Soldiers Sue Over Army’s Stop-Loss Policy

[McNamara]

There is no need for a draft and most of you guys no [sic] that from your own experiences.

I partially agree with you, Wink. We don't need a draft right now, but that could change depending on how things go in Iraq and/or whether we get ourselves into another war. There are some really nasty threats out there, potentially even worse than Iraq.

I'm morally against a draft, and I think WWII was really the only time it was justified. Being a serious student of military history, I think I can back that one up. Conscription is almost always wrong from a moral standpoint.

It's also terrible for a professional force. Our all-volunteer force is a major part of our strength, and when you have to fight alongside people that never even signed up for it, that's a big downer. I'd much rather lead volunteers than draftees, and I'm sure most other officers would agree.

Time will tell whether the draft will be reinstated. True, we're getting rid of officers and there are many enlisted jobs that are difficult to get. I'll guarantee that they're hurting for infantry personnel, though. And that's where the bulk of the draftees historically go. My best friend volunteered for infantry when he signed his enlistment papers (despite the offer of a more cushy technical MOS) but I think he's an exception. Obviously, if we need a hell of a lot more ground troops, they can't all be volunteers.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Time will tell whether the draft will be reinstated. True, we're getting rid of officers and there are many enlisted jobs that are difficult to get. I'll guarantee that they're hurting for infantry personnel, though. And that's where the bulk of the draftees historically go. My best friend volunteered for infantry when he signed his enlistment papers (despite the offer of a more cushy technical MOS) but I think he's an exception. Obviously, if we need a hell of a lot more ground troops, they can't all be volunteers.

Does that mean if you DOR from flight school you could lat into the Army and go infantry? Sounds like fun!

 

[McNamara]

Does that mean if you DOR from flight school you could lat into the Army and go infantry? Sounds like fun!

Well, [laughing], no. I can't think of anyone that's done that. I do have some Marine friends that are transferring from aviation to a ground MOS, but that's different.

I'm actually talking about the more distant future - some eventuality that would require a big increase in the infantry. I don't think there'd be enough volunteers for ground combat jobs if **** got really bad.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

My little brother and I were talking... if the Army had 2 year no-bs enlistments, him and a bunch of his friends would join up, just to go do their part, serve their time and get out. None of them want to wait 4+ years to go to college though.

 

[VarmintShooter]

Talk about some hate and discontent ... the people who signed the regular contracts and got stop-lossed would be ready to string up the guys on the "no bs" contracts.

Ahhh, there's never a good solution.

 

[gaijin6423]

There's really no bs with the contracts that everyone who joins the military signs. IF you read them, that is. All enlistment contracts explicitly state that contractual obligation is no less than eight years. Usually, that's four years active and four years reserve, with more or less active duty time, depending on the job you sign up for. As for officers... We serve at the liesure of the President, no bones about it. Which means that they can call us up at ANY point in time and say, "Uh, yeah. I'm going to have to ask you to come in to work this saturday. Yyyeeeaaaahhhhh, that'd be great." I was discharged early from active duty in the Marines, in order to go to the usna, and after 9/11 I got a letter, informing me that I had been reactivated. My individual ready reserve time had not expired yet. I think that if these people had read their contracts before they signed them, then this wouldnt be an issue.

 

[perchul]

Now I haven't read this entire thread but the only thing good point that I haven't seen made is a contention on contract law. First and foremost the courts typically do side with the government in these matters as many have pointed out; however typically there was a more direct threat to National Security in these matters (I worded that very carefully). If the military is using a contract signed by a person before he/she reached 21 then don't be surprised if that person is allowed to leave because prior to 21 while you are allowed to enter into a contract time and time again the courts have ruled that a person did not have adequate capacity at the time of signing.

With those 21 and older the will need to either one show the contract is causing undue burden to them and their family...if they don't have dependents I don't see how that argument could be made; because a person can not enter a contract that is illegal or in certain circumstances is highly detrimental to their well being (eg. you could not sign a contract with the devil for your soul...legally or you could not contract yourself into slavery) furthermore a contracts are not meant to be completely binding there can always be unforeseen circumstances that can be argued for a person in which the contract must be declared null or more likely those circumstances require some penalty of law or fine to leave such as the $200 fee you must pay to leave your cell company early they can't actually make you stay.

Obviously the personel don't want to go to leavenworth so they'll be arguing unforeseen family circumstances...but I'm waiting for a crafty lawyer who comes up with the constitutional argument of it infringing on a persons pursuit of happiness.

I just wrote this to really say enough about signing contracts, the military breaks contracts with people and business every week.

 

[wink]

Percul makes some good legal points, although I seriously doubt the 18-21 year old age group can rely on their age to get them out of an enlistment contract. There may be some case law where 21 was an issue, but for God's sake, the military may draft at age 18, 18 year olds can vote and are considered of majority in all things but alcohol consumpution/purchase everywhere I can think of. You murder someone at age 19 you are tried as an adult. All that being said, I haven't seen one of these cases yet where the complainant was outside of their 8 year total commitment or hadn't taken on some other payback obligation, or reenlistement contract. As for my view, I make a moral argument. As stated above, these guys just happen to think they themselves or their issues are more important than any other persons' problems in their unit. These guys are breaking a pact with fellow service members. To heck with the government's contract. How can these people see soldiers missing a limb and say they want to get back into the fight because their buddies are still over there and not free lower than whale dung? If I were an employer I would rather hire one of those wounded loyal vets over a dozen that shirked their obligation to their fellow soldiers, saliors, airmen and Marines.