• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Soldiers Sue Over Army’s Stop-Loss Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.

sirenia

Sub Nuke's Wife
Eight Soldiers Sue Over Army’s Stop-Loss Policy

By MONICA DAVEY, The New York Times

MORRILTON, Ark. (Dec. 3) - The eight soldiers come from places scattered across the country, from this small town an hour northwest of Little Rock to cities in Arizona, New Jersey and New York. In Iraq and Kuwait, where they all work now, most of them hold different jobs in different units, miles apart. Most have never met.

But the eight share a bond of anger: each says he has been prevented from coming home for good by an Army policy that has barred thousands of soldiers from leaving Iraq this year even though the terms of enlistment they signed up for have run out. And each of these eight soldiers has separately taken the extraordinary step of seeking legal help, through late-night Internet searches and e-mail inquiries from their camps in the conflict zone, or through rounds of phone calls by an equally frustrated wife or mother back home.

With legal support from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a liberal-leaning public interest group, lawyers for the eight men say they will file a lawsuit on Monday in federal court in Washington challenging the Army policy known as stop-loss.

Last spring, the Army instituted the policy for all troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan, called it a way to promote continuity within deployed units and to avoid bringing new soldiers in to fill gaps left in units by those who would otherwise have gone home when their enlistments ran out. If a soldier's unit is still in Iraq or Afghanistan, that soldier cannot leave even when his or her enlistment time runs out.

Since then, a handful of National Guardsmen who received orders to report for duty in California and Oregon have taken the policy to court, but the newest lawsuit is the first such challenge by a group of soldiers. And these soldiers are already overseas - transporting supplies, working radio communications and handling military contracts, somewhere in the desert.


Any thoughts on this?
 

airpirate25

Grape Ape...Grape Ape
427, I'd have to disagree. I joined for life, and would have done so if the Navy hadn't decided to let me go so more new Ensigns could get into school. However, most of these Guardsmen are middle aged family men who stayed on out of patriotism and logical financial considerations. They were aware, especially after the Gulf War thatt hey could be called up and sent overseas, but this "stop-loss" process is getting ridiculous. Is the Army going to offer these guys full time positions, ensure they keep their stateside jobs, etc, etc? Just becasue you "sign the line" so to speak doesn't mean you lose your rights not the least of which is the pursuit of happiness. The real hypocrisy of this situation is that the services are for better or worse downsizing the active duty forces that want to stay on, so they can save abuck or two by over-taxing the Guards...who by the way are called the National Guards for a reason. I'm not sure how long you've served, and no disrespect intended if you have 'been there', but most of these guys have seen more than their fair share. Stop the downsizing, reduce the exorbent salaries and bonuses, raise the bar for entry into commissioning programs, and let the Guards serve under the terms they originally enlisted under.
 

peanut3479

Registered User
pilot
I agree w/ Vette on this one - I read my contract before I signed it, and I know that I can be kept on longer than I want if the situation dictates. Case closed. The REAL problem is the Army's deployment length. Many Reservists and Guardsmen have been overseas for well over a year, while the Marine Corps has fought for and managed to keep a (roughly) six- or seven-month deployment schedule for the majority of its units.

This article (or at least what's posted here) doesn't specify how long over their enlistment contracts these soldiers are. If they're 60 days over, suck it up; if they were supposed to be out last Christmas and they're still stuck there, the Army needs to look into the issue.
 

airpirate25

Grape Ape...Grape Ape
Dear 4362,

I appreciate your valuable input as a Navy spouse, and understand all too well that between 0-1 and 0-4, it can be hard enough to get by. Navy families can't choose where they live, or what tax bracket they survive in...please forgive any insensitivity. On the other hand, I've been out in the civilian world long enough to realize that the more you make, the more you spend. I live well enough on about 1/3 of what I made as a Navy LT, and expect to do as well as my folks who got by with two kids on about 20K a year. My comment was aimed more at the 50K career continuation bonuses, high flag officer salaries and other well earned compensation that unfortunately we can no longer afford. People in the U.S. have become comfortable with a standard of living that is slowly pushing us towards lots of problems. Alot of junior officers, with wives and children lost their jobs as well as many enlisted folks because the Navy budget required a significant cut-back (I have my information directly from the office of the Chief of Navy Personnel). I know for a fact many of these foks would have gladly taken a ten percent pay cut as opposed to working for a fraction of what they and their families had become accustomed to.
 

airpirate25

Grape Ape...Grape Ape
Peanut, I felt the same way a year into flight school as a new Ensign. Our training sort of (and thankfully) brainwashes us to go to the fight. There are no doubt some guys in the Guard who are moaning over a few weeks of extra deployment, or even months, something Navy guys take for granted. The fact is it is un-neccessary and rapidly getting out of hand, and many of thes guys are doing two and three tours of combat duty in Iraq. I've never fought in the streets with an M-16, and if you have and are willing to say you'd be happy to stay for twice the expected tour, then my hat's off to you.
 

