US "Stop-Loss" (involuntary servitude) Program

E

error_unknown

Guest
#1
At every turn it becomes harder to believe news in the US media. As recently as three weeks ago upbeat US headlines touted new recruitment significantly up. Yet here the US govenment has instituted a faux draft resulting in the probable involuntary servitude of thousands desiring to exit the US military.

It all makes me wonder what kind of inducements (ligaments tantamount to indenture) are being deployed by the US to keep the UK, Poland and others in place in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4160084,00.html
Army Expanding 'Stop-Loss' Program

Wednesday June 2, 2004 4:16 PM AP Photo BAG107
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army will prevent soldiers in units set to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the service at the end of their terms, a top general said Wednesday. (snip)
And Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5323674
 
#4
See your point CH , but I'll let this one run, on the grounds of "Heute USA, Morgen die Welt" as Dui-Lai notes 8O

The stop-loss initative by Rumsfeld is worth looking at , as this country recently, has a history of following Spam initatives . "Supreme Court" anyone?
 
#5
I suspect that similar powers already exist in the UK but only if the government declares a state of emergency, war or whatever the exact phrase is. Queens Order maybe ?

Anyway, to do it in peacetime you'll need to change everyone's terms of service, which has to be by agreement or when they next have to sign on for another period.

I would have thought that if we had something in there already it would have been used by now - although they could always let you go and then call you up from the Regular Reserve.
 
#6
A similar, though not as restrictive practice has happened for years. If your unit is warned for operations you can't PVR. (I stand to be corrected by those with more experience on this though).
 
#7
You can be extended beyond your exit date if the Defence Council deem it necessary - I think... Believe your terminal leave and resettlement are held over until you return. Has anyone been hit with this one?
 
#8
Here a thought for you.

The 12 month notice period is about to be brought into line with Officers engagements to a period of 7 months. Notice has been given that soldiers signing off are not to be deployed on Ops or Ex as this will result in a time conflict with the resettlement requirements.

How many people, when they here of this, are going to sign off as soon as they are warned off for a tour?
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#9
I served in the US Navy both enlisted and officer, unrestricted line. While enlisted I entered into a voluntary servitude contract that specified an explicit period of time. My ID card (ironically all active duty military cards are green) contained an expiration date consistant with my contract. Notwithstanding a bonified "emergency" I would have been more than just miffed if I was extended as is implied in these orders. When I was subsequently commissioned I traded in my old green card for a new one with a new rank. In place of an expiration date were the words, "Serves at the pleasure of the President." That always bothered me a little because I knew what it meant!!! 8O

There will be at least a few enlisteds scrounging up solistiors for this round. :lol:
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#10
dui-lai said:
So how long before old GB trys for conscription :?:
They are already quietly reactivating the local draft boards, however, because of 'Nam even the idea of a draft is chilling in America. It is said the uniformed services are happy not to have conscripts; anyone over there not know why? Check the Mil.chod boards and view endless rants against the draft.

Answer, as soon as the cowardly cnut (not LNV - :lol: ) is re-elected. 8O
 
#11
Under my reserve forces call up instructions it states that I can only be called up if there is a 'Grave national emergency'.
I wonder if they will try to get us 'time served' people mobilised without declaring such an emergency?
 
#12
Speedy said:
Under my reserve forces call up instructions it states that I can only be called up if there is a 'Grave national emergency'.
I wonder if they will try to get us 'time served' people mobilised without declaring such an emergency?
i already posted this in the TA section, i will repeat my point here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as in america they are already going down the list of ex service men and reservists

in the UK i wonder how far down the list they wil be going in order to avoid conscription or declaring a National Emercency in order to enable conscription.

so lets see :
1)Regulars
2)TA
3)Reservist
4)Ex_sevicemen with call up liability
5)Cadet Training Team members
6)then Adult ACF Officers (type B converted to A)
after that
anybody else then that would be conscription
_________________

does anybody else have their view on the this ?
 
#13
Interesting stuff.

IMHO conscription would require a total mind shift in regarding the way our Armed Forces are established. In the current climate, there is simply no way that conscription could be floated past the electorate. The conspiracy theorists can debate this all they like - there is no way.

To address an earlier point - Queen's Orders are broadly similar to the US system of DEFCON/similar. The Queen has no say in the democratic process of this country (apart from informal approval of various pieces of legislation) - the decision to initiate conscription is a political process.

The rules already exist (in principle) for extending personnel in service, but the individual concerned needs to be almost indispensable and of clear importance to the UK national effort. A period of over-stretch does not qualify. Again, conspiracy theorists - debate all you like - and remember I have seen the effects of using 'poorly trained TA soldiers' (the subject of another thread) and 'backfilling' from other units - there was no effect in tactical terms.

Yes - we have a problem with 'stretch' in the Army, and tour intervals are ridiculous for some units. Yes - people are getting fed up with it - but the effects are yet to be quantified at any rational level.

