For Some Soldiers the War Never Ends / By ANDREW EXUM / Published: June 2, 2004 / NY Times
" ... for enlisted soldiers, men and women who sign on with the Army for a predetermined period of service ... , (a unilateral extension of their contractual obligation by the government) ... is a gross breach of contract (and essentially slavery?) "(see #8 below)
Editorial note from Martin Carbone: How can
this be happening in our country where (1) all aspects of our civilized
society and culture are supposed
to be
based
on
adherence to contracts and (2) involuntary servitude is outlawed?
1 CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — Many Americans,
feeling that we did not have enough troops in Iraq, were pleased when the Defense
Department announced last month that 20,000 more soldiers were being sent to
put down the insurgency and help rebuild the country. Unfortunately, few realized
that many of these soldiers would serve long after their contractual obligations
to the active-duty military are complete. In essence, they will no longer be
voluntarily serving their country.
2 These soldiers are falling victim to the military's "stop-loss" policy — and
as a former officer who led some of them in battle, I find their treatment
shameful. Announced shortly after the 9/11 attacks and authorized by President
Bush, the stop-loss policy allows commanders to hold soldiers past the date
they are due to leave the service if their unit is scheduled to be deployed
to Iraq or Afghanistan. Military officials rightly point out that stop-loss
prevents a mass exodus of combat soldiers just before a combat tour.
3 But nonetheless, the stop-loss policy is wrong; it runs contrary
to the concept of the volunteer military set up in the aftermath of the Vietnam
War. Many
if not most of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans
of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have honorably completed their
active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet
the additional needs in Iraq.
4 Among them are many of my former comrades in the Second Brigade
of the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y. In the aftermath
of
the Sept. 11
attacks, I led a platoon of light infantry first to Kuwait in 2001 and then
in combat in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda in 2002. My men had all
enlisted before the 9/11 attacks. In Kuwait and Afghanistan, they performed
flawlessly, with several earning commendations for bravery in combat.
5 Yet even after two deployments to Afghanistan, and with many
nearing the end of their commitments, these soldiers will have to head to
Iraq this
summer
and remain there for at least a year. I remain close with them, and as the
unit received its marching orders a few called me to express their frustration.
To a man, they felt a sense of hopelessness — they know they have little
say over their future until the Army releases them.
6 I grew angry when my former radio operator told me the Army
had canceled his orders to return home to San Francisco this month to start
college.
Another
man had been due to leave the Army just two days after the order was given,
but was instead told to draw his gear and prepare for 12 months in the desert.
And as stressful as these orders are for the soldiers, imagine what their families
are feeling. Theirs are lives interrupted by the needs of Iraq.
7 I wonder if I might have been affected too had I stayed at
Fort Drum until the end of my service. (Instead, I left a year and half ago
to
complete
my
four-year obligation with a special operations unit in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and thus don't fall under the Fort Drum stop-loss order.) I can imagine how
angry and betrayed I would feel if, having served my obligation to the military
for my college scholarship, I were told I was going to Iraq for a year against
my wishes.
8 Of course, I would have done whatever was asked:
as a commissioned officer, my oath of service to my country never really
ends. But for enlisted
soldiers,
men and women who sign on with the Army for a predetermined period of service
in lieu of commissions, stop-loss is a gross breach of contract.
9 These soldiers have already been asked to sacrifice much
and have done so proudly. Yet the military continues to keep them overseas — because
it knows that through stop-loss it can do so legally, and that it will not
receive
nearly
as much negative publicity as it would by reinstating the draft.
10 Volunteer soldiers on active duty don't have the right to protest
or speak out against the policy. So my former radio operator has little option
but to
quietly pack up and put college on hold. For those of us who have seen these
soldiers repeatedly face death, watching them march off again — after
they should have already left the Army — is painful.
11 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continues to claim that
the military, as now structured, can meet the needs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
He is simply wrong, as the Pentagon's actions make clear. In addition to
stop-loss, the military is now activating significant portions of the Individual
Ready
Reserve as part of what it is calling an "involuntary mobilization."
12 The individual reserve consists of troops who are no longer
expected to participate even in regular training; the idea is that they are
to be
called up only in
a catastrophic national emergency. Most are veterans recently released from
active duty; others are college students on scholarship and cadets at the service
academies.
13 So several of my former soldiers now in the individual reserve — who
have left the Army, begun new careers and have not even been serving in reserve
or National Guard units — have now been told to expect orders to return
to active duty in the near future.
14 Stop-loss and the activation of the inactive reserve show
how politics has taken priority over readiness. The Pentagon uses these policies
to meet
its
needs in Iraq because they are expedient and ask nothing of the civilian populace
on the eve of a national election. This allows us to put off what is sure to
be a difficult debate: whether our volunteer military is adequate to meet our
foreign policy commitments. Meanwhile, in the absence of this debate, the men
and women of our armed forces languish.
15 Last weekend, veterans of World War II were honored on the
Mall in Washington for their sacrifices. Our government should begin treating
the
veterans of
the global war on terrorism with a similar degree of respect, not as election-year
fodder.
Andrew Exum, a former Army captain, is the author of the forthcoming "One
Man's Army."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company