December 28, 2003
Is the draft back?
Not exactly what we might think of as the draft but the US is does not have an all volunteer army:
To many of the soldiers whose retirements and departures are on ice, however, stop-loss is an inconvenience, a hardship and, in some cases, a personal disaster. Some are resigned to fulfilling what they consider their patriotic duty. Others are livid, insisting they have fallen victim to a policy that amounts to an unannounced, unheralded draft.Congress should immediately repeal their mistake:
Congress approved the authority for what became known as stop-loss orders after the Vietnam War, responding to concerns that the military had been hamstrung by the out-rotations of seasoned combat soldiers in Indochina.In a country based on freedom, on the concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness slavery must not be allowed to exist.
Via Talkleft.
Update (12/29): Craig Cheslog has a good post on this. I disagree, though, with one point he makes: While the government has the right to treat our soldiers this way,... Nope, we should not grant the government any such right. The government is our servant not our master.
Posted by Steve on December 28, 2003I thought that I may need to clarify what I meant.
When one joins the armed services, you volunarily lose many of your rights. Some of this is necessary for military preparedness.
But just because a person or a government has the right to do something, it does not necessarily follow that it should take advantage of that unless there is good reason to do so.
Sometimes postponing retirements or extending enlistments is necessary in wartime, as was done in World War II.
But, as many have noted, this Iraq war was one of choice. With proper (or realistic) planning, we would not have to treat our reservists or National Guard members this way.
My best,
-- Craig
Posted by Craig Cheslog at December 29, 2003 4:34 PMCraig,
Thanks for the clarification.
I also should note that I have not read the version of the current enlistment contract that some of these folks signed. These stop-loss victems may indeed have agreed to being subject to these extensions.
On the other hand, if the (re)enlistment contract has a term of 6 years for example, does not provide for unilateral extensions and the 6 years are up then I don't see any way for the government to have any legitimate and certainly no moral basis for extending the term of enlistment.
Posted by Steve at December 29, 2003 9:24 PM
