Redstate

It's not a recruitment policy, and it's not involuntary. "Stop-loss" is the term for the military putting retirements and separations from active duty on hold for a period of time. Though the catch-phrase is the same every time the trailer for this film runs -- "I honored my contract and I expect the Army to do the same" -- folks who read the fine print in their military contracts would know that it is there. Any enlistment requires a total service commitment time that is well beyond the amount of active duty time signed up for. For example, four-year enlistment is actually an 8-year commitment, with the second half of that to be served in the Inactive Ready Reserve unless the needs of the military dictate otherwise, in which case Stop-Loss will be activated and a soldier/sailor/airman/Marine's active duty time can be extended up to the time that the total contract has been served.

It's not nefarious; it's a way of, in time of need, making sure that trained, experienced servicemembers are retained while they are still under contract. Unfortunately, between the misunderstanding of the policy and the lies about it, there's no level of understanding about it among the general public.

I called it what the Post called it. I should have known better -- you are correct.

Here is what someone I know who is familiar with the policy said awhile back when I wrote the original blog:

“Usually guys know months or even a year ahead of time. Instead of whining and crying, Ryan Philippe needs to shut up, grab his balls, and go back to war-- just like he signed up to do.

The concept of it being unfair is moot. The idea of ‘well the war in Iraq is unjust, so I’m not going to comply with my stop loss’ is desertion. The claim of I’ve already been and paid my dues' is for wimps.

The bottom line is that those guys are already trained and integrated into the unit, and the nation is at war, so they're going. If they enlisted because they wanted to work somewhere fair then they are incredibly naive.

there are lots of links to places explaining it,
many of which are put there by the military itself.
It was first put in place after the Vietnam war and
the last time it was used was by Mr. Bush's father.
Wikipedia also has a good explanation of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

That would be President Bush, not "Mr. Bush", correct?

Sorry, but President George W. Bush deserves the respect to be addressed using his title. Not to use a wide brush as to lump you together with the MSM, but the MSM is so slick to use "Mr. Bush" and then "President Clinton" in the same paragraph it just makes me sick.

Okay, off my soapbox now.
Now if you meant former President George H.W. Bush's father, who would be referred to as Mr. Bush, then you were probably mistaken. :^)

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?

Perhaps now you know what it feels like to see your elected representatives demeaned with "cutesy" names instead of Senator or Congressman.

them...I specifically said the President...no one else gets that priviledge...because like Clinton they are liars and thieves for the most part and when we see someone who is a stand up politician we give them the respect they deserve...Lieberman comes to mind in the Senate and Schuler in the Congress....so stop whining and give the President his due.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

do so with the President in front or don't do it at all....this site respects this President and we give respect to all sitting President's no matter the political affiliation...he is still the President of the United States of America and he is your President and mine...so get with the program.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

as to always try to refer to former Presidents as President Clinton and former President Carter, to show repect for the office, even though I have not one shred of respect for either man. The office deserves respect.

The exception being, the Bush Administration, or the Clinton Administration, which denotes the presidency by definition.

You're being touchy. I mean no disrespect by my use of Mr. or Mrs. I use it to denote Democrats as well as Republicans, be they Senators or Congressmen.

or did you not read that portion?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I was taught I must always respect the office ~ which I do ~ but that I did NOT necessarily have to respect the man.

the military's "stop loss" program so you'd know that it isn't quite what it was explained to be above. If you had read any of the links, you'd have seen that.

Jeff's an Iraq War veteran. He's also already demonstrated more knowledge on the subject than did the Wikipedia entry, which is mostly about the Left's protests against the practice.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

So am I. As a matter-of-fact, I'm one of those old grizzled Special Forces vets you wrote so glowingly about in an earlier post one day last week, and will be glad to back that up with a copy of my DD214 if you'd like. In my first comment above, I was trying as nicely as possible to give people an opportunity to look up "stop loss" for themselves and make their own decisions about it. Unfortunately, as usual, for no other reason than I've already mentioned I left the party in 2003, people here seem to want to denigrate anything I might have to say. I live 50 miles south of Fort Bragg and still have friends on active-duty as well as many old Vietnam-era friends. One of my active-duty friends who was there for the taking of Saddam's "castle" just got caught up by the "stop loss" program so I am pretty much aware of its effects on our military. Many vets speak out in favor of this war; many speak out against it. Does that mean those of us speaking out against it are any less "patriotic" than those who are speaking "for" it? I don't think so, but most posters here seem to.

