"You Fought for America, You Gave Everything...They Want More"
New Anti-War Film Based on Controversial Stop-Loss Policy
By Michelle Oddis Posted in 2008 | Anti-War | Iraq | Military Funding | Movies | War — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last weekend I went to see the new chick flick “P.S. I Love you.”
I was in the mood for romantic cry-fest and studs with Irish accents, but before I got a chance to use my tissues I saw this preview for a new anti-war film called "Stop-Loss." Watch the trailer...
Stop-loss is the extension of a service members contract. Right now stop-loss is necessary because we have too small a force for the war we’re fighting.
A prominent military expert told me that the "Problem goes back to the Civil War in which the Union Army was cut by huge chunks at harvest times. We need it, but it’s ugly."
John Kerry has been quoted saying this about the stop-loss policy:
"You have what is a backdoor draft that has been put into effect," Kerry said. "People serving beyond the time of their voluntary service are no longer volunteers."
The New York Times in 2004 wrote this article sighting the first soldier to challenge the legality of the policy's application to deployment in Iraq.
"A member of the California Army National Guard filed suit in federal court here Tuesday challenging the Bush administration's so-called stop-loss policy, asserting that his pending deployment to Iraq "bears no relation to the threat of terrorism against the United States."
The Washington Post wrote in 2004 about the stop-loss policy as well :
Army officials said the move promotes cohesion by preventing Army divisions from being depleted shortly before they go into battle. But military experts and lawmakers said the decision indicates that the Army is being stretched thin by multiple operations, with some calling the program a draft in disguise."It's a blanket imposition of extended service, and it has to raise questions about how adequately manned the Army is," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
The "stop-loss" policy prevents the normal attrition of troops and ensures that divisions will not have to seek additional troops when they go to Iraq or Afghanistan, said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of human resources and personnel. Congress authorized such measures after the Vietnam War, and they were first used during preparations for the Persian Gulf War in 1990. They have been used since to bolster divisions heading to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I myself don’t have the military experience or knowledge to make a full evaluation of the stop-loss policy, but my opinion is that if you are in the military, and there is a war going on, shouldnt one expect to serve until the war is over?
On the other hand -- if this policy is enacted or executed dishonestly by our government or president it will reflect negatively in the competence of our military -- now and later.
Stop-loss has two faces, the face of the men like the one depicted in this film, decorated Iraq war hero Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Philippe). King is still deserving of thanks and respect.
But then there is the face of a warrior…
Warriors like Cpl. Sean Stokes who returned to Iraq for his 3rd tour voluntarily because he couldn’t bear the thought of his fellow Marines being someplace where he “couldn’t share the burden with them.” Men who hide their wounds in order to avoid being medevaced.
Stop-loss has a slippery slope. This film won’t be in theatres until late March but it is sure to draw some more attention to the already controversial policy. Nothing reaches out more to bleeding hearts than a poignant sound-track, graphics, and a romantic plot.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | For those of you worried about Mike Huckabee's Foreign Policy Inexperience — Comments (5) »
"You Fought for America, You Gave Everything...They Want More" 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Stop loss is actually a pretty broad policy that has less to do with the size of our forces than with the way that units operate.
In essence, when a unit gets notification that it is getting ready to deploy, stop loss goes into effect. It applies to people who were getting ready to get out, transfers, etc. More than anything, it ensures that a unit has the personnel it needs when it does get on the planes.
Sure it catches up people at the end of their voluntary service obligations, I bet it's a fairly small amount of people (I don't have any data to back up that last, it's my opinion), but that isn't the intent of the policy.
It is being portrayed in a light that is far different to the truth.
In my experience with stop loss, it was only done with specific career fields that were already critically short handed. Then it is limited to specific time periods. In the event of deployments, it came to an end 3 months upon return to give time to perform the necessary out processing.
Then to cap things off, John Kerry is playing politics with it because it is available to the military because it is enacted as an act of Congress to authorize it. If Kerry is truly outraged, all he has to do is submit legislation to rescind the authority.
This falls into the "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy. The Democrats in Congress enacted it with the Clinton's encouragement, but now that the left doesn't like it, it is the military that is blamed for it. The Dem's in Congress get a free pass for it.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Stop loss is generally narrow scope. I've seen the messages/directives stipulating certain jobs during certain time periods but there is no doubt some good people get screwed which is the nature of the military business. If the stop loss opponents want to be mad at anybody, they should harangue all the losers who use everything from malingering, drug use, feigned homosexuality and "planned" pregnancies just before deployment to avoid it. All of us who have spent anytime in the military have seen it.
What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi
As I was in the processing line to deploy to Desert Storm, there was a guy a little farther up front of me who chose that moment to be a "Conscientious Objector". So, they had him fill out the paper work and then made him get on the plane anyway.
The sad part was that it was not an isolated incident.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
It's just like the set of excuses law professors use when they don't want to proctor their own exams...
See, it all fits!
