Army relies on 'stop loss'
October 19, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army will continue to rely on an unpopular program that forces some soldiers to stay past retirement or re-enlistment dates, despite pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reduce and eventually end the policy.
Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said Thursday that the number of soldiers kept on duty has increased in recent months as a result of increased troop levels in Iraq this year.
The number of those being kept on beyond their commitment through the ''stop loss'' program is about 9,000 now, compared with about 7,000 before the buildup began in late January, he said.
''We're going to have to rely, unfortunately ... on stop loss,'' Rochelle said. ''Until the demand comes down a bit, we can't do it without it.''
Rochelle called Army recruiting "challenging."
AP
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Letter to newspapers
The past week has seen another round of political wrangling in the halls of the national capitol, but one of the biggest and most relevant facts continues to slip under the radar as unnoticed: the fact that the troops whom we claim to support are being hit with an unprecedented number of so-called "stop-losses" and "involuntary extensions". These are the phrases that the military uses to frame the gory portrait of re-conscription that is destroying our Army and Marine Corps.
When I got a call back from my friends in the 4th Infantry Division where I served for more than 3 years as an intelligence analyst, I was amazed when they told me that more than half of them will be returning to Iraq having been involuntarily extended. I did some research only to find that this statistic holds true across the board, which is to say, every other soldier returning to Iraq for "OIF 07-09" will be doing so on expired contracts, most for their second or third consecutive tours (which have now been extended to a 15-month minimum).
When I called Pentagon Public Affairs I was referred to old information from April of this year, citing the fact that 8,000 soldiers were then stop-lossed. While this is unbearably inaccurate, as it (intentionally?) fails to reflect the number of "involuntarily extended" soldiers, it is still appaling. These are men and women who have already done their time and most have served more than a year of their life in a combat zone! How we can stop-loss or involuntarily extend troops with one hand while claiming to generously support them with the other is beyond my reckoning. Whether the number is 8,000 or 80,000-- the most accurate estimate I have come across-- there is no excuse for this egregious fraud. We must end this illegal and immoral practice which will otherwise destroy our military.
Thank You,
Evan M. Knappenberger
Specialist, Military Intelligence, Taji Iraq, 2005-2006
When I got a call back from my friends in the 4th Infantry Division where I served for more than 3 years as an intelligence analyst, I was amazed when they told me that more than half of them will be returning to Iraq having been involuntarily extended. I did some research only to find that this statistic holds true across the board, which is to say, every other soldier returning to Iraq for "OIF 07-09" will be doing so on expired contracts, most for their second or third consecutive tours (which have now been extended to a 15-month minimum).
When I called Pentagon Public Affairs I was referred to old information from April of this year, citing the fact that 8,000 soldiers were then stop-lossed. While this is unbearably inaccurate, as it (intentionally?) fails to reflect the number of "involuntarily extended" soldiers, it is still appaling. These are men and women who have already done their time and most have served more than a year of their life in a combat zone! How we can stop-loss or involuntarily extend troops with one hand while claiming to generously support them with the other is beyond my reckoning. Whether the number is 8,000 or 80,000-- the most accurate estimate I have come across-- there is no excuse for this egregious fraud. We must end this illegal and immoral practice which will otherwise destroy our military.
Thank You,
Evan M. Knappenberger
Specialist, Military Intelligence, Taji Iraq, 2005-2006
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Press Release 10/2/2007
The Department of Defense policy of Stop-Loss (which is also known as Involuntary Extension) has been expanding, despite a memo penned earlier this year by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to "minimize the effect of Stop-Loss." An official estimate of the current number of Stop-Lossed and Involuntarily Extended personnel has not been released by the Pentagon, but unofficial estimates put the number at approximately 80,000-- or roughly half the number of US troops in Iraq at any given time.
Evan Knappenberger, an Iraq veteran and founder of the Stop the Stop-Loss campaign, says that his investigation found that "in most units going back to Iraq for OIF 08-09, the average number of troops that have had their ETS [end time of service dates] extended was roughly 50%." Knappenberger went on to explain that "by this time next year, you will have a major problem dealing with soldiers whose dates were simply changed without orders or even a warning." This development comes after the news that congress is considering legislation that would regulate time that the troops had in between deployments as a means to a more effective fighting force worn down by multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also comes after the announcement that minimum tours in Iraq have been extended from 12 to 15 months.
