Wednesday, March 4, 2009


I received an email the other day.

I was just going to let it go.

But I can’t

It accused me of being ungrateful for all that our government does for us.

That didn’t bother me all that much.

For someone who happened to stumble on to my blog for the first time I may appear to be just a tad ungrateful.

The part that really got my dander up was when I was accused of being non supportive of our military.

At the very moment that I read that, I knew that this was someone who didn’t take the time to read previous posts.

Someone who has no idea what makes me tic.

Because I don’t agree with the Army’s recruitment tactics.

And I am opposed to the “Stop Loss” clause.

Doesn’t make me unpatriotic.

It doesn’t mean that I don’t support our military.

So the truth about me.

I love this country.

I am thankful that I was fortunate to be born in the greatest country on earth.

That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with everything that our government throws our way.

Our government has grown to the monster it is because of complacency.

It will not change over night.

Only when we the people start questioning what’s going on will things start to change.

We need to question the things we don’t agree with.

We need to search out others of a like mind, and band together in effort to change things that just aren’t right.

I was drafted into the military in 1971.

Before I had to report to, AFEEs, for my physical I elected to join the Army Reserve.

For the longest time I was embarrassed to admit that I was a reservist.

It wasn’t until lately the importance of the Reserve, and National Guard became apparent to me.

Vietnam was winding down, so it always seemed that we were training for training’s sake.

Now I know that we were preparing to be the replacements should another war break out.

I’m thankful that it didn’t.

And so I served seven years in virtual obscurity.

Never experiencing the horror of war.

And I’m thankful for that.

Now what I regret.

I’m sorry that I ever encouraged my son to join the Army.

I’m sorry that he had to experience a buddy dieing in his arms.

I’m sorry that he had to experience being so scared for his life that he practically pissed his pants.

I’m sorry that he had to spend fifteen months living in squalor and filth fighting for a people who couldn’t care less about us. (The Iraqi government).

I’m sorry that he had to endure leaders that were mental midgets.

(Not all of them, but enough that it left a bad taste in his mouth, and a vow that if he ever had a position of authority he, “knew who he wouldn’t be like”).

I’m sorry that he has to live with the thought that he may have sent lead down range not knowing if it ended up killing innocent civilians that were being used as cover by spineless bastards that won’t fight like real men, choosing to hide behind women, children, and seniors.

Cowards that choose to hide and ambush under the veil of darkness instead of fighting like real soldiers.

And yet, what I’m most sorry about is that the very Army that he and his comrades fought so honorably for, chooses to thank them by forcing them to serve beyond their separation date, and go back and do it all again.

All the arguments about needing trained, battle seasoned veterans in order to save the lives of green soldiers can’t convince me that “Stop Loss” is right.

It is double jeopardy in its purest form.

And so I’ve mounted a fight against the policy of “Stop Loss”.

I’ve written the letters.

I’ve posted a petition, and I intend to do all the promotion. (Anyone interested in taking an active role is more than welcome).

All I’m asking is that you sign the petition, and bring it to your friends and relatives attention.

(Again, if you want to get involved and do some promoting of the project, get in touch).

I’ll do the lion’s share of research, and communications.

All of it if need be.

But please help by at least signing.

I need at least 1000 signatures to go forward.

In the words of a petition signer who left a comment, “if we don’t fight to protect the rights of those who fight to protect ours, who will”?

I am a proud father of an American hero serving his country in the Army.

A man that stepped up, signed up, and went to war for his country.

One who continues to serve willingly for another couple of months after which he will be held against his will.

Please sign the petition.
Online petition - End Stop Loss
Feel free to contact me with suggestions, and to help.


  1. Infantry Dad - I thank you and your son for your service. Regardles of where, how long or when - no apologies needed about being active, Reserve, guard, etc...

    Stop Loss caught me 4 times over my 24 year Army Active and Reserve career. It is the reason I was deployed at the ripe age of 44 to Iraq after already serving 22 years and handing in my retirement paperwork.

