Morale Article Index : Current 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Solving Stop Loss
   Next Article → WARPLANES: UAV Bottlenecks

September 26, 2008: U.S. troops are getting a 3.9 percent pay raise next year, on top of a 3.5 percent raise this year. The U.S. Congress has been generous with the troops, providing money for more recruiting bonuses, combat service benefits and increased veterans benefits.

Typical of these new benefits is a $500 a month bonus, beginning next year, for time they have to serve on active duty because of a "stop loss" (keeping troops in up to 12 months beyond their discharge or retirement date) order. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Defense announced plans to halt using "stop loss" within the next two years.

Stop Loss has been used to improve the combat ability of units headed overseas. Because of retirements, schools, leave, expired enlistments and so on, military units today can have over twenty percent of their troops away, or about to leave, at any one time. To keep units headed for Iraq up to strength, the U.S. Army began using the "Stop Loss" rule six years ago. This meant that troops could not retire, and if they were at the end of their enlistment, they had to stay in the service until their tour of duty in Iraq is completed. The main reason for policy was to save lives. The majority of people stop lossed were NCOs (usually squad and team leaders about to be discharged, or senior ones about to retire) and technicians. The NCOs were critical in combat, the glue that held units together.    Replacing these leaders just before a unit ships out to a combat zone, leaves troops with unfamiliar replacement leaders, which leads to mistakes, and dead soldiers.

Stop Loss also halts scheduled transfers from a unit so affected. The Stop Loss has been applied separately to active duty and reserve units, causing some morale problem in Iraq when reserve units were under Stop Loss and active duty units were not. So far, over 60,000 active duty and reserve troops have been hit with a Stop Loss order, and served another few months, or as much as a year.

During World War II, troops were in "for the duration" (of the war.) Historically, that was the exception, not the rule in the American military. During the American Revolution and American Civil War, troops served fixed enlistments and left when their six months, two years or whatever were up. The government was wary of issuing a "for the duration" order because of the potential political backlash. During the Korean and Vietnam war there was a limit of 13 months service in the combat zone and enlistments were rarely extended involuntarily. Iraq was another one of those wars where the government feels it can get away for a little "for the duration lite", which is what Stop Loss is.

Stop Loss has been part of the enlistment contract since the 1970s. Basically, troops take on an eight year obligation when they enlist, even if the specified period of active service is only three or four years. Normally, the rest of the obligation is served in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve), which usually requires no contact with the military. Thus, at the end of three or four years, troops receive a document saying they have been "released from active service." Four or five years later, they get their discharge. It's just another example of why you should always read the fine print.

Next Article → WARPLANES: UAV Bottlenecks
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
newjarheadean    show me the money!   9/26/2008 8:29:44 AM
AHOY,
When I served I was surrounded by those who joined to get a pay check. Even worse, I would bet if the benefits ever ran out so to would the patriotism.  

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       9/26/2008 9:46:14 AM

AHOY,

When I served I was surrounded by those who joined to get a pay check. Even worse, I would bet if the benefits ever ran out so to would the patriotism.  





I imagine it will be the death knell of some political careers,
when (or if?) all the Iraq and Afghanistan hostilities have ceased and all our servicemembers come home,
and politicians start trying to take away all those benefits those fighting men and women earned while deployed.
 
Currently, the Guard and Reserve pretty much enjoy the same benefits as "full timers" (those in the federal active military),
such as GI Bill bennies (especially moreso if you've been deployed), commissary privildeges (hells yea), and access to just as many on-post facilities across the world as any active servicemembers (and without the need to be on orders while travelling to do so),
as well as similar medical and other health-related care support.
Plus, what other job/career actually boosts your pay some each time you have a kid? (but only so far...don't plan on having 10 kids and expect the equivalent of a general's pay when you're only an E-4!)
 
