Stop Loss (Not specifically a NAVAIR issue but will seriously affect it)

Got this from MOA today:

Issue 3: Stop-Loss: The New Draft

The more we think about the Defense Department's plan to meet wartime
requirements for the next few years, the more concerned we get.

The plan is to increase Army manning by 30,000 for the next few years.
But that won't be accomplished through additional recruiting, as most of
us tend to think when we hear those words. It will be accomplished mainly
by barring current members from leaving when their terms of service are up
- a policy known as "stop-loss." The plan is to keep stop-loss in place
through 2005, for thousands of active duty, Guard and Reserve troops.

It's hard to see that as anything other than a reinstitution of the draft,
imposed in the most ironic way possible. The only people being drafted
are those who have already volunteered to serve in the first place. Many
have already seen combat or hazardous duty in Africa, the Balkans,
Afghanistan, and/or Iraq. Now their end-of-tour separations are being
denied so they can be forced to fill manpower shortages and deploy again.

The Defense Department is trying to put a good face on it, saying it will
meet wartime needs through "increased retention" rather than increased
recruiting. If stop-loss is being euphemized that way, somebody's kidding
himself. You can't keep stop-loss in place for extended periods without
risking negative retention consequences for the longer term.

Don't get us wrong. Sometimes stop-loss is the only way to meet the
national defense mission. But prudent planners know it should be a
short-term tool, not an extended policy. It means that somebody didn't
plan very well.

The planning deficiency didn't start with current leadership. We should
have started recruiting for a bigger force years ago, because the troops
have been overstressed for more than a decade. But the fact that it
hasn't been done yet is no excuse to keep putting it off.

Is anybody thinking about the situation this process is creating for
whoever is leading the Defense Department and the Services two years
downstream? When the stop-loss policy ends, does anyone think there won't
be a disproportional wave of "negative retention"? If we need a larger
force for years to come - and everybody knows we do - prudent planning
would seem to dictate that increased recruiting has to be part of the
solution.

We don't think the need is lost on military leaders. They're doing their
utmost to find the best solution to a huge manpower challenge within the
"transformation" limits imposed upon them by politicians and political
appointees. But there's also a limit to how much reality can be ignored,
and a limit to the risks we should accept in planning military force
levels needed to defend the country.

Remember, "Help is on the way"? We never thought it meant just another
helping of sacrifice heaped on those who have already borne their fair
share of the battle.


--
Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"Bill Kambic" wrote:

Got this from MOA today:

Issue 3: Stop-Loss: The New Draft
[Snip]

Who is MOA, and why should I believe any of the apparent
telepathy they use to discern DoD's plans and intentions^W evil
intentions^W^W evil and nefarious intentions[TM-alt.conspiracy]
than that of any other group or columnist that apparently uses
telepathy to discern DoD's plans and evil and nefarious
intentions?
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

Sorry I left an "a" off.

It's a lobbying group. Or a "special interest" group, if that better
serves.

Go to http://www.moaa.org/ for some additional answers.

I have been able to discern the nefarious intentions of DoD since I was a
pup!g

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
...
"Bill Kambic" wrote:

Got this from MOA today:

Issue 3: Stop-Loss: The New Draft
[Snip]

Who is MOA, and why should I believe any of the apparent
telepathy they use to discern DoD's plans and intentions^W evil
intentions^W^W evil and nefarious intentions[TM-alt.conspiracy]
than that of any other group or columnist that apparently uses
telepathy to discern DoD's plans and evil and nefarious
intentions?
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

"Bill Kambic" wrote:

Sorry I left an "a" off.

It's a lobbying group. Or a "special interest" group, if that better
serves.

Go to http://www.moaa.org/ for some additional answers.

Did. Sounds a lot like that NCOA(?) bunch that a) turned out to
be pretty much solely devoted to selling insurance to its
members, and b) had several officers [corporate, not military]
embezzling the proceeds from that insurance.

Talk about evil and nefarious intentions. ;-

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or

What he said.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

"Bill Kambic" wrote...
Got this from MOA today:

Issue 3: Stop-Loss: The New Draft

The more we think about the Defense Department's plan to meet wartime
requirements for the next few years, the more concerned we get.

The plan is to increase Army manning by 30,000 for the next few years.
But that won't be accomplished through additional recruiting, as most of
us tend to think when we hear those words. It will be accomplished mainly
by barring current members from leaving when their terms of service are up
- a policy known as "stop-loss." The plan is to keep stop-loss in place
through 2005, for thousands of active duty, Guard and Reserve troops.

That is totally absurd -- though totally representative of our current political
climate!

Stop Loss is probably a valid weapon to use when a crisis BEGINS, and manning
cannot be increased sufficiently, soon enough. However, the current "crisis"
started over 2 years ago, and there has been ample time for the personnel
[mis]management people to see the stark reality, notice that the Reserves and
Guard would not be able to sustain their augmentation rates forever, and start
to re-man the active forces.

If DoD decides to use Stop Loss as a continuous personnel mismanagement tool,
not only NAVAIR will be adversely affected, but the entire recruiting system! --
"Uh, yes, your enlistment term is 4 years, but the Army reserves the right to
keep you in forever if we can't get another sucker to volunteer for a life
term..."

John R Weiss wrote:

"Bill Kambic" wrote...
Got this from MOA today:

Issue 3: Stop-Loss: The New Draft

The more we think about the Defense Department's plan to meet wartime
requirements for the next few years, the more concerned we get.

The plan is to increase Army manning by 30,000 for the next few years.
But that won't be accomplished through additional recruiting, as most of
us tend to think when we hear those words. It will be accomplished mainly
by barring current members from leaving when their terms of service are up
- a policy known as "stop-loss." The plan is to keep stop-loss in place
through 2005, for thousands of active duty, Guard and Reserve troops.

That is totally absurd -- though totally representative of our current political
climate!

Stop Loss is probably a valid weapon to use when a crisis BEGINS, and manning
cannot be increased sufficiently, soon enough. However, the current "crisis"
started over 2 years ago, and there has been ample time for the personnel
[mis]management people to see the stark reality, notice that the Reserves and
Guard would not be able to sustain their augmentation rates forever, and start
to re-man the active forces.

If DoD decides to use Stop Loss as a continuous personnel mismanagement tool,
not only NAVAIR will be adversely affected, but the entire recruiting system! --
"Uh, yes, your enlistment term is 4 years, but the Army reserves the right to
keep you in forever if we can't get another sucker to volunteer for a life
term..."

I think the current bipartisan planning horizon ends at November 2, 2004.

Then:

If "they" have the conn, we'll watch and complain.

If "we" have the conn, we'll worry about it then.

This applies for multiple different values of "we" and "they".

"The buck don't even slow down here!"

Bob McKellar