Can Stop-Loss Be Stopped?
Military Returns Troops To War After They've Completed Tours, Even After They've Left Active Duty
-
Photo
(AP)
-
Interactive
Military 101
Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Sunday Morning
- Latest in Sunday Morning
- Design for Living
- Rediscovering Henry Hudson
- Some Educated Opinions on Pundits



- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 105 CommentsIt is the chains of the mind that bind, not the chains of the wrist. The draft is unconstitutional, they swore to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. So they should.
There is not shortage of stupid people that will join the military and fight for the interests of the United States of Israel.
And just how is the end of the war determined?
By official proclamation?
A predetermined death toll?
A certain amount of financial gains made by government contractors?
Or the completion of our government''s agenda to install democratic form of rule in every little oil nation?
They are doing it to the Auto industry Now too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by longtree at 10:26 AM
Then go enlist, sweety.
Whoooooo Careeeeees???????
Now do another rant.
When it becomes apparent that a recruiting goal cannot be met, the goal is changed to the number that allows the goal to be reached. That way, the military never "fails" to meet its'' goal. There are two reasons why this is done: 1. It ensures that the officers and enlisted folks in the recruiting command get good fitness reports/evaluations. 2. It allows for "patriotic" upbeat stories about how fine young people are flocking to the military in droves.
Isn''t living in a country where propaganda is just a routine part of doing business fun?
Just as there is "good" and "bad" cholesteral, so too there is good and bad pride. The war in Iraq has never been about duty, honor, country. What it has been about is the collective ego of the Bush administration, and their refusal to admit the war was a mistake from the very start. Unfortunately, our servicemen continue to pay the price as years and years of their lives roll by with no end in sight to this pointless conflict. Nicholas II did the same thing to the Russian military in World War I, --a war the Russians could have easily stayed out of had it not been for ego of the Tsar. We all know what happened next in 1917...
Of course, when the economy is bad and jobs are scarce... there''s no shortage of new voluteers.
I told her it was a BAD, BAD idea, and she didn''t join!
It may have been unpatriotic of me, but I was a parent FIRST, which is NOT what the federal government is. To the military and the government, our kids are "cannon-fodder" and if they do survive thru their enlistment, they come out either psychotic, losing a limb, or their life!
And those who do make it thru their enlistment, get lousy medical care (if any), are never fully integrated back into civilian life, and get SHAFTED on those "benefits" by both the military and the government.
So for those of you out there thinking about enlisting because you can''t find a job; really do some serious thinking about it!
THINK HARD!!!
SIG HEIL, THINK OF ME AS YOUR "DADDY" INSTEAD OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!!, BUSH!!!
Stop loss keeps a team together so its less likely that one of our team will be hurt or killed. So, by staying a few extra months, it makes it more certain that everyone gets to go home.
But for what? The folks back home still talk like they know better than anyone else. They know everything cuase they see it on the evening news.
"Serve until you die!!! And no, you can''t use the Walter Reed Hospital until you sign a reinlistment...right there on the dotted line....use the hand that isn''t blown off...."
Want to bet it would end quick?
Stop-Loss is NOT "fine print.%u201D I can%u2019t imagine anyone signing up without understanding the details. An enlistment contract is a life-and-death matter. As pointed out in the story, Vietnam was the EXCEPTION to the rule. Left unsaid was that personnel replacements in Vietnam seriously reduced combat effectiveness and increased casualties.
Ms Smith notes that conditions (rising enlistments, etc.) may make Stop-Loss "less necessary," meaning that, in spite of the emotional, victim-flavored tone of the segment, the policy is needed.
Veterans will tell you that combat service is more about your comrades than about principle or even country. To support your comrades-in-arms is, ultimately, what makes the sacrifice worthwhile. A flawed policy called Stop-Loss is a way to increase the effectiveness of combat units and, thereby, the survival of its members.
Mrs. Berlinrut, no one who serves in combat is ever "the same person that he was!"
I wonder how many people have been defrauded like this.
We have a ethnic segment of the USA that represents maybe 2% of the population but holds probably 40-50 percent of the elite positions. This same segment that is so highly OVER-represented in the elite positions coincidentally is highly UNDER-represented in our volunteered military.
In Israel every citizen M/F is required to serve and every citizen is put at risk in times of war. This should be the policy in the USA as well.
hard to believe it has been that long. Since day 1
of this "war" I have said victory was impossible
because we did not have a clear goal of what victory
was. This is still true today. Unfortunately, this was has been a complete waste. Even Bush himself now looks back and wishes it never happened. It''s a lesson that we will be paying for for generations to come. This is the second time in our country''s recent history that we entered into a war unprovoked to try a push our way of life on another country. Hopefully there won''t be a third time.
Actually here''s some good advice for parents. If you really want to keep your boy out of the service, tell him they are all homosexuals. It works! No kidding. Of course that might be hard if you were in the service yourself. If that''s the case, tell the kid it was different your day. You might be a little embarrassed if you''re a lefty, but keeping your kid safe is more important, isn''t it.
Keeping girls out is a little more difficult but it revolves around convincing them that they will be used as ****** for the men or some such nonsense.
As with the boys you keep them out long enough to get them established in something else like college or a worthwhile job.
Keeping girls out is a little more difficult but it revolves around convincing them that they will be used as ****** for the men or some such nonsense.
As with the boys you keep them out long enough to get them established in something else like college or a worthwhile job.
Posted by summarex at 03:57 PM : Dec 07, 2008
You sell out cheap don''t you? I won''t lie to keep my child from serving. Shouldn''t the choice be theirs anyway? After all they are the ones putting their lives on the line for you, but you are not worthy of it. Truth means nothing to you.....
Anna Berlinrut should shut-up and take her signs and go home.
While I''m glad that you did a story on this subject, presenting the views of the Heritage Foundation as representing the "objective" reasons for stop-loss was basically presenting a spokesman for the administration. The real reasons for continuing to use stop loss is far more complex and would have required much more honesty, financial commitment, and political risk taking than the Bush administration was willing to take on.
Stop loss is one thing in a Crisis situation or a non-voluntary war like the first and second WORLD wars....but for this war, started voluntarily and peremptorily that is beginning it''s 6th yr., it is inexcusable. Like Vietnam, the policy should be much more limited, and then the responsibility for having enough trained soldiers is tranferred off the backs of these few enlistees, to the government who has to increase forces anyway they can.....from increasing pay and benefits to attract more up to and including a draft. This administration could have done this. A story like this is not complete without going to those independent groups to cover the true reasons Why the government did not do so.
My feeling is if the current administration had been more honest with the public and required more from a greater number of its citizens then the issue of the war there would have been an outcry for accountability that this administration wanted to avoid at all cost....and so They and they alone continue to put this cost on the few.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by carp714 at 05:04 PM : Dec 07, 2008
But they are losing their lives in a foreign country, so not telling them that, would be lying by ommission
Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Posted by GI_Joe_ at 04:27 PM : Dec 07, 2008
The head of the appropriate office in Hawaii has already publicly confirmed the existence and authenticity of the document -- case closed.
In the all volunteer force, recruits understand the possibility of stoploss and what it would mean.
Since Iraq is now basically won, it is up to Obama to lose it...... he won''t touch it.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 105 Comments