Thousands of GI's Retained

[Witling]

Washington Post 12/28/03

If you haven't been in the service, you can only try to imagine what a retention order feels like. This is a pretty extreme measure. But, note in the second paragraph that we've exceeded the army manpower limitations. Didn't our boy Saddam get in trouble for exceeding missle range limitations by a small margin? Some quotes from the article follow.

"Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of exceeding the limit by so much."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Washington Post 12/28/03

If you haven't been in the service, you can only try to imagine what a retention order feels like. This is a pretty extreme measure. But, note in the second paragraph that we've exceeded the army manpower limitations. Didn't our boy Saddam get in trouble for exceeding missle range limitations by a small margin? Some quotes from the article follow.

"Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of exceeding the limit by so much."

Same thing happened for the first gulf war.

 

[dahunan]

I guess these men and women didn't give enough of themselves to this country yet... now they have to go to the shooting gallery called Iraq.

So we have too many men/women on active duty YET we FORCE those who have served their time to risk their lives even more?? Kudos to ya King George.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whitling
Washington Post 12/28/03

If you haven't been in the service, you can only try to imagine what a retention order feels like. This is a pretty extreme measure. But, note in the second paragraph that we've exceeded the army manpower limitations. Didn't our boy Saddam get in trouble for exceeding missle range limitations by a small margin? Some quotes from the article follow.

"Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of exceeding the limit by so much."

Same thing happened for the first gulf war.

Its happen in more than just the Gulf. Whilting, thanks for making the arugument look like its in your favor. It just shows how much you care about the armed forces. Lets just let the ones who want to leave go home and let the rest put up a good fight all alone.

 

[Bowfinger]

Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

 

[Zebo]

I thought we had a volunteer force?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

all congress has to do increase strenght numbers and the army can recruit more.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Shyt happens. Get over it.

This is nothing new.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

all congress has to do increase strenght numbers and the army can recruit more.

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

all congress has to do increase strenght numbers and the army can recruit more.

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

My point is that is that to solve this problem, congress only has to increase the number than can be recruited. Increase the size of the army and the stop /oss program will likely stop.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

all congress has to do increase strenght numbers and the army can recruit more.

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

My point is that is that to solve this problem, congress only has to increase the number than can be recruited. Increase the size of the army and the stop /oss program will likely stop.

I don't know bows positiion seems kinda intuitive. Someone breaks a contractual obligation with you you're less willing to do business with them in addition to scareing away potential clients (recruits).

Now OTOH you're saying they will flock to the recriuters office if only for loosening/increasing the numerical values? Then why do they spend so much in advertising ~10K for each new recruit for what is basically unskilled HS labor?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

all congress has to do increase strenght numbers and the army can recruit more.

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

My point is that is that to solve this problem, congress only has to increase the number than can be recruited. Increase the size of the army and the stop /oss program will likely stop.

I don't know bows positiion seems kinda intuitive. Someone breaks a contractual obligation with you you're less willing to do business with them in addition to scareing away potential clients (recruits).

Now OTOH you're saying they will flock to the recriuters office if only for loosening/increasing the numerical values? Then why do they spend so much in advertising ~10K for each new recruit for what is basically unskilled HS labor?

Our volunteer army used to be twice the size before the end of the cold war. I see little reason why we could not recruit a few more divisions if needed.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

all congress has to do increase strenght numbers and the army can recruit more.

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

My point is that is that to solve this problem, congress only has to increase the number than can be recruited. Increase the size of the army and the stop /oss program will likely stop.

I don't know bows positiion seems kinda intuitive. Someone breaks a contractual obligation with you you're less willing to do business with them in addition to scareing away potential clients (recruits).

Now OTOH you're saying they will flock to the recriuters office if only for loosening/increasing the numerical values? Then why do they spend so much in advertising ~10K for each new recruit for what is basically unskilled HS labor?

Our volunteer army used to be twice the size before the end of the cold war. I see little reason why we could not recruit a few more divisions if needed.

Congress calls for larger military

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: charrison

Same thing happened for the first gulf war.

Yep. After we arrived back in Germany upon the conclusion of Desert Storm, stop-loss ceased. Within 10 days of redeployment, all the short-timers began outprocessing.

Additionally, 9/11 initiated stop-loss for some MOS's like SF.

By the way, the authorized strength at the end of the Cold War for active Army was 778,000.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

..and you know this how?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems like a no-win to me. They need these people now, but this will make it more difficult for them to get people to enlist ... or re-enlist.

all congress has to do increase strenght numbers and the army can recruit more.

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

My point is that is that to solve this problem, congress only has to increase the number than can be recruited. Increase the size of the army and the stop /oss program will likely stop.

I don't know bows positiion seems kinda intuitive. Someone breaks a contractual obligation with you you're less willing to do business with them in addition to scareing away potential clients (recruits).

Now OTOH you're saying they will flock to the recriuters office if only for loosening/increasing the numerical values? Then why do they spend so much in advertising ~10K for each new recruit for what is basically unskilled HS labor?

Our volunteer army used to be twice the size before the end of the cold war. I see little reason why we could not recruit a few more divisions if needed.

That would cost a tremendous amount of money and take several years at best. The Administration is also vehemently against the idea.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

..and you know this how?

