Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/18/2004 2:22:27 AM EST
The story is on Drudge.

Should the military be able to keep someone in the service after his enlistment period ends? Isn't enlistment a contract thats spelled out to the letter each parties obligations? Can they do that during an undeclared war?

Anybody here have this happen to them?
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 2:34:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 2:38:12 AM EST
Needs of the military... you sign up and you are in till you are done.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 2:40:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 2:48:24 AM EST by cyanide]
It has been that way for years --
takes one of the new generation to want it changed --- cause it inconveniences him.... one of todays generation ! ----
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 2:45:29 AM EST
US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 10
Subtitle E
PART II
CHAPTER 1209
Sec. 12305. - Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation


(a)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

(b)
A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate
(1)
upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or

(2)
at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, whichever is earlier.

(c)
Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 2:48:23 AM EST
During the Desert Shield build-up I spent a few weeks rounding up guys who had retired from active duty and inactive reservists from around the northwest who were called back to active duty.
Most of them were not too happy.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 3:47:20 AM EST
My Dad retired in 1964 with 26yr's total in the...

USN
USAAF
USAF

He was out about 18 months when they called him back in for 2 more years.


When I got out in 1976 the inactive reserve commitment was 2yr's.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:05:05 AM EST
Am I the only one who reads stop-loss order as pertaining to stock trades? I thought it had something martha stewarty to do with trading.....
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:19:27 AM EST
I'm right there with ya, Stormtrooper. I thought the same thing.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:42:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 4:43:27 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:04:43 AM EST
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:32:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.



I like it.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:18:13 AM EST


Originally Posted By Boomer:
Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.



Then you have the whole involuntary servitude issue that soem folks around here like to bring up; don't get me wrong, I am for a period of mandatory national service, preferably military. There have been soeme interesting arguments against a universal military draft, though.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 1:11:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.



The draft doesn't retain qualified and experienced officers and NCO's nor does it produce them in near enough time.

His contract, that he signed freely, said he agreed to be extended to meet the needs of the USA. Now he is.

Its funny how 90% of those that support a draft are A: Too old to be drafted and B: Not in a position to have to serve with the kind of soldiers it will produce.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:00:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.



The draft doesn't retain qualified and experienced officers and NCO's nor does it produce them in near enough time.

His contract, that he signed freely, said he agreed to be extended to meet the needs of the USA. Now he is.

Its funny how 90% of those that support a draft are A: Too old to be drafted and B: Not in a position to have to serve with the kind of soldiers it will produce.



Guess I never realized that we won WWII with substandard soldiers.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:07:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.



The draft doesn't retain qualified and experienced officers and NCO's nor does it produce them in near enough time.

His contract, that he signed freely, said he agreed to be extended to meet the needs of the USA. Now he is.

Its funny how 90% of those that support a draft are A: Too old to be drafted and B: Not in a position to have to serve with the kind of soldiers it will produce.



I am A) still young enough to be drafted, and B) did my time plus my IAR committment, and I still support the draft. The Israelis have the right idea in that regard, as do the South Koreans.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:14:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2004 7:15:19 AM EST by CavVet]
1) They need to take all volunteers. 8-80, blind, crippled and crazy. Mechanic, finance, something. If you wanna serve, they need to let you the fuck in. We didnt win the old Wars refusing people who want in. Damnit! (Yes they told me I was too old for a comeback and that pissed me off!)

2) Stop loss is a part of the package. The .mil aint about a GI Bill, and stoploss is a part and parcel of the contract/law. ETA: I have no problem withthem keeping someone, however, once you make it out the gate, I think its bs to recall you.

3) I think a national draft, if for nothing else, but Basic and AIT, then go IRR, is in the interest of National Security. Every swingin dick should be trained. Period. Ladies too, you want ERA, damnit you got it!

Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:20:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2004 7:25:16 AM EST by Dave_A]
The reason there is no draft is that it would not help...

Recruitment is UP from all that I've heard, and they are still doing IRR call-ups and stop-loss...

Why? Because a new Pvt or Lt WILL KNOW how to do what needs to be done, SOME DAY...

The guys they're pulling back DO/DID KNOW now...

Its' about trained, experienced personell that they can't afford to loose, not new warm bodies to throw out there...

All the draft gives you is (a) warm bodies out of HS, and (b) warm bodies with commissions, who volunteered & got accepted thru ROTC or OCS rather than be drafted as an enlisted rank.

You cannot draft experience...

