Thousands of Marines face involuntary recalls

[JEDI]

CNN

" The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war."

"Generally, Marines enlist for four years, then serve the other four years either in the regular Reserves, where they are paid and train periodically, or they may elect to go into the IRR. Marines in the IRR are only obligated to report one day a year but can be involuntarily recalled to active duty."

So a Marine signs up for 8 years. ok, so it aint that bad. They knew they could be recalled.

when i first read the title of the article, i thought Bush was recalling those already free and clear.

So after the 8 years, you're done right? no more another 4 years in the IRR?

 

[Strk]

Even though it's what they signed up for, it still sucks.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Strk
Even though it's what they signed up for, it still sucks.

What many of these people signed for are 3-4 years of definite duty and 2-3 of reserve, where they were more or less promised on-based assignments with the off chance of going overseas.

However, I have two friends that have now been deployed for 5.5 years, with few breaks. They got done with their 4 and then were sent for another full year and a half over to Iraq. For what? So they can be away from their families in a war that has been poorly run from the start?

This country has betrayed it's soldiers by allowing a moron to get us into a war and continue a war without plans to withdraw. By just saying "Meh, it's what they signed up for", you are writing a blank check of non-accountability.

 

[brandonbull]

Marines must be different. I served in the Navy. Did 5 years active and had 3 years of inactive. None of this reporting once a year crap. You could elect to do reserve training during your inactive period but wasn't required.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Strk
Even though it's what they signed up for, it still sucks.

What many of these people signed for are 3-4 years of definite duty and 2-3 of reserve, where they were more or less promised on-based assignments with the off chance of going overseas.

However, I have two friends that have now been deployed for 5.5 years, with few breaks. They got done with their 4 and then were sent for another full year and a half over to Iraq. For what? So they can be away from their families in a war that has been poorly run from the start?

This country has betrayed it's soldiers by allowing a moron to get us into a war and continue a war without plans to withdraw. By just saying "Meh, it's what they signed up for", you are writing a blank check of non-accountability.

Your entire post is flamebait and completely irrelevant to the thread.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The draft must have made a real difference. At one point, we had a half million troops in Viet Nam, with a larger presence in Japan, Korea, and Germany, and even places where we aren't now, like The Phillipines. And yet, only rarely, for a few critical MOSs and ratings, were small numbers of people called from inactive reserve. Now, we can't sustain the deployment of fewer than 170 thousand in Afganistan and Iraq without resorting to this on a wholesale level.

This must make it pretty obvious that we are not prepared to fight anywhere else at this point. Must be good news to N.Korea, China, and Iran.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Your entire post is flamebait and completely irrelevant to the thread.

No, yours is the one that's irrelevant. Telling the truth is okay at AT.😉

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The draft must have made a real difference. At one point, we had a half million troops in Viet Nam, with a larger presence in Japan, Korea, and Germany, and even places where we aren't now, like The Phillipines. And yet, only rarely, for a few critical MOSs and ratings, were small numbers of people called from inactive reserve. Now, we can't sustain the deployment of fewer than 170 thousand in Afganistan and Iraq without resorting to this on a wholesale level.

This must make it pretty obvious that we are not prepared to fight anywhere else at this point. Must be good news to N.Korea, China, and Iran.

You can't just deploy all the troops you have. I'm sure there are plenty of troops (100,000-200,000 ?) that aren't deployed in any "hot zone" and are merely a sort of reserve to be able to deploy in an emergancy.

But anyway, with the end of the Cold War everything's got smaller, so no, we don't have anywhere near the amount of troops we had in Vietnamn.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

You can't just deploy all the troops you have. I'm sure there are plenty of troops (100,000-200,000 ?) that aren't deployed in any "hot zone" and are merely a sort of reserve to be able to deploy in an emergancy.

But anyway, with the end of the Cold War everything's got smaller, so no, we don't have anywhere near the amount of troops we had in Vietnamn.

True, just don't have enough to win any war but what the hey everybody loves it.

 

[1prophet]

The truth about enlistment contracts


Contracts


All of the services use the same enlistment contract -- Department of Defense Form 4/1. This is the contract that is used for military enlistments and re-enlistments. Of all the paperwork you signed during the process to join the military, this is the most important document.

