http://nytimes.com/2004/06/02/opinion/02EXUM.htmlCHATTANOOGA, 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.
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.
<>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. 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. ___________________________
As The Magistrate might say, "Shame on these Bush Bastards!"