I am the mother of an Army soldier who recently returned to the U.S. from Iraq. I hear a lot about ending the war, but realistically, no matter what happens, our soldiers will be there for a while to come.
So I'd like to know who will stop the deceptive, dishonorable "stop loss" policy. No one is addressing this issue.
A lot of our soldiers joined because they wanted truth, clarity, honor and direction. The Army emphasizes courage, strength, honor, keeping your word, etc. Why are they being allowed to do the opposite and teach my son that men with power do what they want and not what they preach?
The policy states that if your out date is within two months either way of your unit being deployed, they "stop loss" you and you have to return to Iraq, no matter what.
My son has honored his commitment as of September 2008, but his unit is scheduled to return in November 2008.
Please, put an end to this scam and honor our military veterans who have done their time. This is a national disgrace.
Cindy Miller
Lenexa
“Maybe we should utilize stop loss in our prsion system. A person gets a 2 years senetnce but 10 years later they are still in prison due to "stop loss" so the system can still receive it's head count revenue. Sounds like a winner.” - Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Mar 26, 2008 1:38:34 PM
“Comparing prison to military service I find amusing.” - Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Mar 26, 2008 4:42:28 PM
Yes, I found it amusing too.
Posted by: GCYL | March 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Roach - "I will give you "intellectuals" who take pleasure in bashing your country and your leaders 50 to 1 odds……"
Hey Roach…..who are those folks who are "bashing your country" ? You mean the ones who have been fighting to put a stop to the war that should never have happened, the ones who want to stop sending our loved ones to die or come back with their limbs blown off and unable to get any care at places like Walter Reed, the ones who are committing suicide because they can no longer stand the atrocities that they also are inflicting upon the innocents, the ones who wish that their loved ones didn’t return with the psychological problems because of the horrors they've seen or were forced to commit all in the name of his majesty Dumbya Bush?
Are those the ones you want to stop bashing this country? In case you and the rest of your lemming friends hadn’t realized it yet, they all love this country very much. So much that they've put their lives on the line for the misguided fantasy trip that George Bush went on in search of elevating himself where his Daddy failed. It’s the Chimp-in-Chief and his cronies who are hiding behind those lives that are being bashed, not this country.
Posted by: YourBSSucks | March 26, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Every military commitment is currently an EIGHT YEAR minimum. Some are longer, depends on the MOS. The eight years can be any combination of active, and inactive ready reserves (IRR), such as 2 years active, then 6 yrs IRR. It is all spelled out when you sign the commitment papers.
Being activated during anytime during that IRR period IS NOT STOP LOSS.
Stop Loss is when you have completed the eight year commitment, and aren't allowed your seperation from military service.
Stop Loss is wrong. It sends the wrong message to men and women who have served their military commitment. I served in the first Gulf War, and Bush I was the first President to ever issue Stop Loss orders. Nice to see the apple doesn't rot far from the tree.
Posted by: Greyhounder | March 26, 2008 at 04:54 PM
No. Active duty and inactive reserve have different functions. I did sogn up for 9 ACTIVE. If I am deployed and my ETS is up, I should be discharged and then rotated back through the system. Comparing prison to military service I find amusing. Phuck the fine print. You are one of those fine print mongers. Attitudes like yours are why guys like McVeigh do what he did. I know I would NEVER serve this POS government again, incumbent crooks on BOTH sides of the isle deserve nothing short of pain and sufferage IMHO as do many of the idiots in this country that sit back an allow them to get away with it. Uncle same I got your fine print: ....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | March 26, 2008 at 04:42 PM
“If I sign up for 3 years and they keep me longer, that is wrong.” – NMMNG
“If I enlist for 3 active and 6 inactive,” – NMMNG
So, in reality you signed up for nine years total. You’re just upset with the small print telling you that the three years of active service is conditional.
Comparing apples to apples, you get a nine year sentence with the possibility of parole after three years in the slammer. You didn’t make parole in three years. You’re right that stinks but there is nothing illegal or “rouge” about it. Better luck next time with the fine print on your next legal contract.
Posted by: GCYL | March 26, 2008 at 02:48 PM
Comittment being the key word here.
If I enlist for 3 active and 6 inactive, keeping me past my required tour during my active comittment is bogus. Pulling someone from inactive reserve status to active reserve status is one thing but keeping people past their ETS is another.
Maybe we should utilize stop loss in our prsion system. A person gets a 2 years senetnce but 10 years later they are still in prison due to "stop loss" so the system can still receive it's head count revenue. Sounds like a winner. Our duty is not simply doing as the government demands my friend. When the government is rogue and out of order, it needs to be held accountable. I served my duty in the armed forces and would never do it again, protecting a rogue government that craps on it's own people.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | March 26, 2008 at 01:38 PM
NE what you "sign up for" has little to do with your "obligation" to your country is and was my point. I do not know what that "obligation" is today with the all volunteer forces, but it appears that it is longer than the term you enlist for as it was in my case. Sic years was the obligation in 1966, your serve active, then you are inactive till that six year commitment is met. If that is the same today, this "stop loss" nonsense is just that. You make a commitment you honor it, and you don't whine when you do. Nobody forced you to enlist, you were not drafted. You have no room to whine now IMHO.
