# Soldiers Challenge Enlistment Extensions



## raedyn (Dec 6, 2004)

> WASHINGTON Dec 6, 2004  Eight soldiers are challenging the Army's policy requiring them to serve longer than the terms of their enlistment contracts.
> 
> In a lawsuit being filed Monday in federal court, the soldiers are seeking a judge's order requiring the Army to immediately release them from service.
> 
> ...


 _AP_ story found here.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 6, 2004)

Perhaps this is why people should consult a lawyer before signing a contract.

What do they think this? Summer camp?


----------



## Bester (Dec 6, 2004)

Maybe rather than using our National Guard like this, they should use regular troops?
If they do not have enough, maybe they should have taken that into consideration prior to starting wars on a half dozen fronts?


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 6, 2004)

I'd love to know how having doezens of disgruntled workers who have had their tours extended mandatorily by a year would help unit cohesion. Seems to me you would have a lot of pissed off people and that would be a killer to morale which can hurt well a group works together more than having a new guy.

I say more power to these soldiers, let them sue and I hope they get what they want. They've done their time and they want to get back to their families. I can't blame them. I don't know what the contract they have signed specifically states, but if their is nothing abou the "stop-loss" in their, then they should be released.


----------



## Adept (Dec 6, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is why people should consult a lawyer before signing a contract.
> 
> What do they think this? Summer camp?


 I'm finding myself agreeing with this. Those soldiers that have a legitimate complaint, well more power to them. But those who are only just realising they should have mayeb read that whole contract through before signing, tough bickies.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 6, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> I'm finding myself agreeing with this. Those soldiers that have a legitimate complaint, well more power to them. But those who are only just realising they should have mayeb read that whole contract through before signing, tough bickies.



And I agree with your agreement 

But, as we'll soon be told, the Armed Forces are just a place to send the poor, uneducated minorities off to die for the white man's war. So of course, they couldn't afford a lawyer even if they knew to go and consult with one. And if they could, they'd a been told everything was OK.

 :uhyeah:


----------



## OULobo (Dec 6, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is why people should consult a lawyer before signing a contract.
> 
> What do they think this? Summer camp?




If I remember correctly, the problem was that the contracts that were signed gave no mention to the "stop loss" policy or the governments ability to use it, and the signers were never informed until after signing of it's exsistance.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 6, 2004)

The article mentioned that this policy was enacted in 1991 as well. I'm not sure how long it has been around, but it seems to be quite a while and in all these years there have been thousands who have enlisted. I'm sure it is not the first thing a recruiter will mention but I think the responsibility still falls on the individual when signing a contract.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 6, 2004)

I'll agree with Mike on this one.  The needs of the service have always taken precedent.  You can get extended any time for any amount of time depending upon what Uncle Sugar needs.  I knew it when I was on active duty, I knew it in the Reserves.

But the point was made that this is going to ruin morale in the Reserves and National Guard.  It will, and it is.  I've met men who are getting out...one guy had twelve years in...because they can't support their families on sergeant's pay.  Their families need them home and working a decent job.

One local unit got back from Iraq (or Afghanistan, I can't recall) and suffered a 50% drop in manpower from people getting out.  This is unprecedented.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Dec 6, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'll agree with Mike on this one. The needs of the service have always taken precedent. You can get extended any time for any amount of time depending upon what Uncle Sugar needs. I knew it when I was on active duty, I knew it in the Reserves.
> 
> But the point was made that this is going to ruin morale in the Reserves and National Guard. It will, and it is. I've met men who are getting out...one guy had twelve years in...because they can't support their families on sergeant's pay. Their families need them home and working a decent job.
> 
> ...


Agreed.



			
				Ping898 said:
			
		

> I'd love to know how having doezens of disgruntled workers who have had their tours extended mandatorily by a year would help unit cohesion.


To dovetail with that previous post..they arent "workers" they're soldiers. They are different.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> To dovetail with that previous post..they arent "workers" they're soldiers. They are different.


They are soldiers, but they are also workers.  People who are doing a job the best they can to support their family and defend their country.  And yes their job is a lot more dangerous than mine probably will ever be and they can't just quit if theydon't like their current work assignment, but in the end, they get a paycheck for what they do same as any cop or engineer or janitor.  They have families who miss them, that they can't afford to support on their pay half the time.  I see nothing wrong with if their contract is up and says nothing about the stop-loss, anyone of them suing to get out.  I don't think it will work, but I wish it would.  It's a heck of a way to say thanks to someone for a job well done by forcing them to do it for 12 t 18 more months than they signed up to.  If the contract mentions the stop-loss than yeah it is their job and duty to continue working.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 6, 2004)

Anybody ever figured out the negative effect on the economy by removing so much manpower for so long?

When an employer hires a National Guardsman, he knows that the individual will need some weekends and a couple of weeks a year, in addition to regular vacation time. The employer also knows that the worker can be called away to assist in emergencies. But having workers taken away from their jobs for that amount of time is insane. 


Also, individuals serving in the Guards have a lifestyle comensurate with their civilian income. They just cannot maintain it under the military pay. It is grossly unfaur to ask them to do so for that long.

I hope they win the lawsuit.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 7, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the problem was that the contracts that were signed gave no mention to the "stop loss" policy or the governments ability to use it, and the signers were never informed until after signing of it's exsistance.


In the contracts there is always a line or statement to the effect that in any circumstance the need of the government will come first. That would include things like stop loss, contract extentions, changing orders, job training, work hours....That is why it is so significant that you swear an oath and aren't just 'hired' into the service....and that term "service" is significant too now that I think about it.

It is a bitter, hard and demanding thing they do. I can understand the frustration. I am more than sure that there were gripes, complaints, criticisms during WWI, WWII, Korea...Vietnam (obviously) and even Desert Storm. War tests the breaking point. These people have found thiers.

My hope is that they aren't doing a 'work stoppage/protest' action while in country though. It is one thing to sue/petition your case in a legal sense. It is a whole 'nother thing to quit doing your duty and making others pick up the slack because you don't feel like playing anymore. If they are doing some form of mission sabotage/non-team player reindeer gaming and that contributes to a fellow soldier's death that is a heavy thing to live with over time.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 7, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> My hope is that they aren't doing a 'work stoppage/protest' action while in country though. It is one thing to sue/petition your case in a legal sense. It is a whole 'nother thing to quit doing your duty and making others pick up the slack because you don't feel like playing anymore. If they are doing some form of mission sabotage/non-team player reindeer gaming and that contributes to a fellow soldier's death that is a heavy thing to live with over time.