We are a professional Army, based on voluntary service. Inclusion of conscription would fundamentally alter the whole character and ethos of the Armed Forces (about the only worthwhile export UK PLC possess).

I say again - it will never happen - the situation simply isn't that bad - we will always find a way. Haven't we done so for years?? :D

PS In addendum, I can remember being chuffed to bits to go to Bosnia in 1995, as it was my first tour for over 2 years (!) I now find myself in a Staff job for another 12 months, following a period which has seen 5 tours in just over 3 years! On my last stint in Iraq, the Bde had personnel from a Scots Battalion who were on PD at Balmoral. The Queen had to be asked if it was ok if they went to Iraq!! :D

We were informed that there is nothing left in the barrel if the PD Battalions are being stripped - this was Oct 2003!

Apologies for the rambling post :D
 
#14
Conscription, i mean have you seen the people who are getting through training now anyway , how low would the bar have to be lowered to get the averege joe through basic!!!!
plus you'd have lawyers crawling out of your arrse!!!!
"ooooooh me human rights are being violated" :roll:
 
#15
shortfuse said:
Conscription, i mean have you seen the people who are getting through training now anyway , how low would the bar have to be lowered to get the averege joe through basic!!!!
plus you'd have lawyers crawling out of your arrse!!!!
"ooooooh me human rights are being violated" :roll:
If things get that desperate the Human Right legislation will have been given the boot. There is a get-out clause allowing to be ditched in times of 'National Emergency'
 
#16
i'm not being funny but if things get that desperate , can you see the procession of burberry baseball caps off to the doctors to get that asthma note sorted out , the standards would go through the floor.
 
#17
Semper.

semper said:
in the UK i wonder how far down the list they wil be going in order to avoid conscription or declaring a National Emercency in order to enable conscription.

so lets see :
1)Regulars
2)TA
3)Reservist
4)Ex_sevicemen with call up liability
5)Cadet Training Team members
6)then Adult ACF Officers (type B converted to A)
after that
anybody else then that would be conscription


does anybody else have their view on the this ?
Apologies for flogging this to death, but it's been on my mind since my last post.

Queen's Regulations for the Army 1978 (Amendment no 26)

Chapter 9 Part 7

9.478. Compulsory liability. The liability for service in the Army Reserve for soldiers who terminate their Colour service, other than as recruits, is as follows:

a. For men, but not women, who enlisted before 1 January 1986 who terminate their Colour service with less than 12 years from the relevant date, including those transferred on payment under the provisions of para 9.374, or on compassionate grounds under the provisions of para 9.375, the period is to be the balance of 12 years.

b. For men, but not women, who enlisted on or transferred to the Notice Engagement on or after 1 January 1986 or who joined on the Open Engagement on or after 1 January 1991, who terminate their Colour service before the completion of their engagement their Army Reserve service is to be 6 years or the balance of 22 years, whichever is the lesser. Servicemen enlisted for Home Service have no reserve liability.

c. For women who enlisted on or transferred to the Notice Engagement on or after 1 January 1987 or who joined on the Open Engagement on or after 1 January 1991, who terminate their Colour service before the completion of their engagement, their Army Reserve service is to be 6 years or the balance of 22 years, whichever is the lesser. Servicewomen enlisted for Home Service have no reserve liability.
Long Term Reserve

9.482. Liabilities. All male soldiers (but not female soldiers) enlisted on or after 28 February 1964 and who have completed their Colour and ArmyReserve serviceand are not members of any other Reserve have a liability for recall in an emergency until they attain the age of 45 under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. It includes male soldiers who have completed 3 or more years colour service on an S Type or Special S Type engagement.
I take it that this is what you were referring to by 'Reservist' and 'Ex serviceman with call-up liability'?

No probs - this is all made perfectly clear when people join up.

My real issue is with the individuals you highlight at serials 5 & 6. Members of CTTs (Ser 5) are serving soldiers - they already serve - so how can they be conscripted? If they are ACF/CCF Instructors (Ser 6), then assuming no additional liability linked to previous service, they are CIVILIANS and worth no more or less than other civilians. Why they would be included on a sliding scale as reproduced above is beyond me.

Sorry if this news upsets anyone.

PS There is no real point to this post, other than to nail that one down! :D

Out.
 
#18
ok sorry
i would imagine the CTT would be tranffered away from their position to the front line
i was under the impression that ACF officers have home defence liability Type B and therefore be converted to A if needed

if im wrong ok i put my hand up
 
#19
The concern we should have in the UK is if cutbacks lead to the situation where the call-up regulations are used to plug gaps due to cutbacks rather than for mobilisation in a bona fide crisis. I can see this happening with the current bunch in office!
 
#20
MrPVRd said:
The concern we should have in the UK is if cutbacks lead to the situation where the call-up regulations are used to plug gaps due to cutbacks rather than for mobilisation in a bona fide crisis. I can see this happening with the current bunch in office!
We've been doing this with the TA for a couple of years now.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads