Army Troops Forced Back Into Service

[The Kernel]

WASHINGTON - The Army will prevent soldiers in units set to deploy to Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) from leaving the service at the end of their terms, a top general said Wednesday.

The announcement, an expansion of an Army program called "stop-loss," means that thousands of soldiers who had expected to retire or otherwise leave the military will have to stay on for the duration of their deployment to those combat zones.

The expansion affects units that are 90 days away or less from deploying, said Lt. Gen. Frank L. "Buster" Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel. Commanders have the ability to make exceptions for soldiers with special circumstances; otherwise, soldiers won't be able to leave the service or transfer from their unit until they return to their home base after the deployment.

The move will allow the Army to keep units together as they deploy, Hagenbeck said. Units with new recruits or recently transferred soldiers would not perform as well because the troops would not have had time to work together.

"The rationale is to have cohesive, trained units going to war together," Hagenbeck said.

Previously, the Army had prevented soldiers from leaving certain units scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq. But Wednesday's move is the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, that the stop-loss program has been ordered so widely.

The announcement comes as the Army is struggling to find fresh units to continue the occupation of Iraq. Almost every Army combat unit has faced or will face deployment there or in Afghanistan, and increased violence has forced the deployment of an additional 20,000 troops to the region, straining units even further.

Some criticize the stop-loss program as contrary to the concept of an all-volunteer military force. Soldiers planning to retire and get on with their lives now face months away from their families and homes.

In an opinion piece in Wednesday's New York Times, Andrew Exum, a former Army captain who served under Hagenbeck in the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, called the treatment of soldiers under stop-loss programs "shameful."

"Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan," he wrote. "They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq."

Hagenbeck said the stop-loss move is necessary only because the Army is also undergoing a major reorganization that requires some units to be taken off-line while they are restructured.

Hagenbeck had no numbers on how many soldiers would be affected.

Without the program, an average division would have to replace 4,000 soldiers — perhaps one-quarter to one-fifth of its strength — before or during a deployment, according an Army press release.

Isn't one of Bush's biggest campaign points that he supports the troops better than the opposition? How the hell is not letting them retire supporting the troops?

[Vohu Manah]

I understand the military's reasoning behind it, it doesn't change the fact that it's a shitty deal.

[Mr Bean]

Stop loss has been going on for ever

Keep cutting the force size while increasing the requirments of said force and lots of trained people getting out, sometimes you have to make them stay in order to maintain the force

[HemlockGrey]

Didn't Bush also cut pay and benefits to soldiers?

[Tribun]

Well, this will really increase morale in the army, right?
No wonder, were the motivation for all the shit they do in Iraq came from.
Heil Bush!

[The Kernel]

Stop loss has been going on for ever

Keep cutting the force size while increasing the requirments of said force and lots of trained people getting out, sometimes you have to make them stay in order to maintain the force

Read the article, this is the first time since 9/11 that it has happened on such a large scale.

Didn't Bush also cut pay and benefits to soldiers?

Yeah, talk to anyone who works at a VA hospital and they'll give you an earful about that one.

[MKSheppard]

Okay, lets combine this with the Seven Carriers going out on an "excercise' along with HMS Albion, the RN's only LST loaded with
Challenger IIs and HMS Invincible......

[Mr Bean]

Didn't Bush also cut pay and benefits to soldiers?

HA biggest single pay increase I've gotten under any President, Thank you Mr President, you helped pay for my soon to be Plasma TV

Read the article, this is the first time since 9/11 that it has happened on such a large scale.

True enough

[consequences]

Hell, there's a guy who's been with my Reserve unit, supposed to have gotten out before the start of last year's shindig, and is still having to come in to drill three months after the deployment ended. That's the problem with being useful to the military and competent.

[The Kernel]

Okay, lets combine this with the Seven Carriers going out on an "excercise' along with HMS Albion, the RN's only LST loaded with
Challenger IIs and HMS Invincible......

