NationStates Jolt Archive

The Defense Department will seek to drastically reduce the number of soldiers forced to serve beyond their enlistment end date, and all those who have done so since October 2008 will be compensated $ 500 for every extra month they have served, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced today.

Gates Announces End to Army Stop-Loss
Pentagon to Discontinue Policy Critics Often Called a 'Backdoor Draft' (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7115439&page=1)
By LUIS MARTINEZ, ABC News
March 18, 2009—


Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced today the phased ending of the Army's use of its "stop-loss" policy, which extends soldiers' tours beyond the end of their enlistment contracts, and which critics have often called a "backdoor draft."

As of January, there are currently 13,200 soldiers continuing to serve in the Army beyond the tours of duty stated in their enlistment contracts. Gates announced a two-year timeline that will eliminate the ranks of soldiers currently serving in the Army under the policy by the spring of 2011.

"I believe it is important that we do everything possible to see that soldiers are not unnecessarily forced to stay in the Army beyond their end-of-term-of-service date," said Gates.

Beginning in August, the Army will stop extending soldiers beyond their enlistment dates so that the ranks of stop-loss soldiers are reduced by half by June 2010. The Army's goal is to totally eliminate the need for stop-loss by March 2011.

The military services have the legal power to involuntarily extend a soldier's service beyond the end of their enlistment contracts. In recent years, all military branches but the U.S. Army have been able to reduce the need to retain servicemen under the policy. Army officials have said the strain of maintaining the level of forces needed for Iraq and Afghanistan has forced them to continue using the policy.

Secretary Gates has been opposed to the use of stop-loss since he first came to the Pentagon in late 2006 and had asked the services to reduce its use.

"I believe that when somebody's end date of service comes, to hold them against their will, if you will, is just not the right thing to do, " he told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. "I felt, particularly in these numbers, that it was breaking faith."

In making the announcement, Gates acknowledged that the need for stop-loss may never totally go away, as it may be used "under extraordinary circumstances." But he expected that in the future, the numbers of those who might be affected would be in "scores not thousands."

Highly unpopular with military families, some critics have called stop-loss a backdoor draft because servicemen are forced to stay in the miltiary beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates. However, the services have called it a means of maintaining unit cohesion in times of war and retaining soldiers who have important skills that might be needed in those units when they deploy overseas.

"The stop-loss policy has amounted to a backdoor draft during years of an overstretched, overextended military," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "I applaud the president and Secretary Gates for ending a practice that has for too long abused the trust and tested the strength of our incredible military families."

Under the stop loss policy, a soldier can be required to continue serving if his or her unit is to deploy within 90 days of the end of the soldier's enlistment contract.

"Unit cohesion" is often cited as a primary factor because the unit's readiness might be affected if soldiers with key skills and training are allowed to leave the unit before it deployed.

Gates noted that when he took over as defense secretary, the Army had about 7,000 soldiers serving under stop loss. He attributed the rise in the numbers since then to "the surge" of additional combat troops into Iraq that began in early 2007.

Gates said he asked, "The surge brigades are out. ... Why isn't it coming down? Well, because the op tempo in Afghanistan was going up at the same time."

He said that was one reason why he gave the Army "some time to plan this."

He cited a faster-than-expected Army expansion, strong retention numbers and the drawdown in Iraq as enabling factors that will allow the Army to stop using stop loss.

One of the ways the Army will continue to eliminate the need for stop loss in the future will be by offering financial incentives to soldiers nearing the end of their enlistment contracts.

The Army Reserve will stop using stop loss this coming August by mobilizing units that don't include stop-loss soldiers and the Army National Guard will do the same in September.

Beginning in January 2010, the active duty Army will start deploying units without stop loss soldiers.

Gates also announced that the military would begin to make $500 monthly payments to servicemen forced to stay under stop-loss. Though Congress approved $72 million for such payments last fall, the Defense Department had not announced a payment schedule for the funds until today.

Gates announced that the payments would be retroactive to Oct. 1, 2008.

It is unfortunate this can't be phased out more quickly, but it is a major step in the right direction.

Any thoughts?

In before "THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO WEAKEN OUR MILITARY BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR SOLDIERS BECAUSE THEY HATE AMERICA!!!"

There's no point in calling it a volunteer army when there is a pseudo back-door draft. Definitely a step in the right direction.

I am highly disappointed, Cat-Tribe.

You missed a perfect opportunity to use the word 'Obamastration' in the title.

Does this mean the ability to call service men and women back into the forces is being elminated also?

This is good news. I was forced past my enlistment years ago and it sucked in to many ways. So I feel for these guys and gals.

Clearly this means Obama hates the military. And they hate him.


Its true, some ROTC kid on NSG said so.

