Article

2007-01-29 Home Front: WoT

Military Aims to Cut Back on 'Stop Loss'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-01-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "It's based on unit cohesion,"

Rubbish! It's based on the simple fact there are not enough able bodied lads in uniform to go around.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-29 04:43|| 2007-01-29 04:43|| Front Page Top

#2 I was going to say that surely there will be less of this as we downsize forces based in Germany, Korea, Japan and suchlike, where after all we no longer need garrisoned armies to enforce the peace locally... and then as the annually increasing number of recruits graduate from training and are ready to be sent out. But then I realized that we keep expanding operations and the number of operations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, so pretty much there's an infinitely expanding need for the foreseeable future. I really have got to stop thinking while my thoughts are comfortable and comforting!

Unit cohesion is a nice thing to be part of, though, if they won't set you free anyway.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-29 06:46|| 2007-01-29 06:46|| Front Page Top

#3 We have enough lads in the combat arms area. The problem is the rear area guys are trying to leave after their term is up. They have lots of experience that defense contractors pay good money for and the military can't train new guys fast enough to fill the ranks.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-01-29 09:26|| 2007-01-29 09:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Contractor$, why do they hate u$.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-29 09:29|| 2007-01-29 09:29|| Front Page Top

#5 OK guys. Let's deal in facts. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make the laws governing all land and naval forces. Congress does that through Title 10 USC. Here's the appropriate part of the law.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 39 > para. 671a

Unless terminated at an earlier date by the Secretary concerned, the period of active service of any member of an armed force is extended for the duration of any war in which the United States may be engaged and for six months thereafter.

Since Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed by Congress in 2001 invoked the War Powers Act authority, the conditions of para 671a are in effect. That DoD exercises discretion rather than blanket retention doesn't render the authority invalid. Once the service member receives a discharge [usually the DD Form 214] after 10 years of duty, they are not subject to recall back to active duty, with specific exceptions [i.e. Regular Army Commissions - some lifetime obligations involved]. By keeping them on active duty IAW with Title 10, their employment date remains open till six months after Congress or DoD determines end of hostilities.

The referral to 'backdoor draft' simply reflects a misunderstanding of what a 'draft' truely constitutes. Per TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > para 311, the federal militia -

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In clearer language, the draft is the selective activation of the 'unorganized' federal militia. Since those on active duty are no longer in the militia pool, it is not a 'draft' in any form to retain them on active duty. It is however another dishonest linguistic piece of propaganda. So what else is new.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-01-29 10:12|| 2007-01-29 10:12|| Front Page Top

#6 Nice legal fisking there, P2k. Agreed on all points.

Fact is, we all know what we're signing up for. Sometimes it sucks. News flash: soldiers bitch and grumble. LOL.

Posted by exJAG 2007-01-29 10:46|| 2007-01-29 10:46|| Front Page Top

#7 True. Once you swear in, Uncle Sam owns your ass. It does suck, but we all knew what we were signing up for.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-01-29 11:06|| 2007-01-29 11:06|| Front Page Top

#8 Procopius and Darth,
Excellent points, gentlemen. Let me add something if I may - I served from 89 to 93 as a USAF recruiter (a job whose miseries released me from fear of ANY terrors that may await me in the Ninth Circle of Hell)and let me assure you that the recall/extended service clauses of a recruiting contract are repeatedly pointed out and emphasized to the recruit on at least three separate occasions prior to their reporting to basic training. The 'backdoor draft' line is not only an unbelieveably stupid one, but one whose utter foolishness should have brought down immediate and unconditional condemnation from the DOD AND the Press. Unfortunately, one was too scared to say anything, and the other had its own agenda.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-29 12:13|| 2007-01-29 12:13|| Front Page Top

#9 "Once the service member receives a discharge [usually the DD Form 214] after 10 years of duty,"
When did this change; it used to be 6.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-01-29 15:27|| 2007-01-29 15:27|| Front Page Top

#10 "Give your hearts to Jesus, boys - 'cause your ass belongs to me!"
-- DI at Parris Island

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-01-29 16:09|| 2007-01-29 16:09|| Front Page Top

#11 Those of us who are in the "retired reserve" are eligible for involuntary recall in time of war, based upon age, military specialty, and physical capabilities, as long as we're "retired". Most people don't realize that. I think one way to quickly build up the Armed Forces is to activate selected members of the retired reserve, and gradually replace them as new recruits are trained and as those on active duty gain relevant experience. It would put a hurt on some businesses, but it would solve the problem of manpower in the short run. It would also show the entire nation that we are at WAR, not playing dominance games. It would also shaft certain members of congress who have no clue about military service or the patriotism of those who serve.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-01-29 17:46|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-01-29 17:46|| Front Page Top

09:46 JessicaL
23:10 Skidmark
23:10 Skidmark
23:10 Skidmark
23:10 Skidmark
23:10 Skidmark
23:09 Skidmark
23:09 Skidmark
23:04 liberalhawk
23:01 liberalhawk
22:52 Sneaze Shaiting3550
22:46 USN, ret.
22:41 Shipman
22:35 USN, ret.
22:31 Shipman
22:20 Shipman
22:07 Capsu 78
22:07 USN, ret.
22:06 Sneaze Shaiting3550
22:04 3dc
21:58 Shipman
21:34 Sgt. D.T.
21:34 Broadhead6
21:27 Thotle Hupavitch5406