Army to keep forcibly re-enlisting soldiers
'Stop loss' program still needed, general says in response to Gates

Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Oct 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army will continue to rely on an unpopular program that forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates, despite repeated pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reduce and eventually eliminate the practice.

Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said Thursday that the number of soldiers kept on duty has actually increased in recent months as a result of President Bush's orders to increase troop levels in Iraq this year to help quell the violence.

The number of those being kept on beyond their commitment — through a program known as "stop loss" — is about 9,000 now, compared to about 7,000 before the troop buildup began in late January, he said.

"Until there is some reduction in the demand, we're going to have to rely, unfortunately ... on stop loss," Rochelle told reporters. "Until the demand comes down a bit, we can't do it without it."

As recently as last month, Gates sent a memo to Army Secretary Pete Geren asking for quarterly progress reports on "reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of stop-loss as soon as feasible."

Rochelle added that when the expected withdrawal of troops from Iraq begins, the Army's reliance on the program will eventually decline.

In other remarks, Rochelle also suggested that the Army will only be able to increase its numbers by about 4,000 in the next year — a fraction of the 35,000 boost that Pentagon and Army leaders have set as a goal by 2010.

He said the Army will rely largely on two relatively new recruitment programs that would reward current active duty soldiers and National Guard soldiers who successfully bring in new people.

Other than those new efforts, the basic recruitment and retention goals for 2008 will stay the same as 2007, at 80,000 and 65,000 respectively, he said.

That, he said, reflects the "realistic view on how challenging it is at this point in time" to increase the size of the Army.

The Guard program, which only just began, has already garnered 25 recruits and there are 100 in the pipeline, Rochelle said, adding that the effort could bring in as many as 3,000 in 2008.

He said the Army is likely to continue increasing the financial, educational and other incentives to keep soldiers in the service. He declined to detail the costs of the incentives, or how much that might increase next year.

before we whine too loud, it might pay to remembar that in WW2 the big one once drafted you stayed in for the duration of the wars.

rambutt, there is no declare war, only a illegal invasion.

This is not new fitness.
When a man or a woman enlists they do so for 6 or 8 years. I think it is 8, anyway, they chose either 2 active/6 active reserve, 3 active/5 active reserve, or 4 active/4 active reserve.

They know and it has always been possible for the Military to extend their commitment for the entire 8 year period if necessary!

Stop-Loss, loss of trained battle experienced troops has existed since the Revolution war. You hear so much of it now, because they refuse to inact the draft! They refuse to inact the draft, because their would be more protest against this war than there was against the Vietnam war.

People directly unaffected and not required to sacrifice are more apt to remain complacent!


"BLIND-SHEEP LAW #1"

this is probably the most "legal" war, (if there is such a thing) in history. we gave countless warnings and deadlines or did you forget? we had how many UN Resolutions? What more would you have had us do? Quit spouting your liberal/ commie dogma and wake up. All he had to do is comply with our inspections and there wouldent have been a war. by the way My name is Rambill. Rambo with some Ls. One man army. that was me back in the day.

Rambill, it is not a war, it's an illegal invasion, no matter how often you try to turn it your way.

AN ILLEGAL INVASION

GWB defied the UN
and attacked Saddam Hussein
for defying the UN

You get it?
It is still illegal.

which country were you in when it all happened? i remember it as i was there. here in the colonies it went down just as i said. the lib/ commies can twist it all they want. It dont matter how many times they say it. its still a lie. it just isnt what happened. This is the tactic: we just say the opposite of whatever we dont like. if we say it long enough, for enou=gh years, on enough television, the people will believe that it is in fact the truth. it dont change the facts, it just buries them in bull****.

So you just admitted that you try to bury the facts in bull****.
Thank you, Rambill.
Of course I knew you were doing this, but you admitting it publicly is even better.

hussein had nothing ,nothing more than a good bluff there were no weapons of mass destruction that was our reason for being there i still havent seen the evidence that says he was working with osama bin laden and what was so different as to what hussein did as to what we did to hiroshima and nagasaki ,must be the do as i say not as i do law the only reason were in iraq is to clean up our mess that we shouldnt have been in in the first place we wont even get into the contracts that were awarded to KBR and others with no open bids this war has cost the tax payers so much that the next generation wont recover from it George Bush is an idiot and now hes started crap with Iran,not to mention all the money thats come out of S.S to pay for it as far as being complacant hell im 47 ex air force id go tomorrow but i dont make the age requirements

.. and in the last days they will kill you( the true believers) thinking they are doing Gods work. ( somewhere deep in the bible)

tombraider,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.nysun.com/article/39631

http://markeichenlaub.blogspot.com/2006/05/former-baathists-found-working-with-al.html

http://markeichenlaub.blogspot.com/2006/05/former-baathists-found-working-with-al.html

It was said;

which country were you in when it all happened? i remember it as i was there. here in the colonies it went down just as i said. the lib/ commies can twist it all they want. It dont matter how many times they say it. its still a lie. it just isnt what happened. This is the tactic: we just say the opposite of whatever we dont like. if we say it long enough, for enou=gh years, on enough television, the people will believe that it is in fact the truth. it dont change the facts, it just buries them in bull****.

The facts are what the few (minority) Bush loyalist will not look at or consider. When confronted with them, even when their own openly admit them, they just ignore them.

At other times, with no other defense they attack the character of the messanger in hopes to distract others from the truth!

The reasons given for the war in Iraq were lies, intentional, premeditated lies told to the people, Congress, and the world to decieve them.

Not only is this illegal, but it is the worst of the worst of illegal, and makes this, the Iraq war illegal!