According to Army Public Affairs, the latest numbers on the Stop-Loss are from April of 2007, and put the total at just over 8,000 soldiers affected. However, this does not include the number of so-called "Involuntarily Extended" troops, nor does it reflect the number of soldiers whose ETS dates simply changed. It also fails to reflect accurate numbers from post-'surge' Iraq, and the coming troop rotation coined "OIF 08-09". According to Knappenberger, "the numbers shown by the DoD are not matching up to the situation on the ground. There is a major problem being swept under the rug here." Unfortunately for the troops, it looks increasingly likely that, by the time their service is up, they will be told to remain for longer periods of time in a service that is desperate for manpower.
--
Evan Michael Knappenberger
Evan Knappenberger, an Iraq veteran and founder of the Stop the Stop-Loss campaign, says that his investigation found that "in most units going back to Iraq for OIF 08-09, the average number of troops that have had their ETS [end time of service dates] extended was roughly 50%." Knappenberger went on to explain that "by this time next year, you will have a major problem dealing with soldiers whose dates were simply changed without orders or even a warning." This development comes after the news that congress is considering legislation that would regulate time that the troops had in between deployments as a means to a more effective fighting force worn down by multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also comes after the announcement that minimum tours in Iraq have been extended from 12 to 15 months.
According to Army Public Affairs, the latest numbers on the Stop-Loss are from April of 2007, and put the total at just over 8,000 soldiers affected. However, this does not include the number of so-called "Involuntarily Extended" troops, nor does it reflect the number of soldiers whose ETS dates simply changed. It also fails to reflect accurate numbers from post-'surge' Iraq, and the coming troop rotation coined "OIF 08-09". According to Knappenberger, "the numbers shown by the DoD are not matching up to the situation on the ground. There is a major problem being swept under the rug here." Unfortunately for the troops, it looks increasingly likely that, by the time their service is up, they will be told to remain for longer periods of time in a service that is desperate for manpower.
--
Evan Michael Knappenberger
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Stop Loss Defined - Wikipedia
Stop-loss policy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The stop-loss policy, in the United States military, is the retention of troops to remain in service beyond their expected term of service. It has been argued that soldiers contractually agree to partake in stop-loss, but this may or may not be the case, and the issue is still being debated, both in public and in federal court. Stop loss was created by Congress after the Vietnam War. Stop-loss has been justified on the legal basis of paragraph 9(c) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States" but which has not been reviewed in full by a federal court system.
The use of this provision has been criticized by many as abuse of the spirit of the law, due to the fact that Congress has not yet declared war and that in the current situation, it is unlikely to ever have a conventional end.
Stop-loss was first significantly used just before and during the first Gulf War. According to a military publication[1], "the Army last used stop loss during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990 when President George H. W. Bush delegated stop loss authority to the defense secretary." Since then, it has been used more extensively; since 2001 primarily after the national State of emergency declared by President George W. Bush
Stop-Loss, as well as the practice of Involuntary Extension, have been extremely controversial. Called by many including former presidential candidate John Kerry a "backdoor draft."
The first legal challenge to this policy came in October 2004, with a lawsuit challenged by an anonymous National Guardsman in California, referred to as "John Doe." A basis for the suit is that stop-loss does not apply to the current situation in Iraq, which is a military occupation and not a war zone. Another argument used in the case is that it broke the contract of the guardsman, as he had already fulfilled his IRR obligation.
The first legal challenge to the extension of term of service of military call-up or contract occurred during the American Civil War, when a soldier was courtmartialed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton himself.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as one of his first acts in his position, penned a memo compelling commanders to "minimize" the stop-lossing of soldiers.
The United States Department of Defense now has begun a program to replace the stop-loss, as it is "too controversial". The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's account.
The Army claims that enlisted soldiers facing stop loss can now voluntarily separate from the United States Army by request, under provision 3-12, but this is deceptive because only after they complete an involuntary deployment of twelve to fifteen months and 90 days "stabilization time" can they apply.
Iraq Veterans Against the War, an activist organization of former and current service members, in solidarity with former Specialist and Iraq vet Evan Knappenberger, has announced a national "Stop the Stop-Loss" campaign at a recent press conference where they were holding a week-long vigil in a tower erected on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The stop-loss policy, in the United States military, is the retention of troops to remain in service beyond their expected term of service. It has been argued that soldiers contractually agree to partake in stop-loss, but this may or may not be the case, and the issue is still being debated, both in public and in federal court. Stop loss was created by Congress after the Vietnam War. Stop-loss has been justified on the legal basis of paragraph 9(c) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States" but which has not been reviewed in full by a federal court system.