They aren't.  All but 1 are listed as John Doe cause they are still deployed or about to be and don't want reprucutions cause of the lawsuit and the 1 who is on leave says he'll be on a plane and be back to work if he doesn't get an injunction in the next 3 days.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 7, 2004)

The "Try One" plaintiffs are taking an interesting bent.  They are not disputing that the Army enlistment contract provides indefinite stop-loss extension in times of war or emergency; they are, however, pointing out that the Army used the "Try One" promotion to lure former Reservists to sign up for a year of Guard duty, then when they chose not to re-up at the end of their "Try One" period, that only then did the Army invoke the stop-loss clause. 

While I think their chances of prevailing in court are dubious (and I think anyone who didn't see through this particular recruiting tactic during a time of war probably needs to have their head examined) I do find this sort of recruiting tactic despicable.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 7, 2004)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> They aren't. All but 1 are listed as John Doe cause they are still deployed or about to be and don't want reprucutions cause of the lawsuit and the 1 who is on leave says he'll be on a plane and be back to work if he doesn't get an injunction in the next 3 days.


What may become an issue after the fact is whether they can be tried by the UCMJ for either Unauthorized absence/Absent without leave...desertion or some other chargable offense.


----------



## Matt Stone (Dec 7, 2004)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> ...the 1 who is on leave says he'll be on a plane and be back to work if he doesn't get an injunction in the next 3 days.



And if he does he'll be in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (permission).  Further, if he is deployed into a war zone, the charge of Article 85 (Desertion) could be levied against him instead (it is a more punitive charge than Article 86, which is a lesser included offense to Article 85).

He'll stay until they let him go.  Period.



> They are soldiers, but they are also workers.



Nope.  They are soldiers only.  The rules, rights, and attitudes of civilian employees simply do not apply.  Period.



> People who are doing a job the best they can to support their family and defend their country.



Just like every other soldier, right?  Why should one group of soldiers be treated any differently than any other group?  It is an _all volunteer Army_, and nobody forced them to sign (whether they fully understood what they were doing or not).



> And yes their job is a lot more dangerous than mine probably will ever be and they can't just quit if theydon't like their current work assignment, but in the end, they get a paycheck for what they do same as any cop or engineer or janitor.



But, you see, it _*isn't*_ the same.  Not even close.  Apples and exhaust pipes are being compared when you try to compare the demands of military service with civilian employment.



> They have families who miss them, that they can't afford to support on their pay half the time.



And that is different from their active duty counterparts exactly how?



> I see nothing wrong with if their contract is up and says nothing about the stop-loss, anyone of them suing to get out.



Certainly, due process is the right of every citizen.  But when they signed their contract, regardless of the particular clauses or enticements they were recruited under, they were fully aware (or reasonably should have been) of the potential for activation.  For someone to sign up and then allege "I didn't know I'd have to go to war" is ludicrous.

And I'm sure the contract speaks to the possibility of involuntary extension, especially since it happens far more frequently than civilians are aware.



> I don't think it will work, but I wish it would.



Why?  So there'd be a precedent for any soldier to just pack up and go home when things get rough or when they miss their family?  Please...    



> It's a heck of a way to say thanks to someone for a job well done by forcing them to do it for 12 to 18 more months than they signed up to. If the contract mentions the stop-loss than yeah it is their job and duty to continue working.



Whether it mentions the stop-loss or not, it is their duty to remain until they receive orders reassigning them, redeploying them, or releasing them from active duty.  Part of the enlistment oath refers to obeying the "orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."  That implies that they are fully aware that they are subject to whatever regulations exist governing their service.  I've been in for 15 years and I know there are regs out there I am unaware of.

The "thanking them for a job well done" comes from a number of things, like pay, benefits, and awards issued for service.  Letting them go home isn't a "reward," but rather a simple component of service.

Bottom line, their panties are in a wad over being extended.  There are quite a few active duty folks who were extended as well.  Tough.  That's part of being in the military, and they all knew it (especially the ones that were prior-service!).  Alleging that their service contract for "try one" didn't remind them of the possibility of deployment, activation, or involuntary extension, and so they should be released from their contract, is a big smelly load...  Nice chance for their civilian attorneys to get some face time with the media, but ultimately I don't hold any hope of their allegations being upheld by the court.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2004)

Well said Mr.Stone. People who havent been soldiers dont understand. Its different....


----------



## Rynocerous (Dec 7, 2004)

(Shaking my head in disgust)...

These men know that they have a total of eight years to which they may serve. If you enlist for four years, you can be recalled at any time in the next four years after that. This is all very clear in the contract, along with the fact that in the needs of the military you can in fact be stoplossed indefinately. When you enlist, the MEPS officer asks you if you understand what you read before you sign, just for this reason. It is all in the contract, and soldiers who try to wriggle out of deployment make me sick. We have thousands of troops over there, who don't want to be there, but they suck it up and drive on, because they have to. As far as the Reserve and National Guard, as soon as they are activated to full time they get paid full time(with full benefits, medical, dental, etc.). It's not like they aren't getting paid for what they are doing. I hope they lose this battle and go do their job that they _*swore in*_ to do. Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## OULobo (Dec 7, 2004)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Nope.  They are soldiers only.  The rules, rights, and attitudes of civilian employees simply do not apply.  Period.



I believe that is what the courts, in this, case civilian, will decide. 



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Just like every other soldier, right?  Why should one group of soldiers be treated any differently than any other group?  It is an _all volunteer Army_, and nobody forced them to sign (whether they fully understood what they were doing or not).



If they didn't fully understand, then the contract was signed under duress and is legally invalid. While I would assume that the suit is selfishly motivated, the reprocussions will benefit all soldiers (or some would say, hurt the military as a whole).




			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Certainly, due process is the right of every citizen.  But when they signed their contract, regardless of the particular clauses or enticements they were recruited under, they were fully aware (or reasonably should have been) of the potential for activation.  For someone to sign up and then allege "I didn't know I'd have to go to war" is ludicrous..




It isn't about activation. It is about forced extension of contract past agreed expiration date. 




			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> And I'm sure the contract speaks to the possibility of involuntary extension, especially since it happens far more frequently than civilians are aware.



If that is true and the contract talks of involuntary extension, then they will lose as they probably should, but this sounds like it wasn't mentioned.




			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Why?  So there'd be a precedent for any soldier to just pack up and go home when things get rough or when they miss their family?  Please...    .




Only when they forfill the stipulations of their contracts. 




			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Whether it mentions the stop-loss or not, it is their duty to remain until they receive orders reassigning them, redeploying them, or releasing them from active duty.  Part of the enlistment oath refers to obeying the "orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."  That implies that they are fully aware that they are subject to whatever regulations exist governing their service.  I've been in for 15 years and I know there are regs out there I am unaware of..



The possibility of indefinitly being extended at the whim of some yahoo with a star or two is what is the scary part. If they don't like you, they can keep you in the worst assignment until you die. Starting to sound like slavery, not enlistment.