    That being the case, I believe that prudent use of stop loss is necessary in some cases. Stop Loss often prevents the need to pull individuals back from the IRR (This is where soldiers are assigned for the balance of their committment of 8 years)

    The alternative to stop loss is not always desirable... in order of escallation these could include IRR recalls, longer Active Duty tours, and if needed even a Draft. The Draft is the least desirable choice.

    The Army must evaluate and resource needs better. The departure of the former Secretary of Defense should make that process more realistic and reduce the need for Stop Loss.

    At any rate...interesting Blog... I'll be sure to stop back.


    i think the government needs to pay soldiers handsomely. if they did this more would stay in. if looking at the prospect of lossing 15000-20000 a year going into the private sector, many may reconsider and stay army. also it creates compition in the work place. maybe not during a war, but if you have alot of guys wanting to join the army because they can make far more in the army then out, what you would have is a jocking for position. it would become much harder to join and soldiers who couldnt hack it would get the boot. this would ensure that the best and most qualified were soldiers. im reading a book right now about black water. it states in this book that right now over half of the people deployed in iraq and afganistan are contractors, and that they make an average of 110,000-130,000 a year. this to me is the real travisty. i make maybe 35-40k a year while deployed. thier paycheck over doubles mine. IM THE ONE FIGHTING. thats ridiculous. if the government can afford to pay just as many civilians as thier are soldiers 110k, why cant they do the same for soldiers.

    wrap your head around where this army would be 5 years from now if the ave E-5 yearly income went from 35k to 100k. do you think the army would have a problem with recruiting, or keeping its own. No we would fill up quick and after full we as an army could start to weed out the nonhackers, and the fatbodys. they arnt bad people, they just arnt great soldiers. you would also raise the intelectual standard. the army would be smarter and in better shape. promotions would slow down, as they do when soldiers stay army. this in its self would be huge. amagine instead of having 15 E-4s to fill 13 slots you had 15 E-4s to fill 2 slots. it becomes much more competitive and the best become the leaders.

    i may be way out in left field and i may even be alittle bias. the fact though remains, increase the money and you will in turn increase the quality.

  3. ooo hub! like your point. you and infantry dad have such good thoughts!!!

  4. Stan,
    Thank you.
    And thanks for your years of service.
    I appreciate your comments.
    Where I disagree, is on the draft.
    I was drafted. It didn't come as a big surprise, my number was 86.
    I partied my way out of a college deferment, and so be it.
    My idea of a fair draft would not be the lottery style, but a blanket draft. Of no I sound like a communist. Every 18 year old in the country gets the notice.
    Then the weeding out starts.
    All branches would be adequately staffed trained and locked and loaded.
    Or there's SGT MCNEILS idea.
    Pay them what they deserve.
    Problem solved.
    Jen's already got her mind on a nice house with that 100 grand a year Mike...
    Thanks guys.


    you know i wrote a papper in college right before i shiped to basic. it was a twenty-five page papper on if we should or shouldnt reinstate the draft. this was right on the cusp of the iraq invasion. i had the same position as you do. a blanket style draft where all males are required to join, and like you said the weeding out would began. i will say that the reason i took this stance was because i thought that writing a 25 page papper on why we shouldnt reinstate the draft would have been boring. writing this comment now i do see some potential faults with the plan and i do see some causes for concern. i really dont know how i feel about a draft. i guess i would be for it if the application was right. the question would become what is the service obligation lenth 2 or 4 years. at two years we would have constant turn over and that would affect my readiness and experience belives. 4 years would or could cause a burden on most who would want to do there obligation and get out. i dont know if anyone OWES the country 4 years. thats a big chunk of time. so like i say it would all be in how the draft was structured, and i dont have the answer to that one.

    p.s. i got an A on the papper.


    john i have something i want to write about and i dont want to wait for my computer. i was thinking this might be a good time to take you up on your guest blogger invitation. here goes.