Since yall wont address the OP, but would rather come here where the truth has yet to be printed to spew your rhetoric let me help!



White House admits fabricating case for war

Posted: July 12, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Here we go again: What did the president know? And when did he know it?

Those are the serious questions raised by a White House announcement that the president made a bogus case about the need to go to war against Iraq in this year's State of the Union address.

Don't give the White House high marks for candor, however. Presidential aides didn't volunteer word of the president's mistake. They were forced to admit his untruth only after a blockbuster revelation by former U.S. Acting Ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson.

Writing in the New York Times, the 23-year career diplomat Wilson revealed he was sent to Niger by the CIA in early 2002 to investigate rumors, based on letters intercepted by European intelligence agencies, that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy uranium from the former French colony.

Eight days later, he reported back to the CIA there was no truth to the rumors. That information was shared by the CIA with the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House.

Imagine Wilson's surprise, then, when he heard President Bush declare in his Jan. 28 address to the nation: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Based on his own research for the Bush administration, Wilson knew that charge was untrue. He also knew the White House was aware of his findings, because the vice president's office had specifically requested a copy of his report.

Now, in a stunning admission, the White House confirms that the president's statement was simply not true. It was a mistake, aides acknowledge, to include it in the State of the Union. But as Ambassador Wilson notes, that confession simply begs the question. Indeed, it begs a whole set of questions.

How did such a blatant falsehood make it into the president's speech? Every line in the State of the Union address is vetted over and over again, double-checked for accuracy. And the president's communications director knows where every single statement came from. Someone forced this one in, knowing it was untrue, while cleverly crediting it to British intelligence in order to give the president later plausible deniability.

Why did the White House wait this long to admit the error? Only days after the State of the Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency examined the Niger documents and declared them phony, yet for months the president and members of his administration continued to assert the Iraq-Niger connection. They'd still be doing so if Joseph Wilson hadn't blown the whistle.

Why hasn't anybody been fired? It's one thing for Democrats to demand a full investigation, but why hasn't President Bush? If I were president and discovered that someone had deliberately inserted a false statement in one of my speeches, I'd be mad as hell. Instead, the White Houses shrugs off the lie as just one little glitch in an otherwise perfect case.

Final and most important question: If they lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium in Africa, what else were they lying about?

What about the president's assertion, in the same speech, that Saddam Hussein was connected to Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11? Or his possession of weapons of mass destruction: 35,000 liters of anthrax, 25,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 500 tons of nerve gas? Or his purchase of aluminum tubes to manufacture nuclear weapons? To date, there is zero evidence that any of those charges were true, either.

It is more and more clear, as former senior State Department official Greg Thielmann stated this week, that the Bush administration had a "faith-based policy" on Iraq. They "believed" Saddam Hussein was tied to Osama bin Laden and still had weapons of mass destruction, so they stretched, manipulated, exaggerated or simply misstated the available evidence in order to make their case and convince the American people.

You may believe, as Tom Delay and other Republican leaders insist, that this is much ado about nothing. I believe it's just the opposite. Whether or not to go to war is the most serious decision any president makes. There is no more serious violation of public trust than to make that decision based on a pack of lies.

Now dont just ignore it. Go back read it as many times as is necessary, pay attention to words like admits, and lie, and reports.

Then look for the facts, quit spewing the same old bull****, and PLEASEEEeeeeeeeeeee,,, TAKE OFF THE BLINDERS!!!!!

how can i make you understand my position? IT DONT MATTER WHETHER OR NOT WE LIKE THE WAR. WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ILLEGAL. What matters now is what do we do. Do we leave, showing the world that we will bail if we hit problems? Do we fold? what do we tell the parents of the lost soldiers then? your son died for... politics? What do we tell the IRAQUI COLLABORATORS WHO have worked for us? Have fun watching your family being executed? Thats exactly whatt will happen if we fold. What message will this send the world? We came we kicked ass we bailed a year or two before total victory?
FYI Im not a so called bush fan. I havent seen anyone worthy for the office since PEROT, and even he was problematic.
If i were important, i would make Iraq the 51st state. anyone who didnt like it could leave or die. theres thier free choice. Since we are there lets finish the job for once.

Only the great and wise Fanta has all the answers.

Bow down to the all knowing Fanta and praise him.

THERE NONE SO BLIND AS THEY WHO WILL NOT SEE...

Lies..Illegal Invasion, Murder, Torture..Yea Administration...!

To admit the mistake and pull out would definitely make look you better, than to cling to a stupid mistake and pretend it's ok.

Well, lets try it this way then.

Vietnem, 58,000 americans were killed, there abouts.

The out come is still the same as it would have been had we brought home our troops 50,000 deaths before!

People kept saying, we have to win, we have to see it through. As if it would lead to catastrophic atrocities everywhere. (sound familar)

Well, 50,000 deaths later and Vietnam is now a peaceful country and they are thriveing economically!! The people are asking their government for more freedom and access to the very same things we want! In other words, no end of times or catastrophic events!

I want to know, How many more Americans must die in Iraq, and how many years from now do you think is enough?

Wouldnt it be easier to cut to the chase and bring them home say, , , last July????

Thank you Hanged man!!!

Like I said if you cant debate the facts-attack the character of the messaner!!!

debate is fine......but it's not open when only you have the correct answers and will not even consider being wrong or that someone CAN have a different position than you.

Sorry for the blinders........but i just don't agree with you.
if that makes me blind so be it. But you do come across as if only you have the right answers.

Yes this country has problems and is not always. But is my country and does not deserve to be so railed upon nor do i want to see it become another failed socailist experiment. Which is where we are heading.