Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Stop-Loss Disinformation 25

Journal by pudge

The New York Times ran an editorial this week, criticizing the use of stop-loss by our military leaders to extend tours of duty of our soldiers beyond their original terms. That is, instead of serving in Iraq for a year as scheduled, someone could serve two years, or longer.

Kerry has picked up this mantle, calling the use of stop-loss a "backdoor draft."

The Times editorial, by a former Army captain, Andrew Exum, said, "In essence, they will no longer be voluntarily serving their country." The problem is, Exum and Kerry are lying.

When you sign up for the military, you agree to serve for a certain amount of time, with the possibility of it being extended. If your term is not extended, you can't leave before it is over. If it is extended, you can't leave before it is over. Either way, you are stuck there for the duration of your term, whatever it is, and you agreed to the possibility that it could be extended.

Let there be no mistake: a soldier whose term is extended under stop loss is serving just as voluntarily as one who is not, if the agreements they signed up under have any meaning.

I understand the frustration, but misrepresenting the facts don't make you look good. Exum writes of his former comrades who served in Afghanistan and Kuwait and are now headed to Iraq, "To a man, they felt a sense of hopelessness -- they know they have little say over their future until the Army releases them." But they knew that before they signed on the dotted line, too.

Exum shows his lack of objectivity -- or understanding -- when he concludes with a screed about eleciton-year politics. "The Pentagon uses these policies to meet its needs in Iraq because they are expedient and ask nothing of the civilian populace on the eve of a national election." No, they use this policy because it is the only method that they have at their disposal to provide the troops they need. There is no other option.

He follows it up with, "This allows us to put off what is sure to be a difficult debate: whether our volunteer military is adequate to meet our foreign policy commitments." Funny, I thought the use of stop-loss was actually encouraging that debate. But Exum is too busy whining about how unfair it is, to notice.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stop-Loss Disinformation More

Stop-Loss Disinformation

Comments Filter:
  • Let there be no mistake: a soldier whose term is extended under stop loss is serving just as voluntarily as one who is not, if the agreements they signed up under have any meaning.

    One must remember that when you join the military, you no longer have the same basic rights granted you by the Constitution. First off, the military justice system is independent from our standard justice system and the concept of voluntary is considered from an enlistment perspective only. Once you enlist, you are bound by a
    • but the reality is that because of decisions like this, we are going to have a massive morale problem making retention of good soldiers much harder

      Yes, of course. The use of stop-loss is a big problem.
      • A related problem is that I can't see the use of stop-loss as encouraging new recruits. "If I sign up for two years, I'm really signed up for four years?"

        Pudge, here's some tinfoil nonsense for you. Please note I don't think this, I'm merely trying to think like others:

        "Bush hasn't done anything to create good, well paying jobs so that people will be forced to enlist in the military for benefits and job security, thus strengthening the force available for our modern crusades."

        Expect to see Michael Moore

    • I don't see where there has to be a major morale problem. The stop-loss is hardly a major imposition. It only applies to units currently under deployment, and only lasts until the end of that deployment. Units are being cycled in and out regularly. One of my bookstore customers just came back from a whopping 4 month deployment in Iraq.

      I have yet to see any real, valid criticism of this stop-loss. It's just good management.

      • Full time army whose latest enlistement is up can't leave. They have to stay in and risk being put under fire (often AGAIN).

        Say a guy has served 16 years with the army and has served in both Gulf War I and Gul War Part II. Now he is back home after his last deployment and decides for personal reasons that he doesn't want to continue in the army. Guess what? He can't leave AND he is likely to be redeployed back to Iraq.

        To make matters worse, the redeployment schedule has been compressed. People in v

        • Just to be clear ... I know you are not responding to me, but I largely agree with you: stop-loss hurts morale, it hurts enlistment and re-enlistment, and it highlights the obvious problem that our military is spread too thin. All of these things are matters of degree: how much does it hurt morale? How thin is our military? etc. My complaint was with saying it was forcing people to serve against their will, without their consent, since they did consent to this possibility when they volunteered.

          In a wa

  • ...but misrepresenting the facts don't make you look good.

    I couldn't agree more. However, you say here:

    There is no other option.

    But there is. The draft IS an option. This needs to be acknowleged and maybe it's time to start to consider the option.

    Please note, I'm not suggesting this is needed -- just maybe it's time to hear arguements for and against. So far, at least in my opinion no 'draft' is necessary -- yet. I think in your zeal you were using language that more or less reflect how you FEEL

    • But there is. The draft IS an option. This needs to be acknowleged and maybe it's time to start to consider the option.

      At the very least, the draft is not an option to solve the problem now. It could only solve the problem a year from now. There are other options too, such as pulling out of Iraq, and Afghanistan, etc. But all of these options, like the draft, would take time. The only option right now is stop-loss, unless we pull out of Iraq, which won't happen this calendar year.

      • At the very least, the draft is not an option to solve the problem now

        I'll try to avoid a discussion regarding semantics, but I don't think a time frame was ever mentioned -- or that 'instant gratification' was requirement. While I feel you are right in calling Exum on his one-sided reporting and Kerry using this as an 'issue', it further obsucates the issue to suggest there are "no other option".