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 7, 2004)

ask each of these soldiers how well in-depth they read over their 4 series and i doubt they could even tell you what it is.  the 4 series is the enlistment/re-enlistment packet.  most soldiers, even more so prior-service troops, fail to read it.  these troops think their getting hosed over, it's a shame.  shall i enlighten the "living-room" soldiers here on what a DD 4-1 states?  sure i will.  and please rest assured, it's not in fine print either.  it's the same size font as every other word in the enlistment agreement.

here's the link:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

please pay special attention to *Section C, Paragraph 9*.  also attention to *Section C, Paragraph 10*.  if only the enlisting troops had done this, they'd have nothing to whine about now would they.

and for the people who think these troops are just "employees", read carefully the first paragraph in Section C again.

what it comes down to, nobody lied to these troops.  these soldiers failed to do the most INTELLIGENT thing before signing a contract;  THEY FAILED TO READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE PUTTING THEIR SIGNATURE ON, and now seek justice...?   gimme a break


----------



## Rynocerous (Dec 7, 2004)

Quotes by OULobo



*If they didn't fully understand, then the contract was signed under duress and is legally invalid. While I would assume that the suit is selfishly motivated, the reprocussions will benefit all soldiers (or some would say, hurt the military as a whole).*

Actually no, if you didn't read the contract that is your fault. You signed a legal document, with the US Government nontheless. You have to do as you swore in, and be ready to fufill the needs of the Military.



*It isn't about activation. It is about forced extension of contract past agreed expiration date. *

Absolutley correct, extension that you agreed to when you signed your contract.



*If that is true and the contract talks of involuntary extension, then they will lose as they probably should, but this sounds like it wasn't mentioned.*

This is true, soldiers have been getting stoplossed for a couple years know, it is nothing new. Just a few crybabies who don't want to stand up and do what they promised to do.



*Only when they forfill the stipulations of their contracts. *

You may fufill your Active duty term, but you still have those four years to get called back. Or, you can just get stoplossed, either way, you aren't going anywhere.




*The possibility of indefinitly being extended at the whim of some yahoo with a star or two is what is the scary part. If they don't like you, they can keep you in the worst assignment until you die. Starting to sound like slavery, not enlistment.*

Well that "yahoo" is your superior officer, and whether you like it or not you have to obey him. You can't fully understand the discipline it takes sometimes until you are in the military. Also a general having it out for a lowly "Joe" will never happen. The only contact you have with them is saluting them on the homefront. Besides they can't just stoploss one person, they have to stoploss an entire MOS. OH, and the one that got me was the slavery comment... Did we not get paid, did we not originally join on our own accord. Slavery? Not quite...

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 7, 2004)

great post ryan.  of course the folks who have never been there will never understand.  these people are like hungry sharks snapping at every negative tid-bit that comes out as a result of war.  it's like they are looking for every possible reason to bad-mouth the whole ordeal, i think it helps them to sleep at night.  

i learned at an early age if you don't know what you're talking about, then keep quiet.  apparently some people are lacking in that area.

hey OU LOBO and everyone else who thinks these guys got the shaft, click the link i so convieniently posted above.  read the same contract these guys signed and tell us again they got screwed.  LOBO, i actually got a good laugh out of your last post, with all that non-sense you posted, did you come up with all that on your own...? :idunno:


----------



## Matt Stone (Dec 7, 2004)

Though it has been adequately rebutted, as I work in Army JAG I feel a real need to address this civilian BS being spouted by OU "I've never been in the military" Lobo...



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> I believe that is what the courts, in this, case civilian, will decide.



And I'd say that it is a pretty fair chance, given the precedent it would set, that the court will not find in favor of these crybabies.  Civilian though their suit may be, it will be a military court that tries them should they just hop on a plane if they don't get their injunction...  AWOL is an offense characterized by absense, and the millisecond they depart without proper authorization constitutes the offense.  Even in the unlikely event they were to win their civil suit, if they leave without permission, they'll just get to hang around a military confinement facility for a little while as they look forward to life with a federal conviction on their record...



> If they didn't fully understand, then the contract was signed under duress and is legally invalid. While I would assume that the suit is selfishly motivated, the reprocussions will benefit all soldiers (or some would say, hurt the military as a whole).



#1 - Duress is when someone is holding a gun to your head saying "sign or I'll shoot."  Stupidity is when someone signs a legal document stating they've read it fully and understand it, when in fact they do not.  Amazing stupidity is when they later try to say they should be released from the contract for having been stupid in the first place...

#2 - As stated above, winning a civil suit like this will benefit no one other than the selfish little bastards who want to run home to mommy.  Providing a precedent like this would injure the Armed Forces as a whole, and I am putting my money on the judge telling them to suck it up and drive on...



> It isn't about activation. It is about forced extension of contract past agreed expiration date.



No, it is about agreed upon possibility of extension beyond the termination of service as outlined in the enlistment documents.  It isn't the fault of the contractor (US Army) that the contractee (idiot National Guardsman) didn't know what he was signing...  That'd be the same as if you were to purchase a vehicle, and then later said you should be released from the contract because you didn't know you had to pay for the car...  The judge'll laugh over that one in chambers, I'll guarantee ya...   



> If that is true and the contract talks of involuntary extension, then they will lose as they probably should, but this sounds like it wasn't mentioned.



Take a look at the enlistment contract provided in the link...  Really read that section 9, will ya?  Tell me if it is unclear somehow...



> The possibility of indefinitly being extended at the whim of some yahoo with a star or two is what is the scary part. If they don't like you, they can keep you in the worst assignment until you die. Starting to sound like slavery, not enlistment.



Stop-loss and stop-movement happen all the time...  Retirees aren't allowed to retire, soldiers moving from one assignment to another have their assignments rescinded, soldiers planning on leaving active duty are told they have been extended for specified or indefinite periods of time.  It happens.  And it isn't like they weren't aware that it could happen.

You've been soundly rebuked, OULobo.  You didn't know what you were talking about, and now you've been educated.  I just hope you are adult enough to come back and admit you were misinformed and your opinions were flawed due to ignorance.

 :asian: 

To my brothers in arms, current and past - 

*Strength and Honor*


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 7, 2004)

*==========================================*
*Moderator Note. 
*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-*MT Moderator*-
===================================================


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 7, 2004)

...taken from MT Forum Rules and Policies:



> MartialTalk.com (Agent or "Company") does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of material posted by Discussion Board/Chat Room Users or endorse any opinions expressed by Users. User acknowledges that any reliance on material posted by other Users will be at User s own risk.



while i agree with this whole-heartedly, i believe i have a responsibility to the forum users who frequent this fine establishment to "correct" posted falacies by other forum users.  it would be a great injustice to "new or naive" forum users to let allow certain posted information to go unresponsive.

in this case, a forum user (and forum moderator) blatantly criticizing something he knows nothing about; the enlistment policies and practices of the U.S. military's reserve components.  he now stands corrected.  (enlistment contract posted above).

perhaps i came across a little harsh in getting my point out.  if you feel i've engaged in the act of "sniping", i do apologize.  i enjoy martial talk, but hope in the future when i, or any other forum user, opens up a topic, what they read is truthful discussion rather than blatant lies.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2004)

Well, I've never been in the military (for which one suspects that the military can be glad), but even I know quite well that when you sign, you've signed yer butt away. it's always been my understanding (and it's what I tell students) that while the military is at least as honest a career as, say, being a college professor, you do need to understand what you're getting into.

