Topic: Military Stop-Loss Policy in the Context of the Global War on Terror Specific Purpose: To expose what I feel

is a covert policy educate civilians about the governments implementation of the Stop-loss policy and initiate intelligent (i.e. informed) discourse Thesis Statement: Current implementation of the policy violates the spirit of the law and equates to little more than a backdoor draft. Introduction: I. Attention-getter: In March 2007, Zeb Robinson was laying in a hospital bed in Kuwait recuperating from a gunshot wound sustained days earlier outside a small farming town southwest of Baghdad. Luckily, the wound was not too serious and he would eventually make a full recovery. But in the meantime, he was confined to this bed where a parade of high-ranking officials could thank him for his service and smile for the cameras never too far behind. During his regimen of medical examinations and physical therapy, Spc. Robinson had plenty of time to reflect on his status as a Stop-Lossee that is his status as one of over 120,000 soldiers affected by the militarys stop-loss policy since 2001. Instead of serving three years as he initially enlisted for, Spc. Robinson was involuntarily retained beyond his Expiration of Term of Service, or ETS, date as stated by his contract in order to serve a second tour in Iraq. II. Thesis: The Stop-Loss policy was designed to retain soldiers essential to national security in a time of crisis; current implementation of the policy violates the spirit of the law and equates to little more than a back-door draft. III. Reasons for audience to listen: Current implementation of stop-loss policy represents an abuse of power and misallocation of resources. As voters and taxpayers, it is in our own interest to stop such wasteful and counter-productive practices. IV. Statement of credibility: It can be difficult to imagine the strain that stop-loss imposes upon soldiers and their families, but it suddenly becomes real when it happens to your friends and family. Several former and current soldiers, representing a small portion of those affected by the policy, shared their stories with me in preparation for this presentation. V. Preview of main points: Despite their claims to legal justifications, the militarys clumsy execution of the stop-loss policy actually undermines the intent of the law by deceiving its civilian counterparts (i.e. us), by exploiting and betraying its own soldiers, and by compromising the very institution meant to keep Americans safe. Transition: To this day the term stop-loss struggles to find a foothold in our common lexicon. In fact, conducting research proved difficult as internet searches were just as likely to turn up financial management strategies as military policy. Instead, I turned to where the real story lies somewhere between White House press releases and MTV Films $25 million production, hidden in the editorials on page A18 and amongst the details of the personal anecdotes related to me by soldiers, both former and current. Body: I. This classs lack of knowledge regarding stop-loss reflects the ignorance of the public in general, part of the deceptive nature of stop-loss: A. Military portrayal of stop-loss rarely matches its execution.

1. In 2004, relatively early in the stop-loss drama, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck told reporters that [t]he rationale is to have cohesive, trained units going to war together, part of a strategy to sell stop-loss to the nation. In reality, units were being cobbled together and soldiers given rudimentary training prior to deployments. B. Stop-loss conceals the true costs of the Global War on Terror from the majority of U.S. citizens who have no personal relations with the military. 1. If enlistment rates can be considered a referendum on military intervention, stop-loss permits the Department of Defense to circumvent popular opinion by artificially and indefinitely inflating troop levels both in the press and on the front. 2. Even stop-loss numbers do not reflect the truth, as some soldiers feel compelled to reenlist rather than be involuntarily extended. Combined with lengthening tours and more frequent rotations, a small portion of the countrys population bears the bulk of the burden, shielding the rest of us from those human costs. Transition: How can the government justify involuntarily extending soldiers beyond their ETS dates? Buried amongst the reams of paperwork that constitute our laws, the U.S. Code, exists several dependant clauses that, when strung together, grant the President authority to indefinitely extend the service of our nations soldiers. II. The ambiguity of this long-winded, legal jargon fails to adequately protect our soldiers, ultimately exploiting the faith soldiers place in the government when they take their oath of service. A. Without concrete definitions of vague terms such as essential to national security and war, the law is subject to capricious interpretation. 1. Title 10 > Subtitle E > PART II > Chapter 1209 > Section 12305: the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States. 2. DD Form 4/1, Jan 2001, Section C.9(c): In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States. 3. Potential recruits are not lawyers versed in the rule of law they cannot be expected to translate the complexities of law. B. Recruiting practices take advantage of this lack of expertise and wield it to their advantage, raising certain ethical concerns. This sentiment was best captured in my interview with Mr. Robinson: Yeah, they definitely dont talk about that stuffthey cant say anything or nobody would jointheyre like a used car salesman hes not going to tell you whats wrong with the car; youre going to have to figure that out yourself.

