Bush Administration screwing soldiers AGAIN!!!!!

[Bowmaster]

Army Issues Order to Stop U.S. Soldiers from Leaving

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has issued an order preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires, officials said on Wednesday.
The move to extend the service of some soldiers involuntarily was the latest sign of increasing stress on the Army as the Pentagon strives to maintain adequate troop levels in the two conflicts.

Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief, denied that the move was a sign of desperation for the Army, although he did acknowledge that the Army was "stretched."

The Army issued so-called "stop loss" and "stop movement" orders for soldiers in all units that will deploy outside the United States to take part in future missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army has previously issued such orders covering some troops in the two conflicts, but not as broadly as the latest move. Since the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, some 45,000 soldiers have been affected by similar orders, Hagenbeck said.

The "stop loss" order means that soldiers who otherwise could leave the service when their volunteer commitments expire, starting 90 days before being sent, will be compelled to remain to the end of their overseas deployment and up to another 90 days after they come home.

A "stop movement" order blocks soldiers from shifting to new assignments during the restricted period.

Army spokesmen were unable to give a figure for how many soldiers would be affected by the orders beyond saying it will be in the thousands.




Once again - The Bush "Listen to what we say, not what we do" Administration screws over the troops. Keep it up, boys, and you are REALLY going to have a coup!!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So is there anyone in the US military command structure willing to tell the Bush administration that we need help?!

 

[LunarRay]

I'm of two minds on this issue.
The one side considers the fact that we ARE engaged in hostile activity and if we permit folks to leave it can reduce the effectiveness of the remaining and replacement forces and cause additional casualty among our troops.
The other side considers the expectations of the troops. I know it is part of the expectation to be kept beyond the agreed upon term in a crisis situation - as is the funding for their health care and other benefits when they do return - but, moral can lower to the point where effectiveness is jeopardized when this 'hold' is invoked.
I guess at the end of the day what should occur is what would be in the best interest of the forces in general and not the individual. Some where there is equilibrium and we should stay well above that regardless of the 'expectation'.

 

[Rogue]

What you're all failing to realize is that this type of "stop loss" and "stop move" have been in effect for many units for a long time, dating clear back to shortly after 9/11. It sucks and it angers a few, but it's practically necessary with our current missions across the globe.

 

[SuperTool]

That's what happens when you overstretch the military with unnecessary nationbuilding wars.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So is there anyone in the US military command structure willing to tell the Bush administration that we need help?!

Hehehehe,
Pride is the one constant among the Command Structure... "We can do anything"... Well, maybe they mean THE TROOPS can. Their pride flows downward... "We don't need any help... least of all from the 'Frogs'."

Goliath felt sure he could force his will upon his lessors. He did make a louder 'thud', I suppose.

 

[Genesys]

this isnt new news to me. a buddy of mine already told me about it. hes supposed to get out in october, but since he'll already be deployed then, he gets out whenever his mission is accomplished.

i dont really see how this is screwing our soldiers, it makes very little logistical sense to pull a few soldiers out of a combat zone to give them their discharge. it would cost too much to retrieve only the few, plus what about the morale of the whole unit as they see some of their friends go home, but not them? not only that, but as mentioned before, our army is streached kind of thin and we need to keep all the troops we can.

 

[Superself]

These types of orders are typical and pretty much standard during times of combat.
It is not a surprise and (from my experience) it doesn't lower moral.

 

[fwtong]

What's the problem? They're fighting for the noble cause of Bush's reelction and should be demanding more chances to kill Iraqis. I'm surprised that more people haven't enlisted for such a noble cause. The cause is so noble, I can't see why there's a troop shortage. Aren't Bush's speeches so eloquent and passionate that thousands, if not millions, of people are driven to enlist for the sole purpose of the noble cause of Bush's re-election?

:beer:

 

[SilentZero]

Yeah these have been pretty routine siince 2001. I was almost caught in one. My wifes MOS has been under stop-loss since last year, so this new development doesn't come as a surprise to me. As far as moral goes, it kills it. Most people I know who are affected my stop-loss in the Army hate it, and hate the "higher-ups" for imposing it. Stop-moves can be equally upsetting to those in combat areas, or for those who just rotated out of a combat area and get sent right back cause they can't move from their unit.