Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty....

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:06 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129/pl_ ... toploss_dc

Komid · Post by **Komid** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:38 pm

If these guys want to go home to a civilian life its in the armys best interest to let them. A soldier that expects to be released from duty only to be told he must stay on against his will better be given a damn good reason why that is (the US is being invaded by mars or something)

Someone who doesnt want to be a soldier isnt someone that can be relied upon to be one. The motivation and sense of duty just isnt there, atleast not to the same degree that previously existed.

Id imagine someone who has carried himself with pride knowing he has done what his country has asked of him and is ready to go home to his family is going to be real pissed off at the idea he must carry on until further notice.

Not only does that affect the soldier but its going to put a lot of strain on his family. Thats a lot of stress for a guy to deal with especially one who is at risk of being killed 24/7

Its just bad policy.

bizzle · Post by **bizzle** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:01 pm

AMERICAAAAAA FUDGE YEAH

emptythought · Post by **emptythought** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:10 pm

why does this keep comming up? we know the soldiers aren't in a good position, so why bring it up. plus, it's not like george bush is gonna get elected again, i mean, he's already on his last term

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:06 pm

fackue wrote:why does this keep comming up? we know the soldiers aren't in a good position, so why bring it up.

Out of sight, out of mind, huh?

That's pretty sad.

not just souLLy now · Post by **not just souLLy now** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:46 am

Xylene wrote:AMERICAAAAAA FUDGE YEAH

emptythought · Post by **emptythought** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:02 pm

[quote="jaredfogle"][quote="fackue"]why does this keep comming up? we know the soldiers aren't in a good position, so why bring it up.[/quote]

Out of sight, out of mind, huh?

That's pretty sad.[/quote]
yeah i guess you are right, but the same thing gets played. i guess i need to be more open minded about it

HomerCIDAL · Post by **HomerCIDAL** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:05 pm

This is the probably one of the reasons the Army is not meeting it's recruiting goals.

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:33 pm

HomerCIDAL wrote:This is the probably one of the reasons the Army is not meeting it's recruiting goals.

Or vice-versa.

The two are probably inversely related. Recruitment and extended tours.

War takes spirit, I think. It's difficult for these people to get spirit up for their causes in our society... I think information and communication are too readily available for our people to really get behind any singular vision of a New American Century.

I think it's been said before, but if someone is fighting so they can get an education when they get home (or any other sort of reward), they aren't going to give it the same as someone who's fighting to liberate oppressed folk.

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:25 pm

jaredfogle wrote:I think it's been said before, but if someone is fighting so they can get an education when they get home (or any other sort of reward), they aren't going to give it the same as someone who's fighting to liberate oppressed folk.

I dont think kids join the army to get a education. Since I moved out here to wv I have gotten a different perspective on things. Out here your jobs choices are Wal-mart(cant raise a family on it), Mining(dangerous but can live well), timber( slightly better then walmart), or the army. The Army gives these kids a career that helps them support there family. I think the people here take their service seriously, and they really have their hearts in it.

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:07 pm

These people do agree to take extended tours of duty, if required. This is all part of the contractual agreement they sign. They are there to serve what the military says is the best interest of the country. Their personal interests are secondary. Everyone should realize this before joining the armed forces.

HomerCIDAL · Post by **HomerCIDAL** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:11 pm

farrell2k wrote:These people do agree to take extended tours of duty, if required. This is all part of the contractual agreement they sign. They are there to serve what the military says is the best interest of the country. Their personal interests are secondary. Everyone should realize this before joining the armed forces.

That is not the issue! Being told you will be away for a 1 year deployment is something they accept. It's getting to the end of that one year and being told it will be 6 more months that is the problem.

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:27 pm

farrell2k wrote:These people do agree to take extended tours of duty, if required. This is all part of the contractual agreement they sign. They are there to serve what the military says is the best interest of the country. Their personal interests are secondary. Everyone should realize this before joining the armed forces.

But are our soldiers being taken advantage of by a small group with imperial ambitions who want to have their names in the history books?

Yes, this is an agreement they made. But I know that some of these men made that commitment with a certain degree of trust in their leaders that (I personally feel) has been violated.

It's not fun seeing your friends off to some unjust war, and it's not fun seeing the changes in them when they come home.

If we're going to be the new Rome, we need a nation that treats these men as heroes. Not 60% who do. I just don't think this is what many people want America to be.

fatheadpi · Post by **fatheadpi** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:57 pm

That is not the issue! Being told you will be away for a 1 year deployment is something they accept. It's getting to the end of that one year and being told it will be 6 more months that is the problem.

I that that was the issue.

As for extended deployments, here's the thing: A soldier voluntarily joins the Army, accepting that he's going to have to do what he's ordered. Now, there's this war in Iraq that isn't done. Just because his year's up doesn't mean that he gets to go home. I've been stationed in California for over a year. My commanders stopped letting people leave our unit, cheifly because no one wants to come here. I'll probably be stuck here untill 2009 unless I luck out and score an assignment with the doomsday kids or get to go to Iraq with a decent job. Everybody signs up for at least 8 years, and everyone knows that can get extended to 9 under stop loss. This was explained to me when I joined and in basic. How many of those years are spent Active / Reserve / Guard / IRR varies.