If you enlist on active duty, you'll actually sign two enlistment contracts. The first one places you in the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP). The DEP is actually the INACTIVE RESERVES (inactive reserve members do not perform weekend drills, such as active members of the Reserves, nor do they receive any pay -- however, technically, they can be called to active duty in times of emergency: Note: There has NEVER been a case where a member in the DEP has been involuntarily called to active duty). When your time in the DEP is up, and it's time to go onto active duty and ship out to basic training, you are discharged from the inactive reserves and sign a new enlistment contract to enlist on active duty. See Part 3 of this series for more information about the DEP.

Promises. I don't care what your recruiter promised you, if it's not in the enlistment contract, or in an annex to the contract, it's not a promise. Also, it doesn't much matter what is in the DEP enlistment contract -- if it isn't in your active duty enlistment contract, it's not a promise. If you were promised an enlistment bonus, for example, it needs to be in the final active duty contract, or chances are you'll never see that bonus. Once you get out of basic training and job training and go to the personnel office at your first base, they're not going to give one hoot about what anyone "promised" you -- they're only going to care about what is in the enlistment contract.

In fact, the bottom of the very first page of the enlistment contract contains the following clause:

The agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to me by the Government. ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS PROMISED ME IS NOT VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED.

Let me clarify a couple of points: First of all, incentives and entitlements which are available to everyone won't be, and doesn't need to be in the contract. This is because military members are already entitled to it by law. For example, medical care, base pay, and the Montgomery G.I. Bill won't be specified in the contract, because these benefits are available to everyone who enlists in the military.

Second, those enlisting on active duty will have at least two enlistment contracts -- the initial contract for the Delayed Enlistment Program, and a final contract that one will sign on the day they go to MEPS to ship out to basic training. The contract that COUNTS is the final contract. It doesn't matter if your enlistment bonus, advanced rank, college loan repayment program, college fund, etc., are not included in the first contract. However, you need to make sure all of your desired incentives are included in the final active duty contract (if your enlistment program/job choice entitles you to those incentives).

Enlistment Periods. Thought you were enlisting for four years? Think again. It may surprise you to learn that ALL non-prior service enlistments in the United States Military incurs a total eight year service obligation. Yep. When you sign that enlistment contract, you are obligating yourself to the military for a total of eight years. Whatever time is not spent on active duty, or in the active Guard/Reserves (if you enlisted in the Guard/Reserves) must be spent in the inactive reserves.

Paragraph 10a of the enlistment contract states:

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

This means two things: Let's say you enlist in the Navy for four years. You serve your four years and get out. You're really not "out." You're transfered to the INACTIVE Reserves (called the "IRR" or "Individual Ready Reserve") for the next four years, and the Navy can call you back to active duty at anytime, or even involuntarily assign you to an active (drilling) Reserve unit during that period, if they need you due to personnel shortages, war, or conflicts (such as Iraq). This total 8 year service commitment applies whether you enlist on active duty, or join the Reserves or National Guard

 

[Craig234]

" Even though it's what they signed up for, it still sucks. "

Not as bad for the people who get killed by the troops.

We have got to find a way to make war harder, where you can't just send kids who are seduced by the money and/or vague patriotism turn over their moral responsibility about who to kill to a government who is pressured to use the military for largely purposes of economic and power gains to kill the poor suckers who are in the way resisting.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Strk
Even though it's what they signed up for, it still sucks.

What many of these people signed for are 3-4 years of definite duty and 2-3 of reserve, where they were more or less promised on-based assignments with the off chance of going overseas.

However, I have two friends that have now been deployed for 5.5 years, with few breaks. They got done with their 4 and then were sent for another full year and a half over to Iraq. For what? So they can be away from their families in a war that has been poorly run from the start?

This country has betrayed it's soldiers by allowing a moron to get us into a war and continue a war without plans to withdraw. By just saying "Meh, it's what they signed up for", you are writing a blank check of non-accountability.

Your entire post is flamebait and completely irrelevant to the thread.

Hopefully your name is true.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Craig234
" Even though it's what they signed up for, it still sucks. "

Not as bad for the people who get killed by the troops.

We have got to find a way to make war harder, where you can't just send kids who are seduced by the money and/or vague patriotism turn over their moral responsibility about who to kill to a government who is pressured to use the military for largely purposes of economic and power gains to kill the poor suckers who are in the way resisting.