Stop your World War III wanking Shep, it ain't going to happen.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I can understand why the military wants to enforce this. Especially for Reservists/Guardsmen. It makes sense of the point of view that we need skilled people with experience. But it also shows that we may be spread thinner than they care to admit.

[Tsyroc]

I also think this means that an awful lot of people are going to be gone at the same time when they've finished with this "stop loss" stuff.

Some of the plans show the US getting troops out of Iraq by 2006. So is the government going to make people who have already completed their time stay in until 2006?


At this point there isn't a whole lot the government can do, but I think the initial problem has to do with the Bush administration's overal view of this. They are taking the approach that the US is in a desperate struggle with terrorists organizations and the invasion of Iraq was a major step in defeating these enemies. Based on that, how can they not be justified in keeping people over their original discharge dates?

The problem is that a lot of people see the Iraq thing as a gross mistep that was unecessary to getting these terror organizations so by that view point Bush & co are just fucking the troops some more.

I can tell you that most of the troops are going to look at this from their own personal point of view more than they are going to be looking at the big picture. Most people who are ready to get out at the end of their term are ready to "get the hell out" and that's without being in a war zone or extended past their expected discharge date.

I should also point out that these articles about people staying beyond their time don't explain everything. Most enlisted contracts are for 8 years. A lot of that 8 years is usually inactive reserve time, in which the person is technically out of the service but can be recalled to active duty during that time period (usually 2-4 years after discharge). So, based on that a bunch of these people being held over are still technically within their original contracts. They are essentially being recalled without ever being discharged and I think that after they have you back that you are essentially stuck until they are done with you. In that sense it really could turn into a "Backdoor Draft" that John Kerry has been calling it.

I'm just wondering what kind of attitude potential recruits are going to have towards the military and reserves after what's happened under the two Bush administrations. At least Bush I didn't overly abuse the reserves but I still thought their use in GWI was questionable in that type of situation.

[Knife]

Stop loss has been going on for ever

Keep cutting the force size while increasing the requirments of said force and lots of trained people getting out, sometimes you have to make them stay in order to maintain the force

Read the article, this is the first time since 9/11 that it has happened on such a large scale.

Tis also the biggest war since September 11th. They did it, to a lesser extent, in Afganistan, they did it in Somalia, Gulf War I (or II depending on how you count), ect.....

Tis really not an issue since its happened for a long time since we tie up large amounts of troops in such hotspots like Germany and Italy.

[Elfdart]

This "stop-loss" bullshit should be called "stop-gap" measures. They are just to hold on until Numbnuts can reinstate the draft. Salon had an article about how local draft boards have been ordered to get their shit together. This little time bomb is set to go off after the election.

Both candidates should be asked at every opportunity: "Will you bring back the draft?" and "Under what conditions would you bring back the draft?". They need to be placed on the spot on this.

[Knife]

This "stop-loss" bullshit should be called "stop-gap" measures. They are just to hold on until Numbnuts can reinstate the draft. Salon had an article about how local draft boards have been ordered to get their shit together. This little time bomb is set to go off after the election.

Both candidates should be asked at every opportunity: "Will you bring back the draft?" and "Under what conditions would you bring back the draft?". They need to be placed on the spot on this.

Oh God, not this again.


THE DRAFT BEING BROUGHT BACK IS NOTHING MORE THAN A POLITICAL PLOY.

The modern military in the US is based on a small voluntary force. There is not the equipment nor the training bases available to train and equip a large conscript army.

There isn't the bases anymore to house said conscript army (especially since another round of BRAC is gearing up) and there isn't the need for such an large conscript army.

Granted, the US military is spread thin at the moment, but alot of that has to do with our presence in such places as Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy, Britan, and other such nasty places that need us there.

[Elfdart]

If it's just a political ploy, why are draft boards being organized?

[Stuart Mackey]

If it's just a political ploy, why are draft boards being organized?