    more then any time in recent history america's destiny is not of our own choosing. we did not seek, nor did we provoke an assault on our freedoms and our way of life. we did not expect, nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. yet the true measure of a people's strenght is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive. three soldiers in my unit where wounded a couple of days ago in an EFP attach in baghdad. all three have shrapnel wounds up and down their bodys, and the truck commander (TC) had to be flown north for surgery. after being wounded in several places on his left side, the driver, (a private) rushed head first into the chaos to aid his wounded squad leader. the passenger side door was mangled and wouldnt open, so pvt. cunnihgham pulled his squad leader out his door, stopped the bleeding in mulitple places, and sent up the reports to higher with out hesitation and with our instruction. he rushed head first into the chaos while bleeding from many wounds himself. the streets of heaven were too crowded with angels that night. they're our sons and our daughters, and our husbans. and our wifes, and our fathers, and our mothers. the streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we've measured our capacity to meet a chalenge, we look up and we are reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. this is a time for american heros. we will do what is hard. we will achieve what is great. this is a time for american heros, and we will answer the call. God bless the fallen, God bless our fighting, and God bless the United States Army.

  7. Mike,
    I will gladly post this for you.
    And pray that all goes well for your men, and they heal soon.
    Be careful out there...
    If there is anything you need, ask, and we'll get a package together.

  8. Infantry Dad,

    I have posted you petition on my Blog Mark 1:11.


  9. Pops,
    I know.
    I saw that last night, and left a comment on your post regarding the Presidents dangerous comments during his speech at Lejuene, in which I said, "thanks for the link".
    Thanks again.

  10. 'Dad,

    Sorry 'bout that. Reading my list of blogs first and then went to email.

    Thanks for the support.


  11. Anonymous, most historians would disagree that we didn't choose. An alarming number of them would even say this line of thinking is fostered by the propaganda machine. Unfortunately, the evidence is strong.

    BTW, look into "operation mockingbird." not saying it's factual, just that we don't know what we think we know.


    dripple, dripple, dripple. lol. how do you know what most historians think. it there like some historians web page where they say in mass numbers where they stand on everything. if not then which historians are we talking about. can you name the majority that you speak of and reference to me when they did in fact say that american did choose this situation.

    dripple, dripple, dripple

  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  14. SL13
    Sorry, your comment came up four times, so I tried to get rid of three of them, and errantly deleted all four!
    Purely unintentional.

  15. sorry, it wasn't working too well on my campus wireless...


    sgt m-

    yes, they appear in educational forums and publications in academia, usually, though not always, prior to being published. the process of research, like the sciences, and anything else, is submitted for peer review. from there, it is bashed, ripped, torn a part, or accepted. sometimes with recommendations and changes, but usually, it is the start of further research on a topic.

    we know that fahrenheit 9/11 is bogus not because michael moore is an idiot, but because its claims are not always valid. that a glut of journalists, politicians, you name it, even liberals--came out to bash this movie--well, that speaks highly of its content.

    it is similar to the science of climate change. when a majority of the earth's leading scientists, and by leading, I mean nobel winners, submit their findings, they do so in science journals and periodicals the world over. peer review takes it further. when an overwhelming majority agree with the findings, then it becomes news and accepted.

    in the case of the WW's, Korea, Vietnam--these wars had already been going on for years. Only when our own interests, or our interests being claimed by those we oppose, did we enter. same with desert storm, same with Iraq, in which we started. Afghanistan is slightly different, and I'm sure I don't need to get into that. you're smart enough to know what's going on there without my need to say anything of it, and concerning its beginning. But, remember, it begins more than 15 years before 9/11/01.

    what is a dripple? I don't know that one...


    lol. dripple is a synonym of weak. it referres to your research. when i asked for references i didnt need you to define research for me. i know what research is. you made a bold statement that MOST historians would disagree with me. you said that they would say ( or did say ) that americas destiny is of their own choosing.

