HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan 13, 2004 “Stop-loss orders tie troops’ hands”. That was the headline and I had to wonder being a veteran myself and only recently retired. I wanted to read about this “hand tying” of soldiers as a natural concern. The article basically was assembled using the stories of three individuals who were to have retired after honorably completing their military contract. As they were preparing to move on to the civilian sector, the Army invoked a “stop- loss” for their particular military specialties, in the words of the article “to staunch the seepage of troops through retirement and discharge from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions.” I read about how “furious”, “aggravated”, “violated” and “used” one of the soldiers felt; how the second believed himself “Chained in Iraq” when the government did not uphold its end of the contract; how the third revealed how “unfortunate” he was to have “signed on the dotted line” and now had to “suck it up”. I also read about how “unsympathetic” the military was toward such attitudes and that “Fair has nothing to do with [anything]” The whole article had a “down” tone to it and there seemed to be nothing good from “demoralizing” these troops who only wanted to be able to leave the Army. The fact is, “stop-loss” is not a new thing. Even when the Army became an all volunteer force the contract between the service and the individual has always been for the good of the service; never the individual. During the periods of the “Great” wars men were inducted or volunteered “for the duration”. This has always been the prerogative of the services. Many in the military have been spoiled by success. We can stop conflict efficiently and quickly. What many in the military are not good at is patiently waiting for a conflict to develop so they can go out and squash it. Some troops wander off into other interests, then when conflict develops at an inopportune moment, might feel “furious” or “used” or “chained”. The United States is unique in that all our armed service branches are all filled with “volunteers”. The services are not unsympathetic to soldiers or their families. With duty comes responsibility. Fortunately, many of this nation’s volunteers understand such things. However, the article spoke of “duty” as if it were more “slavery”. This was an unfair and inappropriate intimation. I don’t know anyone who would volunteer to be a slave. I can be sympathetic to the three men who had their immediate plans for civilian venture thwarted for the time being. Yet, it is not forever. These men will eventually retire. Perhaps with a touch more honor for having served “for the duration”, rather than a touch less pride for having griped enough to leave others less highly trained to do the jobs intended for their expertise. There is a lot of discussion lately about the military and its ever-increasing burdens. I do not fear that we’ll get everything worked out. We have a Commander In Chief who is trusted to do the right thing. He will, but for now these stop- loss orders are needed, as well as a little more understanding. ------------ About the Author: Independent, Conservative, Christian. Married 29 years with 5 children raised and one grandson being raised. 30 year Army Veteran and published poet with www.poetry.com since Y2K. Email Michael John McCrae: michael.mccrae@us.army.mil Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
