I’ve added a new blog to my link list, A Soldier’s Thoughts by Army Sgt Zachary Scott-Singley. I found out about this from an article posted on Common Dreams. I’m sorry that so many American people were too lazy and foolish to see this invasion for what it really was, at least in time for us to prevent it. Now the brave and honorable people in the military are once again putting their lives on the line and getting royally screwed by stop-loss, long tours of duty in-theater, and short stays at home.
I’m too pissed off at the war criminals who orchestrated this to write any more right now. Sgt. Zach, my thoughts and prayers are with you and all your sisters- and brothers-in-arms. Keep your heads down, and come home safe!
When stop loss is in effect, soldiers in units that have been placed on alert for deployment may not End Term of Service (ETS) or retire (unless for attaing maximum military age: 60) until either the unit is stood down from alert or 90 days after redeploying (returning home).
At whichever end point, all troops hat would have ETSd or retired will do so.
Nothing sinister in this. It is done soley to stabilize manpower rosters for deployment.
Also, once a troop has reached 12 months from the date he was supposed to separate from the service, he can choose to do so.
As for long tours, my grandfather was in Europe in WWII for almost 3 years. When I’m asked to do more, I figure I can complain.
“Nothing sinister”?!? Were you aware that there were no WMD’s found in Iraq? That Iraq was not threatening their neighbors, and certainly not threatening the US? So why were US forces sent to invade Iraq?
Granted that stop-loss is part of the contract we all signed, but I for one expect it to be used only in times of dire emergency, not because some draft-dodging pussy (who couldn’t even bother to serve all his time in the national guard) wants to play Commander-in-Chief!
Jim,
The topic I was addressing was stop loss. Stop loss is not sinister.
I’d be happy to discuss with you why I support the President and the war, but you’ll have to ditch the hyperbole and invective. There are plenty of presidntes that I have disagreed with and even disliked and I still have managed to remain respectful of the office if not the person.
Hmmm. My second paragraph (run-on sentence) definitely qualifies as “invective”. You might even be able to convice me on “hyperbole”. For the sake of discussion, let’s ignore the second paragraph. Forget I ever said it. That leaves the first paragraph, without a trace of invective or hyperbole.
I agree that stop-loss is not, in and of itself, sinister or evil or whatever. My contract had this clause, and I’m sure it’s been there ever since we went to an all-volunteer armed service back in the 70’s.
My point is that stop-loss is being exercised because we have commited to a war which we should never have started. We were told repeatedly by every official in the Bush administration that Saddam had WMD’s. Rumsfeld even went so far as to claim that he knew where they were. So why haven’t they been found? (Don’t bother telling me that they somehow got snuck out of the country. We’ve owned the airspace above Iraq for over a decade. If our government allowed WMD’s to be smuggled out of Iraq, that constitutes criminal negligence.) Iraq’s neighbors weren’t feeling threatened–none of them called on the UN or the United States to “protect” them from Iraqi aggression. Iraq doesn’t have a weapon that could strike the US, so they couldn’t have threatened us if they tried.
The American people have been fed a load of BS about the so-called threat posed by Iraq, and just barely enough of them swallowed it back in 2002 to allow Bush to get us into an illegal war. (See the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory.) And now many of our troops, who have served the duration of their contracts, are being kept in Iraq because of stop-loss. There is something sinister about this, and it’s not stop-loss…