Have you ever considered that as a former member of the party for 40 years, I still hold many of the same ideas and ideals as you near and dear? Have you ever considered that if I were to ever consider coming back, comments I have received here would make it almost impossible for me to consider doing so?

I am one of those grizzled old coots who believe the reason our forefathers espoused a two-party system of government was to ensure that no one party held absolute sway as the Republican party has the past seven years. Sadly, from what I'm seeing on Republican websites, too many Republicans see Democrats as nothing more than unpatriotic, al-Qaeda-luv'n, cheese-eating surrender-monkeys whose ideas aren't worth listening to. For this old 1968 TET Offensive vet, that's a hard pill to swallow.

...and not even a simple "Oops. I didn't mean to suggest that Jeff didn't know what he was talking about. Sorry about that."

Pity.

Moe

PS: When you're done arguing with the Moe inside your head, do let the rest of us know what his major arguments were. We Contributors are always interested in hearing how our doppelgangers do in such discussions.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I responded to Jeff's question "so what's your point?"
What part of my response do you think should have read
"oops, I didn't mean to suggest Jeff didn't know what
he was talking about"? I must not be nearly as smart
as I thought I was because I thought I had answered
his question as succinctly as I could.

1). Lose the attitude. Yes, life is unfair.

2). You know as well as I do that you were trying to minimize Jeff's comments by calling his competence to make them into question. I have a low tolerance for people trying to be disingenuous with me, and by cruel happenstance you've hit upon a forum where I can actually do something about it.

3). You may sourly meditate on what the implications of 1). and 2). reveal about my character all you like. As long as I don't have to actually read it, of course. And before you ask: yeah, as a site moderator I do.

Quit while you're behind. There are other threads to sabotage.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

because I did not come here to sabotage, troll, disrupt or demean. I came here trying to find a way to figure out why it is we can't seem to get anyone on the far right and far left to find a way to discuss their differences civilly, as SENATOR John McCain advised just today. For the life of me, I can't figure out what you think I said that was trying to minimize Jeff's comments. He asked a direct question and I answered it. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no designs on you or your site. I would ask that you at least give me the consideration the Republican candidate for the office of president asked of his Republican colleagues just today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_foreign_affairs

I responded to Jeff's question "so what's your point?"
What part of my response do you think should have read
"oops, I didn't mean to suggest Jeff didn't know what
he was talking about"? I must not be nearly as smart
as I thought I was because I thought I had answered
his question as succinctly as I could.

Personnel policy and the President's authority under Title 10 are endlessly fascinating, detailed subjects. While Jeff's explanation does a good job of explaining why the premise of the movie is kinda dumb, it is not correct in every detail and leaves out certain things. For example, someone can be involuntarily extended past their initial commitment. Indeed, under Title 10, all active duty enlistments during wartime in a regular component are essentially "for the duration" unless the President directs otherwise.

I don't point this out to be rude to you or Jeff, but rather to follow up on Alan Charles' point that the "real" answers are out there for those who are truly interested in the details(though I would suggest reading Title 10 and some of the AFIs like AFI36-2606 instead of Wikipedia). Even a call to your local recruiter would probably clear things up (in my experience recruiters are fairly knowledgable about personnel).

Not that it matters, since I would not want to make an appeal to authority based on my credentials, but I worked in Personnel for someone on the Air Staff. Like I said, fascinating stuff.

If you want a recruiter's opinion on a topic
(For the knowledge of those new to RS, I just came off a recruiting tour as of March 12, 2008)

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

you read in wikipedia isn't a complete picture. I know, this is a revolutionary notion when dealing with a lefty making an argument.

Perhaps you are in favor of units deploying without key persons and thereby placing the entire unit at risk. Or maybe you're in favor of some persons in specialty occupations being left in Iraq/Afghanistan indefinitely. Those are really your options if you are against stop-loss. Looking forward to hearing your recommendation.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Dare I suggest that the Army and Marine Corp get better at force management and force development?

Other than the options Streiff has mentioned there are effectively 2 other choices:
Leave EVERYONE there until it's over (WW1, WW2, Korea)
or change the entire force structure (they're trying to do this, but you're dealing with 2 million people in time of war)

So, ante up. What do you suggest?

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

my actual comments without taking what they think is going to be an attack against them and then rail about it. I gave the wikipedia link as only one source that summed up pretty well what "stop-loss" is and suggested that readers google it and read any of the myriad of other links shown, some of which came from the military itself, as an easy way for people who didn't know what it was to become better informed about it.

