immediately. Find a NG unit leaving, and do a try one. You’ll get an extra $7500 each deployment tax free, and never have to do a day of drilling.
Category: Politics
I’m gonna disagree. While you’re right that if you don’t know about the possibility of involuntary extension during the time when you’re in the IRR, you’re retarded or a liar. But I have no problem paying soldiers who are involuntarily extended or stop/lossed more, whatsoever. Your argument about the NG scam is a straw man.
TSO: How is it a straw man? If this bill goes through, the treasury will send me a check. Mind you I will cash it and go on vacation, but I fail to see how I earned more than a joe who decided to re-up for 5 years.
TSO,
It’s the new tactic, bankrupt the Army in the name of supporting the troops. Or a GI Bill that causes retention problems rather encourage retention.
It’s one of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, use the other side live up to their beliefs and use their beliefs against them.
It’s like me saying I support decriminalizing heroin users and will reduce the number of herion users. Of course, it’ll go down because I’ll be handing out free smack that’s 100% pure and they’ll die of an overdose.
SO I get a $22000 check? what am I doing working for the DOD when I can just sit back an wait for the free money
TSO: Thanks for your service in whatever capacity Missletech. With a name like that, I think I can probably figure out what you do. Either way, thanks.
Well I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I was supposed to ETS in late May of 2007. I got married on March 22nd and My first daughter was born on March 13th 2007. I stayed with my Wife and daughter for about 20 days in Hawaii and went back to Germany alone thinking I would be out in less than 2 months. About 15 days before I was about to get out the Army said stop-loss and I wouldn’t be able to get out till January 2009. The funny thing is a few other soldiers getting out after my ETS date were allowed to leave but I wasn’t. I had already did 5 years and 1 of those years were in Balad, Iraq 2004-2005 and if you added up all my field time, I spent well over a year in the field. Now i’m in Mosul, Iraq on a 15 month deployment. When I signed up in 2003 I have never even heard the word stop-loss. I did know what I was getting into. I served my time, But a 22 month stop-loss is what’s ridiculous.
TSO Why don’t you join AD and then get back to me when they stop-loss you for 22 months.
Jonn wrote: TSO and I have both been trying to get back to active duty. Stop/loss first came to the nation’s attention in 1990 when the whole force was involuntarily extended seven years and it was one of the first things the media asked the military before the first troop was deployed in this new war against terror.
John it’s not hard to get back to active duty. All you have to do is go to your local recruiting station and say ” I want to go active duty!” Simple as that……. They will have you out within a month or two.
TSO: It is when you have 3 herniated discs after service in Afghanistan. You served 5 years, the commitment is 8, not so? You think you should be paid more money than a similiar ranked soldier to your left and right?
Jonn wrote: TSO and I have both been trying to get back to active duty.
TSO wrote: It is when you have 3 herniated discs after service in Afghanistan.
So you mean to tell me that both of you are hurt or do you both just need to hold eachothers hand to go AD. Yes the commitment is 8 years but why should I have to stay in when they are letting other people in my unit with ETS dates after mine get out before me. I think it would be more fair to keep everyone in for the 8 year commitment during time of war. Some of these people haven’t even deployed and are getting out. Do you think the NG should be paid more money than AD? Which they do for being deployed. Do you think the AD Army should be the only ones doing 15 month deployments? Until you’ve been in an active duty unit that deploys within 72 hours I don’t think you have any room to say what’s ridiculous and what’s not. I have led soldier’s on multiple missions, One of those we were already in the field for 3 weeks only to get a call saying ” you need to come back early, You leave for ******** in 72 hours”. We were there for 6 months with a 4 man team. I have done my time I have served my country and my country didn’t even want to let me go home from the field to see my child be born, That’s RIDICULOUS……..
TSO: Read your contract. Your self-loathing for not having done so is coming through clearly.
Jonn wrote: I’ve been retired from the infantry for nearly 14 years. It’s a little hard to convince the Army to take me back at the age of 53. I’ve had one child born half-way across the world from where I was at the time. In fact, I didn’t see her until she was nine months old. Military life is hard…for everyone, not just you.
Any retention of a service member beyond that service member’s original contract agreement is a violation of said contract – and the military should know better.