NOW, if Slick Willy hadn't gutted the services with budget cuts back when he was Prez, then we might have enough TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED troops. But you can't draft troops now to fix today's problems and have them ready/able to handle them, any more than the Packers can draft the next Brett Farve & have him starting the same season

That said, I would support a national service program (say, 2yrs after HS unless accepted into an officer training program (ROTC or service academy, in which case you do 4-8 on graduation), if you wash out of ROTC or the Academy you do your original service starting at the end of that academic year), but it should be started in PEACETIME and continue forward, so as to ensure that most of the troops have been in for a while & know what they're doing... This wholw 'draft when the war starts' thing won't fly anymore, it just doesn't produce the right grade of soldier....
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:21:55 AM EST
CavVet: I agree.

Currently trying to get in myself, and im dealing with loads of shit over speeding tickets and an MIP. Marines and Navy, both refuse to let me in until I get something done about them. The GED doesnt help either.

Yet 3 years at Microsoft as a manager, and a year and a half at a military supported private school mean nothing. Not to mention 3 letters of recommendation from notable officials/business owners in the area.

The army will take me in a heartbeat, but its not the contract im looking for...needless to say, im fucking pissed that this is the first war in a LONG while were the Navy is letting people out early, the Marines cant do GED waivers, and the Army is DYING for people.

Sorry, had to come out of hiding for this one.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:27:23 AM EST
My age - Active Duty time > 35. No Go.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:56:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Isn't it strange how different generations face this question - how much service is enough?

When my father volunteered in WWII and went off to the South Pacific, he and the others of that generation were told simply that they would be in for 'the Duration plus six.'

Meaning, the duration of the fighting, plus six months for demobilization.

If you had told him in New Guinea back in 1943, that the War would last until at least 1948, I think that would not have surprised him one bit!

So you can well imagine my father's views on President Truman's decision to drop those two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945.

Views he shared with almost every living American back in those days!

Eric The(AndThat'sWhyIAmHereToday)Hun



One thing you are forgetting that is that in 1941 the nation went on full mobilization , and the civilian world went on a full war footing with gas rationing, limited availability of certain food items, conversion of industry to war production, etc. Remember people couldn't get new consumer goods, even cars from '42 through '45, and civilians made huge sacrifices.

Now, while you sit on your ass making unfavorable comparisons about this multiple combat tour veteran and the WWII generation, how do your sacrifices as a civilian stack up to those of the WWII civilian generation? Pretty fucking piss poorly is my guess.

I've got an idea. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standard you are holding this guy to, and impose a 1941 -1945 lifestyle on yourself, than take ALL the money you would've spent on cars, household items, fancy foods, vacations, gasoline, etc; and donate it to the families of deployed reservists or Guardsman.

IM me, I'll send you the address of some families you can send the (I'm guessing considerable) monies to.

Eric (The typical hypocritical ain't really done shit for the war, civilian) Hun.

P.S. I don't support this guys lawsuit. He's taken the wrong route with this, he should've sucked it and deployed, but the fact is some families are being asked to do way too much when the majority do nothing.

And I am stop lossed, and hopefully I will be deploying this winter to Iraq, but multiple activations, deployments are terrifically hard on some of the families.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:01:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.



The draft doesn't retain qualified and experienced officers and NCO's nor does it produce them in near enough time.

His contract, that he signed freely, said he agreed to be extended to meet the needs of the USA. Now he is.

Its funny how 90% of those that support a draft are A: Too old to be drafted and B: Not in a position to have to serve with the kind of soldiers it will produce.



Guess I never realized that we won WWII with substandard soldiers.



Do you actually think the youth of today hold the same work ethic, values, and meet the same physical standards as the youth of 1941-1945?
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:41:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Do you actually think the youth of today hold the same work ethic, values, and meet the same physical standards as the youth of 1941-1945?


There was alot of doom and gloom at the beginning of WW2 that our youth of the time had gotten too soft to fight and win a war. Obviously the hype changed over the decades since to where they are revered as "The Greatest Generation". I think our youth will do just fine today.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:52:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2004 8:53:31 AM EST by dravisar]

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Do you actually think the youth of today hold the same work ethic, values, and meet the same physical standards as the youth of 1941-1945?



Is that sarcasm? The youth of today (majority here) might be gangster wannabe, fatass, video-game playing (insert judgement here) pussies...

But the ones that walk into the recruiting offices to go 11B, or Marine, or Specops (Ahem....) arent usually under educated lazy asses. Ive heard quite a bit from sources inside the military that say that although softer on the outside (out of shape), many recruits of today are smarter, and more motivated than in the past 20 or so years (post Vietnam fallout)

The vast majority of recruits back in 1940 had little to no college education, if even a HS diploma. Tons came from farms, to be fighter pilots, engineers, soldiers...

