Saturday, March 14, 2009


Here's a little something from, Global Security .org, that I found quite interesting.

Gates To Take Comprehensive Approach To End "Stop-Loss.

It was written on 02/29/2009.
I wonder why it wasn't better publicized?
Most everything that I've been able to find on this subject gives the appearance that Secretary Gates has requested that military leaders lower the "stop-loss" ratio, and that they, (Military Leaders), chose to ignore his requests. I won't call them orders because then they (the leaders) would be in defiance of direct orders, and we all know that isn't allowed in the military.
I have a better idea Mr. Secretary.
Let's just end stop-loss all together.
Let's direct our military leaders to start doing something about morale, and retention.
Get out from behind those desks and get out and find out what it would take to make the Army a better place to be.
Lets show Secretary Gates that he has the backing of a lot of military members, their families, and friends, by signing the petition.

Online petition - End Stop Loss.

We're nearing the 100 signature mark and counting.
Not quite the progress I had hoped for in a week, but never the less a good showing.

If you are a member of Facebook, you are invited to join our group.


God bless our soldiers and bring them home safe.


  1. As you said, I don't think it was an order. It's the same old publicity. He said the same thing a while ago, and your guest poster was correct--actual usage and implementation of it jumped somewhere between 40-60%, depending on your source.

    Just a quick heads up, the military is not very fond of I don't know enough to say whether it is political, but they publish the sort of information that the military would prefer kept hidden. If you dig deep enough, you'll find detailed maps of bases overseas, and a general approach that is critical of the military.

    I have found their information to be useful, but I also know that some will consider them invalid. Have you dug into my paper yet? Also, along the sidebar of my blog, in the links section, I have a few places for you to read up on the order and how it came into power.

    BTW, i know it was in the other post, but SGT M is completely right about making the issue a collection of personal ones, rather than a huge non-personal issue. And, the questions he raised are worth thinking over. I'm interested in seeing how others may answer them.

  2. I haven't read your paper yet.
    I've been dealing with some health issues. Nothing serious, just a bunch of nagging things, and haven't felt like reading or writing.

    I don't know why it is being perceived that I'm turning this into a non personal issue?
    That's certainly not my intention.
    Along with the signatures on the petition I'm cultivating a list of email addresses that I can get testimonials from.
    In fact, I hope to begin posting some of them on the blog.
    I was thinking about doing an interview series, but haven't thought it out well enough yet.
    Any suggestions?


    first off, forgive me if i sound like an idiot, but im really confused after your last post and im feeling like i may not know enough about stop loss. you did say john that you think that guys deployed in combat should stay until the deployments over. thats what i think too. i didnt understand the whole noncombat deployed stop loss thing you say. maybe its cause im running the tail end of a week thats had me asleep maybe 30 hours in last 7 days. maybe its cause ive been awake and working for the last 19 hours. i am under the impression that soldiers who are slated to get out right before a deployment or during a deployment are the only ones who get stop lossed. were you saying that those who are slated to leave right before a deployment should be allowed to leave, but those whos contracts run out while deployed should stay.

    like i said before im really tired so im kinda having a hard time wraping my head around this. im feeling like im lost and that im not understanding what im reading. would you clarify it for me. im really truely sorry, i havent felt this dumb in a long time.

  4. I wonder why it wasn't better publicized?

    Think about it(media).

  5. Mike,
    Your not dumb at all.
    In fact, the farther I get into this, the more confused I get.
    The more I read about it the less I understand.
    In my son's case, his ETS was sometime in late May, or early June.
    The brigade got stop-loss orders in late February.
    They returned from a fifteen month deployment in early June 08. 06/06/08, 2:00 AM to be exact. We were there. So if you go by what I have been able to determine from my reading, they are due a 1:1 dwell time. Now I'll admit that this dwell time issue is quite confusing as well. Some articles say that the ratio is 1:1 to a max of twelve months, for a unit that has been deployed for a period of 12 continuous months or more.
    While others claim, 1:1 for the full deployed time.
    Then a third article I read claimed that soldiers are entitled to two years home for one year deployed to a combat situation?
    Keeping with the 1:1 ratio, a unit that got home from a fifteen month tour in June 08, would be non-deployable until September 09.
    If I understand the policy correctly it reads that stop-loss can be issued up to 90 days prior to deployment.
    So why a stop-loss order seven months prior to a unit being available for deployment?
    And when there is no actual known deployment order?
    While I am against the policy. I understand the logistical problems created by soldiers separating from a unit in a war zone. It didn't happen In WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Even with the draft still in effect until, I think, 1974. (By this I mean that even with the draft in place, soldiers were held in units in country, until the unit came home). And it shouldn't happen now.
    I understand that the contract states that you may be kept on active duty for up to eight years, during a time of war.
    That being in effect should be sufficient to address the issue of manpower during a time of need.
    And thus no need for stop loss.
    It is my understanding that Iraq, while having been approved for war by Congress was never actually voted to be a war. (Probably a political ploy). I heard the other day that they are going to start using lawyers, and politicians in laboratory testing. No kidding. They found that there were certain things that rats just wouldn't stoop to.
    So then isn't stop-loss being employed illegally? (Question, not opinion).
    I'm still working for signatures,Online petition - End Stop Loss, to assist me in going forward with this endeavor to end stop-loss in a manner which is fare and equitable to both sides.
    All thoughts, comments, and ideas are welcome.
    I've gained a lot of knowledge from personal emails, which I welcome, even the spiteful and ignorant comments. Some individuals don't seem to know how to debate a subject without name calling.
    I'm the general manager of a petroleum company. There aren't many insults you can throw my way that I haven't heard in the past year...
    I've honestly appreciated the input from you, and 13stoploss, since we got by that first unruly exchange. I think we have all grown a bit.
    I haven't heard from Jenn for a while?
    Hope all is well on the home front.
    I know how tough it is having a son over there. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it could be for a wife or husband at home raising the family.
    Hopefully it will serve to make the bond even stronger, and you will enjoy many years of happiness when all is said and done.
    Stay safe SGT, God speed, and I hope you get some rest..