1. Last year, the ACLU released a report detailing military recruiter abuses titled Soldiers of Misfortune. The report draws a correlation between declining enlistment rates and substantiated cases of misconduct, to include deceit through omission. Incidentally, a chronological trip through the archives of any major news outlet seems to corroborate this trend as reports of dwindling recruitment hit the newsstands, we see increased charges of recruiter misconduct and the extended reach of stop-loss. 2. In addition to the subtle influence of the sales-pitch, potential recruits, typically straight out of high school, are exposed to a high-pressure atmosphere that includes intimidation and isolation, spending days in the stark, white environments of a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) where they are subjected to a battery of examinations and a deluge of paperwork to fill out and sign. Transition: Under such conditions, it is no wonder that soldiers do not fully comprehend the true implications of their contract. In at least one case (Mr. Robinson), the soldier did not learn about stop-loss until he arrived at his first unit, recently redeployed, and met several soldiers trying to leave the military after missing their original ETS dates. III. Such blunt tactics not only betray the trust of the soldiers but also undermine the integrity of the military as a whole and, consequently, its ability to perform its function. A. Used to conduct an unpopular conflict, the policy reflects poorly on leaders, especially considering their own admissions of the programs unintended consequences. 1. In a DoD press release, Bill Carr, deputy under secretary of defense for military personnel policy, admitted that Stop Loss disrupts the plans of those who have served their intended obligation. 2. Shortly after taking over from Donald Rumsfeld, current Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a memo (Utilization of the Total Force, Jan. 2007) requesting that commanders minimize the use of the stop-loss policy. As observed in a 23 April 2008 USA Today article (DoD Data: More Force to Stay in Army), the amount of stop-lossed soldiers would increase 43% -- another embarrassing contradiction for our military leadership. B. While impossible to quantify the impact on recruitment and retention rates, it is possible that this sense of betrayal translates into disgruntled and sometimes less effective soldiers. 1. Embittered and demoralized by their extensions, Mr. Phung and Mr. Robinson lost all interest in military service, a role they once embraced enthusiastically as infantrymen. Such disinterest can translate into complacency, which can potentially put lives in danger. Mr. Phung admits, I can personally say wasnt always thereI was thinking, Hey, I shouldnt be here. Why am I doing this?sitting in a guard tower thinking about getting out not paying attention to the surroundingsand that was just in a tower in more extreme cases you

have guys not paying attention on patrolwhat good does that do? 2. Contempt for the military amongst seasoned veterans likely impacts new, more impressionable soldiers, providing a bleak picture of their own military futures. It raises legitimate concerns if the Army can get away with this, what else can they do? C. The general feeling amongst the soldiers I interviewed was that the policy has a legitimate purpose, yet the execution does not serve that purpose, compromising the programs intent. 1. Unlike the draft, these people do (or did) want to be soldiers and are good at the Army as Mr. Phung puts it. These men would gladly put back on the uniform in the name of national defense, but they fail to see the connection with Iraq. Transition: Several days ago, Sec. Gates announced an end to stop-loss by 2011 in a scramble to disown the unpopular program. I would argue that several factors call into question the good intentions of this sudden policy shift, including: the recent $500-a-month stop-loss bonus imposed upon the DoD by Congress; the timeline just happens to coincide with the planned drawdown of troop levels in Iraq; and the current state of the economy has stabilized recruitment rates as the newly unemployed search for a steady source of income. It is important to note that Sec. Gates plan does not actually end stop-loss (as certain headlines might lead us to believe), and the government fully retains the right to stop-loss soldiers in the future. Nothing has changed. Conclusion: I. By underemphasizing the full implications of stop-loss policy during recruitment and, later, during implementation, the DoD and military leadership is being dishonest to its own soldiers and to us. The policy disassociates actions from their consequences, selling out the future for short-term benefits. II. As citizens, we must remain informed of such policy so that we may act on behalf of soldiers who, by virtue of their service, cannot protest these abuses of power.

Works Cited Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation. Title 10 U.S. Code, 1209. 2007 ed. [retrieved 20 March 2009 via Cornell University Law School, LII, U.S. Code Collection: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/] Brook, Tom Vanden. DoD Data: More Forced to Stay in Army. USA Today. 23 April 2008. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-04-21-stoploss_N.htm> Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States. DD Form 4/1, Jan 2001. Niedbalski, Brian. Personal Interview. 21 March 2009. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). End to Stop-Loss Announced. U.S. Department of Defense. 18 March 2009. <http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12564> Phung, John. Personal Interview. 22 March 2009. Robinson, Zeb. Personal Interview. 22 March 2009. Schmitt, Eric. The Reach of War. The New York Times. 3 June 2004. <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/world/the-reach-of-war-the-soldiers-army-extendingservice-for-gi-s-due-in-war-zones.html?sec=&spon=&scp=28&sq=stop%20loss%20military&st =cse&pagewanted=1> Shanker, Thom. Stop-Loss Will All but End by 2011, Gates Says. The New York Times. 18 March 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/washington/19gates.html?scp=3&sq= stop%20loss&st=cse> Soldiers of Misfortune: Abusive U.S. Military Recruitment and Failure to Protect Child Soldiers. American Civil Liberties Union. 13 May 2008. <http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/35245pub20080513.html>