[zenblader]

Soldiers set to retire instead told they'll stay on as units deploy
By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press | June 3, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Army officials announced yesterday that thousands of active-duty and reserve soldiers who are nearing the end of their volunteer service commitments could be forced to serve an entire tour overseas if their units are chosen for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The order applies to all Army soldiers who are deployed in the foreseeable future and means that many troops could face extended terms in the military after their formal contracts expire. The Army had previously issued such orders on a unit-by-unit basis, as troops deployed. Now, every soldier in the Army is on notice that if his or her unit is called into the fight, he or she will go -- and stay.

Army officials said the move promotes cohesion by preventing Army divisions from being depleted shortly before they go into battle. But military specialists and lawmakers said the decision indicates that the Army is being stretched thin by multiple operations, with some calling the program a draft in disguise.

''It's a blanket imposition of extended service, and it has to raise questions about how adequately manned the Army is," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

The so-called stop-loss policy prevents the normal attrition of troops and ensures that divisions won't have to seek more when they go to Iraq or Afghanistan, said Lieutenant General Franklin Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of human resources and personnel. Congress authorized such measures after Vietnam, and they were first used in preparations for the Persian Gulf War in 1990. They have been used since to bolster divisions heading to Iraq and Afghanistan.

''If we don't do that, a division would change 4,000 people out just before deployment, and that's nonsensical," Hagenbeck said yesterday. He said it ''puts soldiers' lives at risk" to have members of units meeting for the first time on the battlefield.

All 160,000 US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar are serving under the same stop-loss conditions, but Army officials decided to announce a policy that alerts all troops for the future. Though Hagenbeck said the Army does not need more troops, he acknowledged that it is ''stretched."

Because the US military intends to keep about 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2005 to fend off an insurgency -- instead of scaling down significantly, as originally planned -- officials have extended the tours of 20,000 troops and recently announced that they will draw more than 3,500 troops from South Korea to support the mission.

John Tillson, a specialist with the Institute for Defense Analysis, said he thinks the stop-loss policy is essential to maintaining a presence around the globe.

''The people who pay the burden are those who volunteered to join the military," Tillson said.

Oh yeah. "Though Hagenbeck said the Army does not need more troops, he acknowledged that it is ''stretched."
This is a good idea. Don't admit to the public that the war in Iraq has stretched our military too thin or that we were not prepared in a way that gave our troops as much support as needed for the job--just shanghai thousands of troops who are due to retire or be transferred and send these folks who have done more than their share already back to the jungle for another go at having their legs blown off. Oh yeah... I say suit up the Bush twins and give them a taste of national service. Suit up all the sons and daughters of the poltards who bluster and blah about how "we" must sacrifice in our "war" against terror. Typical bullshit! Politicians strut and grunts die!