Tweet
Welcome to the new ‘back-door draft’
By Andrew Brennan
October 22, 2014 | 7:57pm
Modal Trigger
Welcome to the new ‘back-door draft’
Actors Ryan Phillippe (left) and Channing Tatum in "Stop-Loss," a film about two best friends trying to cope with the return to civilian life Photo: AP
The US military is quietly entering a new “Stop Loss” era. The news, which could affect thousands of men and women now serving and others who recently left the armed forces, came last week.
The big difference is that, under Stop Loss, you were told as you neared the end of your term that you’d have to stay for up to 12 months more. Here, you’re pulled back when you’ve already left.
The president signed an executive order last Thursday authorizing the secretaries of defense and homeland security to recall Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve members to active duty in support of Operation United Assistance, the new mission to assist in containing Ebola in West Africa.
This news was not widely reported. But, for any veterans of the global war on terrorism reading this: No, this is not a joke.
Yes, our military is still shrinking. Despite continued “non-combat” operations in Afghanistan, a renewed “advisory” mission against a “new” enemy in Iraq and even a mission to confront an infectious-disease crisis, the service chiefs are still obligated to continue downsizing the active force.
Of course, both the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno have repeatedly testified on Capitol Hill that these cuts will leave the US military unable to respond should the need for another major operation arise.
Even before getting handed the Ebola mission, Odierno warned of the high risk the nation faces.
“That was before we had [ISIS] and before the Ukrainian incursion,” Odierno said. “The risk has actually increased. The potential to have ground forces operating on multiple continents simultaneously causes me grave concern about the size of the military, and I think we have to review it.”
But since the politicians won’t review it, it appears that the Army is reverting toward unpopular practices and policies.
Many will recall the controversial “Stop Loss” policy of a decade ago, which involuntarily extended service members beyond their active-duty contractual terms of service.
The policy was used widely as the war in Iraq turned ugly in 2004 and 2005.
It was a response to stalling recruiting efforts and falling retention rates as service members became worn out after more than four straight years of war. With an all-volunteer force, the brass was forced to retain military personnel by any means necessary.
Then-presidential candidate John Kerry referred to Stop Loss as a “back-door draft.” From 2004 to 2008, it kept more than 50,000 service members in service beyond their contacts, roughly 1 percent of the entire force.
Activist groups protested the policy a number of ways, most prominently by blocking Capitol Hill parking lot exits to “Stop Loss” members of Congress trying to leave at the end of their work day.
Now, we are essentially seeing a new era of the Stop Loss policy.
Last week’s executive order allows the Army to continue reducing the active force by 80,000 soldiers over the next four years and to keep sending pink slips to those still serving in Afghanistan, while simultaneously allowing the involuntary recall of former service members back to active duty.
While neither the Pentagon nor the White House has announced the extent to which this recall will be used, it could affect many service members, including some of the very ones being involuntarily separated.
Many involuntarily separated service members are being advised by their chain of command to continue service in the Reserves and Individual Ready Reserve.
But the recent executive order makes that look to be a complete shell game, designed to bypass the intent of sequestration and attempt to meet our operational mission requirements.
All the while, those who will suffer are the recently separated personnel trying to assimilate into a civilian pace of life, only to be suddenly thrust back into the military lifestyle many are working to move on from or forget.
Sound leadership necessitates making new decisions as new information becomes available. You don’t continue the plan to reach the mountain summit when a storm approaches on the horizon.
Well, new information in the form of a committed and capable enemy in Syria and Iraq, strife in Ukraine and the Ebola crisis is available.
Yet we continue to stick to a plan that was haphazardly devised in the 11th hour over budgetary infighting.
Political expedience coupled with a serious lack of leadership in the White House and Congress has led us to this precipice. Everything is reactionary, and nothing is planned, when leadership is unwilling or unable to make decisions absent political considerations.
So, as has been the case over the last 13-plus years, our service members continue to pay the price while our career politicians “battle” for power in the midterms.