Basically, when all those kids take the oath in "Starship Troopers," and they recite the line about serving, "for not less than four years or what term of service the Federation shall deem necessary in an emergency," that's pretty much right. 

The military does try to avoid doing it for obvious reasons, and they don't do it that often, but it does indeed happen. Legally, too. Same thing with the Guard.

Outside the scope of their challenge, of course, was whether or not the extensions were the result of wise policy--but again, I believe the answer here is, "Soldier, shut up and soldier." Soldiers do not get to set policy--and while democratic in principle, the Army (like a martial arts studio) ain't a democracy.

Odd of me to say this, ain't it.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2004)

While all you guys know Im with you...I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a National Guard bashing. While yes, the Guard does have some issues they need to work out, there are many honorable SOLDIERS there too. My area (Western New York) has had plenty of them returning home under flags while over there doing their duty.


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Odd of me to say this, ain't it.



not all that odd, it's the truth.  what can be so odd about the truth?  great post, thanks for the contribution.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2004)

HOLY @#$&!!! I agree on something with rmcrobertson! Is that the earth shifting under my feet? 

Absolutely Robert. I think these guys forgot what the rules of the game were.


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 7, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> While all you guys know Im with you...I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a National Guard bashing. While yes, the Guard does have some issues they need to work out, there are many honorable SOLDIERS there too. My area (Western New York) has had plenty of them returning home under flags while over there doing their duty.



it shouldn't be an issue about the Guard.  it's an issue of a soldier not being a soldier.  it's about taking responsibility for their own adult actions, in this case, the full understanding of a contractual agreement, with full disclosure sitting out in front of them with pen in hand.  i'll be the first (in this case, the 2nd) person to state the Guard (and Reserve for that matter) has issues to resolve but that's neither here nor there.

i have 3 very close friends serving with the 42nd ID out of the NY guard.  i wish them well.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2004)

Absolutely.....I was just detecting a hint (small hint) of "those dumb NG guys" in the air. This is about duty and honor, not about branch of service......


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 7, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> ...taken from MT Forum Rules and Policies:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sapper, please do not challenge my posted warnings. That should be reserved as a private discussion. The fact is, I am not moderating the message, but the delivery. Want a Mod job? Apply. Otherwise, keep your opinion about the way I do my job private. Do you have a problem with how I administer the rules? Escalate it. But keep it out of the discussion here. You are now taking us off topic.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 7, 2004)

Sapper, Matt - Up until I read the information that Sapper posted, I was in agreement that there was a case. The language in that piece was very clear to even me. In addition, the original AP piece didn't appear to mention the extension clauses.  With only that to go on, without previous experience in the military, or with military law, us 'never-been-in' folks of course wouldn't have a clue on what to look for, so the link is much appreciated. 

The seeming "holier-than-thou" attitudes however aren't.  There are ways to debate and correct without crossing the line into the disrespectful or rude, which a few of those 'rebuttle' comments did.  I understand your intent was to clarify a matter, which you did.  You needn't have resorted to taking the shots as well.  



> but hope in the future when i, or any other forum user, opens up a topic, what they read is truthful discussion rather than blatant lies.


I don't see lies.  I see civilian speculation, based on the available information. 

Please, Correct the information, counter the points. But do it in a respectful manner.

3 additional points from our rules:





> "- Treat others as you would wish to be treated. We ask that you be professional and polite to one other and respect our intention to have a forum for the friendly discussion of the martial arts.
> - Any abuse directed at our all-volunteer moderation/administration team, including defying the moderators/administrators to suspend or ban a member, may result in an immediate suspension or ban.
> - Moderators and administrators are posting their own personal opinions unless their post is signed "-MT Mod(erator)" or "-MT Admin(istrator)"."



Peace.


----------



## Matt Stone (Dec 7, 2004)

*Kaith, et al* - 

I'm not in the habit of apologizing for my comments, except in the event that I've been unnecessarily "something" in one instance or another.

While my tone may have come across as "holier than thou," I stand by my comments.  Certainly, Sapper, I and others have experience, knowledge and acces to and in things many don't, but that doesn't mean that our responses to certain individuals in particular or in general aren't warranted.

We just finished with an election fiasco wherein the actions of the military have been called into question by scads of civilians who simply don't know any better.  Our activities are publicized and televised by reporters who aren't after the truth, just another yellow journalism sensation that'll make their careers and get them an anchor slot on a major network.  Christ, these guys still ask about troop numbers and movement, fully realizing that divulging that information would get people killed and ultimately isn't any of their business in the first place...    

People deliberately, in order to pursue their own agenda, misrepresent the actions of my brothers in arms (and when I say brothers, I mean it in the familial sense, inclusive of my sisters in arms as well), and purposefully mislead public opinion by failing to portray things in an objective light.

OULobo is a victim of this and needed correction in the worst way.

I take it very seriously, and very personally, when some misinformed civilian, abusing the rights my brothers and I provide, calls for action that would quite likely degrade the delicate balance that exists in the military.  It is very much akin to calling for abolishment of all government, law, public safety, etc.  The military is a house of cards, and if one foundation piece is removed or damaged, the entire building will suffer drastic consequences.

Sometimes the lesson has to be taught with the rod, and I genuinely believe that this is the case.  Any weaker response would fail to have the same impact, especially given the complete lack of orientation that civilians have, both of enlistment procedures, requirements, regulations, as well as general military lifestyle.

Sorry if it got a bug up your butt, or up the collective butts of others.  But too many civilians ride the backs of the military without the first clue of what they are talking about.  They present their views, their opinions, as authoritative commentary without realizing just how empty and baseless their opinions really are. 

It is really easy to sit at home, snug in your Barco-Lounger or La-Z-Boy recliner, with only "what is for dinner tomorrow" being the major issue at hand.  It is easy to be a livingroom general, speaking about all manner of things military and how the military would be reformed under different leadership.

Then there's those of us that live this life and realize we only have *1**...  "One *** to Risk."

Discipline me if you feel a need to.  I don't post that much online anymore anyway.  But I won't step back and pretend to be sorry when I really, really am not...