    now, what i asked for was the names of these historians, references to when and where they said this, or where i can read what they said, and if you could provide any reasonable indication that these historians that you are talking about are in fact a majority.

    you see, the nature of my line of questioning speaks to your self proclaimed researching ability. you have made many references to the research that you have done. you have also included phrases like " alarming numbers of them" this implies that you have read first hand the accounts of many of them and so referenceing it shouldnt be hard. you also said the evidence of this is strong. what evidence do you speak of. we are talking about weather or not america choose its current situation or if it was unavoidable. that in its self is a very broad question, and you couldnt possible have a concrete answer to it.

    Now hey i know your in college, and your taking all these high speed classes and your learning about so much right now. thats cool, maybe in a year or so ill be taking the classes you are now. i understand that exposer to new information and the ideas of other can be exciting, but lets not get ahead of ourselfs. unless you had an active role in bush's adminatration or if you were high up in our countrys intelligents gathering agencys, then you really dont know and cant say if this is something that we choose or if it was something that was brought on us. you can read what others think but that doesnt make it anywhere near factual.

    i will concede that we choose iraq. i will not concede that bin laden and his get along gang was of our choosing. i dont think we choose for 9-11 to happen, and if we didnt, then we didnt choose afganistan and the war on terror. this could be considered a classic domino effect.

    in a nut shell. im glad you try to take a stance from an intellectual side of the arguement. thats great and smart of you. but i also think its your weakness. research can and is done to promote the researchers agenda. i can look for research on stop loss for instance that favors my stance. you can do that same. they both are considered research on the subject but doesnt point to a clear cut right or wrong. you insinuate that it does in your arguement. you try to say that since you have researched something and you found things that point favorable in you direction in that research, that your stance is now right because of that. thats wrong. and because you use that as your foundation in your arguments (your research) i think your arguments weak. hence the dripple dripple dripple.

  17. SGT M,

    I'd like to invite you to read my blog. Look in my archives, and start from this year, Jan 09. I'll admit firsthand there is a lot of whining. One of my self-proclaimed nicknames is "whiny-bitch," so I won't even allow anyone else to make that distinction since it's already out there.

    But, if you look at it from a purely psychological and emotional standpoint, you'll start to encounter the struggle I faced, and why I feel the way I do. I am currently just started telling my own stop loss story. The point I am trying to make is that it is a political affliction that wounds the humanness of who we are. I have not been able to reconcile how I feel now, with what I know, while relating it how I used to feel about the untarnished image of patriotic America.

    Maybe this makes me weak. I don't think so, but I can take the hit and the criticism if someone on the internet wants to bash me for that.

    As for research, anyone make a case to manipulate something to read otherwise than how it happened. I'm not a staunch defiant type who will refuse at all costs to admit when wrong. Instead of flat out saying you are wrong, I'll tell you that I disagree on some of your points, but understand how you came to the conclusions you did. And before I get to the research part of the question, I encourage you to continue whatever endeavor for furthering your education as you can. This by no means gives me the wisdom or insight t say I know what happened or am a know it all. In fact, all that has happened is that I am being exposed to thought that the government has suppressed. ALL of material I will bring to light is based off of declassified papers, tens of thousands of them, as a result of the watergate scandal. But, not only has there been an unknown quantity of papers and information destroyed before it could even be declassified, but also, for information to become available, a great amount of time has to pass. We're still learning about the early history of the cold war, and many people suspect that information from Bush's regime will not come to light for 40-50 years, as is consistent with the cycle.

    Before I give the list, understand that none of these authors has a page number that I can refer to. Everything must be understood to its context (including stop loss), and taken as a whole.


    For how IBM is partly responsible for the extermination of over 6 million Jews: Edwin Black.