Actually, I consider it Darwin's theory at work with the kids that go there...

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Actually, I consider it Darwin's theory at work with the kids that go there...

Yeah, because all of them are morons and should die for the betterment of society. Great theory sparky. Better men than you or I have died for this country and you belittle them. You are a real tribute to your superiors and a great indication they died for the right cause.

 

[episodic]

So lets say a soldier hits the 8 years. Do they get to go home as promised then?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: episodic
So lets say a soldier hits the 8 years. Do they get to go home as promised then?

Sometimes even eight years might not be enough to get you out

For the second time in two days, a federal appeals court declined to halt an Oregon National Guardsman from being deployed to Afghanistan on Friday. Emiliano Santiago, 27, an electronics technician and a helicopter refueler now living in Pasco, Wash., is fighting his deployment because his 8-year service agreement expired last year. His lawyers told the court Santiago is the victim of a ?backdoor draft.? On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Seattle, declined to halt his looming departure. On Thursday, the court declined to rehear the case with 11 judges.

No U.S. federal appeals court has sided with similarly situated military personnel fighting their deployments. The courts have generally upheld the so-called ?stop loss? law that authorizes President Bush to suspend service agreements of many armed forces personnel for national security reasons. Thousands of soldiers have been redeployed under stop loss orders.
In court briefs, the government told the appeals court Thursday that ?soldiers are essential to the national security, and their service in the face of hardship is a crucial source of the strength of our nation.?

Santiago?s attorneys said he would likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Santiago, now of Pasco, Wash., joined the National Guard at 18, as a junior in high school and served in a unit that refuels helicopters. Less than three weeks before his enlistment was to expire last June, he was told that it was being prolonged by stop-loss. After the one-year deployment order to Afghanistan was issued in October, Santiago was told that his enlistment had been extended for 27 years, to 2031.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: episodic
So lets say a soldier hits the 8 years. Do they get to go home as promised then?

Sometimes even eight years might not be enough to get you out

For the second time in two days, a federal appeals court declined to halt an Oregon National Guardsman from being deployed to Afghanistan on Friday. Emiliano Santiago, 27, an electronics technician and a helicopter refueler now living in Pasco, Wash., is fighting his deployment because his 8-year service agreement expired last year. His lawyers told the court Santiago is the victim of a ?backdoor draft.? On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Seattle, declined to halt his looming departure. On Thursday, the court declined to rehear the case with 11 judges.

No U.S. federal appeals court has sided with similarly situated military personnel fighting their deployments. The courts have generally upheld the so-called ?stop loss? law that authorizes President Bush to suspend service agreements of many armed forces personnel for national security reasons. Thousands of soldiers have been redeployed under stop loss orders.
In court briefs, the government told the appeals court Thursday that ?soldiers are essential to the national security, and their service in the face of hardship is a crucial source of the strength of our nation.?

Santiago?s attorneys said he would likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Santiago, now of Pasco, Wash., joined the National Guard at 18, as a junior in high school and served in a unit that refuels helicopters. Less than three weeks before his enlistment was to expire last June, he was told that it was being prolonged by stop-loss. After the one-year deployment order to Afghanistan was issued in October, Santiago was told that his enlistment had been extended for 27 years, to 2031.

so what do you all say about this indefinate enlistment? 8 is 8 - how can they legally keep you for more?

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Extelleron

You can't just deploy all the troops you have. I'm sure there are plenty of troops (100,000-200,000 ?) that aren't deployed in any "hot zone" and are merely a sort of reserve to be able to deploy in an emergancy.

But anyway, with the end of the Cold War everything's got smaller, so no, we don't have anywhere near the amount of troops we had in Vietnamn.

True, just don't have enough to win any war but what the hey everybody loves it.

wow there is a stupid, uneducated unjustified comment...

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Craig234
" Even though it's what they signed up for, it still sucks. "

Not as bad for the people who get killed by the troops.

We have got to find a way to make war harder, where you can't just send kids who are seduced by the money and/or vague patriotism turn over their moral responsibility about who to kill to a government who is pressured to use the military for largely purposes of economic and power gains to kill the poor suckers who are in the way resisting.

sorry bud, thats not why Im in the Army... and im not a kid either....

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: episodic
So lets say a soldier hits the 8 years. Do they get to go home as promised then?