*Strength and Honor*


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 7, 2004)

@ Flatlander

check your PMs  

@ Kaith

sorry if i do come across as possessing a "holier-than-thou" attitude, i know i'm far from it and wish not to cast that appearance of myself.  being in the military is like a club, and big giant club.  to see or hear someone falsely criticizing the actions, etc, of that club is offensive.  in this case, it's not about the war but rather, obviously, the process of entering this club.  the negative posts containing accusations of lies, duress, and other falsehoods in the enlistment process needed addressed.  again, i apologize if my manner of "addressing" was wrong.

@ OU Lobo

i sincerely hope that i've helped you in understanding how the US military's enlistment process works.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2004)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Sometimes the lesson has to be taught with the rod, and I genuinely believe that this is the case. Any weaker response would fail to have the same impact, especially given the complete lack of orientation that civilians have, both of enlistment procedures, requirements, regulations, as well as general military lifestyle.


While not as brutal anymore, that concept is as old as organized warfare itself. The military "isnt just a job"....

'Ho Lu, king of Wu asked Sun Tzu, "Can you conduct a minor experiment in control of the movement of troops?" Sun Tzu replied positively. "Can your conduct this test using women?" asked the king. "Yes," said Sun Tzu. The king thereupon agreed and sent 180 beautiful women. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies and put the king's two favourite concubines in command. He instructed them how to do things in military fashion. After getting positive and satisfactory clarifications pertaining to relevant military subjects, and the "regulations" having been announced, the "executioners" weapons were arranged. Sun Tzu then gave the orders three times and explained them five times...... The women all roared with laughter. Sun Tzu declared: "If regulations are not clear and orders not thoroughly explained, it is the commander's fault." He then repeated the order three times and explained them five times. The women again burst into laughter. 'Sun Tzu said, "If instructions are not clear and commands not explicit, it is the commander's fault. But when they have been made clear and are not carried out in accordance with military law, it is a crime on the part of the officers. "Sun Tzu thereafter ordered beheading of the commanders of the right and left. The terrified king's message to Sun Tzu was, "I already know that the General is able to employ troops. Without these two concubines my food will not taste sweet. It is my desire that they be not executed." Nevertheless the two women commanders were executed as an example and the next seniors were made commanders. None dared thereafter make the slightest noise. Sun Tzu then sent a message to the king: "The king may descend to review and inspect. The troops may be deployed as the king desires, even to the extent of going through fire and water." The king, however, did not wish to inspect the formation. Sun Tzu said, "The king likes only empty words. He is not capable of putting them into practice." The king Ho Lu then realised Sun Tzu's capacity as a commander, and eventually made him a general.


----------



## Matt Stone (Dec 7, 2004)

One other thing...

Even within the military there is a huge misunderstanding of our regulations, customs, laws and procedures.

When I was in the Infantry, I didn't know squat about rules and regs.  Didn't know form numbers, didn't know what reg governed what activity, and I really didn't care...  That was for the admin folks, and if someone told me to sign something, I figured there was a pretty good reason my signature had to go there.

Now that I'm one of those admin folks with 9 years in the JAG Corps under my belt, I can attest to the fact that I have some pretty good job security...  Given the nature of my current job (Legal Assistance NCO), given the frequency with which other ancillary agencies refer clients/customers to my office _regarding the policies and regulations of their own offices that they themselves are unclear on_, it would seem a common occurence that a soldier might not fully understand something he/she signed.

I deal with bad leases, purchase contracts, bills of sale, insurance scams, car sales, and enlistement contracts, on a *daily* basis.  All because some soldier failed to read what he/she was signing.  I've done it myself, and after being burned will never do it again.  But getting burned was due solely to my own failure to read and understand what I had in front of me before I signed it.  I had one client that flatly told me that, while he knew the enlistment contract signature had the statement above it stating that he had read and fully understood the contract, he didn't even bother to read the documents and simply took the recruiter at his word...  Then he got screwed because he thought something was in the contract that wasn't.  Whose fault was that?

Anyway.  I'm done with this, and won't stir the waters any more than I already have.  I think I, Sapper6 and others have all made the point fully clear to those who were uninformed previously...

ST1 OUT

*Strength and Honor*


----------



## OULobo (Dec 7, 2004)

Where to start. First of all, thanks to Ryan and Tgace for attempting to keep the replies civil and somewhat informative, instead of accusatory, caustic and easily disregarded due to tone. As to salvery, many slaves were compensated for their work, and still beaten, docked the same pay and not allowed to leave. To Sapper and Mr. Stone, save the "never been there" stuff for someone else, preferably someone who cares. I never joined for reasons such as this. 


"Vagueness, Omissions, and Ambiguity

As we mentioned earlier, a judge may find a contract unenforceable if its
terms (the specification of what the parties must do) are too vague.  What
may appear clearly to express the intentions of the parties at the time
they write a contract may seem totally unclear on later analysis.

Another common problem is that subsequent events may reveal that
important provisions covering fairly foreseeable potential problems were
not included in the agreement, leaving the parties at sea without sails or
tiller.

Typically, for example, people who are enthusiastic about a new
transaction or cooperative venture of some kind, and filled with feelings
of optimisms and good fellowship, do not even want to think about the
possibility that something could go wrong, much less that the participants
could end up suing one another.  A contract should always contain
provisions for dealing with obstacles, failures, and even betrayals, no
matter how farfetched such things may seem at the time.

Here is an important principle to remember: The courts will construe an
ambiguous provision in a contract against the person who wrote it.  So, if
you are responsible for offering a part of a contract which is worded
unclearly and which could as easily be interpreted against as for your
interests, the court will choose the interpretation that goes against you
rather than penalizing the other party for your ambiguity."

Having an Indian sign an X by his name doesn't make it a legal contract. 

As for any other rebuttle, Kaith rather neatly summed it up for me. I never claimed to be an expert and I made my opinions known, with judgments made from available sources including the intitial AP report that states that the basis of the case is that the "Stop-Loss" policy is not in the contracts signed by the Plaintiffs. Add into it such things as this is not a congress declared war and that there are no criteria for government "emergencies" to my knowledge, there is still more than enough room for these contracts to fail on basis of law. Though I will concede that they will likely fail in that such an event would undermine the current structure of the military, by bringing more people who want to come home, home from a pointless, trumped up and possibly illegal war.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2004)

To be fair though, many soldiers have wanted to come back from "necessary, popular and legal wars" as well. Should we have let them go when they wanted.....

I think some people had erroneous concepts of what service as a soldier meant when they signed up.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 7, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> To be fair though, many soldiers have wanted to come back from "necessary, popular and legal wars" as well. Should we have let them go when they wanted.....
> 
> I think some people had erroneous concepts of what service as a soldier meant when they signed up.