:)
Word on the street is that Mike Huckabee's pollster helped elect a communist in Hungry in 2006. Way to be just like Reagan Huckster.... surround yourself with people that helped stop Reagan from tearing down communism's wall... so proud of you. This guy is such a moron and is surrounded by Pro-Communist Advisors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Gyurcs?ny This guy is one of Dresner Wickers and Associates clients... who by the way, ran the Young Communists in the early 80's and helped put down pro-western and democratic movements... Wonder if Dresner is associated with the Anti-Mormon push polls too. Huck, foreign policy and your choice in staff leaves a lot to be desired...
ARK Conservative
Says that it's good to stay on topic, & this post has nothing to do with stop-loss. Huckabee is not my first choice; however, spam attacks on him - or anyone aren't very cool in conservativeville...
And that you need to come up with a more creative and substantial attack against Huckabee, so that you can post it at Pat Buchanan's website. Now -- go home.
Here, for instance
I signed up for six years. I was told I would serve three on active duty, and three more in "inactive reserve". I was also clearly told that I could be called back to active duty anytime during those last three years.
==== 13 ====
serve in the military.
Things such as stop-loss happen because military needs must be met. The fact that military needs may not be the same as an individual's needs or expectations does cause problems.
Ask the guy who enlisted for a tour in Hawaii in the early fifties and ended up in Korea. Or my uncles who had been federalized by Roosevelt in 1940.
All the recruiter actually promises is that the military will try to keep its promises. You cannot even count on the basic three hots and a cot. Maybe in a homeless shelter but not in the military.
As an Infantryman, I lost count of the days in which the basic promise of three meals and a cot were not kept due to the needs of the service or, more often, a foul-up by command. I lost an early promotion opportunity because the military decided that I was best needed someplace else.
If you have been in the military for more than one year without being "shafted," you are one in a thousand.
Would I do it over? Hell, yes. If they would take a sixty-nine year old in the Infantry, I would enlist today but, I assure you, tommorow, I will be bitching with everyone else.
My Marine infantry son was constantly bitching about specific people in his unit. One day, as he was preparing for deployment, I asked him who he wanted around him when the stuff hit the fan. It was the same list of people he'd been bitching about (all Sr. NCO's).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
That when the soldiers are whining and complaining and moaning about how horrible life is, that we don't have to worry about them. They're happy.
It's when they STOP complaining that we get nosy about what's going on to make them so upset...
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
This film is the direct result of the outcome of this lawsuit, which was decided against the plaintiff by the 9th Circuit in a somewhat surprising turn of events.
Responding to that loss, now you see the movie, naturellment! It took about 2 years and 6 months to make the movie, the process of which started just about at the time that opinion was handed down, not coincidentally.
This movie will flop and yet no one in Hollywood wanted to touch something like Yon's "Gates of Fire" even though a major star had already said he would sign on (that would be the awesome Bruce Willis).
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Sickening. I hope this movie flops along with Ryan Filipe's career and veterans fight back and decimate the premise.
That even the folks who've posted above seem to either be unaware of or unable to communicate corrections for:
Well, really just one. Stop Loss does not stop you from getting out at the end of your voluntary 8 year obligation.
That's right. 8 years. All US Armed Forces contracts are for a minimum of 8 years. You serve x number of years Active (Regular Army or Active Reserves) and the remainder of your 8 years IRR. If you have any time left from those 8 years when you are getting ready to leave active status, to ETS as we call it in the Army, they can stop you from transitioning.
This is where Most people get Stop-Lossed. They did their 2 years or 3 years or 4 or 5 or 6 on Active Duty or in the Army Reserves or NatGuard and think they're getting out. Only they're not. They forgot about their IRR time. They are merely transitioning from one status to another.
Once your contract is up. Completely up. As in you completed your Mandatory Service Obligation, your MSO, they can't Stop-Loss you anymore. It's over. This is my exact situation right now. They keep threatening to keep me another year or 2 and then I point at my MSO and they try not to cry...
The other part of this is that you have 10 or more already in the Army when you sign a new contract, yopu have joined indefinitely and the military doesn't Ever have to let you go. You can be Stop-Lossed till you are forcibly retired due to age or medical condition...
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
The link to the decision on the court case involved clearly states that the plaintiff filed after being stop-lossed just before his 8 year commitment expired.
Having said that, when I signed my papers many years ago, it was clearly explained, and expected by me, that I could be retained in the military at the convinience of the government. This makes the argument seem specious. I doubt seriously that amyone actually was surprised when they were stop-lossed.
"Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" were blasted by the armchair warriors for being anti-something or other when they were released. A movie is just that... a movie. if you don't want anything to challenge your personal point of view.. then just stay home.
My own choice for a great war film is "Tigerland".
...as the previous batch of anti-war films - absolutely terrible.
These Hollywood producers make these movies strictly burnish their left-wing credentials at cock-tail parties and make themselves popular within the LA-NY-Washington social circuit. The movies will bomb and nobody will watch them, but they'll still give themselves adulations and awards.
They will lose millions on these things, and I believe they halfway expect to. What will happen is that they'll make their precious anti-war movie, then go out and make a cartoon, a kid's movie, or an adventure movie to recoup their losses on the anti-war drivel.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”