I did not "request" a second tour, but I did my duty. The troops today should as well. Furhter I think the people whinning about this are in that classic 10% that does not get the word.
Posted by: Rogue | March 26, 2008 at 09:50 AM
So Rogue you think the military has a right to renig on it's comittment?
If I sign up for 3 years and they keep me longer, that is wrong. Has nothing to do with being patriotic. Actually being patriotic has nothing to with endorsing nor supporting your government per se.
I am a patriot and I hate out government. I love my country and most of the citizens just not our government in it's current standing. I am sure you will spin this.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | March 26, 2008 at 09:40 AM
I will give you "intellectuals" who take pleasure in bashing your country and your leaders 50 to 1 odds the movie "Stop Loss" will fail just as miserablly as did the other pieces of Hollywood anti-war crap. Wait and see.
Posted by: Rogue | March 26, 2008 at 09:03 AM
“That's what Jack's referring to.” – Jim
No, jack is judging others on how they’ve failed his list of being a true Patriot. It’s a knee jerk game that came as a response to the Rate the Traitor game. Making the current V.P. as a winner in one game makes the Democrats a winner on the other. I find both games repulsive but I find the Rate the Traitor a tad more so.
Rate the Patriot game. Jack lost.
Posted by: GCYL | March 26, 2008 at 08:26 AM
coincidently, there is a movie called "Stop-Loss" coming out this friday that (surprise surprise) is about this exact subject.
Posted by: stone | March 26, 2008 at 12:52 AM
GCYL, do you agree with Cheney that "the President carries the biggest burden, obviously"?
That's what Jack's referring to.
And I believe he's correct that Bush responded to question about what Americans can do after 9/11 by telling them to go shopping.
Whatever your point was, it's been lost in all those pesky facts.
Posted by: Jim | March 25, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Posted by: jack | Mar 25, 2008 3:37:57 PM
Posted by: jack | Mar 25, 2008 3:40:11 PM
Rate The Patriot games. You lost jack.
Posted by: GCYL | March 25, 2008 at 04:51 PM
As per our President, I am fighting terrorism by going shopping! Those darned, whiny members of our military should be grateful!
Posted by: jack | March 25, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Cindy, just remember that, as Dick Cheney says, the person who REALLY has sacrificed for his country is President Bush. Those Viet Nam vets who forgot to send in their letters resigning their commissions who have been reactivated? Nothing but a bunch of whiners! The National Guardsmen who have served repeated toours? Whiners! Those who have served the total length of their contracts that have been "stop lossed"? Whiners!
They should show more gratitude for the "sacrifices" of our President!
Posted by: jack | March 25, 2008 at 03:37 PM
“I believe that "back in the day" we all had a six year obligation. I served a little over four years and was in the "inactive reservce" for just under two.” - Rogue
Agree and “back in the day” the Air Force gave you the option of taking six years of active duty for the instant promotion to E-2. You could also enlist in winter, graduate from high school in spring and start basic training in the fall. That time was spent on the inactive reserve. Now that I look back on it, had something hit the fan I could have missed graduation services due to a mandatory early start date for active service.
“Please, put an end to this scam and honor our military veterans who have done their time.” – Cindy Miller
Yeah Cindy, it’s a tough contract that many youg adults have signed.
Posted by: GCYL | March 25, 2008 at 01:08 PM
As much as I sympathize, I have to say Rogue is right on this one. I initially signed an 8-year contract: 4 years active, 4 years inactive reserve. I served 5 years active, one year active reserve and two years in the inactive reserve (just got my letter than I'm in the free in clear a few months ago).
We don't know the whole situation with regard to this letter writer, obviously, but the "inactive" reserve makes many people think they're off the hook after their active duty service is up, when unfortunately sometimes that just isn't the case.
Posted by: Jim | March 25, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I believe that "back in the day" we all had a six year obligation. I served a little over four years and was in the "inactive reservce" for just under two. In that time span I was first in line to be recalled. I do not believe that obligation has changed.
Thank you and your son Mrs. Miller for honoring our country, but do not complain about your son honoring the obligation that he committed to; that does not speak well of either of you.
Posted by: Rogue | March 25, 2008 at 10:05 AM
More like service to someone else country, if we want to serve our country we should be back here kicking the sh** out of domestic terrorists that tread on the US Constitution on a daily basis. I can think of a couple of hand that should be gathered up and hung. Former Sen. Bill Bradley, Janel Luck, Deborah Scott, Judge Marco Roldan, Commieissioner Sherril Rosen, Lori K. Bell, Dan Smith that works for the State of Missouri, Jim Talent, Matt Blunt and a few other worthless scoundrels that enjoy infringing on citizens Constitutional rights. These indiviuals are nothing short of traitors.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | March 25, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Cindy,
Thank you and your family for your sons service.
Posted by: solomon | March 25, 2008 at 09:16 AM