Stop Loss - Myths and truths

[kach22i]

All I know is what I read, set the facts straight.

So far I've heard from Pelican posters that Stop-loss is not in the Air Force. Is it the Army, National Guard and reserves only?

Also stated is that medical personal have been exempt.

Set the record straight, all I know is what I read.

Sample:
Stop-loss used to retain 50,000 US troops
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0131/dailyUpdate.html

A recent Pentagon report written for the Department of Defense by Andrew Krepinevich, a former military officer, said stop-loss was a "short-term fix" enabling the Army to meet deployment requirements, but that such policies "risk breaking the force as recruitment and retention problems mount."

Let me have it, and keep it here, not in that other thread.

[lendaddy]

As I understand it, it's not automatic. Only certain "in-need" positions are being selected for stop-loss.

This is how I understand it anyway.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by lendaddy
As I understand it, it's not automatic. Only certain "in-need" positions are being selected for stop-loss.

This is how I understand it anyway.

I also recall reading that medical personel could transfer from one branch of the service to the other. My understanding was this was a Stop-Loss provision. That if held over and forced to extend service they were allowed to switch from Army to Navy or whatever. Perhaps someone could clear that up for me.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, here is my understanding:

Stop losses can be used to retain certain key personnel. Whether or not you are vulnerable to stop loss depends on your job, how specialized that job is, and whether the DoD has enough people in the pipeline to fill your shoes. Stop loss is not a permanent thing. They may stop loss you for a short period of time, from my understanding it is usually 6 months or less, but cannot keep you from separating indefinitely.

The article you cited says that the troops being stop lossed were in a specific position. Basically they were told that they cannot separate in a window from 90 days prior to their bucket (term for when you are vulnerable to deploy based on the schedule for your unit) and 90 days after their bucket ends. I would imagine this is because it is pretty tough to train up a new recruit well enough to go into a combat zone in 90 days.

Do stop losses suck? You bet. Is it part of the deal you signed when you gave Uncle Sam your John Hancock? You bet.

I still don't see how you took this article and got the idea that "the military was holding over everyone and not letting anyone out"...

P.S. My separation was approved by the USAF a couple weeks back, should join the civilian sector in summer 2007...

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by kach22i
I also recall reading that medical personel could transfer from one branch of the service to the other. My understanding was this was a Stop-Loss provision. That if held over and forced to extend service they were allowed to switch from Army to Navy or whatever. Perhaps someone could clear that up for me.

I believe you are referring to the "Blue to Green" program. It isn't just for medical personnel. It is for all active duty. It is not a stop loss program.

Basically it goes like this: The USAF and Navy are currently reorganizing their manning...they call it "right sizing". Some people are being allowed to separate early if their specialty is considered in excess of what the branch of service needs. They are usually given a choice to cross train or separate. The Army needs people to fill in some positions in their ranks, so they are promoting this Blue to Green program to try and capture some of the people who are being given early releases from the Air Force and Navy and would otherwise become civilians. It is a voluntary program.

Link:
http://www.goarmy.com/btg/index.jsp

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I still don't see how you took this article and got the idea that "the military was holding over everyone and not letting anyone out"...

Did I say that?

I'm sorry, I just did a Google search to get a "Sample" article.

What I meant to say in the other thread is I thought they were holding everyone over, at least in the context of the Marines.

I know better now, but think this thread can clear it up for anyone else thinking the same thing, for what ever reason.

And to the 50,000, tough break - hang in there.

[Tobra]

As I recall, when I joined the Navy, my contract included, obviously in writing, that I could be retained in the Navy beyond my enlistment obligation if necessary. This was a point that the sketchy recruiter I spoke with mentioned specifically.

It has been a few years, but I can't imagine they took that provision out. Essentially when you sign up in the Armed Forces, you relinquish certain freedoms. Ironic that those defending freedom have their own personal freedoms curtailed, wouldn't you agree.

[fintstone]

My retirement was delayed due to stop loss and cost me a very lucrative job....Most military members recognize it as a necessary part of doing business. Whiners can always make things seem worse than they are. The AF is not undergoing a stop loss. In fact, currently the AF is downsizing by about 40K personnel and is releasing many young officers who volunteer and others against their will as well as holding early retirement boards for Colonels and Generals.

[fastpat]

Stop loss is involuntary servitude, and qualifies as military slavery. Any time you have people doing a job literally under threat of arrest, it's involuntary and should be prohibited.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
My retirement was delayed due to stop loss and cost me a very lucrative job....

You mean retaining your retirement was worth more than walking away and getting real employment. Next time, be honest.