I without a doubt agree that there are many that may be just trying to squirm out of contracts, I'm sure that many didn't read their contracts fully, and I'm sure that they are finding out that military life isn't what they expected. I would say that if they signed for 6 active and some specified reserve after, then they are stuck for that time frame, but when that is up, they have put their time in and forfilled the agreed duty. If they don't want to be there, let them go. All they can do now is cause problems. If they are forcing these people to stay past their end of service dates, then they aren't really in an "all-volunteer" anymore. Besides, there have only been two times we have had an "all-volunteer" army fully mobilized in conflict, and the first time was pretty clear, clean and well supported. The others conflicts involved a draft, and if I'm not mistaken (key), didn't try to extend stays.

I just think that the military is starting to scramble because it knows it doesn't really have the personel to win this thing and they know they won't get a draft past congress.


----------



## SenseiBear (Dec 8, 2004)

_shakes head_


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

The Oath..........


"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.  SO HELP ME GOD."


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> To be fair though, many soldiers have wanted to come back from "necessary, popular and legal wars" as well. Should we have let them go when they wanted.....


I have never served, but this brings to mind a question.  What real practical combative value does an unhappy soldier, desirous of leaving, have?  I don't know.  I mean, I've worked with guys before who just didn't want the job they were doing, and most of the time, I probably could have been more efficient if they weren't there in the first place.  I can only imagine that some guy moping around or crying or freaking out when trying to get througha mission would just distract me to the point of wanting to "remove" him from the mission.  Do you know what I mean? 

To you soldiers, current and past, why would you even want these guys along?  I understand, thanks to the informative posts upthread, that they have an obligation to be there, but really, it sounds like you would rather not let them go.... I think I would.  I don't know if I'd feel comfortable with someone like that watching my back, is all.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I have never served, but this brings to mind a question. What real practical combative value does an unhappy soldier, desirous of leaving, have? I don't know. I mean, I've worked with guys before who just didn't want the job they were doing, and most of the time, I probably could have been more efficient if they weren't there in the first place. I can only imagine that some guy moping around or crying or freaking out when trying to get througha mission would just distract me to the point of wanting to "remove" him from the mission. Do you know what I mean?
> 
> To you soldiers, current and past, why would you even want these guys along? I understand, thanks to the informative posts upthread, that they have an obligation to be there, but really, it sounds like you would rather not let them go.... I think I would. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable with someone like that watching my back, is all.


The problem with this perspective is that it is form the wrong focus if you are talking about military service. The focus is NOT from the Bottom up: "What do I want, What do I get"

When you sign a contract to serve in the miltary you are becoming part of something larger than your personal desires - in the moment and in the long term (including contractual extentions, stop loss actions....). What kind of message of order, discipline and dedication does it send if these guys, or anyone can just quite whenever they feel like it? The standing joke for USMC is "U Signed My Contract" adn it is true.  You signed a contract and swore an Oath.  People expect that to mean something.  It is the same as saying people should be able to just 'quit' on marriage.  There are very few 'formal' things in our lives as it is now, I think the idea of oath and honor get too cheaply discussed at times.

Please don't take these comments out of context, exaggerate their meaning into a 'dictatorship' analogy or something as trivial as that. The UCMJ, JAG and leadership training in the military ALL address troop welfare/fair treatment and the idea of a well supported troop (family benefits, pay, food, rest, life insurance....) is a better fighting troop, but there is NOTHING in the miltary that says "We are here to make you 'happy' all the time." Believe me, as an MP I use to see times when the JAG office would appear to be 'coddling a whiner' IMO, but in the long run they were actually protecting the rights of the soldier/serviceman. I can honestly say that I never came across a time when JAG didn't strike a fair balance of holding troops accountable without going overboard. Sometimes, as a fellow troop, you think the punishment should be harsher because you feel it is an afront to your honor as a soldier, but JAG really keeps things fair and balanced to avoid 'teaching them a lesson' from becoming an acceptable motive.

If you join, you do so voluntarily. You serve as a demonstration of your commitment to your character/honor, your fellows/mates/friends/unit/nation/family...what ever motivates you. These guys are saying they have reached the breaking point in their idea of 'commitment' with this kind of action. They are working through the legal system instead of just deserting outright...but there are still guys/gals in country that are forced to carry more of the duty because these folks aren't there...


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> great post ryan. of course the folks who have never been there will never understand. these people are like hungry sharks snapping at every negative tid-bit that comes out as a result of war. it's like they are looking for every possible reason to bad-mouth the whole ordeal, i think it helps them to sleep at night.
> 
> i learned at an early age if you don't know what you're talking about, then keep quiet. apparently some people are lacking in that area.
> 
> hey OU LOBO and everyone else who thinks these guys got the shaft, click the link i so convieniently posted above. read the same contract these guys signed and tell us again they got screwed. LOBO, i actually got a good laugh out of your last post, with all that non-sense you posted, did you come up with all that on your own...? :idunno:


I am not a solider, but I am trying to understand where you guys are coming from and not jump to conclusions because I don't know very much about the topic. I appreciated the link to the contract. That helped me understand where you, Ryan & Tgace were coming from. But you really lost me when you started with the snarky holier-than-thou attitude. You don't earn my respect by acting as if you are so much better than the rest of us. That's pretty crappy behaviour.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If you join, you do so voluntarily.


 I know myself well enough to know that I could not function under the conditions that military service requires. As a result, I have never and will never consider enlisting. 

From the orginal article that I found, it wasn't clear that the contract they signed said they could be stuck there longer than their 4 years + 4 years subject to call back (I'm sure I have the wrong terms, but I _think_ I have the right concept). The link Sapper supplied us with showed me that the contract DOES make mention of the fact that you can be required to stay on until yr ship returns to the US or *in the event of war* until after the war is over. 

So I, too, wonder what these men were thinking they were getting into. I know I wouldn't want to be in a warzone, I couldn't take orders I didn't understand or morally object to, so I will never join the Service. I don't believe "I didn't read the contract" has ever been a legit reason to wiggle out of the commitments it entails.

But - I am confused because I thought the Iraqi conflict was "not a war" and that it was (in Bush's - the Commander in Cheif, isn't he? or is that just a movie fictionalization?) "over". So how can these men be required to stay after their contract if there is no war, and the fighting is over anyways?

This is an honest-to-goodness question. I might just misunderstand. But the Government keeps saying there isn't a war in Iraq, so ... what gives?


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The problem with this perspective is that it is form the wrong focus if you are talking about military service. The focus is NOT from the Bottom up: "What do I want, What do I get".


I completely agree with you.  I'm not referring to the legality or morality of what is going on here.  I was simply pointing out that, were I serving with one of the people who would rather leave than follow through with their committment, I wouldn't really want them there anyway.  But I'm kind of like that - "Don't want to help?  Fine, bugger off, I'll do it myself."  Know what I'm saying?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

Well Dan I would send these guys to some other job or duty. I wouldnt let them off the hook and send them home.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I completely agree with you. I'm not referring to the legality or morality of what is going on here. I was simply pointing out that, were I serving with one of the people who would rather leave than follow through with their committment, I wouldn't really want them there anyway. But I'm kind of like that - "Don't want to help? Fine, bugger off, I'll do it myself." Know what I'm saying?


