Soldiers Challenge Enlistment Extensions

[OULobo]

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]

shakes head

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.