US troops sue over tours in Iraq

Eight US soldiers have begun legal action in an effort to stop the US army extending their tours of duty in Iraq.
With US forces stretched by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, many units have been ordered to stay on longer than originally expected.

Soldiers have been kept abroad even if the date they were due to leave the army has passed.

The soldiers, seven of whom have stayed anonymous, are believed to be the first active-duty personnel to sue the army.

full story

These eight soldiers are doing a disservice to American GIs everywhere they should have read there enlistment contracts more carefully.
Perhaps they watched to many hollywood movies were one man and a machine gun wins the war in an afternoon.

There is some very biased reporting going on. I also read the NY Times report on this, and no where does it explain that when you sign up for the Armed Forces, you sign up for 8 years. You have active time, most often 3-4 years, then the remainder is inactive time. But the military has you for 8 years. I served in the Army, and was well aware of that situation.

Here is a link to more biased reporting

aolsvc.news.aol.com...

Here is a little information that took me less than 5 minutes to find. Why can't reporters do their job?

www.af.mil...

part of article...........

Once this is completed, servicemembers may stay in the selected reserve or transfer to individual ready reserve for the remainder of an eight-year commitment.


This is more proof of a biased media. 2 articles on Servicemen suing the military, yet neither one of them presented the military view.

I didn't find the BBC article biased at all. It covers an interesting legal suit.

These guys feel that there has been a breach in their service conditions through the stop-loss policy. It is uncertain why they are on active duty beyond their discharge date. The discharge date in the case of each of the seven is not defined by the article. The courts will assess this.

In fact the article concludes with the employer's point of view, so it is really seems to be completely free of bias:

'Although the "stop loss" policy is affecting thousands of troops, the Pentagon says it is a normal procedure in wartime, is part of the terms of enlistment and was also used during the 1991 Gulf War.'

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I didn't find the BBC article biased at all. It covers an interesting legal suit.

These guys feel that there has been a breach in their service conditions through the stop-loss policy. It is uncertain why they are on active duty beyond their discharge date. The discharge date in the case of each of the seven is not defined by the article. The courts will assess this.

In fact the article concludes with the employer's point of view, so it is really seems to be completely free of bias:

'Although the "stop loss" policy is affecting thousands of troops, the Pentagon says it is a normal procedure in wartime, is part of the terms of enlistment and was also used during the 1991 Gulf War.'

Yes, but they could have went further on explaining why it is a normal procedure. Most people don't know that when you sign up for the military you sign up for a total of 8 years. This should have been explained more thoughouly.

Just what is the unreported military view?
Im glad the US military is thinking outside the square in attempt to fill the manpower shortages.

Can anyone also be sure that these servicemen have not been asked to serve beyond their 8-year discharge dates?

What exactly happens in the case of servicemen on active duty when that date approaches?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Can anyone also be sure that these servicemen have not been asked to serve beyond their 8-year discharge dates?

What exactly happens in the case of servicemen on active duty when that date approaches?

I am 99% sure that no one is serving over their 8 year contract. Most enlistments are between 2-4 years. The military would not let you serve actively for over 4 years without some type of reenlistment.

Breech of contract, whether in the civilian world, or the military, is a serious charge. I am sure the military has basic standard operating procedures to deal with situations like that. Before there is a "activation" or "call up" of reservist or even before an active force is called out, records are checked, and someone too close to their "out" date, will not be deployed.

I was in the Army, and while I may not be 100% correct. The military is so wrought will rules and regulations for any situation. Any situtation is thouroughly thought out.

Originally posted by Carseller4
[The military would not let you serve actively for over 4 years without some type of reenlistment.

FYI, this is not true. My brother entered on a 6-year enlistment. They do it often for a high need MOS.


On topic, the enlistment contract is worthless. When you enlist, you agree to abide by all military regulations; one of those regulations states that in time of national emergency (and this is considered a time of national emergency) that your enlistment contract can be violated. The military doesn�t even have to pay soldiers, under certain circumstance, if it chooses not to. You sign away all your rights when you enlist.

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Carseller4
[The military would not let you serve actively for over 4 years without some type of reenlistment.

FYI, this is not true. My brother entered on a 6-year enlistment. They do it often for a high need MOS.


On topic, the enlistment contract is worthless. When you enlist, you agree to abide by all military regulations; one of those regulations states that in time of national emergency (and this is considered a time of national emergency) that your enlistment contract can be violated. The military doesn�t even have to pay soldiers, under certain circumstance, if it chooses not to. You sign away all your rights when you enlist.

FYI, I was talking about a typical 4 year enlistment. In your brothers case they wouldn't let him serve much longer than 6 years without re-enlisting.

The enlistment contract is a contract. In your brothers case he is active for 6 years and inactive for 2, in which he is eligible for reactivation.

There is nobody in the military at this time serving under an invalid contract.

Originally posted by Carseller4

FYI, I was talking about a typical 4 year enlistment. In your brothers case they wouldn't let him serve much longer than 6 years without re-enlisting.

Yeah, sorry, I thought you were saying 4 years was the max for for an enlistment.

There is nobody in the military at this time serving under an invalid contract.

Only because, like I said, the contract states that the contract can be broken. You don't have to tell me how it works, my unit was stop lossed, I am familiar with how they keep people beyond what they signed for in the contract. Just so you know, not everyone that is in past his ETS date has less than 8 years.

Soldiers are not supposed to stay more than 365 days on the ground. Thats not to say that it doesnt happen. It does and I think there are hundreds if not thousands of troops in the same boat.

It like a defacto draft. Active Duty soldiers have always been sent home at the end of their contracts, thats an advantage they have of the Reserves. Reservists get deployed, have there contracts come to an end and they have to finish out their deployment before getting out. Now it seems like the active duty is eating the same pie.