Its true, some ROTC kid on NSG said so.

What is ROTC?

What is ROTC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Officers'_Training_Corps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Officers'_Training_Corps

K, but now it leaves me wondering who this kid is. Did I miss the joke?

K, but now it leaves me wondering who this kid is. Did I miss the joke?

Dont worry about it.

Dont worry about it.

I will go back to my corner and remain silent. :)

The Defense Department will seek to drastically reduce the number of soldiers forced to serve beyond their enlistment end date, and all those who have done so since October 2008 will be compensated $ 500 for every extra month they have served, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced today.
...
Any thoughts?
I guess if I were making the decisions, I'd leave stop-loss in place for a while longer. Long enough to draw down all the reserve and especially the National Guard troops that are in SWA. Once all the weekend warriors are back into their normal routine, it would be time to start cutting the full-timers loose.

I approve of the decision. Stop-loss was being abused to maintain a war that the previous administration had grossly failed to prepare for, and which they should never had initiated in the first place, as they did not have sufficient forces in hand.

I approve of the decision. Stop-loss was being abused to maintain a war that the previous administration had grossly failed to prepare for, and which they should never had initiated in the first place, as they did not have sufficient forces in hand.

Indeed, I guess the fact that our armed forces were woefully insufficient to accomplish what we had hoped to was one of those "unknown unknowns" I kept hearing about.

The Terrorists just won.

Indeed, I guess the fact that our armed forces were woefully insufficient to accomplish what we had hoped to was one of those "unknown unknowns" I kept hearing about.
I'm not sure. I think it might have been a known unknown. Or maybe an unknown known. One of those. ;)

I will go back to my corner and remain silent. :)

Look for the guy with a Blackwater avatar.

About ruddy time. Stop loss is insane.

About ruddy time. Stop loss is insane.

But without forcing soldiers to fight longer than they have to, how will we win wars we didn't need to start?

But without forcing soldiers to fight longer than they have to, how will we win wars we didn't need to start?

Reinstating the draft proper on the sly.

Stop-Loss was stupid. They should have either kept to the contracts or declared an emergency and invoked the duration clause. As usual, half-assed solutions are no solutions.

I guess if I were making the decisions, I'd leave stop-loss in place for a while longer. Long enough to draw down all the reserve and especially the National Guard troops that are in SWA. Once all the weekend warriors are back into their normal routine, it would be time to start cutting the full-timers loose.
both need to be done. im OK with letting stoplossed soldiers go first.

have we stopped using mercenaries?

both need to be done. im OK with letting stoplossed soldiers go first.

have we stopped using mercenaries?

We didn't really use mercenaries. There were private services providing security, some of whom got out of hand, but that's pretty big diference from actually using mercenary soldiers. I seem to recall an article saying the US was going to stop the practice, but they can't stop other organisations from doing so.

well thats good I suppose but I have the nagging feeling that a surge in Afghanistan may cock this up a bit

Its true, some ROTC kid on NSG said so.

be nice KOL

We didn't really use mercenaries. There were private services providing security, some of whom got out of hand, but that's pretty big diference from actually using mercenary soldiers. I seem to recall an article saying the US was going to stop the practice, but they can't stop other organisations from doing so.
what other organizations?

Sounds like a good call. Forcing soldiers to remain past the supposed end of their service is unjust, and the military can probably afford it if Obama keeps his promise of getting out of Iraq. Nice of him to add the compensation as well, though shouldn't it extend to everyone who was forced to stay longer?

Also, shouldn't these soldiers be allowed to sue for breach of contract (I presume their's some reason why they can't)?

have you heard there was a wave of suicide among recruiters?

most of them had served over there in Iraqistan.

this showed me that things were grim at least for recruiters.

who wants to sign up if they can get one involuntary re-up after another?

suppose you're in the guard, will you have a job...or a family...waiting after three tours?

so i understand why it was a practical short term solution, but if you want more volunteers then it had to change.

of course, there's always conscription, which solves everything.

have you heard there was a wave of suicide among recruiters?

most of them had served over there in Iraqistan.

this showed me that things were grim at least for recruiters.

who wants to sign up if they can get one involuntary re-up after another?

suppose you're in the guard, will you have a job...or a family...waiting after three tours?

so i understand why it was a practical short term solution, but if you want more volunteers then it had to change.

of course, there's always conscription, which solves everything.

Oh yes, of course, conscription always solves everything. Mhmm. Always. Yep. Definitely. Absolutely. Positively. Right guys? Guys?

Oh yes, of course, conscription always solves everything. Mhmm. Always. Yep. Definitely. Absolutely. Positively. Right guys? Guys?

Actually it does, tell me how it doesn't? I'm not really supporting conscription mind, you

Being in the military I'm glad they are ending stop loss.