Sometimes even eight years might not be enough to get you out

For the second time in two days, a federal appeals court declined to halt an Oregon National Guardsman from being deployed to Afghanistan on Friday. Emiliano Santiago, 27, an electronics technician and a helicopter refueler now living in Pasco, Wash., is fighting his deployment because his 8-year service agreement expired last year. His lawyers told the court Santiago is the victim of a ?backdoor draft.? On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Seattle, declined to halt his looming departure. On Thursday, the court declined to rehear the case with 11 judges.

No U.S. federal appeals court has sided with similarly situated military personnel fighting their deployments. The courts have generally upheld the so-called ?stop loss? law that authorizes President Bush to suspend service agreements of many armed forces personnel for national security reasons. Thousands of soldiers have been redeployed under stop loss orders.
In court briefs, the government told the appeals court Thursday that ?soldiers are essential to the national security, and their service in the face of hardship is a crucial source of the strength of our nation.?

Santiago?s attorneys said he would likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Santiago, now of Pasco, Wash., joined the National Guard at 18, as a junior in high school and served in a unit that refuels helicopters. Less than three weeks before his enlistment was to expire last June, he was told that it was being prolonged by stop-loss. After the one-year deployment order to Afghanistan was issued in October, Santiago was told that his enlistment had been extended for 27 years, to 2031.

so what do you all say about this indefinate enlistment? 8 is 8 - how can they legally keep you for more?

Stop Loss is used to keep trained soliders from being transferred out due contract limits, forcing new green unexperienced soldiers to take thier place....

When a comabt unit trains day in and day out, that squad or platoon gets keen to training with each other, working with each others strenghts and weeknesses, making them a more cohesive and effective unit. You learn to know what everyone within your unit can do, cant do, and makes you more able to perform mission duties, faster, and more efficently, when you pull out 25% of these ,and replace them with green troops who havent trained with the unit, it makes things even more difficult in an already difficult job and difficult mission.

usually stop lost in instituted at the date of an offical deployment order.... this is to keep people from jumping ship, transfering units, etc, to get out of a deployment. At least in the Guard that is. But, there is alwasy a way bigger heads up of deployment, sometimes a year, so those will know its coming without it in writing yet.

But for someone whos time is up, or even there time is up within the next year (during the deployment) doesnt have to go. I cant speak for this soldiers case in oregon, but it sounds like someone buddyfvcked him. Most commaders would stick up for a soldier in this case and get word up to higher levels at BN or BDE to get him off the list, I have seen this happen before. Sounds like i nthis case his commader didnt do anything for him.

im not defending the policy of stop loss, it sucks, but, i do understand the reasoning behind it.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: episodic
So lets say a soldier hits the 8 years. Do they get to go home as promised then?

Sometimes even eight years might not be enough to get you out

For the second time in two days, a federal appeals court declined to halt an Oregon National Guardsman from being deployed to Afghanistan on Friday. Emiliano Santiago, 27, an electronics technician and a helicopter refueler now living in Pasco, Wash., is fighting his deployment because his 8-year service agreement expired last year. His lawyers told the court Santiago is the victim of a ?backdoor draft.? On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Seattle, declined to halt his looming departure. On Thursday, the court declined to rehear the case with 11 judges.

No U.S. federal appeals court has sided with similarly situated military personnel fighting their deployments. The courts have generally upheld the so-called ?stop loss? law that authorizes President Bush to suspend service agreements of many armed forces personnel for national security reasons. Thousands of soldiers have been redeployed under stop loss orders.
In court briefs, the government told the appeals court Thursday that ?soldiers are essential to the national security, and their service in the face of hardship is a crucial source of the strength of our nation.?

Santiago?s attorneys said he would likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Santiago, now of Pasco, Wash., joined the National Guard at 18, as a junior in high school and served in a unit that refuels helicopters. Less than three weeks before his enlistment was to expire last June, he was told that it was being prolonged by stop-loss. After the one-year deployment order to Afghanistan was issued in October, Santiago was told that his enlistment had been extended for 27 years, to 2031.

so what do you all say about this indefinate enlistment? 8 is 8 - how can they legally keep you for more?

it even states in the enlistment contract that you can been held, extended, or keep on duty per Army needs.... not in those exact words, but idont fee llike diggin my enlistment out of the filing cabinet.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: episodic
So lets say a soldier hits the 8 years. Do they get to go home as promised then?