In less dire circumstances, yes I agree. But, when it comes to having 20 rifles pointed at the bad guy or 10, I would say grabbing them by the neck and making sure they are there is significant.  This is also a case of vicarious learning:  If they tried it and won, others will too.  Just look at all the 'personal injury' cases in civil court now.  People won, others saw it, figured it was worth a shot.

Even if it is about a support/combat support type of job, every one that is there is expected to perform. How much money, time, transportation, fuel...will be wasted in redistributing people to places that make them more 'happy' (including out of there) when ever they say "I'm not comfortable with that?"

And, as a leader of troops it is same thing as being a parent. When I assign a chore to my son and he agrees to do it AND after I have shown him how, watched him do it properly...do I just dismiss him from that chore when he decides "I don't want to" or starts doing it poorly? Some would say yes, because if he isn't going to do it right, 'it' won't get done.

I tend, back in the service and currently at home, not to focus on 'it' getting done as much as the fact that my charges/subordinates/child have made a commitment and need to understand that 'commitment' isn't about whims. Real sacrifices are made when you do something even when you REALLY don't want to do it. 

You said you were going to do it. 
You know how to do it.
You WILL honor that promise.

That is why saying like "A bitzing Marine is a happy Marine" were so commonly used. If they aren't being held to their oath by superiors in the moment, they won't learn about themselves (which is a secondary benefit of military service).

These guys have a 'right' to do what they are doing. They will face the UCMJ consequences of their choices if they don't win their legal battles. I BET dollars to donuts that they will cry 'victim' about that too if they are just whiners.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I know myself well enough to know that I could not function under the conditions that military service requires. As a result, I have never and will never consider enlisting.
> 
> From the orginal article that I found, it wasn't clear that the contract they signed said they could be stuck there longer than their 4 years + 4 years subject to call back (I'm sure I have the wrong terms, but I _think_ I have the right concept). The link Sapper supplied us with showed me that the contract DOES make mention of the fact that you can be required to stay on until yr ship returns to the US or *in the event of war* until after the war is over.
> 
> ...


Semantics,  the need of the government will always take priority.  THe 'war' may be over, but the 'mission' is not completed to a level that makes these men less vital as an asset.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well Dan I would send these guys to some other job or duty. I wouldnt let them off the hook and send them home.


We had that in Bosnia if you remember, Tom.  The MP that refused to work his volutarily chosen job.  He was moved to the Headquarters office, didn't want to do that and was given a 'created job' of Unit website photographer - didn't like that one either....

meanwhile the rest of our guys were just doing what was expected of them - for the most part.  And, in retrospect, with very little griping compared to what it could have been.

The reality is that most of the times that these types of situations come up, it isn't a real surprise who is making the noise.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

But the 'semantics' of the contract say *in the event of war*. So, if this is not a war, then it isn't covered by the contract. It doesn't say "in the event of war or any other time we are blowing people up". Or is there some statute or case law where war is defined that way?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> We had that in Bosnia if you remember, Tom. The MP that refused to work his volutarily chosen job. He was moved to the Headquarters office, didn't want to do that and was given a 'created job' of Unit website photographer - didn't like that one either....
> 
> meanwhile the rest of our guys were just doing what was expected of them - for the most part. And, in retrospect, with very little griping compared to what it could have been.
> 
> The reality is that most of the times that these types of situations come up, it isn't a real surprise who is making the noise.


Yeah..like the guy who shot himself.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> But the 'semantics' of the contract say *in the event of war*. So, if this is not a war, then it isn't covered by the contract. It doesn't say "in the event of war or any other time we are blowing people up". Or is there some statute or case law where war is defined that way?


I believe Bush said it was the end of "the combat phase"...I dont think he said the "war is over".....


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> But the 'semantics' of the contract say *in the event of war*. So, if this is not a war, then it isn't covered by the contract. It doesn't say "in the event of war or any other time we are blowing people up". Or is there some statute or case law where war is defined that way?


Hair splitting and too focused a point to really work.  in the 'event' of war is the phrasing that you use (and may be the actually phrasing in the contract) BUT it does not say ONLY WHEN WAR IS DECLARED.....there is also the general point, clearly stated that the need of the government trumps all.  Right now, these guys are considered vital assets.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

But did he ever say they started a war? Seriously. I wasn't under the impression that it was ever called a war. Just "combat operations" or some other euphanism.

I posted this before yr reply hit the system, Loki & Tgace. That helps me understand. Thanks for yr replies.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

At the bottom of it (for me). Is that these guys are trying to get out of a situation they knew could happen by @#$%'ing around with lawyers, contracts, the media...like they were employees of a civilian company.....

They forgot that they were soldiers.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Hair splitting


But god knows contract law never utilizes hair-splitting.   I thought that was the whole point!



> in the 'event' of war is the phrasing that you use (and may be the actually phrasing in the contract)


I got the phrasing from Sapper's link. I believe it is the actual wording.



> BUT it does not say ONLY WHEN WAR IS DECLARED


ahhh... yes. That answers it. Thank you loki.

See, if I was going to sign that contract that explicitly states that it is more than an employment contract I would be exactly that persistent (maybe moreso!) in getting to understand every little bit of it. I would want to know what I was getting into. I am a person who reads and asks questions about every contract I sign. Unfortunately, while I can have compassion for men stuck in a situation they don't want to be in anymore, it was their responsibility to look out for their own best interests and understand the contract. They should have done that to cover their own butts.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> But did he ever say they started a war? Seriously. I wasn't under the impression that it was ever called a war. Just "combat operations" or some other euphanism.


Let's try this line of logic in another situation.

"Well, she didn't SAY 'no'" when she said 'stop' or 'I don't want to have sex' so I should not be found guilty of sexual assault for date raping her...."

Are we involved in a 'miltary conflict' that requires assets, including manpower, to accomplish the mission?  YES.  Does that need, as clearly stated in the contracts I and others here have signed in the past and guys/gals sign now, mean that the gov can keep you in the service, in a combat zone, or just plain 'in' beyond the previously mentioned times?  YES.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

Yes, that totally makes sense, Paul/Loki. You had me convinced before the date rape comparison, but that's a good way of thinking of it, too.

I don't doubt that the military does need all its people right now. My concern in the first place is if these guys were being held against their will and were not given a reasonable chance to know what they agreed to. But though the article doesn't show it, it seems that they did agree to this, and has reasonable opportunity to realise this was the case before they signed.

Thank you for helping me understand. Tgace, Sapper, Ryno, Loki. Cheers.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

No problem 

Anybody who has "been in" knows what these guys are up to....we all knew about Uncle Sammies ability to "stop loss" us....extend our enlistments etc....these guys are just trying to worm out of it. Makes it all that tougher on the rest of the soldiers who want to go home just as badly but are standing by their honor and professionalism as soldiers.

