http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/02/us.....ap/index.html
"Hagenbeck said the stop-loss move is necessary only because the Army is also undergoing a major reorganization that requires some units to be taken off-line while they are restructured."
So, while we are undergoing a major military action, we are also (a) cutting taxes and (b) reorganizing the armed services.
This definitely seems logical and efficient.
No, I'm not saying that reorganization is bad per se, but if all these people who would be retiring etc. are being forced to stay not just in the military, but in combat areas, BECAUSE OF the reorganization (and not the military action itself), that seems . . . annoying. Particularly to the families of the people who are killed after they would have retired if they hadn't been forced to stay (if there are any, and there probably will be at least several, and at least some of those will probably die in friendly fire).