Sometimes even eight years might not be enough to get you out

For the second time in two days, a federal appeals court declined to halt an Oregon National Guardsman from being deployed to Afghanistan on Friday. Emiliano Santiago, 27, an electronics technician and a helicopter refueler now living in Pasco, Wash., is fighting his deployment because his 8-year service agreement expired last year. His lawyers told the court Santiago is the victim of a ?backdoor draft.? On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Seattle, declined to halt his looming departure. On Thursday, the court declined to rehear the case with 11 judges.

No U.S. federal appeals court has sided with similarly situated military personnel fighting their deployments. The courts have generally upheld the so-called ?stop loss? law that authorizes President Bush to suspend service agreements of many armed forces personnel for national security reasons. Thousands of soldiers have been redeployed under stop loss orders.
In court briefs, the government told the appeals court Thursday that ?soldiers are essential to the national security, and their service in the face of hardship is a crucial source of the strength of our nation.?

Santiago?s attorneys said he would likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Santiago, now of Pasco, Wash., joined the National Guard at 18, as a junior in high school and served in a unit that refuels helicopters. Less than three weeks before his enlistment was to expire last June, he was told that it was being prolonged by stop-loss. After the one-year deployment order to Afghanistan was issued in October, Santiago was told that his enlistment had been extended for 27 years, to 2031.

so what do you all say about this indefinate enlistment? 8 is 8 - how can they legally keep you for more?

it even states in the enlistment contract that you can been held, extended, or keep on duty per Army needs.... not in those exact words, but idont fee llike diggin my enlistment out of the filing cabinet.

You are correct the military can change the contract without consent of the enlisted, but if they abuse that right it will severely impact their recruiting for future members.

More on Stop Loss

9. FOR ALL ENLISTEES OR REENLISTEES:
Many laws, regulations, and military customs will govern my conduct and require me to do things a civilian does not have to do. The following statements are not promises or guarantees of any kind. They explain some of the present laws affecting the Armed Forces which I cannot change but which Congress can change at any time.
a. My enlistment is more than an employment agreement. As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I will be:
(1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties.
(2) Subject to separation during or at the end of my enlistment. If my behavior fails to meet acceptable military standards, I may be discharged and given a certificate for less than honorable service, which may hurt my future job opportunities and my claim for veteran's benefits.
(3) Subject to the military justice system, which means, among other things, that I may be tried by military courts-martial.
(4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.
(5) Entitled to receive pay, allowances, and other benefits as provided by law and regulation.
b. Laws and regulataions that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document.
c. In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.

10. MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATION FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.
a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.
b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.
c. As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I may be required to serve on active duty (other than for training) for the entire period of the war or emergency and for six (6) months after its end.
d. As a member of the Ready Reserve I may be required to perform active duty or active duty for training without my consent (other than as provided in item 8 of this document) as follows:
(1) in time of national emergency declared by the President of the United States, I may be ordered to active duty (other than for training) for not more than 24 consecutive months.
(2) I may be ordered to active duty for 24 months, and my enlistment may be extended so I can complete 24 months of active duty, if:
(a) I am not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily in, a unit of the Ready Reserve; and
(b) I have not met my Reserve obligation; and
(c) I have not served on active duty for a total of 24 months.
(3) I may be ordered to perform additional active duty training for not more than 45 days if I have not fulfilled my military service obligation and fail in any year to perform the required training duty satisfactorily. If the failure occurs during the last year of my required membership in the Ready Reserve, my enlistment may be extended until I perform that additional duty, but not for more than six months.
(4) When determined by the President that it isnecessary to support any operational mission, I may be ordered to active duty as prescribed by law, if I am a member of the Selected Reserve.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: episodic
So lets say a soldier hits the 8 years. Do they get to go home as promised then?

Sometimes even eight years might not be enough to get you out

For the second time in two days, a federal appeals court declined to halt an Oregon National Guardsman from being deployed to Afghanistan on Friday. Emiliano Santiago, 27, an electronics technician and a helicopter refueler now living in Pasco, Wash., is fighting his deployment because his 8-year service agreement expired last year. His lawyers told the court Santiago is the victim of a ?backdoor draft.? On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Seattle, declined to halt his looming departure. On Thursday, the court declined to rehear the case with 11 judges.

