This strikes me as extremely unwise:
A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Army’s right to force soldiers to serve past the dates of their enlistments, the so-called “stop loss” policy that can keep men and women in uniform during war or national emergencies.
Spc. David Qualls had sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Army from forcing him to remain on active duty, claiming his enlistment contract was misleading. He signed up for a one-year stint in the Arkansas National Guard in July 2003 but was later told he would remain on active duty in Iraq (news – web sites) until 2005.
Let’s see. They’re supposed to fight for freedom in the service of a government that disregards the most basic foundations of private property rights? The concept of a national emergency or whatever is not only irrelevant considering the circumstances – New York is hardly being blacked out – but shouldn’t apply to the relevance of a contract anyhow. Long before the Roman legions were being promised farms, politicians worried about the consequences of failing to ensure that the soldiers under their command were not only paid, but treated properly.
One wonders if anyone has stopped to think beyond the immediate term to what impact this must have on those considering enlisting. I’ve heard from more than a few Marines about their concern that the use of this stop-loss will have on future recruiting.