The use of this provision has been criticized by many as abuse of the spirit of the law, due to the fact that Congress has not yet declared war and that in the current situation, it is unlikely to ever have a conventional end.
Stop-loss was first significantly used just before and during the first Gulf War. According to a military publication[1], "the Army last used stop loss during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990 when President George H. W. Bush delegated stop loss authority to the defense secretary." Since then, it has been used more extensively; since 2001 primarily after the national State of emergency declared by President George W. Bush
Stop-Loss, as well as the practice of Involuntary Extension, have been extremely controversial. Called by many including former presidential candidate John Kerry a "backdoor draft."
The first legal challenge to this policy came in October 2004, with a lawsuit challenged by an anonymous National Guardsman in California, referred to as "John Doe." A basis for the suit is that stop-loss does not apply to the current situation in Iraq, which is a military occupation and not a war zone. Another argument used in the case is that it broke the contract of the guardsman, as he had already fulfilled his IRR obligation.
The first legal challenge to the extension of term of service of military call-up or contract occurred during the American Civil War, when a soldier was courtmartialed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton himself.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as one of his first acts in his position, penned a memo compelling commanders to "minimize" the stop-lossing of soldiers.
The United States Department of Defense now has begun a program to replace the stop-loss, as it is "too controversial". The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's account.
The Army claims that enlisted soldiers facing stop loss can now voluntarily separate from the United States Army by request, under provision 3-12, but this is deceptive because only after they complete an involuntary deployment of twelve to fifteen months and 90 days "stabilization time" can they apply.
Iraq Veterans Against the War, an activist organization of former and current service members, in solidarity with former Specialist and Iraq vet Evan Knappenberger, has announced a national "Stop the Stop-Loss" campaign at a recent press conference where they were holding a week-long vigil in a tower erected on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
Stop Loss from usmilitary.com
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/stoploss.htm
STOP LOSS
STOP LOSS, on the other hand, means extending a military person in the Guard or Reserves, or on active duty, beyond what their normal separation date would be. Those who join the military agree to this provision under paragraph 9c of the enlistment contract states:
In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.
That, is the basis of STOP LOSS. The Department of Defense maintains that the term "war" means anytime America's Armed Forces are engaged in hostile conflict, and not just "war declared by Congress." Would that stand up in court? We don't know yet, as STOP LOSS has never been challenged in court. However, there are eight Guard and Reserve troops who have banded together to file a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Defense for calling them to active duty, and then keeping them on active duty past their separation date, under the authority of STOP LOSS, so perhaps we'll soon find out.
I should mention here that STOP LOSS is not new. Political opponants of the President often refer to STOP LOSS as a "back-door draft," and act as if President Bush invented the policy.
Congress first gave STOP LOSS authority to the Department of Defense right after the draft ended. However, the military didn't use the authority until the 1990/1991 Gulf War, when Bush Senior imposed STOP LOSS on pretty much everyone in the military during the Gulf War. This STOP LOSS was later revised to include only those deployed, and individuals in certain critical job skills.
President Clinton imposed STOP LOSS at the beginning of the Bosnia deployment, and during the Kosovo Air Campaign. STOP LOSS was imposed for a brief period right after 9/11, and then again in 2002 and 2003.
The current STOP LOSS program only affects members of the active duty Army, the Army Reserves, and the Army National Guard, and only affects individuals who are either deployed or have been officially notified that they are scheduled for deployment. Such members are prevented from separating or retiring from the point of deployment notification, to (up to) 90 days following return from deployment.
STOP LOSS
STOP LOSS, on the other hand, means extending a military person in the Guard or Reserves, or on active duty, beyond what their normal separation date would be. Those who join the military agree to this provision under paragraph 9c of the enlistment contract states:
In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.
That, is the basis of STOP LOSS. The Department of Defense maintains that the term "war" means anytime America's Armed Forces are engaged in hostile conflict, and not just "war declared by Congress." Would that stand up in court? We don't know yet, as STOP LOSS has never been challenged in court. However, there are eight Guard and Reserve troops who have banded together to file a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Defense for calling them to active duty, and then keeping them on active duty past their separation date, under the authority of STOP LOSS, so perhaps we'll soon find out.
I should mention here that STOP LOSS is not new. Political opponants of the President often refer to STOP LOSS as a "back-door draft," and act as if President Bush invented the policy.