To answer someones question I can't remember who exactly, in the US military no matter how long you enlist for all of your service is for 8 years, it says it in black and white in the contract you sign when you enlist and should uncle sam need to he can call you back to service for however many years you have left.

So if i did 4 years of active duty and got out, uncle sam could call me back for another 4 years and I am obligated to report for duty. If I did 2 years then I still technically owe uncle sam 6 years if he chooses to bring me back.

Stop loss however only occurs when you're ETS date (the day you go off active duty and onto inactive reserve) occurs within a certain number of days either before or after a deployment.

I can't remember right off the top of my head what the number of days is but Im going to use 30 for simplicity.

If I'm going to ETS 20 days before a deployment I could be stop lossed and forced to go on the combat deployment for 12-15 months. When I was only supposed to be on active duty for 20 more days.

If I ETS 31 days before a deployment then I could get out by beating the cutoff for stop loss by 1 day.

It is kind of backwards though since one could technically argue that stop loss is uncle sam calling you back to w/e amount of time you have left on the contract you signed.

If I did 6 years was about to get out before a deployment, uncle sam could argue that I still technically owe him 2 years of service and keep me in anyways. I think the only reason that argument got shot down is because you're only supposed to get called back if the army needs you usually means you have a specialty MOS.

Seeing as we have already met and are exceeding the number of personnel congress approved us for we don't even really need stop loss anymore anyways as our ranks are more than deep enough, if however we were in the same situation we were towards the beginning of the conflict stop loss would most definitely still be in place although the 500 extra payout would probably still be enacted as compensation for extra time spent on active duty.

As far as suicides go, the army as a whole has had a dramatic increase in the number of suicides largely linked to the number of deployments, I've been on two (I just missed being on three) But I'm scheduled for a third already anyway.

As far as guard goes, whatever job you had when you got deployed your employer has to give it back to you when you return or some other compensation thing I can't remember it exactly. I do know there are several federal laws in place to help protect guard/reservists from losing their non military jobs should they deploy.

The way you put it, Stop-Loss makes a lot of sense. Having to train a new guy and merge him into the unit on a personal level would be very hard to do in wartime condition.

It doesn't make it right, but it does make it logical.

However, I would like to see the Guardies back before the active duty troops.

Actually it does, tell me how it doesn't? I'm not really supporting conscription mind, you
All you have to do is look back at morale and readiness of the Army in the '70s to see why conscription is a bad idea.

The way you put it, Stop-Loss makes a lot of sense. Having to train a new guy and merge him into the unit on a personal level would be very hard to do in wartime condition.

It doesn't make it right, but it does make it logical.

However, I would like to see the Guardies back before the active duty troops.

In most cases I would agree send the guard home, however some active duty personnel have been on 3 deployments in 5 years or more some of which served 15 month deployments. Whereas several reserve units that I have buddies in have deployed once the entire time we've been at war, and they were deployed anywhere from 6-12 months.

Yea active duty is supposed to bear the brunt of deployments, but in terms of actual front line troops etc, the wear and tear on someone physically and mentally from being deployed can't be sustained on the number of active duty personnel we have alone.

Thus we have to call on the guard and reserves to ease the burden carried by the active duty personnel.

@ Myrmi

Morale is down something like 32% army wide now, and suicide and other depression related problems are in some places higher than they have been in over a decade, conscription isn't a bad thing all the time. Long extended tours in combat zones, with little to no support from the people at home and/or government is the bad thing.

I guess if I were making the decisions, I'd leave stop-loss in place for a while longer. Long enough to draw down all the reserve and especially the National Guard troops that are in SWA. Once all the weekend warriors are back into their normal routine, it would be time to start cutting the full-timers loose.

They are keeping it in place a while longer. They're not actually stopping the practice until August of this year.

They are keeping it in place a while longer. They're not actually stopping the practice until August of this year.

So I guess they'll just increase the number of people called up from IRR status, which will eventually be the same thing.

They are keeping it in place a while longer. They're not actually stopping the practice until August of this year.

But I claim August isn't long enough to completely draw down the Reserves and N-G troops that are stationed in the theater and put them back to work in civilian society.

But I claim August isn't long enough to completely draw down the Reserves and N-G troops that are stationed in the theater and put them back to work in civilian society.

It was my impression that the draw down would not even begin until August, with a goal of 50% draw down by June 2010 and complete elimination of stop-lossed soldiers by 2011.

what other organizations?

Corporations involved in the rebuild, NGOs, or the local or national Iraqi governments.

Actually it does, tell me how it doesn't? I'm not really supporting conscription mind, youIn the field, the troops start assassinating their officers.
Back home, you start having to shoot down the populace in the streets.