Green Light for Stop-Loss

|

The Army has issued another stop-loss order in order to keep front-line units combat-ready for Iraq and Afghanistan. I worry about the effect on Hollywood.

How are we going to get all the outcast, misfit Afghanistan-Iraq veteran movies in five or ten years if everyone is still in the Army?

NEXT: Renew Your Enthusiasm

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is just a kind gesture to make sure the troops don’t get lonely for good company, because as the president points out, we really could manage with 25,000 or so fewer troops than we already have over there.

  2. I’m amazed by the fact that after all these antics, most conservatives are still in love with Rumsfeld. The amount of long-term damage being done to the military’s long-term effectiveness by this egonomaniac’s obsession with a smaller, trimmed-down force – deployment requirements be damned – has to be enormous. The number of off-the-record reports regarding the armed forces’ contempt for the OSD grow by the week, and with good reasaon.

    But as long as Rummy talks a tough line and takes some potshots at the Europeans, it seems that most conservatives couldn’t care less. It’s a funny world.

  3. I’m guessing that if he ever read “Catch-22”, Donald Rumsfeld would think that Colonel Cathcart was the real hero of the story.

  4. I HATE these mother f**kers! Everybody in the Army hates these motherf**kers. Let Bush explain this disaster to real G.I.s, not a bunch of lifers at the Army War College, who will continue kissing his ass to get promotions over our dead bodies.

  5. Pretty soon we’ll have a WWII style draft.

    Ha ha they won’t take me.

  6. The purpose of this stop-loss/stop movement is two fold. The purpose is to stop movement between units as the Army prepares to increase its number of brigades, adding one extra brigade (going from three to four) in each division. In order to reorganize in this way the Army needs to freeze soldiers where they are. The second purpose is to prevent the mass exodus which may or may not occur after soldiers get home.

    The stop movement is necissary. The stop-loss violates the service obiligation that all enlistees sign and it hurts the Army because people who want to get out certainly aren’t helping the Army by staying around. Of course a lot of deadbeats stay in the Army because for unskilled labor the pay is alright, but the benefits are awesome and it beats working at Wal-Mart. (Till you are getting shot at but thats another story).

    The outright refusal of Rumsfield to increase the size of the active Army is ridiculous. There are problems in the size of the services when the Marines deploy for six to seven months, the Air Force for three months, and Army soldiers are forced to deploy for 12-15 months. Additionally the Army only gets one year off between deployments while the other services get more. As usual the Army gets the short end of the stick…

  7. Armies with low REAL morale do not win battles.

    Now explain to me again what happened to Sadr’s Army?

    BTW an Army that does not get stretched in war is too large. I was under the impression that libs were against wasteful government spending.

    A bigger Army is a fine idea. It will take about 2 years from the go command to increase the number of effective troops. We need effectives today. Any proposals?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.