Soldiers Sue Over Army’s Stop-Loss Policy

[airpirate25]

Spyguy, we're at the same level of experience; I've been to the gulf, my father was an Army NCO during Vietnam, my gradfather died in the Phillipines, and I do apologize for any offense; but since you've been there, you know...these guys that are suing may be taking it too far, but so's our government. Its not in my hands, your hands or their hands what orders come down, but I've seen alot of guys lose alot in life because no one in authority challenged the arrogant lunacy of certain policy. The sacrifices you mentioned aren't being honored if we don't keep an eye opened for those who don't care. It is true that it makes no difference where you've been, but it gets under my skin to hear future officers and leaders so adamantly willing to dismiss what has become a real concern. To all: no personal insult intended

 

[squeeze]

Two months later, I was involuntarially transfered to the IRR due to what was explained as "budget constraints".

jesus... think you could cry about this in a few more threads?

 

[Odom]

I've been on AD coming up on 12 years, been deployed multiple times and been under stop loss twice. I've also had to counsel young Marines on why they can't get out after they served out their contract honorably and will lose the job they had waiting or the tuition they paid. And oh by the way, their MOS is closed out so after Stop loss is lifted they have 6 months to get out. I could give plenty of anectdotes of guys hung out to dry by stop loss. Stop loss is not extending your float or time on station, it is extending someones contract indefinitely after they complete it and it is painful to those it effects. I don't agree with these guys suing. But turning a cold eye to folks in this predicament and saying just suck it up, while sitting stateside, is pretty weak.

 

[VarmintShooter]

Seems to me that we are calling up the reserves and discharging the active duty.

Maybe we should plan better? Know that some of the ROTC folks I went to school with got their college paid for and then never served a day of active duty (not even one) because the Navy didn't need them. Do you think that perhaps we could have planned that better before we threw out 5 years of out-of-state tuition money for these folks?

So again, we call up the reserves, but involuntarily discharge the active duty ... WTF?

(oh, I realize that we probably aren't letting infantry officers out like this, but again, planning, planning, planning ... we've know this war was coming for a while now but are they bringing in a big new crop of army guys through college?)

 

[OCSCAND]

perhpas we shouldn't have decided to start a two front war and engage two enemies at once with depleted troop strength.

 

[Clux4]

Don't let Donald Rumesfeld hear you say we cannot fight wars on 2 fronts. That has always been Pentagons theory. To tell them otherwise is wrong.

 

[airpirate25]

Squeeze, if you want to trade personal insults, I'll give you my personal email address. My situation is at the heart of this whole argument. My release sent two ensigns with families on an extended deployment with less than three months on the boat. The loss of my sailors overtaxed newer, less experienced guys. When I asked if I could go over as an enlisted man, I was denied. I'm not "whining" like you so eloquently suggest, just pointing out a fact. The military is trading experienced folks for cheaper options, leaving those poor guys to figure it out on the run. On the macro level, this is hurting our effectiveness, lengthening a war that we should have been better prepared for, and leaving us wide open for another external threat.

 

[Godspeed]

As a future officer, and someone that has fully experienced family not being home for certain important events, I have my own thoughts about this issue.
I think that for the individuals unbound by contractual obligations and are being held against their will for extended periods of time (8-9 months<more), this is a slight wrongdoing. However, without researching the situation, I would HIGHLY doubt that these individuals are being held by the military for over a year against their will.
In my humble opinion, there is a sense of duty, pride, and patriotism that these "soldiers" are lacking to make them dishonor their military and country by suing, and make noise over a few extra months of SERVICE TO THEIR COUNTRY in the first place. Their military, needs them to help defend and protect their country, and their way of life (for only a few extra months).<-Something they wouldn't even have if others before them had not made sacrafices of equal, and infinitely greater magnitude.
As someone that tries to empathize with others before arguing with them, I can't say that I would be happy at all being placed in their situation with a wife and kids at home. NONETHELESS, I would endure a few extra months (without whining or suing)for my country.
I feel that a complete view of the issue would encompass many more facets than pay, quality of life, and contractual obligations; it would have a foundation of patriotism, sense of duty, appreciation of the liberties and freedoms this country provides for them, and a debt of service and gratitude to those that have sacraficed much more than a couple of months before them.

 

[Odom]

The guy leading the charge on the lawsuit was on AD for 9 years and fought in SWA. He got out and joined the national guard under a 1 year conditional enlistment, which was intended to give prior service recruits a chance to determine if they like the Guard and then sign a normal 4 year enlistment. If not they get out after 1 year. 7 months into his 1 year deal, his unit was activated and placed under 2 year (not 2 months) stop loss orders. Do I think he is right to sue? No, but I think he is getting screwed and understand him being pissed. How is a 2 year stop loss on him any different than a 2 year draft on joe bag of donuts? I guess I won't shift any opinions on this, but I would encourage you to write down your exact thought on this topic and then revisit them after 10 years of active duty time. After getting the big green weenie about a 1000 times, you may have a different perspective when opining on someone else's sense of duty and sacrifice. It means a lot more to talk about love of service and sacrifice at that point.

 

[FlyingDoc]

Who here has been screwed at some point by the military... beeee honest.

<Raises hand>

I read your post... and I see "He signed."

If the Army needs it, the Army needs it. He didn't need to sign up. Being prior active, he should have at least known the possibilities.

 

[Godspeed]

Screwed is a relative term.

 

[airpirate25]

Here's my parting shot; the fact that eight guys are suing the govt. over extensions of their duty contracts is evidence enough that we have problems in our force management plan as it exists. Should they win? I think that would cause widspread confusion within the service, and make things worse than they are. Should they be crucified as un-patriotic cowards? Absolutley not; they are over there and they did volunteer, they deserve some consideration from those who can make a difference. Why does it matter what we think? As officers, we lead these guys and are their first line of defense when they have resonable concerns. We can't change policy, and our duty often forces us to make choices that hurt our guys in one way or another. To be comfortable with that, or even glad to do it without considering all the facts is irresponsible and unwise if you want to earn their respect and trust.

 

[McNamara]

Yes, there are different levels of getting screwed. On the low end you have extended deployments (a few extra months at sea) and on the high end you have the stop loss policy (getting shot at and blown up for an indefinite period of time). No one that's experienced the former really has a right to whine about someone's "unpatriotic attitude" in the latter.

I don't think these guys will win their lawsuit, nor should they from a legal perspective, but I think it's good that they tried it. Why? There wasn't enough attention on this issue. They should lose their case, then the Army should think harder about fixing the problem.

Here's a thought, people. If a draft is the only way to get the infantry grunts we need, but the people of this country don't want a draft, maybe we should think a little harder before we go to war next time. This isn't WWII, but we'll be wishing for those extra troops if we need to go into another country.

 

[Godspeed]

Here's a thought, people. If a draft is the only way to get the infantry grunts we need, but the people of this country don't want a draft, maybe we should think a little harder before we go to war next time. This isn't WWII, but we'll be wishing for those extra troops if we need to go into another country.

I fully agree with this statement. However, I think that my "whining about someones unpatriotic attitude," as you so eloquently put it, is justified. You are making the assumption that the individuals suing are being shot at daily, which is NOT the case, especially for their billets. Im not trying to impune the danger level of their service, I am just trying to emphasize that these people aren't charging hamburger hill or anything.

 

[Odom]

Dude, by your posts you aren't even in the military, are going to supply, and yet you feel qualified to punk out combat vets who are deployed in an assymetric combat zone. If that makes sense to you, have a nut. Useless arguing.

Cheers