No U.S. federal appeals court has sided with similarly situated military personnel fighting their deployments. The courts have generally upheld the so-called ?stop loss? law that authorizes President Bush to suspend service agreements of many armed forces personnel for national security reasons. Thousands of soldiers have been redeployed under stop loss orders.
In court briefs, the government told the appeals court Thursday that ?soldiers are essential to the national security, and their service in the face of hardship is a crucial source of the strength of our nation.?

Santiago?s attorneys said he would likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Santiago, now of Pasco, Wash., joined the National Guard at 18, as a junior in high school and served in a unit that refuels helicopters. Less than three weeks before his enlistment was to expire last June, he was told that it was being prolonged by stop-loss. After the one-year deployment order to Afghanistan was issued in October, Santiago was told that his enlistment had been extended for 27 years, to 2031.

so what do you all say about this indefinate enlistment? 8 is 8 - how can they legally keep you for more?

it even states in the enlistment contract that you can been held, extended, or keep on duty per Army needs.... not in those exact words, but idont fee llike diggin my enlistment out of the filing cabinet.

True. To quote a comment from the news story

"Anyone who enlists should expect that they will be ?stop-lossed? at least once during their career (for me it?s been 3 or 4 times). It?s right there in the contract?the needs of the service trump your needs, desires, and everything else about you, every time. If you can?t handle that, don?t sign on the dotted line. How difficult is that to understand? Yet here we have an individual who thinks HE can decide when he?s done.

After 19 years of service I have lost all patience with people like that. I tell them, ?You knew what you were getting into,? and if they claim they didn?t, I say ?Then you should have.? We?re not running a damn Cub Scout camp here. If you want to claim you are a responsible adult, you have to take responsibility for your own actions and where you sign your name. "

 

[episodic]

9. FOR ALL ENLISTEES OR REENLISTEES:
Many laws, regulations, and military customs will govern my conduct and require me to do things a civilian does not have to do. The following statements are not promises or guarantees of any kind. They explain some of the present laws affecting the Armed Forces which I cannot change but which Congress can change at any time.
a. My enlistment is more than an employment agreement. As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I will be:
(1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties.
(2) Subject to separation during or at the end of my enlistment. If my behavior fails to meet acceptable military standards, I may be discharged and given a certificate for less than honorable service, which may hurt my future job opportunities and my claim for veteran's benefits.
(3) Subject to the military justice system, which means, among other things, that I may be tried by military courts-martial.
(4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.
(5) Entitled to receive pay, allowances, and other benefits as provided by law and regulation.
b. Laws and regulataions that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document.
c. In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.

What war? We are not at war. Congress never declared war. This is a 'conflict'. Doesn't a declaration of war have to happen? Of course I realize this may be semantics - but isn't war. . . war?

 

[trenchfoot]

What war? We are not at war. Congress never declared war. This is a 'conflict'. Doesn't a declaration of war have to happen? Of course I realize this may be semantics - but isn't war. . . war?

it's the rovian version of "war" that is in play at the moment. it's the open-ended version of "war" that can be anything the bush administration wants it to be. presently, it's the worn out/drawn out "war on terror", see? that makes it a war because rove/bush/cheney/wolfowitz and rummy says so.

we all know the actual war with iraq was over the moment bush landed on the Abe (CVN-72) and the "mission accomplished" banner was unfurled. so we've been involved in fighting an insurgency since then, but for bush to hang on to his cherished war powers and keep us mentally on a war footing he has to stick with that rovian illusion.

imho, the neocons know that loosely speaking, we americans prefer to have republicans run our wars and they want to keep us neck deep in it indefinetly to stay in power as long as the people can bear it. our troops are grievously suffering from this notion but hey, as far as the neocons are concerned, it's a small price to pay to hang on to the controls, whilst the corporations are feasting on our treasury collecting war profits and forcing us taxpayers deeper and deeper into debt. these corporations who practice this form of government welfare make the poor and destitute who feed at the government trough look pitifully insignificant.

to those troops in the ME, i, (being formerly one of them who got stop-lossed twice) wish that you come home as quickly as possible and rejoin your families and loved ones unharmed, in good spirits and in good health.

to those bureaucrats that want to keep our troops dying there indefinetly, you can take a ferocious flying fart over a flaming rolling donut for all i care. 'nuff said.

edit-spl