Before attacking me for my opinions on things military, I'm curious what you say about some of our generals and Iraq vets who have come back and spoken out against the war. Surely you're not lumping them in the same class as civilians who have spoken out. These are men and women who have served in hellish conditions in our stead. Some have come back and spoken out against the war. Some have not. People have opinions. Sometimes they clash. To me, how we handle those differences shows what kind of people we are.

your bio doesn't give you a bye on your opinions. And it doesn't necessarily make your opinions valid.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

I'm confident it isn't flattering. I'm sure you're aware of the old saying about opinions being like a certain part of our anatomy ~ and we've all got one. And much like everyone else, I figure mine are worth something to at least me.

I know that folks here don't care much for that 'ol "lib'rul media," but I just saw this a few minutes ago and thought I'd share it with everyone here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/iraq_junket

I can't believe how much of this thread has been wasted by folks being rude to Alan Charles over a fairly minor point.

I doubt he needs my help, he seems more than capable of taking care of himself, but I won't stand by and see someone jeered at like this for making what I'm sure he thought was a helpful, explanatory post.

I absolutely agree with the sentiments of Oddis' article. I'm about to spend $30 I don't have on Outside the Wire. (I got here via a link there.) I regularly read this site, approvingly, although this is my first comment.

But Charles' treatment here is what I expect at the Daily Kos or Violence Policy Center. It's just that childish.

I value well-argued, knowledgeable disagreement, painful as it can be. Displays like this make me understand why I don't see more of it. We're supposed to be better than this.

For shame! Badly done!

Stop-Loss was used by President Clinton during Bosnia. It was, and is often, used selectively for specialties that fall below a certain manning level. It doesnt apply to all service members indiscriminately, and its very inaccurate to call it a backdoor draft like the media tries to do.

This is what I thought that "stop loss" was...every time I see that ridiculous commercial I want to yell at those idiots on screen, "Then you shouldn't have joined the army, dumb@ss!!!"

I mean, really, if you are too stupid to actually read a contract in which you are committing yourself to multiple years in harm's way in service of your country, then you are getting what is coming to you. Unfortunately, my generation is so ignorant of truth that they just might eat this stuff up.

Just like the others, and next year some idiot producer will think that another anti-war movie will do well and it will flop also.

Hey Hollywood, Want to make money? Try a pro-America movie.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

It just didn't say "the only way to be anti-War is to be anti-American too".

Seriously, First Blood Part II: Rambo is one of the most anti-war films I've ever seen. I did not think for a *SECOND* it was anti-America.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The new Rambo sold well because it's Rambo, not because it's a well-done anti-war movie (I don't know; haven't seen it).

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

If you want to make a successful anti-war movie franchise, set each movie in a place where we *AREN'T* fighting a war.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Full Metal Jacket would. The plot ossified once the Drill Sargeant got fragged, but the dialogue was classic.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Full Metal Jacket would. The plot ossified once the Drill Sargeant got fragged, but the dialogue was classic.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

...but I should point out that there's an even simpler trick: don't infantilize the troops. War of the Worlds, in which Spielberg does everything except CGI actual halos above our troops' heads? $235 million domestic. Transformers, where the most interesting bits were when the USAF broke out the Warthogs and [expletive deleted] up the Decepticons' [expletive deleted]? $319 million domestic. I Am Legend, with Will Smith playing the heroic Army doctor looking for a cure even past Armageddon? $256 million domestic. Hell, Cloverfield just had the Army going testicles-to-the-wall against a big rubber monster and its I-won't-give-it-away and it still made $79.5 million domestic*.

And I'm willing to bet that Iron Man - which is showing every sign of Respecting the Troops while Being Against War - is going to go like gangbusters, too.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*And I'd still like to know where the Abrams tanks came from.

is that the character Tony Stark is an alcoholic. So they got a real life addict to play him!

I caught an old 1980's movie the other night "Less Than Zero", with Robert Downy. It was a real stretch of his acting talent. He played a drug addict.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Don't make movies that suck.

Transformers rocked, and I say that in all seriousness as a 43 year old man who watched it 158 times with my 5 and 7 year old sons.

The second and third Rambo installments were pretty lame, but the original Rambo was a pretty darn good bit of moviemaking.

Watching the trailers for Stop Loss, it looks like it will suck. That's what happens when you make movies for political content instead of entertainment value.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

The MPs show up to this character's house and drag his butt to Leavenworth at the end...now, that is a movie I might actually go and see.

n/t

From the commercials. Then I noticed it had Tom Cruise starring...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up