In simpler terms, it’s slavery. Can you name ANY other profession where the employer can *legally* prevent employees from leaving? Didn’t think so.
Stop loss is an embarrassing, unethical, and altogether egregious violation of employer/employee agreements…that it exists should cause everyone to question the degree of “freedom” in our society. Indeed, stop loss is anathema to the workings of a free society.
TSO: It IS in the contract. That’s the point, but thank you for agreeing. I presume since it IS in the contract you now agree with my position. Oh, and comparing military service to any other occupation is outrageous.
Jonn wrote: I’ll bet Eddie didn’t see anything wrong with the New Orleans cops that abandoned it’s citizens when they needed cops the most, too. After all, they were working 24 hour shifts and deserved some vacation time.
Well don’t you think it would be more fair to everyone to retain everyone for the eight year commitment during times of war instead of stop-lossing people on multiple deployments and letting non-deployers out? I know the military life is hard and in the past 3 years I have only seen my wife and kids for maybe a total of 3 months because they are on the other side of the world. The military should try and be a little more family oriented. As I said before I was only in the field when my commander wouldn’t let me go home to see my daughter be born. Or how about my soldier that they won’t let his wife come to Germany because he had a bad back and couldn’t pass a PT test. That’s BS. Why would they keep a soldier from being with his family and expect that soldier to fight for his country.
TSO: I am the last one to defend everything the Army does, in fact, my name is a goof on my Battalion Commander who I thought came up with some of the most ridiculous plans ever devised. However, guys who get stop-lossed are stoplossed because they have a critical skill. I agree the army needs to be more family friendly, and have even taken a group of military spouses up to the Hill to castigate Senators for not ensuring that it is so. But “fairness” has never been a attribute that I would apply to the military. I’ll take “Capable” over “Fair” any day. Does it suck, sure. I have a buddy from my blog (Anon) who gets out in November, and his deployment will start Oct 15. Does it suck to be him? Absolutely. But so it goes.
It is necessary to compare the military to other organizations in order to understand the absurdities of a stop loss program. For example, consider the police. On a day to day basis, it could be argued the police do a more dangerous job than military personnel. Have you ever heard of any contracts or stop loss program in place to maintain police recruiting numbers?
On a larger scale, why even have a commitment or contract in the first place? That our military personnel can be/are retained beyond their desire to remain in the military kind of destroys the notion of that “all volunteer force” does it not? As long as service members are unable to leave the military whenever they see fit they are, by definition, slaves to the State.
Voluntarily leaving the military before your initial commitment may be a violation of contract, but it’s hardly something that needs to be enforced at gunpoint by the State. If someone desires to leave General Motors or the Police force, are they thrown in the brig or shot at sunrise?
TSO: How much do taxpayers pay to send a person through GM basic training? Are we suffering a dirth of police officers?
The reason we have a contract is because you train like you fight, and you fight like you trained. If you have a 9 man squad do trainup, and then 3 decide to just say F it and not go, then you have just lost your ability to fight. Try to use some common sense.
Exactly! Why are we spending money to train GMs? Taxpayer funded employees are unnecessary – I say let the market decide which positions are necessary. Taxpayer supported salaries are the very definition socialism.
Would you rather fight with a nine man squad that WANTED to be there or a nine man squad who was FORCED to be there? There’s a huge difference and, especially as it pertains to your life and safety, I suspect you’ll want to fight with the team that wanted to be there.
Preventing people from leaving the military before the expiration of their contract does nothing but create more slaves who do not want to be there – and there’s no way they are going to be as effective at fighting or saving lives when their head is not in it.
TSO: Are you being purposefully obtuse? I was making the point that we HAVE to train infantrymen. Unless you know some school that does so already which is not the military. And I would rather fight with 9. Even if they don’t want to be there, they tend to become highly motivated when people are shooting at them. There were plenty of guys who I served with that didn’t want to be there. And when the lead flew, they performed well. I don’t mean this to sound demeaning, but you don’t seem to have a clue what you are talking about. Can I assume you never served in a line unit?
It doesn’t matter whether or not I’ve served in a line unit. The issue at hand is whether or not the government has the right to coerce people into service. You think they do; I disagree with you.