VarmintShooter

Bottom of the barrel
pilot
Sure does seem like people are talking out of their a$$ everytime I hear how "people are our most important resource" at the same time as we downsize the active duty folks, keep the reservists (legally I believe) overseas for much longer than was ever expected (when they signed on the line), and drop kick people out of the service who have worked hard to stay in but for whatever reason didn't make the cut.

Sure, everyone has a tale of woes to impart, and I feel like the system is set up so that just about whatever the service wants to do will be technically legal, but I don't think that we are keeping faith with our military members by giving them what they expected when they signed on the line.

Oh well, keep being flexible or get the heck out (unless you are stop loss'ed I guess).
 

sirenia

Sub Nuke's Wife
Sorry for the abbreviated nature of the article here. I couldn't get the entire thing to paste in there.
 

VetteMuscle427

is out to lunch.
None
airpirate25 said:
427, I'd have to disagree.

The issue isn't of if it is the right thing or the wrong thing to do; the issue is if it is the legal thing to do.

I was smart enough to read my contract before I signed; if people don't want to deploy or chance being kept after you want, then they shouldn't sign up.

So to re-itterate my feelings... they signed the dotted line. They knew (or had the chance to) what could happen.
 

VarmintShooter

Bottom of the barrel
pilot
Sort of agree with you Vette.

The legal issue (and focus of this thread) is a matter of law and contracts, not right and wrong, and these guys probably don't have a leg to stand on (guess we'll wait for the trial to see for sure).

Still, don't you think the military has some level of responsibility to use troops in the manner they always said they would, or at least to advertise that the game is changing and the manner in which it is changing?

I won't argue that these guys should be suing, my Grandfather signed on for WWII with the promise that volunteering carried with it a two year tour and then home. He ended up, like so many others, there "for the duration." But he didn't sue the military. He shut the hell up and fought for our country.

Just doesn't seem like we're treating our people all that well by yanking these reserve guys onto extended active duty. Maybe they knew that this could happen, but they trusted us to use them as reserves, not permanent troops.
 

TurnandBurn55

Drinking, flying, or looking busy!!
None
Well, it's funny how nobody in the leftist media was beating this issue to death during the 90s when Cohen swore before Congress we'd only have troops in Bosnia for one year. Yet we kept sending Guardsmen from Mississippi one year after the next.

Somehow nobody came out crying

"WAHH! Backdoor draft!"

"WAHH! Cohen LIED!"

"WAHH! Clinton Administration isn't working with our ALLIES to reduce troop numbers!"

The thing is that the force structure of the Army is and has been overstrained for years. Its not an issue of how they 'advertised' it. GEN Shinseki, the Army COS, said we're running a 12-division global strategy with a 10-division army, and he got sh!tcanned for saying it. But it's exactly right. Plus you consider the 2nd Infantry is tied down in Korea... we can't commit large portions of the 101st and 82nd long term... and then guys have to rotate home eventually...

You see why we have an overreliance on reservists and Guardsmen. The Pentagon is under a troop squeeze no matter how you spin it, and when you can't extend stays in-theater, you've got to throw up your hands and ask how the hell can we run a war?

Like a fine senator from AZ said last week: "The military is too small"
 

VetteMuscle427

is out to lunch.
None
VarmintShooter said:
Still, don't you think the military has some level of responsibility to use troops in the manner they always said they would, or at least to advertise that the game is changing and the manner in which it is changing?

Just doesn't seem like we're treating our people all that well by yanking these reserve guys onto extended active duty. Maybe they knew that this could happen, but they trusted us to use them as reserves, not permanent troops.


I do agree that the military has a high degree of responsibility to treat the troops as best they can; but the mission of the military is to get the job done first, whether it pisses people off or not is an issue for a later date.

If they are to the point that they need to hold reservists/guardsman involuntarily... well, I think that there must be a true need for it.

What can we do to solve this? Because pissed off soldiers suing isn't going to accomplish anything other than to vilanize the military.
 

Clux4

Banned
If we are not going to have a draft, then we are definitely going to need more souls to replace those coming home in body bags or injured.
For those crying that they have spent more time than they asked for, Sorry. I think it is about time you start talking to congress to either get people back from retirement , IRR or basically reinstate the freaking draft. The military is freaking small, I think those folks at the Pentagon have seen that we cannot really fight 2 wars side by side as they have always believed they could.

I like to see how the no-draft thing will hold
 

VetteMuscle427

is out to lunch.
None
Clux, can't reinstate the draft... I think it would cause more problems than it would solve. The dynamic of leading soldiers that dont want to be in service has got to be totally different than volunteers.

What I think we should do is have massive bonuses, kick up college benefits and even make 2 year infantry enlistments.

I know if I was getting out of highschool and there was a 2-year no getting hold over infantry option... that would be mighty tempting... capitalize on going to blow sh!t up and still make it to college in a relatively good time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top