Most military members recognize it as a necessary part of doing business.

No, that's not true. It is nowhere near "most", most get out after their first enlistment because they see what's really going on and want no part of it.

Whiners can always make things seem worse than they are.

People who see that things could be better are the real engine of progress in America. People satisfied with the status quo in their lives seldom create anything meaningful.

The AF is not undergoing a stop loss. In fact, currently the AF is downsizing by about 40K personnel and is releasing many young officers who volunteer and others against their will as well as holding early retirement boards for Colonels and Generals.

Good, now if we can increase that to about 1 million, we'd be getting somewhere.

[Wrecked944]

This stop loss thing is a band-aid. It is obvious that the only way we are going to succeed in Iraq is to put a million or more troops on the ground and everybody knows that it will require a full-blown draft. But nobody in DC has the courage to implement a draft because the nation has no stomach for a real fight. However, it is obviously coming and our leaders just need to be honest for a change. Then we'll need to imprison and/or execute every member of the Iraq Government who supports terrorism including, but not limited to, the Prime Minister, Speaker of Parliament, many members of Parliament, and the entire Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Overthrow a democratically elecetd government in Iraq? Hell yes. We have no choice. And we'll need a lot more than a stop loss program to make it happen.

[Nathans_Dad]

A million troops?!!? You mean more than six times the troops we have now????

That's a little overkill don't you think? Yahoo says there are 26 million people in Iraq, so you want one US soldier for every 26 people? Not counting the Iraqi security forces and allied forces???

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

You know, a lot of the complaints I hear every day could be solved by one simple act of Congress: Required Service

Every person (male AND female) would choose to serve 12 consecutive months in either The Military, The Peace Corps, or The Civilian Conservation Corps. All service would be required to be completed prior to their 24th birthday. There is no release from service!!!! Everyone does it!!!

Failure to serve could be handled massive fines (I'm thinking six figure) AND mandatory expulsion (permanent and irrevocable) from The US. You either contribute to society or you are not a part of society.

Now we would have forces adequate for patrolling borders, providing security, and extending our walk softly and carry a big stick Teddy point of view!!!

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
A million troops?!!? You mean more than six times the troops we have now????

The only way we'll keep the puppet government in power is with a soldier on every street corner.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Groesbeck Hurricane
There is no release from service!!!! Everyone does it!!!

Even the Republican's kids? Yeah, good luck getting that passed!

It is a great idea though, but two years might make more sense. IIRC, a couple of countries already do this.

[Nathans_Dad]

I think two years of mandatory service is a good idea. One year is too short, it takes that long to train em to march and salute...

[Tobra]

Originally posted by widebody911
Even the Republican's kids? Yeah, good luck getting that passed!

It is a great idea though, but two years might make more sense. IIRC, a couple of countries already do this.

might surprise you but a lot of Republicans' kids volunteer for the military, I did.

BTW, I have been saying we should have 2 year mandatory service for all for about 10 years. Peace Corp for the CO's, random selection for Army Navy and Air FOrce, Marines stay all volunteer.

Have not heard any uncorked flat sixes hauling ass around Carmichael, guess you decided against that eh?

[Wrecked944]

Originally posted by widebody911
The only way we'll keep the puppet government in power is with a soldier on every street corner.

I was actually thinking the opposite. The only way we will be able to depose the Iraqi Terrorist government and maintain any kind of stability will be with a soldier on every street corner. The last thing we want is for the democratically elected government of Iraq to have any real power because it is filled with terrorists. And if/when we are forced to remove them, the shiite majority who elected them will go ballistic along with their Iranian friends. So we'll need a LOT of boots on the ground to maintain order.

[1967 R50/2]

I thought this was going to be about stocks.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JanusCole
This stop loss thing is a band-aid. It is obvious that the only way we are going to succeed in Iraq is to put a million or more troops on the ground and everybody knows that it will require a full-blown draft. But nobody in DC has the courage to implement a draft because the nation has no stomach for a real fight.

I prefer to think of it as no stomach for agressive warfare, but plenty of stomach for defense of nation. The resistance to the Mexican invasion is an example. The US government is aiding and abetting this invasion, but patriotic Americans are fighting it.

However, it is obviously coming and our leaders just need to be honest for a change. Then we'll need to imprison and/or execute every member of the Iraq Government who supports terrorism including, but not limited to, the Prime Minister, Speaker of Parliament, many members of Parliament, and the entire Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Overthrow a democratically elecetd government in Iraq? Hell yes. We have no choice. And we'll need a lot more than a stop loss program to make it happen.

We need executions, after lawful trial of course, quite a few US government officials.