That's the way it is. It's a volunteer Army. You volunteer for the 50K for college and the free ride for a few years, you volunteer to kill someone you don't know in someplace you don't want to be.

If you don't like it, start voting third-party and don't join the Army.

Covar · Post by **Covar** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:20 pm

SuperMegatron wrote:
jaredfogle wrote:I think it's been said before, but if someone is fighting so they can get an education when they get home (or any other sort of reward), they aren't going to give it the same as someone who's fighting to liberate oppressed folk.
I dont think kids join the army to get a education. Since I moved out here to wv I have gotten a different perspective on things. Out here your jobs choices are Wal-mart(cant raise a family on it), Mining(dangerous but can live well), timber( slightly better then walmart), or the army. The Army gives these kids a career that helps them support there family. I think the people here take their service seriously, and they really have their hearts in it.

i joined primarily for the education benefits. It wasn't the only reason but it definatly was got my recruiter to meet with me. and when i was actually in training the education went on the way backburner. and i'm willing to bet its the same way when you go overseas.

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:22 am

jaredfogle wrote:
farrell2k wrote:These people do agree to take extended tours of duty, if required. This is all part of the contractual agreement they sign. They are there to serve what the military says is the best interest of the country. Their personal interests are secondary. Everyone should realize this before joining the armed forces.
But are our soldiers being taken advantage of by a small group with imperial ambitions who want to have their names in the history books?

Yes, this is an agreement they made. But I know that some of these men made that commitment with a certain degree of trust in their leaders that (I personally feel) has been violated.

It's not fun seeing your friends off to some unjust war, and it's not fun seeing the changes in them when they come home.

If we're going to be the new Rome, we need a nation that treats these men as heroes. Not 60% who do. I just don't think this is what many people want America to be.

O.K. These are all wonderful opinions.

homercidal wrote:That is not the issue! Being told you will be away for a 1 year deployment is something they accept. It's getting to the end of that one year and being told it will be 6 more months that is the problem.

I am a bargained employe at the company for which I work. I work 48 hours just about every week. I am normally scheduled for 40, but I am often forced to do overtime. It is something to which I agreed when I was hired. Refer to FatheadPI's response.

Post by **Roofus** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:44 am

I am a bargained employe at the company for which I work. I work 48 hours just about every week. I am normally scheduled for 40, but I am often forced to do overtime. It is something to which I agreed when I was hired. Refer to FatheadPI's response.

Working overtime at a job you can go home from is a little different from being stuck in Iraq indefinitely.

fatheadpi · Post by **fatheadpi** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:38 am

[qoute]Working overtime at a job you can go home from is a little different from being stuck in Iraq indefinitely.[/qoute]

Yeah, it usually doesn't come with 50k for college and the chance to shoot automatic grenade launchers. And it's rarely as rewarding.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:55 am

"They agreed to do it" is not the same thing as "it's a good idea", so that argument kind of misses the point. That said, I suspect the grim reality is that even if the Army meets recruiting goals, the end of BMT is not the end of training, and training can't be expected to lend the same kind of effectiveness as actual deployment experience. From an operational standpoint, having 50,000 people in Iraq who know what they're doing stay there seems like it would be a lot more effective than shipping in 50,000 new guys. I don't think anyone made this decision lightly. For all the right-wing pundit pantheon's howling about how the media doesn't show "the good news from Iraq", I think the real problem is that the coverage of Iraq is superficial in general. I'm pretty sure the American public has gotten more detailed info on the search for some random rich girl who vanished in Aruba than on the state of Iraq and the plan to change it.

Komid · Post by **Komid** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:54 pm

Although nobody is going to drag you into joining the military in our countries it isnt something that is simply voluntary. We must have a military, we cannot have a country without one. Its not like choosing if your going to work at Mcdonalds or a grocery store.

I wont argue the legality of a stop loss policy or even its existence. Its who invokes it and for what reasons that concerns me. There a is a fine line between a soldier who follows orders and one who is merely being taken advantage of. Checks and balances must be put into place to protect the rights of the soldier. Perhaps this is taken into consideration by capable and fair people, unfortunetly we dont know that and its that unkown that leaves us at the mercy of the powers that be.

Ex-Cyber
"From an operational standpoint, having 50,000 people in Iraq who know what they're doing stay there seems like it would be a lot more effective than shipping in 50,000 new guys."

The flipside to that is if we use soldiers that have been in country for to long the stress can break down the individual. Its military policy in both of our countries to rotate those that have served in country to be replaced by people who havent. This is for a few reasons:

1. We have to balance the stress levels amongst our troops, soldiers under stress and pressure have a tendency to not preform up to standard.

2. The only way to gain operational experience is to be on one, if we dont rotate new guys in we wont have anyone else with the experience required for the tasks at hand.

Ex-Cyber
"I don't think anyone made this decision lightly"

We can only hope.