Your experience with military slaves pressed into service operates on the false premise that the government has the right to retain you against your will. I call that slavery, what do you call it? I’d love to read the logic supporting that position, and I apologize if I came off as obtuse in the above comments. Certainly that was not my intent.
TSO: Ok, you tempted my patience, you are officially a dumbass. No one is enslaved, they signed a contract, one which is enforced via specific performance. If you don’t want to serve, don’t. And it does matter when you make assinine statements about whether having 4 motivated guys or 9 with 5 of them not motivated is any different. Yes, it is. Because unless you have 9 guys, you can’t do 2 4 man stacks on 2 doors. And when you can’t do that, you can’t cover the entire area. No one is “coerced” into military service any more than a kid is coerced to work at Taco Bell in the summer to afford a car. You aren’t retained against your will, you are forced to perform the obligation to which you assented.
“No one is “coerced” into military service any more than a kid is coerced to work at Taco Bell in the summer to afford a car.”
Completely disagree. When that Taco Bell employee decides he’s had enough, he can throw in the apron and leave. Heck, he doesn’t even have to show up for work if he so chooses.
Moreover, the manager at Taco Bell has no right to force that worker to finish his shift, show up for work, or to give a two week notice. Such practices are courtesies, but not requirements. If the worker fails to extend any of the above courtesies it’s a personal demerit, but not something for which the employee should be detained or shot.
Unfortunately, we do not apply the same consistency to the military. The military is the only organization that can retain people against their will. If someone decides the military is not for them, they should be free to go. If a contractual agreement is broken, it’s a personal demerit. You are essentially arguing that slavery is superior to breach of contract…and I disagree with you.
TSO: Arguing with you is roughly as rewarding as masterbating with broken glass and aqua velva, and just as painful. So you win.
Ok, Ok, I get it – no worries, TSO. Just wanted to pick your brain for a bit. It’s a slow Monday.
Well I joined the active duty army in 04. Stop loss wasnt as common as it is now, then, and id never even heard of it until I was sitting in MEPS. When it was laid out to me it was explained that it was a rarity and surely would never happen to me. Same as being called back from the inactive reserve. Now I dont know anything much about the guard, but being stop lossed and deployed wouldnt seem like such a huge hardship to me when you’re assigned to fort living room any other time. Myself, I was supposed to get out in Feb 08. Instead, im back in Iraq for the second time, and when all is said and done ill have been stop lossed for 16 months. Thats assuming my tour gets cut down to 12 months from the initial 15, which it looks like it will. At any rate, ive done my time. Ive been to Iraq once before, went on god knows how many useless assed missions to help a country that would best serve the rest of the world as a smoldering crater, and im tired. I want to get out and go to school. Now im locked in for said 16 extra months, so yeah, a little compensation would be nice.
“so yeah, a little compensation would be nice.”
Serving your country should be compensation enough.
Ive given a hell of a lot more for my country than you ever will Gramps.
TSO: And you know that how exactly? Have we come to comparing internet resumes? Jonn has you all beat, what with having served 75 years (he was a drummer boy at Antietam) and then retiring as a O15 doorgunner on the Space Shuttle. You could be the greatest angry medic in the history of curmudgeonly medical providers, or you could be a cook, since this is the intertubes, we have no way of knowing, so the tough guy thing doesn’t really work very well.
Im not playing the tough guy thing at all. And having my credetials called into question by a week-end warrior is so laughable im not even going to bother atempting arguing that point. As for the compensation issue, does it take away the nobility of serving ones country? Doubtful. The army used to pay out a grand a month for stop loss and then stopped, likely after they realized they didnt really have to. Why do I believe compensation would be fair? Because in the long run the army is litterally taking money out of my pocket. Simply by delaying my ETS a year, the time I can be finished with my schooling, and working in my chosen carreer in the medical feild, is also delayed a year. Which would pay far more than what im making here, even with the money from the bill, which I doubt will be passed anyways.
TSO: well, I do believe the angry part anyway. But okay tough guy, your service is officially now viewed by me to be the hardest, most honorable, most killingest thing EVEH. You sir, are the man that all future angry medics should seek to emulate.
HA,ha. Well glad we finally see eye to eye, even though your response was positively dripping with sarcasm. At any rate its cool you dont think you earned any money for the stop loss, and yes there are people who could scam the system, were the bill to be passed. However that still only makes up a small portion of the people who have been, or will be stop lossed. Do you really beleive that because a minority will have never deserved the payment that no one does?