I can only imagine the backlash politicians will get when they start trying to take those perks away: in just such a case, without maintaining StopLoss (hard to do in "peacetime"), troop strength will begin falling for all services.
Yes, there are plenty of people who are in it for the patriotism and sense of duty to a higher calling than one's personal self,
but how many of those people, and others, will commit to a military career when the penny-pinching politicos start sacrificing military benefits?
 
If the numbers of Guardians, Reservists, and Active Duty personnel start to fall across all the branches, and military enlistments begin to dwindle,
then the next major conflict we get into will require reinstatement of The Draft.
That in itself can be a career death knell for even more politicians.
 
Quote    Reply

Patriot 1       9/26/2008 10:04:01 AM




AHOY,



When I served I was surrounded by those who joined to get a pay check. Even worse, I would bet if the benefits ever ran out so to would the patriotism.  













I imagine it will be the death knell of some political careers,

when (or if?) all the Iraq and Afghanistan hostilities have ceased and all our servicemembers come home,

and politicians start trying to take away all those benefits those fighting men and women earned while deployed.

 

Currently, the Guard and Reserve pretty much enjoy the same benefits as "full timers" (those in the federal active military),

such as GI Bill bennies (especially moreso if you've been deployed), commissary privildeges (hells yea), and access to just as many on-post facilities across the world as any active servicemembers (and without the need to be on orders while travelling to do so),

as well as similar medical and other health-related care support.
Quote    Reply

doggtag       9/26/2008 3:43:04 PM


Your pay doesn't increase with EACH child you have clueless wonder. Your pay increases when you get married and live off post in the form of housing and food allowances.


Guess again.
You can dress it up in whatever definitions you like.
But take two enlisteds at whatever rank,
with the same time in grade,
married,
both living outside the barracks/billeting,
and one has one or two more children than the other,
the one with more kids will take in more allowances (BAH, COLA, & especially moreso on a deployment),
providing he/she meets certain requirements,
so in effect, more kids can (but not always) equate to more money.
 
But like I said, it only goes far: you can't keep having children with the intention of getting an ever-higher paycheck.
I'll have to dig out Pay and Allowance charts when I have time, but there are cut-offs as to just how far a person can, ahem, "exploit" the system.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36       9/27/2008 4:35:49 PM
There are some things you just can't directly throw money at to fix.  The issue is the long long long deployments.  If you are just out of high school, this isn't so much of an issue especially females who fix the problem of a long deployment with a pregnancy.  Older NCOs generally have a family and leaving their crying wife and children behind for another fun 15 months - it just ain't worth it.  The Air Force never has this problem because the active duty deployments are short (4-6 months) and they have volunteers.  In addition, the AFRES and ANG have plenty of experienced NCOs volunteering to fill in because of the Air Force's flexibility. 
Rather than throw pennies and trinkets at soldiers, the Army should cut the deployments in half and follow the model of the AF.  Yes, it would cost more money to transport everyone around but with the coordination of the Air Mobility Command (flying as Space A), this cost could be reduced greatly.  It's not the best conditions (flying with cargo) but it does the job.
But, the Army will continue to be the Army...as one soldier put it "stupid".
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       10/1/2008 1:18:48 PM
"U.S. troops are getting a 3.9 percent pay raise next year, on top of a 3.5 percent raise this year. The U.S. Congress has been generous with the troops..."
 
 
With inflation running 4-5% these days, a 3-4% pay bump is more "barely adequate" than "generous"... :-)
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       10/1/2008 3:48:22 PM
Considering that a fairly good sized chunk of the "average" taxpayer base isn't getting an equivalent raise to match the inflation rate, that says something there, too.
That just under 4% pay raise the military typically aims for every year is better than what a lot of civilian sector jobs offer (non-degree stuff).
 
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       10/1/2008 5:02:51 PM

Considering that a fairly good sized chunk of the "average" taxpayer base isn't getting an equivalent raise to match the inflation rate, that says something there, too.

That just under 4% pay raise the military typically aims for every year is better than what a lot of civilian sector jobs offer (non-degree stuff).

 


Very true. Just being picky. :-)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply