Stop Loss

[GAsux]

First, stop loss is not new. So let's not pretend like it's a big new thing. It's not so much. They did it during Gulf War I and they did it after 9/11. All four branches have various versions of it.

Second, by who's estimate was the force used to obtain military objectives in Iraq undermanned? Who determines the amount of soldiers required for a particular operation? Why aren't ground commanders all over Iraq complaining that they just don't have enough people to do the job? Why aren't the service Chiefs fighting for more manpower?

Congress authorizes overall end strength figures for each branch. How come the Marines aren't complaining about being undermanned? The Air Force has implemented plans to CUT 11,000 airmen during this fiscal year because they are OVER end strength projections.

As a person who has personal relationships with quite a few people negatively impacted by stop loss both this go around and the previous one two years ago, I'll be the first to say that it sucks doneky nuts. No doubt about it.

But point the finger where it needs to be pointed. None of the other three branches is implementing stop loss to the degree the Army has. The Army IS NOT any more committed than the Marines. The first issue is primarily one of internal imbalance. Clearly the Army doesn't have enough people in the career fields that are being heavily deployed.

Second, if there is now, or ever was a shortage of troops, Congress bears the brunt of that burden. I disagree with the fact that there needs to be more troops on the ground in Iraq, or that there ever needed to be more. Again war planners had their numbers and haven't deviated from them. The case could be made that each branch may have needed more end strength to rotate those people more effectively to share the burden, and again that's determined by Congress.