TSO: NO, actually that was merely an example or illustration, chosen to show that my position is actually contrary to what financially is in my best interest. (Not unlike my playing Pitch for 9 hours Saturday night.) My complaint over the stop loss payments is two fold. 1) is from a contractual angle, stop-loss is in the contract, and paying someone extra is simply not in keeping with the contract. I understand I am more dogmatic about this that most, but I also believe that the military should and must be required to keep their end as well, and I can’t very well argue that the kid who got screwed on the airborne contract should have his contract honored and that service-members should receive more than what is in the contract. 2) I think that a general proposition can be made that shows equal pay for equal work. The guy that is stop lossed would get more than the guy who is not under what basis? Should then guys who like the work get paid less? Or should guys in the infantry or other front lines get paid more (or less) than others? Since reenlistment of combat arms troops is higher than say JAG guys, should the JAG guys get paid substantially more and the combat arms less? Having 2 similiarly situated E4’s in my squad, and one making almost twice as much, the inclination would be to make that dude do more. Just don’t think that is fair.
Ah, but paying someone extra is exactly what they used to do anyways. I dont know the exact reasons behind why they quit shelling out the exrta thousand a month for stop loss, but needless to say they dont any more. As for the contract, like so many others when it was explained to me, I was told we have to be in a WWIII type situation before I would be stop lossed. Now in retrospect I was clearly niave (dont think I spelled that right) but that doesnt change the fact that when I signed the paper I believed it was for four years. As for paying those who are stop lossed more than those who arent, the guys who are sticking around generally get a re-enlistment bonus. And if they re-enlist in theater they get it tax free. I know A lot of guys who had no intention of staying in, but because they were getting stop lossed, decided to re-up just to get said bonus, so they wouldnt walk away with nothing for the extra time they were forced to put in. Do I believe people whose MOS’s put them in a line unit as opposed to manning a desk? Absolutely. But thats an entirely differnt arguement alltogether. Should an MOS be paid more than another for the basis of low re-enlistment? Also no. There are plenty of encentives for those who are in what is considered a critical MOS allready, such as automatic promotions, higher re-enlistment bonuses, choice duty stations and so on.
Bottom line is that the Dems and the wackos like Webb are playing a game where they’re trying to hobble the military. They’ve got a nice cover plan by using “better benefits” to do it.
Like the “We Support The Troops, Peace Is Patriotic” and “My Treason Is Really Just Discent” canards, people will catch on. It’s funny to watch the burned out old hippies cling bitterly to those propoganda ploys long after they’ve been exposed.
And as to Mr. Demings comment I can tell you first hand that spending years and billions upon billions of dollars on Iraq is doing more to hobble the military then anything the Dems ever could.
AM rants: “Ive given a hell of a lot more for my country than you ever will Gramps.”
Is that a fact? I’m surprised that you think you know so much about me. I probably have more time as a patient in a military hospital then you have in the Army.
Go cry about the money you’re not getting to someone who GAS.
Ive given a hell of a lot more for my country than you ever will Gramps.
This is probably the wrong site to be saying things like that as most of the commenters are vets. Also, insulting people when trying to make an argument doesn’t work.
First of all how about we not volunteer to go to war and make you and your family have to. You sit in the United States and cry about everything, how about you get off the computer and do something for your country and quit crying about the 1% that are supporting your dumb ass.
How bout I signed up for 4 years for the gi bill, if I wouldve signed up for 5 they would have gave me the gi bill and the Army college fund, but I sadi no I’ll just do 4, but guees what? I got stop lossed and had to stay an extra year anyways and I lost out on about 24,000 on that deal, so maybe the least they could do is compensate me a little like the 18,000 that the stop loss bill would allow me. Everyone who was stop-lossed made sacrifices over and beyone those who knowingly volunteered.
My question is, what about those who are stop-lossed who have already served their 8 year obligatory service?
I was…..I was past my MSO of 8 yrs….17 months past my 8 years.
Whatever, its not even retro.
Nice weblog here! Also your web site so much up very fast! What host are you the use of? Can I am getting your associate hyperlink on your host? I desire my site loaded up as fast as yours lol