    For how American involvement in WWI was not about stopping Nazi Germany, but in beating Russia to acquire its advanced technology (V1 rocket, stealth bombers, jet propulsion, and data on human experiments): Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Claire, F.W. Winterbotham, John S. Friedman

    For more on Operation Paperclip, including the importing of over 300 of Nazi Germany's top scientists to America to CONTINUE their experiments on AMERICAN citizens: Eileen Welsome, and those referenced above.

    For Plutonium injections into American citizens, and how the CIA brought Crack to LA from South America to finance its illegal missions in South America: Gary Webb, and those referenced above.

    For a comprehensive look at American and CIA intervention, and attempted and successful CIA assassinations across the world, before and after WWII, William Blum and Cockburn, mentioned above have some of the best accounts I have found.

    For info on the Cold War, McCarthyism, and Communism, you can start with Edward Murrow and John Marks. This leads to more, including their own sources, which number in the dozens.

    For an account on how Mafia (Lucky Luciano) drug money financed the CIA secret missions in Europe for the wars: Cockburn, Aarons, Bloch, Blum, Campbell, Corson, Corvo, Demaris....... the list goes on.

    And, when you study the history of nuclear activity, you'll see that WWII was just about over, and America was looking for an excuse to test their two first versions of the bomb, uranium and plutonium. If you want more info on this, I can give that as well as information that suggests JFK and Krushev had a verbal agreement to de-escalate the arms race (to the chagrin of the CIA, and the "military-industrial complex" on which our economy relied--and still does today), AND the curious assassination of JFK and the removal of Krushev at the same time.

    For information on Korea, see Blum and Cockburn, and the scores of sources they referenced.

    If you want me to continue on Vietnam and the CIA's quest to control the Heroin worldwide heroin market, I can do so as well.

    I think you're already aware that Iraq 1 was our choice, since no one else had the balls to step up to Saddam in Kuwait's favor--but don't neglect the anti-west attitude of that region as a result of the imperialist actions of WWI, the CIA removal of whats his name in Iran with the emplacement of the Shah into power. It needs to be very well known that there is a lengthy history of American and British oil interest that dates back a hundred years or more.

    About the post 9/11 stuff--Afghanistan did not attack us. A group of rogue elements did, and they hid in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the political side, these governments could have done more. But, those governments were funded and armed by... you already know the answer to this one. Blame the CIA or Reagan.

    Iraq? Phew. Too much to get to on this one, and too much that isn't yet known.

    There is a BIG picture here. The truly great thing about research is that everyone lists their own sources, so that you can back up, with evidence the claims you make. For every reference I listed, they had another 20 for every chapter they wrote.

    for recent information on the destruction of CIA tapes and information, a quick google will bring up a lot in the news from just last week. Again--there is much we aren't being told.

    lastly, I have one other thing to say, and I'll let you draw your own conclusion. I haven't yet defined mine on the matter.

    Apparently, our newest nuclear technology, derived from tritium, can be hand carried in the size of a briefcase, emits no mushroom cloud, and can reduce to dust and ash something like 75-80% of the mass it encounters.

    thats a startling revelation, if true. and with CIA agents being outed by Cheney, and books with information being censored (Plame) about Bush's asking the Afriacan Ambassador (something like Sudan, I forget) to come up with information about Saddam purchasing material for WMD's--the info he wanted to have a reason to invade Iraq--it shows to what length our top government officials are willing to go to secure their ideas and interests. And that's what American History is, as it is being uncovered even today.


