December 06, 2004

Stop Loss Policy

Some soldiers in the Sandbox are complaining that the Army is in breach of contract by making them stay in the T-o-O beyond the term of their enlistments.
Eight of them are filing a lawsuit to try to force the Army from continuing it's Stop Loss Policy.

I believe that some of these men may have a case, in that they have fulfulled terms far beyond the standard eight years of obligation. On the other hand, it's always been standard military policy that soldiers engaged in combat theaters are there "for the duration", in this case, that means for the duration of their unit's deployment in the T-o-O.

The policy isn't "fair" to some of these men, I agree, but sometimes the needs of the service outweighs the needs of the individual. The policy was instituted to provide for unit continuity of experience, which can be vital in safeguarding service member's lives. Having a "rooky" next to you in a firefight can be downright dangerous.

I still wish that the Military would relax some age and condition restrictions on prior service citizens. I may be 50, but I can still perform my prior service job almost as well as I could when I was 20, and the influx of volunteers with a relaxationion of restrictions may ease the need for the Stop Loss Policy. I truly believe that there are a great number of us "seasoned" former servicemen/women that would volunteer in a second, were we provided the opportunity to do so. At the very least, even if we were restricted to stateside duties, we could free up younger, more able-bodied, men and women to serve in the active Theater of Operations.

UPDATE: The soldier that was the standard bearer in this case, Spc. David Qualls, lost his case in Federal Court. The court held that it was CLEARLY stated in the the enlistment contract that his duty could be extended against his wishes in time of national emergency or war. At last, a court that doesn't follow the PC "everyone's a victom" syndrome of recent years! I heartily applaud U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth's ruling.

Posted by Delftsman3 at December 6, 2004 09:05 PM

My orders stated "for a term of two years unless further extended or released" that's pretty plain english. On the other hand duration could mean a very long time. I too wish they would relax the rules, but they expect everyone to be as physically able as the youngsters, we have valuable skills and experience to offer.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2004 07:17 AM

I have had troops held up by stop loss. My own wife was held under stoploss for an additional 6 months and you won't hear her complain.

True patriots do what they must!

SlagleRock Out!

Posted by: SlagleRock at December 7, 2004 07:42 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?