        I agree, the draft will not instantly solve any problems with regards to availablity of troops. If, howeve

        • I'll try to avoid a discussion regarding semantics, but I don't think a time frame was ever mentioned

          Yes, it was: "eve of a national election." He talked about how using stop-loss allows us to "put off" a debate. So what would we do in the meantime while we debated? He says, "Meanwhile, in the absence of this debate, the men and women of our armed forces languish." And if we had the debate now (which we are having) in lieu of using stop-loss, what then?

          He didn't even allow for the possibility that st

          • And if we had the debate now (which we are having) in lieu of using stop-loss, what then?

            By "we" (in '(which we are having), do you mean you and I? Or 'we' as a nation? If you mean the latter, I haven't seen anything "REAL" except S89 and HR163, which popped up when? Last week? They look like an effort to SPARK debate (which is good) -- but don't really reflect anything serious which has been 'on going'.

            He didn't even allow for the possibility that stop-loss is necessary

            And you didn't allow for any

            • And you didn't allow for any other options

              To solve the problem NOW, yes. I am talking about NOW. He said we should not do stop-loss NOW, but didn't provide an alternative. I say the only solution to the problem NOW is stop-loss, and you agreed.

              I am just (strongly) insisting that is likewise wrong suggest there are no other options.

              And I clarified (strongly) that I was -- I thought pretty clearly at the outset, but even if not, certainly on my first reply -- talking about NOW. RIght now, there ARE
    • As a national guardsman currently on active duty. Typing this in Iraq, and not much wanting to be here...

      Reinstating the draft is a bad idea and bad policy. The military is opposed to the draft for a reason. The average quality of a willing volunteer (regardless of motive, I don't care if they joined for the college money) is so much higher than the average draftee. I'm not talking education or physical ability. I'm talking heart, desire, self-discipline.

      To use an overused phrase, it is a force multiplier.

    • The draft IS an option. This needs to be acknowleged and maybe it's time to start to consider the option.

      The draft is indeed an option. It's just a bad option. In a time when voluntary military service is at levels to sufficiently provide for needs, a draft is daft (hehe). If we need a mere 10% increase in the size of our military, which I am not sure is true, then we can achieve those gains through recruitment bonuses and by advertising on MTV.

      Heck, how much could we increase recruitment if we just c

  • But they knew that before they signed on the dotted line, too.

    This seems to sum up your whole argument. Too bad it's not really that simple. Ever talk to a recruiter? Most of them are the slimiest bastards on the face of the earth. Used car salesmen will accuse them of the 'hard sell'. Promising all sorts of crap to dumb kids, then failing to deliver.

    Which brings me to the other point: dumb kids. Yes, a normal person would read before they sign, and immediately notice the recruiter is a salesman. But mos
    • This seems to sum up your whole argument. Too bad it's not really that simple. Ever talk to a recruiter? Most of them are the slimiest bastards on the face of the earth.

      So "people don't read what they sign" sums up your whole argument. Mine is stronger.
      • So "people don't read what they sign" sums up your whole argument.

        More or less. But I don't think I was taking a position (I didn't intend to). What I was attempting to do is point out that what created the situation is a tiny bit less than pure black and white.

        I understand why some of these guys are pissed. I empathize with them. But I do not pity them or think they deserve an 'out'. One of the reasons I avoided military service is that I knew that the recruiters and everything else were a crock of shit
        • More or less. But I don't think I was taking a position (I didn't intend to). What I was attempting to do is point out that what created the situation is a tiny bit less than pure black and white.

          I didn't imply that there are not any circumstances that might cause people to think the agreements were not entirely understood, or somesuch. I didn't address it, because my feeling is that unless someone lied to you or deliberately hid this fact from you -- or otherwise perpetrated a real fraud to get you to s
          • I didn't imply that there are not any circumstances that might cause people to think the agreements were not entirely understood, or somesuch. I didn't address it, because my feeling is that unless someone lied to you or deliberately hid this fact from you -- or otherwise perpetrated a real fraud to get you to sign -- you're responsible for it regardless. It simply isn't a relevant factor. Fine, you didn't know: so what? You should have, and you're responsible for it. Now get your ass in the humvee.

            I agre

    • Ever talk to a recruiter? Most of them are the slimiest bastards on the face of the earth. Used car salesmen will accuse them of the 'hard sell'. Promising all sorts of crap to dumb kids, then failing to deliver.I used to talk to recruiters all the time. My ASVAB scores were high enough that I got to be on a first name basis with the recruiters in the area for all four services. I spent weeks saying no. Later, I described the fireworks spectacle that I wanted to put on for an ex-girlfriend (not a good

  • When you sign up for the military, you agree to serve for a certain amount of time, with the possibility of it being extended.

    If that's the way it's spelled out in a signed contract, then there can be no arguement. The contract must be followed to the letter. By both sides. I agree with you, and am therefore redundant. It's obvious that Kerry is just grabbing at straws to win the election. To me, it just shows that both candidates have very few, if any, real differences. With this in mind, I've already co

Slashdot Top Deals

Surprise due today. Also the rent.

Close