As I understrand it, your draft boards have always existed, that they should see that they still work on occation should come as no surprise given that they are probably reqired by law to be able to do their job.

Now why dont you stump up some evidence to support your assertation that the draft in the US is about to be reinstated?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not this undying horseshit.

[Stormbringer]

If it's just a political ploy, why are draft boards being organized?

As the Kiwi said, draft boards and all the social machinery necessary for them have been maintained. That's been the case since the draft was ended and it'll take more than panic, fearmongering, and plain old hysteric before I believe you.

Quite frankly, I trust the assertion of the professional soldiers among us more than yours.

[Stormbringer]

Okay, lets combine this with the Seven Carriers going out on an "excercise' along with HMS Albion, the RN's only LST loaded with
Challenger IIs and HMS Invincible......

Stop your World War III wanking Shep, it ain't going to happen.

He might not get his world war, but that's a lot of firepower to be moving just for shits and giggles.

[Elfdart]

Oiling Up The Draft Machine?
Nov. 3, 2003 | The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant young men off to Vietnam have languished since the early 1970s, their membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended. But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life.

"Serve Your Community and the Nation," the announcement urges. "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men ... receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service."

Local draft board volunteers, meanwhile, report that at training sessions last summer, they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill some of the estimated 16 percent of board seats that are vacant nationwide.

Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam War, it is an ominous flashback of a message. Divisive military actions are ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. News accounts daily detail how the U.S. is stretched too thin there to be effective. And tensions are high with Syria and Iran and on the Korean Peninsula, with some in or close to the Bush White House suggesting that military action may someday be necessary in those spots, too.

Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has the Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots. Recognizing that even the mention of a draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive, the Pentagon last week was adamant that the drive to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. There is "no contingency plan" to ask Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.

Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability.

"The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in Iraq," says U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat. "We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft."

Rangel has provoked controversy in the past by insisting that a draft is the only way to fill the nation's military needs without exploiting young men and women from lower-income families. And, some suggest, by proposing military service from middle- and upper-class men and women, Rangel may be trying to diminish the odds of actually using them in combat. But Rangel is hardly alone in suggesting that the draft might be needed.

The draft, ended by Congress in 1973 as the Indochina War was winding down, was long a target of antiwar activists, and remains highly controversial both in and out of the military. Most military officers understandably prefer an army of volunteers and career soldiers over an army of grudging conscripts; Rumsfeld, too, has long been a staunch advocate of an all-volunteer force.

According to some experts, basic math might compel the Pentagon to reconsider the draft: Of a total U.S. military force of 1.4 million people around the globe (many of them in non-combat support positions and in services like the Air Force and Navy), there are currently about 140,000 active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed in Iraq -- and though Rumsfeld has been an advocate of a lean, nimble military apparatus, history suggests he needs more muscle.

"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics," says Charles Peña, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.

"The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed by the White House and the Defense Department right now," Peña adds, "is that you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and they don't want to talk about that."

The Pentagon has already had to double the deployment periods of some units, call up more reserves and extend tours of duty by a year -- all highly unpopular moves. Meanwhile, the recent spate of deadly bombings in Baghdad, Falluja and other cities, and increasing attacks on U.S. forces throughout Iraq have forced the U.S. to reconsider its plans to reduce troop deployments.

Those factors -- combined with the stress and grind of war itself -- clearly have diminished troop morale. And many in the National Guard and reserves never anticipated having to serve in an active war zone, far from their families and jobs, for six months or longer. Stars and Stripes, the Army's official paper, reports that a poll it conducted found that half the soldiers in Iraq say they are "not likely" or are "very unlikely" to reenlist -- a very high figure.

Consider that the total enlistment goal for active Army and Army reserves in the fiscal year ended Oct. 1 was 100,000. If half of the 140,000 troops currently in Iraq were to go home and stay, two-thirds of this year's recruits would be needed to replace them. And that does not take into consideration military needs at home and around the globe.

