Marine regiment heads back for 5th Iraq tour

[jhain]

Will we build retirement barracks over there for these poor kids in 30 years? Just keep shipping them back?

******************************

Reymundo Parra has already served two tours in Iraq, and he has two Purple Hearts to show for it.


**

It's not uncommon to find troops like Parra, who have been to Iraq two, three or four times. What is remarkable about this deployment is that his unit, the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, is the first unit in the Marine Corps to be sent to Iraq five times.

****

"We had a company leave yesterday, and one of the guys had been wounded three times on his previous tour," Little said. "His father was there and he remembered me because I was the one who had to call him and tell him his son had been hit.

****

more

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/27/MN5QV94LI.DTL

[ThomWV]

1. Marines enlist, I enlisted, I have no sympathy for enlistees

I signed up and took what came. They signed up, let them take what comes.

[Nickster]

2. They signed up to not be abused. Putting them on 5 almost consecutive tours is just plain abuse.

[ThomWV]

4. It also requires at least one reenlistment to get in 5 tours.

Voluntary is the word that first comes to mind.

[Nickster]

6. How about stop-loss?

[ThomWV]

11. If it were a commonplace event I'd say you have a point

But in fact I don't recall that I've hear that they use it anymore or that they have used it in the last year or two. So while I do consider that a vile breach of contract by the Government its still not something that took place for long or was very widespread. In any event it would not account for 5 tours. They might have 'stop lossed' someone to get them back for a 2nd or 3rd tour but they did not repeatedly 'stop loss' troops who were supposed to be getting out.

[Squatch]

15. Stop-loss directives are commonplace

They are implemented upon receipt of an alert order and are used to prevent a mass-exodus of soldiers/marines who are close to or beyond their enlistment contracts or minimum service obligations.

I have absolutely no problem with stop loss directives as it preserves the combat power of whole units preparing to deploy.

[EFerrari]

18. They are still using it.

It's sort of buried in this article:

(CBS/AP) In a turnabout, Senate Republicans are agreeing with Democrats to advance an anti-war bill because they said the debate would give them an opportunity to praise the U.S. military's progress in Iraq.

The change of heart came after months of blocking similar measures. Unlike most of last year, however, security conditions in Iraq have improved, and Republicans say they now feel they have the upper hand in the debate.

"We welcome a discussion about Iraq," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declared.

big snip



However, the number of soldiers retained under the service's "stop loss" policy, which forces some soldiers to stay beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates, is unlikely to be reduced substantially.

http://www.wibw.com/news/headlines/16021037.html

[tekisui]

7. The re-enlist, in many cases is coerced.

They are threatened to lose all the benefits they were promised if they don't re-enlist. Not completely voluntary.

[ThomWV]

9. Horseshit

That is nonsense and you know it.

[tekisui]

12. That's what I've been told by an Army relative.

Was he lying? He told me and his family that if he did not re-enlist, they would cut his benefits. Is he lying to us, or was he led to believe it is true?

[Squatch]

10. That is abject bullshit.

[tekisui]

14. I should hope so, and it may be.

Yet, my relative presented it to me that way. Either he lied to us or was lied to.

[Squatch]

16. Having been in this business for 11 years now...

I would guess that the former situation is true.

[tekisui]

17. Interesting.

I can understand the motivation for either to be the case. So, just to be completely clear, the Army CANNOT and DOES NOT threaten to withhold benefits to force re-enlistment?

[Bigmack]

19. Yeah, it's voluntary...

but...

If you've ever been in the shit, you know that combat becomes the new reality, and your outfit becomes your new family. A lot of these guys are shipping over because there simply is no other world than the one they know in deployment. They can't leave their "family".

It's voluntary only in that they sign the paper.

The US sent them and made them who they are. I wonder if the military will put 1/10th the money and effort in deprograming these guys that it put into training them.

[jhain]

20. Did you signup for an illegal war? n/t

[tekisui]

3. It is cheaper to keep sending them back, letting them die off in IED

attacks, two by two, then bring them home and take care of them for the rest of their lives. Five deployments, many for 15+ months is abuse.

[EFerrari]

5. This is obscene. Where's Murtha? Where are the congressional Democrats?

[leftchick]

13. where?

most likely profiting in some way from this mess. :(

[Squatch]

8. They only go over for 7 month tours.

My good friend in the USACE is back for his 3rd 14-month tour.