Stop-Loss

Stop-loss as applied to military service is just another word for slavery. Once you've fulfilled your contract, you should be allowed to take your uniform off. Anything else negates the "volunteer force" concept. Whether the Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker, sitting safely behind a desk, believes it or not. His appearance on 60 Minutes tonight was infuriating as he painted enlisted men and women as whiners for expecting the Army to HONOR their contracts the way these servicemen and women HONORED their obligation to the Army. He further went on to say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Hmmm General, what did we call that philosophy during the Cold War?

I think we called it, umm, what was the word? Oh yeah, communism. How exactly did we end up with a communist in the role of Army Chief of Staff? Lenin and Stalin must be smiling in Hell.

Sad.

4 comments

  1. That’s a little harsh. I mean, it bothers me, but it’s a necessary measure to take in times where the military is stretched thin. That doesn’t address the root problems (overdeployment, arguably), but have to take care to not do a disservice to our servicemen and women and to our country by having that absolutist a position as you have.

    Besides which, I may be mistake, but, isn’t it explained to enlistees upon recruitment that these stop-loss orders MAY occur and impact when they are discharged?

    6/17/2004 4:57:00

  2. I don’t think its harsh. The stop-loss measure (which isn’t even a real law) was supposed to be implemented only in cases of national emergency. Both Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have used it. Somalia, The Balkan Conflict and Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship do not qualify as national emergencies.

    My perspective may seem harsh because after wearing a uniform for six years, I understand what these men and women are complaining about when they’ve been involuntarily extended for what amounts to a classic case of liberal interventionist nation-building. The folks who suffer aren’t the generals in the Pentagon or the national security analysts in the OEOB. Its the enlisted men and women and unaugmented officers who pay the price for this policy. For General Schoomaker to mock the sacrifices of those who’v already given all they promised and then some is too much. His job is to direct the Army AND see to the morale and welfare of his troops. His attitude indicates he only cares about one part of that job. This approach is beginning to affect retention rates and we are going to suffer from a lack of seasoned veterans in the NCO ranks in the near future as we lose well-trained, mature active duty troops to too many deployments, and dedicated reservists begin to jump ship due to repeated overseas interventionist deployments that qualify more as nation-building, rather than national defense.

    Its a disservice to those in uniform to tell them that they are no longer volunteers and that it doesn’t matter that they fulfilled their contracts – their ass now belongs to DoD indefinitely. Over and over and over again.

    6/17/2004 5:36:00

  3. I’ll concede the Balkans ventures were no emergencies. The Iraq engagement, however, was a resumption of hostilities from the 1991 Gulf War, against a foreign leader who had invaded another country, caused regional instability, and possessed WMD. We let him off the hook on the understanding that he’d get rid of all WMD under UN inspections. He failed to live up to that and in fact may have been improving the range of his offensive weaponry. This military engagement cannot be allowed to suffer from shorthanded deployments.

    That said, it seems the stop-loss problem is endemic and needs legislative correction. I can’t much fault the President for using it, although I would say it shouldn’t be used except for say a one-time 6 or 12 month extention of service requirements. It shouldn’t be repeated indefinitely.

    6/18/2004 11:49:00

  4. The Iraq engagement was an elective war, not a national emergency. We picked a fight with a country that didn’t want one, couldn’t hurt us and had been one of our best pals from 1958 – 1990. This liberalesque interventionist war doesn’t qualify as a national defense emergency of the nature that would justify stop-loss and IRR reinstatements.

    Interventionism, and that is what this Iraq mission has been since we first started interfering in their internal affairs in 1958, does not qualify as a legitimate national emergency. Not by a long shot.

    7/1/2004 11:30:00

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.