"My sense is that there is a lot of nervousness about the enlistment numbers as Iraq drags on," says Doug Bandow, another military manpower expert at Cato. "We're still early enough into it that the full impact on recruiting/retention hasn't been felt."

The Pentagon, perhaps predictably, sees a more hopeful picture.

Curtis Gilroy, director of accession policy at the Department of Defense, concedes that troop morale is hurting. "There are certainly concerns about future reenlistments. Iraq is not a happy place to be," Gilroy says. "[But] I think a certain amount of that is just grumbling. What we're interested in is not what people are saying, but what they do." So far, he reports, reenlistments and new enlistments remain on target.

Beth Asch, a military manpower expert at the Rand Corp. think tank, agrees that current retention and new enlistment figures are holding up. But she cautions that it may be too soon to know the impact of the tough and open-ended occupation in Iraq. "Short deployments actually boost enlistments and reenlistments," Asch says. "But studies show longer deployments can definitely have a negative impact."

While she thinks it is unlikely that the military will have to resort to a draft to meet its needs, Ned Lebow, a military manpower expert and professor of government at Dartmouth College, is less confident.

"The government is in a bit of a box," Lebow says. "They can hold reservists on active duty longer, and risk antagonizing that whole section of America that has family members who join the Reserves. They can try to pay soldiers more, but it's not clear that works -- and besides, there's already an enormous budget deficit. They can try to bribe other countries to contribute more troops, which they're trying to do now, but not with much success. Or they can try Iraqization of the war -- though we saw what happened to Vietnamization, and Afghanization of the war in Afghanistan isn't working, so Iraqization doesn't seem likely to work either.

"So," Lebow concludes, "that leaves the draft."

Purely in mechanical terms, a draft is a complicated and difficult thing to get off the ground. It would require an act of Congress, first, and then the signature of the president. Young men are already required to register with the Selective Service system, but if the bill were signed into law, it would still take half a year or more to get the new troops into the system. Federal law would require the Selective Service to immediately set up a lottery and start sending out induction notices. Local draft boards would have to evaluate them for medical problems, moral objections and other issues like family crises, and hear the appeals of those who are resisting the draft.

Under law, the first batch of new conscripts must be processed and ready for boot camp in 193 days or less after the start of the draft.

But if the mechanics of the draft are difficult, the politics could be lethal for Bush or any other top official who proposed it.

Already, the American public is almost as split today over the war in Iraq as it was about the war in Indochina nearly four decades ago, though not yet as passionately. But a new draft would likely incite even deeper resentment than it did then. In the last war fought by a conscript army, draft deferments for students meant that nobody who was in college had to worry about being called up until after graduation, and until late in that war, it was even possible, by going to grad school (like Vice President Dick Cheney), to avoid getting drafted altogether. In the Vietnam War era, college boys could also duck combat, as George W. Bush did, by joining the National Guard.

But that's all been changed. In a new draft, college students whose lottery number was selected would only be permitted to finish their current semester; seniors could finish their final year. After that, they'd have to answer the call. Meanwhile, National Guardsmen, as we've seen in the current war, are now likely to face overseas combat duty, too.

"If Congress and Bush reinstitute the draft, it would be the '60s all over again," predicts Lebow. "It's hard to imagine Congress passing such a bill, but then, look how many members of Congress just rolled over and played dead on the bill for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan."

New York Rep. Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced companion bills in the two houses of Congress to reactivate the draft last January, at a time when Bush was clearly moving toward an invasion. While both bills remain in the legislative hopper, neither has gone anywhere.

Even among those who think the public might support a draft, like Bandow at the Cato Institute, few believe Bush would dare to propose it before the November 2004 election. "No one would want that fight," he explains. "It would highlight the cost of an imperial foreign policy, add an incendiary issue to the already emotional protests, and further split the limited-government conservatives." But despite the Pentagon's denials, planners there are almost certainly weighing the numbers just as independent military experts are. And that could explain the willingness to tune up the draft machinery.