One of my co-workers used to be in my old NG unit. His enlistment ended, he was stop lossed, deployed to Iraq for a year and a half, sent back home and got out. He sure as **** didnt want to go, but he did. He was a soldier, he did his duty.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No problem
> 
> Anybody who has "been in" knows what these guys are up to....we all knew about Uncle Sammies ability to "stop loss" us....extend our enlistments etc....these guys are just trying to worm out of it. Makes it all that tougher on the rest of the soldiers who want to go home just as badly but are standing by their honor and professionalism as soldiers.
> 
> One of my co-workers used to be in my old NG unit. His enlistment ended, he was stop lossed, deployed to Iraq for a year and a half, sent back home and got out. He sure as **** didnt want to go, but he did. He was a soldier, he did his duty.


Amen to that.  That was my point with the guy from our unit that, tragically, committed suicide.  He was one out of about 150 people in our unit that just refused to perform.

This is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2004)

So, since they are to be kept until "6 months after the war is over", when will the war be over, since it was never officially declared? (AFAIK)

If this is the "War on Terror", that will never end, so they will never be allowed out.
If this is "until victory is achieved" then what are the terms to declare victory so that they have an idea on when that mission will be over?

You can not expect people, loyal patriotic people, to just open-endedly give up their futures without a reasonable time-frame.  "You will be in until we are done with you" is not something I would agree with, under any circumstances.  Maybe I think too much, maybe I have the "softness" of someone who "couldn't hack it", etc.  I don't know.

I just think that anyone we order into harms way deserves to know at what point their tour of duty will be done. I read the contract, it was surprisingly clear on the terms.  I just think they need to know when they will be allowed to resume their lives and their families lives.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

Well, like in the case of my co-worker... when their rotation is done. While not really "in the contract", after a unit rotates out of theater the commander can (and at least in many NG units will) release some of the stop loss soldiers. Stop loss is typically a tool used by the military to keep a unit in a deployable condition. Once deployed it has a period of time to build up again...

These guys are still in theater...they just want out now.

Im fairly certain that our grandfathers didnt have any idea when WWII would end either. They were in it till it was over....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2004)

Yes, but WW2 had the finite end indicated "defeat the axis", that being Germany, Italy and Japan.  What is this missions "mission"?

Restore the peace isn't a fair answer...that can take 40 years....is it right to expect these guys to spend the rest of their lives engaged?

The question I have is when will these units be rotated out?  Even in WW2, if you did so much, you were rotated out. (I think it was 50 missions for a bomber crew?).


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

Iraq units are typically deployed 12-18 months. Stop loss isnt being used as a "were keeping you till the war on terror is over" type thing. Its being used to keep units filled with soldiers so it can be deployed. Military units have a system of grading based on manpower, training, equipment etc. that determine if and how they will be deployed. After deployment they (most times) are released. Resulting in the large drop in NG soldiers that was mentioned earlier.


Infantry in WWII was rotated "off the front" but returned later. They didnt go home. Bomber crews? Im not really familiar with.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2004)

Ahh.  Much appreciated. That makes more sense that what I originally thought.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

Not that thats a "hard and fast" rule. Just what I have typically observed.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2004)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm 



> By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
> WASHINGTON  The Army will announce as early as Tuesday new orders that will forbid thousands of soldiers from leaving the service after they return this year from Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war against terrorism, defense officials said Monday.
> *The "stop loss" orders mean personnel who could otherwise leave the military when their volunteer commitments expire will be forced to remain to the end of their overseas deployments and up to another 90 days after they come home. "Stop movement" orders also bar soldiers from moving to new assignments during the restricted period. The orders do not extend any unit's stay overseas.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Rynocerous (Dec 8, 2004)

Man I love a heated debate!!! Excelent posts all, I'm really enjoying this thread.  Tgace you have an excelent point about the National guard.  There are lots of people who come out of the Regular military and still need that little fix of military, so they join the NG.  I actually have a good friend in Las Vegas who is joining the NG to help him go through college.  He can still collect his MGI Bill while he does this, it just makes sense.  So yes, there are lots of good soldiers, and old priors wanting to still help out their country.  Cheers to all of those who serve our beautiful country(I'm speaking as an American now).

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 9, 2004)

I suppose this is the most logical thread to add this .... don't know if it merited its own thread.

Donald Rumsfeld was asked by a soldier yesterday, why there is not enough of the proper equipment in Iraq; body armor, vehicle armor. Secretary Rumsfeld's response was _you don't go to war with the army you want, but rather with the army you have_.

The army he had to invade Iraq was Bill Clinton's army. The first Bush appropriations had not yet worked through the system by the time the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were started. 

However, now, two years later, Secretary Rumsfeld has had the time and money to direct spending, and it seems he is trying to blame Bill Clintons' army for the lack of the proper equipment.

Geesh!

Also, Retired Colonel Hackworth's article about the Brass appropriating C-130's for site-seeing trips, which prevented needed supplies from reaching troops was an interesting read this weekend.

Mike


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I suppose this is the most logical thread to add this .... don't know if it merited its own thread.
> 
> Donald Rumsfeld was asked by a soldier yesterday, why there is not enough of the proper equipment in Iraq; body armor, vehicle armor. Secretary Rumsfeld's response was _you don't go to war with the army you want, but rather with the army you have_.
> 
> Mike



...this isn't all that suprising.  i guess DoD told the reporters they weren't going to field questions from them, just the troops?  i see they found a way around that one :idunno: .



> RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER
> Thu Dec 09 2004 11:49:38 ET
> 
> Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, now in Kuwait preparing to enter Iraq, and is filing articles for his newspaper. Pitts claims in a purported email that he coached soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld questions!
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 9, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> ...this isn't all that suprising. i guess DoD told the reporters they weren't going to field questions from them, just the troops? i see they found a way around that one  .


 
Oh, I see ... the real problem is that reporters don't get access to the Secretary of Defense. 

Good Grief.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 9, 2004)

While the soldier had a valid question (prompted or not). If he's been in the Army any length of time it shouldnt have supprised him. Were always supplied for this fight with the last fights gear...heck the USMC has it even tougher...Cobra choppers and M60 tanks with reactive armor upgrades (they still do that?) ?? My USMC buddies like to joke that they can kick #$@ with the Army's leftovers.

Not that thats an excuse for poor supply, its just never been a suprise to me.


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, I see ... the real problem is that reporters don't get access to the Secretary of Defense.
> 
> Good Grief.



no, not really.  you ever watch c-span?  

i posted that article because of your previous post about that soldier's question, well actually, the reporter's question.  just a reinforcement of how low the media will go to get in a quick question.

let's not take this too much further off topic, this all has nothing to do with soldier extensions, and i've clearly added to that problem.  sorry, on with original programming :ultracool


----------