Congress first gave STOP LOSS authority to the Department of Defense right after the draft ended. However, the military didn't use the authority until the 1990/1991 Gulf War, when Bush Senior imposed STOP LOSS on pretty much everyone in the military during the Gulf War. This STOP LOSS was later revised to include only those deployed, and individuals in certain critical job skills.
President Clinton imposed STOP LOSS at the beginning of the Bosnia deployment, and during the Kosovo Air Campaign. STOP LOSS was imposed for a brief period right after 9/11, and then again in 2002 and 2003.
The current STOP LOSS program only affects members of the active duty Army, the Army Reserves, and the Army National Guard, and only affects individuals who are either deployed or have been officially notified that they are scheduled for deployment. Such members are prevented from separating or retiring from the point of deployment notification, to (up to) 90 days following return from deployment.
50,000 into extended duty
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/01/army_stoploss_program_forces_50000_into_extended_duty_/
Army Stop-Loss Program Forces 50,000 into Extended Duty
James Joyner | Monday, January 30, 2006
The AP has discovered the Army’s Stop-Loss policy, which is hardly news to those who have been paying attention. The sheer scope of the program might be somewhat surprising, however.
The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called “stop-loss,” but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat. The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.
“As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force,” said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank. “When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you’re edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism.”
When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military. Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base.
[…]
Congressional critics have assailed stop-loss, and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry called it “a back-door draft.” The United States abolished the draft in 1973, but the all-volunteer military never before has been tested by a protracted war.
A report commissioned by the Pentagon called stop-loss a “short-term fix” enabling the Army to meet ongoing troop deployment requirements, but said such policies “risk breaking the force as recruitment and retention problems mount.” It was written by Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer. Thompson added, “The persistent use of stop-loss underscores the fact that the war-fighting burden is being carried by a handful of soldiers while the vast majority of citizens incur no sacrifice at all.”
Stop-loss certainly does undermine the voluntary nature of military service and it is no doubt unfair to force those who have already sacrificed to give even more. There is, however, no ready alternative. Sending units to war shorthanded or with last-minute replacements is too big a risk.
Further, there are two categories of people involved: those who have completed their entire service obligation and thos who have not. While soldiers enlist for periods of two, three, or four years of active duty, all thereby commit to eight years of total service. During ordinary circumstances, those remaining years can be served in the Reserve Component, including the non-drilling Individual Ready Reserve. While unfortunate, forcing those who still have several years’ obligation to stay on active duty is not “a back-door draft.”
The Army has, however, tried to stop-loss people in beyond their eight years. That is unconscionable in an all-volunteer force.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/04/cpt_brad_schwan_fighting_stop_loss/
Captain Brad Schwan, a West Point graduate, is suing to get out of the Army Reserves.
Brad Schwan went to the U.S. Military Academy because he thought the quality education and service to his country would make solid building blocks for his future. He never thought he might serve the better part of his life in the Army. Now, nearly a year after he says his eight-year commitment to the Army expired, the Simi Valley captain is facing the prospect of serving “for an indefinite term” because he can “be held during the pleasure of the President,” according to documents in the case of Bradley E. Schwan v. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, et al.
[…]
“I served my time, and I want control of my life back,” said Schwan, 30, who is graduating from the UCLA School of Law in May and serving as his own lawyer. “I’m being told that I have to serve involuntarily — that’s a draft.”
A policy called stop-loss that legally keeps troops in the service longer than expected has been commonplace since Sept. 11, 2001, and a handful of cases against the government regarding the policy have had varying degrees of success. Some troops have been honorably discharged while others were ordered to stay in the military. But Schwan did not have a stop-loss order in this instance, which makes his case unique.
Army Stop-Loss Program Forces 50,000 into Extended Duty
James Joyner | Monday, January 30, 2006
The AP has discovered the Army’s Stop-Loss policy, which is hardly news to those who have been paying attention. The sheer scope of the program might be somewhat surprising, however.
The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called “stop-loss,” but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat. The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.
“As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force,” said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank. “When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you’re edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism.”
When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military. Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base.
[…]
Congressional critics have assailed stop-loss, and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry called it “a back-door draft.” The United States abolished the draft in 1973, but the all-volunteer military never before has been tested by a protracted war.
A report commissioned by the Pentagon called stop-loss a “short-term fix” enabling the Army to meet ongoing troop deployment requirements, but said such policies “risk breaking the force as recruitment and retention problems mount.” It was written by Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer. Thompson added, “The persistent use of stop-loss underscores the fact that the war-fighting burden is being carried by a handful of soldiers while the vast majority of citizens incur no sacrifice at all.”