John Corcoran, an attorney who serves on a draft board in Philadelphia, says he joined the Reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War. Today, he says, the Bush administration "is in deep trouble" in Iraq "because they didn't plan for the occupation." That doesn't mean Bush would take the election-year risk of restarting the draft, Corcoran says. "To tell the truth, I don't think Bush has the balls to call for a draft.

"They give us a training session each year to keep the machinery in place and oiled up in case, God forbid, they ever do reinstitute it," he explains.

"They don't want us to have to do it," agrees Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service. "But they want us to be ready to do it at the click of a finger."


- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Dave Lindorff
Salon
November 3, 2003

[Knife]

If it's just a political ploy, why are draft boards being organized?

Please state your source that the local draft boards are mustering.

[Knife]

If it's just a political ploy, why are draft boards being organized?

Please state your source that the local draft boards are mustering.

Oops, sorry. See yours now.

[Stuart Mackey]

Oiling Up The Draft Machine?
Nov. 3, 2003 |

Where is the link btw?
A nice opinion peice..but thats it, opinion, and like arseholes, everyone has one. I did not see anywhere in that any policy of the current US administration to reintroduce the draft. And untill a responcible member of the Administration or Dubya himself say there will be the draft, and the bill goes through the congress and sentate, it aint happening.

[Knife]

Dealing with the meat and potatoes of the article;

According to some experts, basic math might compel the Pentagon to reconsider the draft: Of a total U.S. military force of 1.4 million people around the globe (many of them in non-combat support positions and in services like the Air Force and Navy), there are currently about 140,000 active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed in Iraq -- and though Rumsfeld has been an advocate of a lean, nimble military apparatus, history suggests he needs more muscle.

Of those 1.4 million active and reserve units, only 140 grand are in Iraq. Quick math says thats only 10%. So out of all of the US military only one in ten are in theater. That doesn't scream, draft. Rather that scream; redeploy other troops in non-critical missions. Like Europe.

"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics," says Charles Peña, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.

It's not gross troops on ground, rather the specific troops on the ground. At this point, 240 thousand troops in Armored Divisions isn't going to do much for us. MP units and other 'Peace Keeper' units are needed at this time with limited use of Infantry and other combat roles.

The problem come that for years, the military has been shifting non combat roles to reserve units. This is why a large portion of reserve and National Guard units keep getting activated durring Iraq, Afaganistan, Kosovo, Somalia, ect...

"The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed by the White House and the Defense Department right now," Peña adds, "is that you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and they don't want to talk about that."

The draft won't do shit for you. In this case, you now have the raw manpower but you don't have the facilites to train them nor the equipment to outfit them. So you have the basic troops but still not the type of troops required for the mission.

This is the basic problem of conscript forces. You have the warm bodies, but the training and time to train them is too expensive to accomplish. War of attrision is long gone.

Those factors -- combined with the stress and grind of war itself -- clearly have diminished troop morale. And many in the National Guard and reserves never anticipated having to serve in an active war zone, far from their families and jobs, for six months or longer. Stars and Stripes, the Army's official paper, reports that a poll it conducted found that half the soldiers in Iraq say they are "not likely" or are "very unlikely" to reenlist -- a very high figure.

Nice tear jerker, but really doesn't do much for me. They enlisted, they volenteered. The doctrine of them being called on for technical jobs in war time has done nothing but increased for about a decade now, if they failed to realise this while they were getting college money, too bad for them.

In short, Rangel has been pulling this shit for years. Political play. Pure and simple. Cry baby shit from people feeling sorry for reservists that VOLENTEERED, doesn't really make the grade either.

The military doesn't want conscripts. The Congress doesn't want conscripts. The people don't want conscripsts. The draft is dead.