Andrew Brennan is a 2008 West Point graduate who served in Afghanistan
By Andrew Brennan
October 22, 2014 | 7:57pm
Modal Trigger
Welcome to the new ‘back-door draft’
Actors Ryan Phillippe (left) and Channing Tatum in "Stop-Loss," a film about two best friends trying to cope with the return to civilian life Photo: AP
The US military is quietly entering a new “Stop Loss” era. The news, which could affect thousands of men and women now serving and others who recently left the armed forces, came last week.
The big difference is that, under Stop Loss, you were told as you neared the end of your term that you’d have to stay for up to 12 months more. Here, you’re pulled back when you’ve already left.
The president signed an executive order last Thursday authorizing the secretaries of defense and homeland security to recall Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve members to active duty in support of Operation United Assistance, the new mission to assist in containing Ebola in West Africa.
This news was not widely reported. But, for any veterans of the global war on terrorism reading this: No, this is not a joke.
Yes, our military is still shrinking. Despite continued “non-combat” operations in Afghanistan, a renewed “advisory” mission against a “new” enemy in Iraq and even a mission to confront an infectious-disease crisis, the service chiefs are still obligated to continue downsizing the active force.
Of course, both the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno have repeatedly testified on Capitol Hill that these cuts will leave the US military unable to respond should the need for another major operation arise.
Even before getting handed the Ebola mission, Odierno warned of the high risk the nation faces.
“That was before we had [ISIS] and before the Ukrainian incursion,” Odierno said. “The risk has actually increased. The potential to have ground forces operating on multiple continents simultaneously causes me grave concern about the size of the military, and I think we have to review it.”
But since the politicians won’t review it, it appears that the Army is reverting toward unpopular practices and policies.
Many will recall the controversial “Stop Loss” policy of a decade ago, which involuntarily extended service members beyond their active-duty contractual terms of service.
The policy was used widely as the war in Iraq turned ugly in 2004 and 2005.
It was a response to stalling recruiting efforts and falling retention rates as service members became worn out after more than four straight years of war. With an all-volunteer force, the brass was forced to retain military personnel by any means necessary.
Then-presidential candidate John Kerry referred to Stop Loss as a “back-door draft.” From 2004 to 2008, it kept more than 50,000 service members in service beyond their contacts, roughly 1 percent of the entire force.
Activist groups protested the policy a number of ways, most prominently by blocking Capitol Hill parking lot exits to “Stop Loss” members of Congress trying to leave at the end of their work day.
Now, we are essentially seeing a new era of the Stop Loss policy.
Last week’s executive order allows the Army to continue reducing the active force by 80,000 soldiers over the next four years and to keep sending pink slips to those still serving in Afghanistan, while simultaneously allowing the involuntary recall of former service members back to active duty.
While neither the Pentagon nor the White House has announced the extent to which this recall will be used, it could affect many service members, including some of the very ones being involuntarily separated.
Many involuntarily separated service members are being advised by their chain of command to continue service in the Reserves and Individual Ready Reserve.
But the recent executive order makes that look to be a complete shell game, designed to bypass the intent of sequestration and attempt to meet our operational mission requirements.
All the while, those who will suffer are the recently separated personnel trying to assimilate into a civilian pace of life, only to be suddenly thrust back into the military lifestyle many are working to move on from or forget.
Sound leadership necessitates making new decisions as new information becomes available. You don’t continue the plan to reach the mountain summit when a storm approaches on the horizon.
Well, new information in the form of a committed and capable enemy in Syria and Iraq, strife in Ukraine and the Ebola crisis is available.
Yet we continue to stick to a plan that was haphazardly devised in the 11th hour over budgetary infighting.
Political expedience coupled with a serious lack of leadership in the White House and Congress has led us to this precipice. Everything is reactionary, and nothing is planned, when leadership is unwilling or unable to make decisions absent political considerations.
So, as has been the case over the last 13-plus years, our service members continue to pay the price while our career politicians “battle” for power in the midterms.
Andrew Brennan is a 2008 West Point graduate who served in Afghanistan
Comment