Stop-loss certainly does undermine the voluntary nature of military service and it is no doubt unfair to force those who have already sacrificed to give even more. There is, however, no ready alternative. Sending units to war shorthanded or with last-minute replacements is too big a risk.
Further, there are two categories of people involved: those who have completed their entire service obligation and thos who have not. While soldiers enlist for periods of two, three, or four years of active duty, all thereby commit to eight years of total service. During ordinary circumstances, those remaining years can be served in the Reserve Component, including the non-drilling Individual Ready Reserve. While unfortunate, forcing those who still have several years’ obligation to stay on active duty is not “a back-door draft.”
The Army has, however, tried to stop-loss people in beyond their eight years. That is unconscionable in an all-volunteer force.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/04/cpt_brad_schwan_fighting_stop_loss/
Captain Brad Schwan, a West Point graduate, is suing to get out of the Army Reserves.
Brad Schwan went to the U.S. Military Academy because he thought the quality education and service to his country would make solid building blocks for his future. He never thought he might serve the better part of his life in the Army. Now, nearly a year after he says his eight-year commitment to the Army expired, the Simi Valley captain is facing the prospect of serving “for an indefinite term” because he can “be held during the pleasure of the President,” according to documents in the case of Bradley E. Schwan v. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, et al.
[…]
“I served my time, and I want control of my life back,” said Schwan, 30, who is graduating from the UCLA School of Law in May and serving as his own lawyer. “I’m being told that I have to serve involuntarily — that’s a draft.”
A policy called stop-loss that legally keeps troops in the service longer than expected has been commonplace since Sept. 11, 2001, and a handful of cases against the government regarding the policy have had varying degrees of success. Some troops have been honorably discharged while others were ordered to stay in the military. But Schwan did not have a stop-loss order in this instance, which makes his case unique.
Stop Loss and the Pentagon
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pentagon-cuts-stop-loss-2007-01-25.html
Pentagon cuts stop-loss
By Roxana Tiron
January 25, 2007
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is ordering military service chiefs to reduce the use of a controversial policy intended to keep troops in war zones beyond the end of their original commitments, according to a document obtained by The Hill.
In a memo sent to the service chiefs, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and undersecretaries of defense, Gates asked to see plans to minimize the use of the so-called stop-loss policy for active duty and reserve components by the end of next month.
Gates’s directive comes at a time when the White House’s plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 is coming under intense criticism on both sides of the aisle, in part because it would extend the tours of duty of troops already on the ground and trigger stop-loss orders.
“They’re extending and stop-lossing people in the country [Iraq] themselves,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House defense appropriations committee and an outspoken critic of the White House’s Iraq strategy, said on MSNBC earlier this month. “And it is very unpopular, even with the troops themselves, when they don’t understand the mission.”
Several House Republicans sent a letter to Gates last week asking that members of the National Guard and Reserve not be kept on active duty beyond their original commitment.
“The stop-loss program is, in essence, a hidden draft,” said Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.), one of the members who wrote to Gates.
The letter to Gates also says that the Pentagon’s use of stop-loss “betrays [soldiers’] trust, separates families and threatens to devastate the likelihood that active-duty soldiers will follow up their service with time serving in the reserves.”
Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Jim Ramstad (Minn.) also signed the letter to Gates.
A stop-loss order for National Guard and Reserve units activated for the war against terrorism has been in effect since November 2002. The policy allows the Pentagon to keep soldiers whose enlistment is due to expire in order to maintain troop strength and unit integrity.
Specifically, the president may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces whom the president determines is essential to the national security of the United States.
But the policy has attracted a myriad of lawsuits from reservists who have argued that the policy illegally makes them stay in the military once their required term of service is complete.
The Pentagon has successfully argued that under federal law it can extend the deployment of any reserve officer who is on active duty, if the president believes doing so is essential to national security.
For the Pentagon, stop-loss orders are a tool to stem a large reduction of personnel and maximize cohesion and experience for units fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gates’s directive to reduce the use of stop-loss is part of a wider initiative to change deployment policies for reserve forces and the use of the so-called total force, which encompasses both active and reserve units.
In the memo, Gates outlines the changes to the deployment of reserve and active forces, which he first announced the day after Bush announced his new Iraq strategy.