I look at it like there is a gap...on one side, you have overqualified, motivated individuals, who want to do something good and worthwhile, and on the other side you have liberal, lazy, out of shape idiots who could care less. I just think the majority in 1940 really cared about the cause, and were definitely in better shape physically....

But I digress...were not running out of qualified individuals, and there isnt a huge need for "new" soldiers...they are just trying to budget on the ones they have already trained, instead of having to train a whole bunch more.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 12:28:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By dravisar:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Do you actually think the youth of today hold the same work ethic, values, and meet the same physical standards as the youth of 1941-1945?



Is that sarcasm? The youth of today (majority here) might be gangster wannabe, fatass, video-game playing (insert judgement here) pussies...

But the ones that walk into the recruiting offices to go 11B, or Marine, or Specops (Ahem....) arent usually under educated lazy asses. Ive heard quite a bit from sources inside the military that say that although softer on the outside (out of shape), many recruits of today are smarter, and more motivated than in the past 20 or so years (post Vietnam fallout)

The vast majority of recruits back in 1940 had little to no college education, if even a HS diploma. Tons came from farms, to be fighter pilots, engineers, soldiers...

Actually, your engineers and pilots almost all came from college students and those with degrees.


I look at it like there is a gap...on one side, you have overqualified, motivated individuals, who want to do something good and worthwhile, and on the other side you have liberal, lazy, out of shape idiots who could care less. I just think the majority in 1940 really cared about the cause, and were definitely in better shape physically....

But I digress...were not running out of qualified individuals, and there isnt a huge need for "new" soldiers...they are just trying to budget on the ones they have already trained, instead of having to train a whole bunch more.



You made my whole point...we get the ones we want now, the one sthat want to serve and meet the standards. A draft means we get the rest..... the ones we don't want. The ones we would have to spend months and tons of $$$ just getting into good enough shape to attempt to make it through basic training.

Speaking as a leader, the last thing I want is a bunch of soldiers that don't want to be in. In WWII there was a large motivation, and we as a country had a stronger grasp on what was at stake. Look at your average college campus and the mentality that exists there, or your average teen hanging down around town. The last thing I or my NCO's need is to be continually distracted from our mission by a bunch of whiners who don't want to be in the military in the first place, and therefore have no initiative to do anything but the bare minimum to stay out of trouble.

If I had two or three DU types stuck into my unit they would be take so much of the leaderships time and resources just keeping them in line that our combat efficiency would drop.

The military has changed a huge deal since we last had a draft, operations like the drive through Iraq suceeded because the military is full of motivated people who wanted to be in the military when they signed up, and therefore were willing to go the extra mile. Contrast that to Vietnam, where you sometimes had units that refused to follow orders to go in harms way. (I am in no way saying that vets of that era are or were any less deserving of respect, but even those I talk to will say that there was a lot of dead weight from people who were just doing the minimum to survive thier tour, and the rest carried thier weight and got the job done).

Link Posted: 8/19/2004 1:21:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
If I had two or three DU types stuck into my unit they would be take so much of the leaderships time and resources just keeping them in line that our combat efficiency would drop.



And if you had 2 or 3 old men who wanted to be there? Help or hinderance???

Link Posted: 8/19/2004 1:39:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
If I had two or three DU types stuck into my unit they would be take so much of the leaderships time and resources just keeping them in line that our combat efficiency would drop.



And if you had 2 or 3 old men who wanted to be there? Help or hinderance???




If they pass the PT test and meet height and weight standards for thier age, and pass the pyhsical, come on up.

Of course, the Army sees it differently when they see the big picture and factor the greater likeleyhood of injury and illness and associated healthcare costs.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 1:55:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.

I don't care if they draft me or not. I won't serve until Isupport the action the government is takeing. I wouldn't have gone to Nam, but you couldn't have stopped me joining the army in WW2.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 2:04:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By LonesomeHawk:

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call a Marine with over a decade of service including combat in Somalia and Iraq some kind of slacker.

Rather than stop loss, maybe we need to bring back the draft with NO exemptions.

I don't care if they draft me or not. I won't serve until Isupport the action the government is takeing. I wouldn't have gone to Nam, but you couldn't have stopped me joining the army in WW2.



Then I guess you would be takeing your ass to Canada then.........

Link Posted: 8/19/2004 2:12:25 PM EST
No freaking way would I run to canaduh. If the feds want me, they know where to find me.
Top Top