Is Stop-Loss Program Fair?

The Virginian-Pilot July 12, 2004

The United States dropped the draft more than 30 years ago.

That hasn't stopped the Pentagon from using a kind of clandestine conscription to trap some of the Army's most valuable, experienced soldiers for a year or more.

It's called "stop-loss," and it keeps soldiers scheduled for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving when their hitch ends.

More than 10,000 soldiers are covered under the rules now, according to one senator.
The Pentagon should long ago have realized that it was not committing enough soldiers to do the job in Iraq. Generals did everything but picket the place, but were ignored.

After America so handily won the war, no one wanted to acknowledge that it would take so many to secure the peace. On Wednesday, Pentagon officials continued to say that
there was no reason to expand the military.

Whether the Pentagon acknowledges it or not, the country faces a shortage of warriors: At the moment, about 150,000 soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen from the National Guard and the Reserves are on active duty. Reservists make up about 40 percent of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's not what reservists bargained for and the Pentagon is paying the price. As of May 31, the reserves were about 10 percent short of their recruitment goals.

Still, the Army's stop-loss program is perhaps the most egregious example of the Pentagon's breaking faith with its soldiers.

For soldiers who've fulfilled their commitment, being told they must continue to serve on the front lines is a cruel way of showing the nation's gratitude for the life-threatening risks they've taken.

New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg , a Democrat and no friend of the current White House, has introduced legislation that would both embarrass the administration and do the right thing. Lautenberg's bill would pay a $2,000 bonus monthly to each person snagged by stop- loss.

Lautenberg's proposed amendment to the Defense appropriations bill went nowhere, according to news accounts . But supporters have vowed to fight on for the measure.
There are two possibilities if, by some miracle, it were to pass in another form.
First, soldiers who should be civilians would get a nice chunk of change as a reward.
Or, second, the looming costs might prompt the Pentagon to do away altogether with the practice, and immediately enlist and train enough replacement soldiers to do the job in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Either is better than a backdoor draft.