Also see below:
More Than 43,000 Unfit Troops Deployed •
Go to Original
US Army's "Stop-Loss" Orders Up Dramatically Over Last Year
By Julian E. Barnes
The Los Angeles Times
Friday 09 May 2008
The jump coincides with the extension of
combat tours from 12 to 15 months.
Washington - The number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army involuntarily
under the military's controversial "stop-loss" program has risen sharply
since the Pentagon extended combat tours last year, officials said Thursday.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was briefed about the program by Army officials
who said that thousands of new stop-loss orders were issued to keep soldiers
from leaving the service after Gates ordered combat tours extended from 12 to
15 months last spring.
The Army has resorted to involuntary extensions of soldiers' enlistment terms
to prevent them from leaving immediately before a combat tour or in the middle
of a deployment.
Army officials have argued that the policy is necessary to ensure that they
are not forced to send inadequately trained soldiers and unprepared units into
war.
However, many soldiers subjected to the stop-loss policy consider it a backdoor
draft. Critics argue that once soldiers have completed the enlistment period
they agreed to, they should be allowed to return home. The involuntary retention
program is so unpopular that it helped inspire a recent movie called "Stop-Loss."
The number of soldiers held in the Army under the stop-loss program reached
a high in March 2005 of 15,758. That number steadily declined through May 2007,
when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss
orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008.
In April 2007, Gates ordered combat tours extended to support the U.S. troop
buildup and to address concerns about uneven tour lengths. But because many
soldiers were due to leave the service at the end of their combat tours, Army
officials had to order them under stop-loss provisions to remain.
In a news conference Thursday, Gates said he believed the Army had good reasons
for using the stop-loss policy.
"They don't like it any better than I do. But it has proven necessary
in order to maintain the force," Gates said.
Still, he said, use of the policy "is an issue. It troubles me."
Top Defense officials have pushed the Army to reduce the use of stop-loss orders.
"When somebody expects to leave at a given time, and you tell them they
can't do that, it's got to have an impact on them. And that's the part that
troubles me," Gates said.
Soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders are often those whose enlistment period
ends during a combat tour or who are due to leave within 90 days of the scheduled
start of a combat tour. Without the stop-loss policy, the Army would have to
replace those soldiers with new ones who had not trained with the unit.
Between 2002 and 2007, 58,300 soldiers were given stop-loss orders, forcing
them to remain in the service past the end of their enlistment periods.
The number of soldiers serving under the stop-loss program will begin to decline
again in September, Gates said. By then, there will be fewer U.S. troops in
Iraq and Army combat tours will return to 12 months.
Army officials could not predict when they would no longer need to resort to
stop-loss orders. But as troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan shrink, the policy
will become less necessary, officials say.
The Army first used a stop-loss program in 1990 during the run-up to the Persian
Gulf War. In 2002, the Army instituted stop-loss orders for certain specialties,
a policy that ended in 2003. The current stop-loss program was put in place
just before the invasion of Iraq.
Gates said that about half of the soldiers kept in the Army under the stop-loss
policy are noncommissioned officers who hold important leadership positions,
at the rank of sergeant and above, and cannot easily be replaced.
"And so if you pull them, if they left a unit, it would leave a pretty
gaping hole while still deployed," Gates said.
-------
julian.barnes@latimes.com
Go to Original
More Than 43,000 Unfit Troops Deployed
By Gregg Zoroya
USA Today
Thursday 08 May 2008
Washington - More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat
in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since
2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show.
This reliance on troops found medically "non-deployable" is another
sign of stress placed on a military that has sent 1.6 million servicemembers
to the war zones, soldier advocacy groups say.
"It is a consequence of the consistent churning of our troops," said
Bobby Muller, president of Veterans For America. "They are repeatedly exposed
to high-intensity combat with insufficient time at home to rest and heal before
redeploying."
The numbers of non-deployable soldiers are based on health assessment forms
filled out by medical personnel at each military installation before a servicemember's
deployment.
According to those statistics, the number of troops that doctors found non-deployable,
but who were still sent to Iraq or Afghanistan fluctuated from 10,854 in 2003,
down to 5,397 in 2005, and back up to 9,140 in 2007.
The Pentagon records do not list what - or how serious - the health
issues are, nor whether they were corrected before deployment, said Michael
Kilpatrick, a deputy director for the Pentagon's Force Health Protection and
Readiness Programs.
A Pentagon staffer examined 10,000 individual health records last year to determine
causes for the non-deployable ratings, Kilpatrick said. Some reasons included
a need for eyeglasses, dental work or allergy medicine and a small number of
mental health cases, he said.
This is the first war in which this health screening process has been used,
the Pentagon said.
Most of the non-deployable servicemembers are in the Army, which is doing most
of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 5% and 7% of all active-duty,
National Guard and Reserve soldiers slated for combat were found medically unfit
due to health problems each year since 2003, according to statistics provided
to USA TODAY.
Unit commanders make the final decision about whether a servicemember is sent
into combat, although doctors can recommend against deployment because of a
medical issue, Army spokeswoman Kim Waldron said.
"The commander consults with health care professionals to determine whether
the treatment a soldier needs is available in theater," said Army Col.
Steven Braverman of the Army Medical Command.
At Fort Carson, Colo., Maj. Gen. Mark Graham ordered an investigation into
deployment procedures for a brigade deployed to Iraq late last year. At least
36 soldiers were found medically unfit but were still deployed, Graham told
USA TODAY.
For at least seven soldiers, treatment in the war zone was inadequate and the
soldiers were sent home, he said, and at least two of them should never have
been deployed.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, the panel's
chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Army leaders about an e-mail from
the surgeon for the Fort Carson brigade that said medically "borderline"
soldiers went to war because "we have been having issues reaching deployable
strength."
"That should not be happening," Army Secretary Pete Geren told the
committee. "I can't tell you that it's not, but it certainly should not
be happening."
Meanwhile, soldiers with medical problems have also deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan
from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Stewart and Fort Benning, both in Georgia,
according to Brenda Farrell, who is leading an investigation into the practice
for the Government Accountability Office.
A report from that investigation sought by members of the House Armed Services
Committee is due in June.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story