Members of the reserve forces will have an involuntary deployment time for one year, followed by five years on their home bases.
But there may be some exceptions to that policy.
“Today’s global demands will require a number of selected Guard/Reserve to be remobilized sooner than this standard,” Gates wrote. “Our intention is that such be temporary.”
However, he urged the services to plan their force structure based on a one-year deployment time and five years of demobilization.
Meanwhile, ground combat and combat support will be managed on a unit basis. “This will allow greater cohesion and predictability in how these Reserve units train and deploy,” Gates said. “Exceptions will require my approval.”
Active-duty forces will deploy for one year at a time and will spend two years at their home bases, according to Gates. Currently most active units deploy for one year and spend just one year at their home bases, after which they immediately deploy again.
For those in the active and reserve force who have to deploy earlier and often, or have to extend their tours beyond the rotation policy, Gates is planning to establish a compensation and incentives program, according to the memo.
The Pentagon chief is also directing all commands and units to review how they administer a so-called hardship waiver program to ensure that they are properly taking into account exceptional circumstances facing military families of deployed service members.
Pentagon cuts stop-loss
By Roxana Tiron
January 25, 2007
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is ordering military service chiefs to reduce the use of a controversial policy intended to keep troops in war zones beyond the end of their original commitments, according to a document obtained by The Hill.
In a memo sent to the service chiefs, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and undersecretaries of defense, Gates asked to see plans to minimize the use of the so-called stop-loss policy for active duty and reserve components by the end of next month.
Gates’s directive comes at a time when the White House’s plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 is coming under intense criticism on both sides of the aisle, in part because it would extend the tours of duty of troops already on the ground and trigger stop-loss orders.
“They’re extending and stop-lossing people in the country [Iraq] themselves,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House defense appropriations committee and an outspoken critic of the White House’s Iraq strategy, said on MSNBC earlier this month. “And it is very unpopular, even with the troops themselves, when they don’t understand the mission.”
Several House Republicans sent a letter to Gates last week asking that members of the National Guard and Reserve not be kept on active duty beyond their original commitment.
“The stop-loss program is, in essence, a hidden draft,” said Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.), one of the members who wrote to Gates.
The letter to Gates also says that the Pentagon’s use of stop-loss “betrays [soldiers’] trust, separates families and threatens to devastate the likelihood that active-duty soldiers will follow up their service with time serving in the reserves.”
Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Jim Ramstad (Minn.) also signed the letter to Gates.
A stop-loss order for National Guard and Reserve units activated for the war against terrorism has been in effect since November 2002. The policy allows the Pentagon to keep soldiers whose enlistment is due to expire in order to maintain troop strength and unit integrity.
Specifically, the president may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces whom the president determines is essential to the national security of the United States.
But the policy has attracted a myriad of lawsuits from reservists who have argued that the policy illegally makes them stay in the military once their required term of service is complete.
The Pentagon has successfully argued that under federal law it can extend the deployment of any reserve officer who is on active duty, if the president believes doing so is essential to national security.
For the Pentagon, stop-loss orders are a tool to stem a large reduction of personnel and maximize cohesion and experience for units fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gates’s directive to reduce the use of stop-loss is part of a wider initiative to change deployment policies for reserve forces and the use of the so-called total force, which encompasses both active and reserve units.
In the memo, Gates outlines the changes to the deployment of reserve and active forces, which he first announced the day after Bush announced his new Iraq strategy.
Members of the reserve forces will have an involuntary deployment time for one year, followed by five years on their home bases.
But there may be some exceptions to that policy.
“Today’s global demands will require a number of selected Guard/Reserve to be remobilized sooner than this standard,” Gates wrote. “Our intention is that such be temporary.”
However, he urged the services to plan their force structure based on a one-year deployment time and five years of demobilization.
Meanwhile, ground combat and combat support will be managed on a unit basis. “This will allow greater cohesion and predictability in how these Reserve units train and deploy,” Gates said. “Exceptions will require my approval.”
Active-duty forces will deploy for one year at a time and will spend two years at their home bases, according to Gates. Currently most active units deploy for one year and spend just one year at their home bases, after which they immediately deploy again.
For those in the active and reserve force who have to deploy earlier and often, or have to extend their tours beyond the rotation policy, Gates is planning to establish a compensation and incentives program, according to the memo.
The Pentagon chief is also directing all commands and units to review how they administer a so-called hardship waiver program to ensure that they are properly taking into account exceptional circumstances facing military families of deployed service members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