It's called thinking. It's all the rage.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

My point is fewer people will be willing to enlist or re-enlist if they are not confident they'll be allowed to leave at the end of their tour. By holding these personnel, the military makes itself much less attractive to potential recruits. The Pentagon solves its immediate problem, but may face a bigger problem in years to come.

..and you know this how?

It's called thinking. It's all the rage.

...and you served in the military when?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
..and you know this how?

It's called thinking. It's all the rage.

...and you served in the military when?

One does not have to serve in the military in order to think. Indeed, I believe it's discouraged.



Since I have no interest in playing your games today, let me get to your point for you. You are going to assert that I have no basis for an opinion re. military recruiting since I've not served in the military. My response will be that your assertion is a specious distraction from the topic of this thread.

While I have no military recruiting experience, I have extensive general hiring experience. I know an employer's reputation affects its ability to attract and retain people. If any employer -- including Uncle Sam -- gets a reputation for treating employees poorly, for reneging on agreements, for refusing to allow employees to get on with their lives (once their tour is up, of course), that employer will tend to have more difficulty recruiting the best candidates.

Had you bothered to read my original comment, you would note that I am NOT attacking the Pentagon for this. I said it seems like a no-win ("seems" being an expression of opinion, BTW). I recognize they need these people today. I acknowledge they've done it before. I am concerned it will make it more difficult to get the people they need in the future.

If you have a basis for disagreeing with my opinion, let's hear it. Tell us what other factors are at play that will mitigate the effect of retention orders. Offer some useful content instead of launching yet another of your knee-jerk attacks. If you don't or can't or won't, then please go troll somewhere else. I'm sure someone choked on a French fry recently; perhaps you could start another Chirac-bashing thread.



(By the way, did you ever accept that Iraqis are human beings too?)

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Funny, I had a stop-loss keep me in during Bosnia (critical MOS), and I re-enlisted again (oh, the first time was after the stop-loss during Gulf War I). Moreover, there have been stop-losses in effect for years and years and years and years and people keep signing up. In fact, our military got so large that had to have a few RIF's (reduction-in-force)...what was your well-thought hypothesis again?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

perhaps you could start another Chirac-bashing thread.

...perhaps you could find more threads to apologize for his inactions that killed 3000% more people than the Americans that have died in the gulf this year. Oh, wait, I am just bashing them again?sorry.

 

[Witling]

BurnedOut. I know what MOS is, but when you use jargon like "MOS's like SF," it would be nice to have it explained. I don't know what "SF" is.

To JohnGalt. You say "Funny, I had a stop-loss keep me in during Bosnia (critical MOS), and I re-enlisted again (oh, the first time was after the stop-loss during Gulf War I). Moreover, there have been stop-losses in effect for years and years and years and years and people keep signing up. In fact, our military got so large that had to have a few RIF's (reduction-in-force)...what was your well-thought hypothesis again?" My well thought hypothesis was, there might be a few lifers like you (For those who aren't/haven't been in the military, "Lifers" are like flies, they eat sh!t and bother people." Sigh, that's a service joke. Many of the lifers are real human beings.) who re-upped after being held in involuntary servitude, but I paraphrase my original though, for those who didn't plan to re-up, retention is a horror story. If you like three-squares a day (meals), a place to flop, and somebody to tell you what cloths to wear, this is the life for you. Personally, it's the only job I ever had where they put you in jail if you were late for work. Another military example. You call in and say, "I'm sick today." The response is, "You come in, we'll tell you whether you're sick!" I had heard that Napoleon once said that the military is a system designed by geniouses to be run by idiots. I guess I'm not too surprised that I can't tack down that quote on the internet. But if Napoleon didn't say it, he should have. Did I mention that I didn't re-up after my initial service in Viet Nam? But, I'm not bitter.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Funny, I had a stop-loss keep me in during Bosnia (critical MOS), and I re-enlisted again (oh, the first time was after the stop-loss during Gulf War I). Moreover, there have been stop-losses in effect for years and years and years and years and people keep signing up. In fact, our military got so large that had to have a few RIF's (reduction-in-force)...what was your well-thought hypothesis again?

All right!!! Hey everybody, three cheers for Galt!!! He contributed on-topic content. Way to go, man, I'm proud of you. We knew you could do it. :beer:

Re. your comment, I'll point out that you offer an anecdotal sample set of one. I am making a more general observation. I did not say it would be impossible to recruit, just more difficult. Also note that I qualified my comment, saying we "will tend to have more difficulty recruiting the best candidates." Getting bodies is easy. There will always be some people willing to (re-)enlist. The hard part is getting enough good candidates. The better one's reputation, the easier this is.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
perhaps you could start another Chirac-bashing thread.

...perhaps you could find more threads to apologize for his inactions that killed 3000% more people than the Americans that have died in the gulf this year. Oh, wait, I am just bashing them again?sorry.

So, I guess the answer to my question is no, you have not accepted that Iraqis are people too. (You also have apparently never figured out the difference between a random act of nature and a willful act of man, but one must walk before one can run.) Rather racist of you, IMO, to dismiss all deaths except American deaths.

Except you don't limit your Chirac-bashing to American deaths. Hmmm. Wonder why that is.

Oh well, good to see some things haven't changed. Moving along . . .

 

[alchemize]

"One does not have to serve in the military in order to think. Indeed, I believe it's discouraged."

I know a few folks that might take offense to that. Thanks for the sig material, however