Army's policy upsets Upstate mom
She questions rule that keeps her son in Iraq long after his enlistment ended

Published: Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 6:00 am

By Ellyn Ferguson - GANNETT NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Rita Isom was looking forward to November, when her son would leave the Army after serving in Iraq. But today, because of what the Army calls a stop-loss order, Joel Holmes remains in uniform with the 101st Airborne Division and is back in Iraq with his unit for a second tour of duty.

Isom, who operates Voicelink Messaging Services in Greenville with her husband, questions the fairness of a policy that allows the Army to extend the period of service for soldiers in units under orders to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait. Her 27-year-old son, a graduate of Hillcrest High School in Simpsonville, doesn't question the policy, but Isom worries about him each day he remains in Iraq.

"I want to draw attention to the issue," she said. "I don't want the stop-loss soldiers (to be) forgotten."

The stop-loss policy made news across the country a year ago after Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry called it a "back-door draft." Several soldiers challenged the policy in federal court and lost. Now the issue has faded from the front pages.

The Army says it used the policy in past conflicts and needs it now to keep combat-ready units together in Iraq. Army officials say that as of November, 13,696 of the 154,000 active-duty, reserve and regular Army soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait were under stop-loss orders. On any given day in 2005, about 7,000 enlisted personnel were under a stop-loss order, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a federally funded research center.

"We are stop-lossing these units so they train, deploy and demobilize as a team. It makes for better service for America," said Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, an Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon.

Congress hasn't challenged the stop-loss policy, although Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Friday that the Senate Armed Services subcommittee he chairs will review the policy during ongoing hearings about Army efforts to recruit and retain soldiers.

"We will be taking up structure issues in 2006," Graham said. "Stop-loss utilization needs to be looked at. Is it consistent with wartime need, or is it a symptom of a larger recruiting problem?"

While some might question the policy's fairness, Graham said, "I think it's fair in the sense that it's part of the (military contract) deal. Is it convenient? No. Is it traumatic? Yes."

Isom met briefly with Graham recently to discuss her son and the stop-loss policy.

"You get your child in harm's way -- it ruffles your feathers," she said.

Graham said he's heard from several people concerned about the policy and its effects on their families. He's sympathetic but said so far it appears the Army isn't using it excessively.

But Cindy Williams, a national security researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the Army is using its stop-loss powers more aggressively now than it has since the start of the all-volunteer force.

Stop-loss orders are among several tools the Army is using to meet the demand for troops in Iraq, she said. The Army has done a good job getting soldiers to re-enlist, but Williams said the branch struggles to meet recruiting goals despite bonuses and efforts to sign up people leaving the Air Force and Navy as those services downsize.

While the soldiers and families caught up in a stop-loss order may be stunned by it, Williams said, "the military is enforcing its contract."

"I'm sure it's in the contract somewhere," Isom said. "I'm thinking most people don't read the contract as carefully as they should."

Isom said she understands the rationale for using stop-loss orders to keep units together.

"I know they can't go over there short-handed," she said.

But the Greenville woman said it still doesn't stop her from wanting her son home -- soon.