Some Closure on Stop-Loss

icon_military.jpgDespite being overshadowed by the political Scheißestorm going on with our neighbors to the northeast, a significant piece of legislation was enacted today. America 6, or President Obama as he is sometimes known, signed a supplemental war-spending bill that will send an extra $106 billion to war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill was heavily debated in both houses of Congress, not because of the spending measure in its own right, but because of some of the amendments added to the legislation.


While some are decrying the cash-for-clunkers green amendment added to the bill as government waste, some of the amendments have been cause for celebration. For instance, one amendment, proposed by Congressman Chet Edwards, gives the children of fallen warriors complete access to Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits, something that normally would require 10+ years of service.

Though the biggest victory for veterans groups came in the form of an amendment that retroactively compensates personnel who fell under the DoD’s stop-loss policy. The bill ultimately sets aside $534 million, paying $500 for every month that a service member served beyond his or her obligation. Although all of the branches of service use the policy, the Army, burdened by 15-month deployments and waning recruitment and reenlistment rates, found itself to be the biggest offender. The stop-loss amendment had been heavily debated last year, with some senators arguing that the $500 a month payout was not enough and countered with a $1500 a month proposal.

Either way, veterans groups are happy.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

6 responses to “Some Closure on Stop-Loss”

  1. Jason D. Avatar
    Jason D.

    Thank you for the compliments. The only thing I really have to add here is that between the tens of thousands of dollars worth of signing bonuses, the free healthcare, and the free education thrown at new recruits, I don’t think there is much more the Army, USMC, or the DoD in general can do to incentivize higher recruiting rates. Comparatively, the one thing that did prove to be a boon to recruiting has been the downward turn of the economy. How that holds up once the things start improving remains to be seen, but I do see how the departments of the DoD are in a hard position and unfortuantely there is little that can be done about it besides utilizing the extreme solutions like stop-loss and drawing from the IRR. It’s certainly a hard situation to deal with, and one that has little historical precedent as there is no draft in place to compensate for the lack of manpower, and there probably won’t be a real solution until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both come to a close.

  2. J.M. Prince Avatar
    J.M. Prince

    Thanks for the clarification & insights Jason. There’s certainly a compelling rationale here. And there’s certain reasons to prefer it over the IRR. But I still say that it was the coercive push rather than any ‘incentivized’ pull, that really made it a dubious approach to filling a desperate need. Naturally, this being the Army & DoD the first concern was over the costs of trying to induce & sway higher retention. Now this being the Army, this may have also been the first tools that they turned to, and for good reasons. But it also was pretty unprecedented and did cause plenty of disruption, pain & largely unrecognized sacrifice.

    I’m glad that the troops are now being compensated after the fact & fairly quickly. That’s good & decent.

    Still, I always thought it was a deeply hypocritical policy that had plenty of contradictions within it to create enough dissatisfaction to make it a very costly option on many dimensions. We really should have tried harder to do it with better pay & incentives, directly & up front. But as the brass would tell you that’s possibly the ‘low & slow’ strategy too. Who knows? It was largely untried or tried fairly late. SSDD.

    And in most Congresses? It could have easily taken a decade or longer, (a generation is not uncommon), for these brave souls to be properly compensated. To me, that’s just too high of a price to pay for dithering political leaders who were unwilling to bite the bullet and use the forces that were needed. But that’s a larger argument too. Thanks for your service & perspective here. JMP

  3. Paula Avatar
    Paula

    Thanks, Jason! I love stuff like that.

  4. Jason D. Avatar
    Jason D.

    Paula,

    The Army (and possibly the Marine Corps) uses a tactical call sign system that, with the help of a unit’s nickname followed by a numeral, allows individuals to be identified on the radio.

    Individuals that are identified as “6” are the commanding officer of that unit. The “7” is the senior non-commissioned officer in that unit. The “5” denotes the Executive Officer, the 2nd in command of that unit.

    For instance, take Band of Brothers. The book and series was about E Company, 2/506 PIR. The nickname for that company was “Easy”. Once Capt. Winters takes command of Easy, he is referred to as “Easy 6” in the third person.

    I’ve just extended that principle to the top of the chain of command, with President Obama being “America 6”. If we were to follow this to its logical conclusion, Vice-President Biden would be “America 5”, and I guess Rahm Emmanuel would be “America 7” haha.

    But yeah, it’s one of those little things that somehow drastically changes the way you watch war movies. Everything from uniform standards to jargon are drilled in you so much, that even the slightest departure can destroy your ability to enjoy a film or television show.

  5. Paula Avatar
    Paula

    OK, I know I’m missing something really obvious here, but why is Obama “America 6”?

  6. J.M. Prince Avatar
    J.M. Prince

    Thanks for noticing Jason. Stop Loss was a brutal policy of forced enlistments. It was probably wholly illegal too, as it was judged to be way back in Lincoln’s time when the Union was at stake.

    And really? It forced many, many more soldiers to re-up when they might not have wanted to. The common refrain was, ‘well they’ll only stop loss you anyway, this way you might be able to get some say where & when…’ I can’t tell you how many folks I’ve heard that from.

    It broke people, it destroyed families, and damn near destroyed the Army & military. We’ve had a higher combat tempo with these wars than in any other since WWII. And even then, the time frame was shorter and more accommodating typically. It’s staggering to consider that we now have good men & women doing 4th, 5th, 6th & yes possibly even 7th tours of duty in combat zones that are always hot & dangerously active.

    Happily they finally have real leaders now who actually do give a rat’s ass about their survival rates and their eventual success at reintegration back into civilian life. It’s been far too long in coming. JMP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *