Soldiers carry nation's burden

Since hints of Kimberly Peirce’s Stop Loss first appeared in simple previews and television ads, it seems that finally the American public, once too busy to be concerned with trivial things like a war, is now finally paying attention. The mega movie, which tells the story of a soldier who, after finishing his tour of duty in Iraq, is told he must return to the front lines, has captured American civilians’ interest while dually informing the public about the previously little understood concept of “stop loss.”

While obviously having an informed population is a strong positive, it has also resulted in various misinterpretations of army stop loss and caused a wrongly guided outcry against a rightfully intentioned policy.

Military stop loss is a procedure that was enacted by Congress following the Vietnam War and the draft that dragged thousands of unwilling young men into the army. Stop loss was a preventive measure against the military draft, assuring that it would never be necessary to utilize the draft again in times of war. In accordance with stop loss, it is now stated in the contract every volunteer soldier agrees and signs with the military that, “In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed forces continues until six months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.” Or simply put, “Be prepared for the long haul.”

Despite the fairness and clarity in the agreement between soldier and government, many are outraged by the stop loss rule, which they claim to be unfair and misleading. It’s interesting that usually these complaints stem not from the soldiers deeply affected by the stop loss policy, but instead often from misinformed young men and some AHS students who have chosen not to enlist in the military. These same few young men who take the stop loss rule so entirely for granted should consider a re-evaluation of their thinking, for if the stop loss policy which protects them did not exist, then there most certainly would be a draft to continue to maintain the amount of troops necessary to fight in the Iraq War.

It’s not to say that American soldiers are entirely in support of the stop loss policy. However, soldiers are often far less inclined to speak out against a policy they have a much better comprehension of and understand its usefulness and necessity at this point in time. At the same time, these soldiers also have experienced firsthand the misuse of the stop loss agreement.

Thousands of soldiers are being kept from their families, homes and from continuing on with the rest of their lives. Their families are left alone and reeling from the overwhelming and intense military schedule that allows minimal family time. The lack of contact and distance from their families and real lives leaves many soldiers incapable of dealing with the shock of returning home to new responsibilities. And all this suffering shared between volunteer soldiers and their families is for a war that has yet to even be declared an actual war.

The question this leaves is “Should the burden be shared between volunteer soldiers and regular American citizens?” In other words, “When military stop loss is put into use then, in fairness, should the draft be reinstated as well?”

On the one hand, issuing a draft could be the final decisive step towards eventually ending this pointless war. The huge outcry that would rise up against a draft would definitely provide the pressure needed to push politicians and political leaders towards a concrete solution to end military presence in Iraq and the surrounding areas. A draft would also surely motivate Americans to be knowledgeable about the war, knowing that their loved ones or that they could potentially be called to military duty.

On the other hand, a draft could be a devastating mistake. Filling the army with young, inexperienced and terrified men will diminish the fighting power, effectiveness, and professionalism of the current military. Additionally, continuing stop loss without the draft would certainly be a better moral choice then sending thousands of unwilling young Americans to their deaths.

Ultimately, the stop loss policy, when not considering its misuse, is a very good thing. However, under these current circumstances, stop loss should never have been put into recent use. The Iraq War has not and probably will never be declared an official war by Congress, and so therefore stop loss should not be applied. However, that has not stopped President Bush from taking advantage of the generosity of volunteer soldiers and sacrificing their lives and free will, all simply to fund his precious war.


Laracoulter@cox.net