Stop-Loss

As I briefly mentioned in my last post, there is new movie coming out in March called Stop-Loss. I think the title of the movie and the previews give you a pretty good idea of what the movie is about. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'll take the shot in dark here and say it is about the controversial stop-loss policy. (I'll admit, I read a spoiler for the movie. I'll just say that the movie sounds amazing and I was pleased with the ending, but that's all I'll say. I don't want to ruin it for anyone.)

Along with the official movie website, Paramount has launched another website called Stop-Loss Sound Off. This site is for service members and their families to post comments and videos about their experiences with the policy and with the military in general. The movie's director, Kimberly Peirce also posted on the site and she has made it clear that the movie isn't simply about the stop-policy, but also about a soldier's journey and experiences when he is stop-lossed.

Okay, now for me and my opinion. For the record, I whole-heartedly believe that the stop-loss policy will always be a source of tension and turmoil in our military simply because there are two very distinct sides to this issue. The need to have soldiers in our military and the need of the soldiers to move forward in their lives. I believe that both sides have valid points and neither side will ever be fully right. However, in this issue I side with our military and the need to use the stop-loss policy.

To many this policy seems unfair. A contract for so many number of years is signed, but at the end of those years, you're told you still can't leave. Let's face it, in the real world if you signed a lease, a contract, to live in an apartment for 1 year, at the end of the year the owner can not make you stay in that apartment longer. However, as most military families will tell you, the military is not the "real world" nor is it always fair. I've been married to a soldier for just less than a year and already I need more fingers and toes to count how many Army policies/rules/ behaviors seem to be unfair.

Here's the thing though, the contract a soldier signs does say that he/she can be stop-lossed. At no point is this policy a surprise to the soldier. When that contract is signed you are signing on for so many years at a minimum. After those minimum amount of years are complete, the military can chose to extend your contract because you agreed that they could. It's a part of being in the military. Just like camo, MREs, war, kissing someone's ass to get a promotion, Tricare and saluting are also a part of the military. You take the good with the bad. The Stop-Loss policy is considered one of the bad, but it is there for a reason.

Many states are creating a new unit called the PTAE, Pre-mobilization Training Assistance Element. One of the purposes of this unit is to make sure deploying units are trained as fully as they can be. One of the reasons this type of unit is necessary is because soldiers and their families are trying to sue the military, and this includes unit Commanders such as Stonewall, for not properly training them before sending them to war.

Stonewall is National Guard. When he found out his unit was set to deploy, drill weekends became a life line. He sees his soldiers once a month and 2-3 weeks during the summer. Between announcement time and deployment time, that left Stonewall with approximately 30 days of face-time and training time with his soldiers. 30 days, and not 30 consecutive days, to train soldiers to fight and survive.

Now here is where stop-loss comes into play and ties these two units together. In the National Guard soldiers can be stop-lossed 90 days prior to deployment. We have not reached those 90 days yet. Every drill weekend Stonewall is losing soldiers who have decided they no longer want to be in the military because they do not want to go to Iraq and so they are trying to find loopholes and ways to get out of the military.

While these soldiers will eventually be replaced and the new soldiers will be deployed with the unit, these are soldiers who have trained with the unit for less than a month. Is that enough time to fully prepare for deployment? I don't know; some would say it is, some would say it isn't enough time. All of the soldiers will be trained as best as they can be and that will be considered good enough to send them to Iraq, but like I mentioned, soldiers are trying to sue the military for improper training. But whose fault is it that these soldiers are not getting the training they feel they should get?

The blame can not be put entirely on the military. Stonewall is doing the best he can to train his soldiers. It is not his fault soldiers are leaving and new soldiers are being sent to him at the last minute. Whether anyone likes it or not we are at war and we need to send soldiers to Iraq. We can not stop sending units to Iraq because some quit and force more work and responsibility on others. Our military must train our soldiers as best it can in a very short amount of time. It is the soldiers who run that put the undue pressure and responsibility on the unit leaders, the remaining unit, and the new soldiers.

The Stop-Loss policy takes some of that pressure to deploy fully trained off of Stonewall and the other leaders of the unit and puts it on the rest of the unit. In fact, Stonewall would rather stop-loss go into effect the day they learn they will be deployed. Then he knows that his soldiers are trained to the best of his and their abilities. There is no questioning whether a new soldier has learned all the ropes. Instead, Stonewall would lead soldiers that he has worked with for the past year.

Stop-loss exists to protect the soldiers. More fully trained and experienced soldiers are sent to Iraq because they have best ability to stay alive over there and complete the mission, so that all the soldiers can come home. Yes, it is true that there will be soldiers who do not come home safely or at all, but that is the reality we face in the military. It is a reality all soldiers must face. In the long run though, I think stop-loss saves more lives because its the experienced soldiers that are resent to Iraq and it is the soldiers who have had more valuable training time before being deployed.

My husband was essentially stop-lossed the day he took command of his unit. It was agreed that he would not leave this unit until after the deployment. The deployment has been pushed back 3 times now and so he remains with his unit. I do not feel sorry for the others who will be stop-lossed. It is their experience and their time that will help bring my soldier home, along with the soldier whose wife is having a baby in a few months, the soldier who has 3 children all under the age of 5, and the soldier whose Mom gives all her free time to our FRG. They do not leave the unit because they want to fight, it is what they agreed to do when they signed their contract and took their oath and they will do it until the military agrees their time in the NG is finished.

There are 2 sides to this coin. In a few years, I may prefer the other side. Are those who fight stop-loss dishonorable or anti-America? I do not believe so. I have never been to Iraq, but I can't imagine there are many who want to go back after they made it home safely the first time. I know I do not want Stonewall to have to go back, but its what he does, what he agreed to do. When I married him, I signed up for the military and the deployments as well, whether it was within his 4 years or not.