    well it would be dumb of me to argue that i know more then you. i would even venture to say you may be smarter then me. thats not me being a smart ass, take it as a compliment, cause i think highly of myself. i still think your wrong in certain ways though. your like my brother. i have these discussions all the time with him. he says the same things you say and i cant refute that. what i can refute is how you go from a. b. c. d. and then all the way to z. thats where i disagree. you didnt tell me anything i wasnt already aware of.... well some of it i had never heard of, but by in large, im aware of most of what you mentioned above. i recognize that alot of important people in important positions have done things to benefit themselves. that doesnt mean that what was done was the policy or the agenda of the county as a whole. it doesnt even mean that the results of some of the things done were even calculated. some times people do dumb things to benefit themselves and what ever happens after that happens. there intend wasnt to have the post result but the real time benefits. i belive that in most cases. i think alot of what you mentioned is the result of conspiricy theories running wild. yes certain information can be uncovered that points towards your theories, but like i said. when you know the a,b,c,d. and the rest is blank.... the means the rest is blank. you dont know what z is. you see a pattern and you can make assumtions. but thats all they are. it isnt concrete, and it isnt a fact. its just a possiblity and its likely hood might even be inhanced by the a,b,c,d. but at the end of the day we know alot less about everything you mentioned above then we know. that in its self points to uncertainty. i hope you understand my analogy ( the a,b,c,d. thing). shit i dont even know how we went from stop loss to this. this is out of my realm of comfort. now back to stop loss.

    i think when making your argument you should stick to how stop loss affected you and what you were aparty to, what you saw from the people around you that were affected and all of the first hand accounts you had with the issue. that speaks much loader then whats writen on the internet by who ever. i havent looked up stop loss once. i could but i dont need to. i have had experience with stop loss. i havent been stop loss but some of my soldiers and closes friends have been. ive seen the day to day results of the policy and i have had indepth conversations with them about their views and position on stop loss. thats what i base my arguement on. i know that to have to opinion i have, im fighting an uphill battle. im not even doing anything to change minds or keep the policy. thats not my intent. i know what i want and what i think, but im not willing to let my thoughts affect the lives of so many people. shit i could be wrong about stop loss. i dont think i am but who knows right.

    im kinda tired i havent even reread what ive writen. it probably sounds like an unorganized rant, but the main point i wanted to get to you was this.

    lean on your own experiences and the things you have been aparty to when argueing the stop loss policy. that will hold more weight then any research or numbers you can find. you ARE a subject matter expert. you know the effects of stop loss as much or more then anyone. lean on that, and thats how you will convince people.

    be good, stay sharp, and think about what i say.

    your friend SGT MCNEIL

  19. SGT M,

    None of this has ever been about who is smarter. I believe in the saying "the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know." Something to that effect anyway. I don't see this as an argument in a negative sense, and isn't a pissing contest for me. I appreciate the compliments, by the way, but in the brotherly sense, feel the same toward you. In fact, in my own unit when I was a private, I was often characterized as being an uppity elitist. That mortifies me now, because I see myself as one of the friendliest people I know. However, the men I fought with, like brothers, we were singing and sharing both the best and worst of times. It could have stemmed from an argument about who the greatest rock band of all time was (NOT the Beatles).

    What you said about ABC-->Z makes perfect sense. But, I wanted to mention something about it. I'm aware that these thoughts and beliefs sometimes appear radical. Most theorists are wacky. I spend a good portion of my day studying, and reading. And you know what? Things really start to stack up and point in one direction. I know it's difficult to believe, and I don't believe everything I see or read. But given enough time, in the same manner you are able to dissect the quality of a movie (the story, the acting, the directing, the cinematography, the score, not relying on fx, etc.), so too can one begin to unravel things in a book. You'll begin to notice word choices and specific sentence structure--that some points or claims appear to stretch more than others, and may have less support. What I'm getting at, is that my mind doesn't go from ABC to Z, it's just difficult to portray D through Y.

    Lastly, my own stop loss argument is hell. I don't know how I am going to construct it yet. here's the gist: i hate it, and resent missing my sons birth by 19 days (all 19 were lounging in Kuwait), and not meeting him until he was 14 months old. Whats the real problem? My 1SG and PSG hooked me up BIG TIME for the entire year. Maybe I'm a pogue for saying it--me, the former combat hardened vet, but I didn't leave the wire once the entire stop lossed deployment. I had a trailer, showers, PX, and worked at the BIF with the MP's, leading a Squad of rejects as an attachment to help the MP platoon. Basically, I was a POS fobbit.

    Do you see the dilemma? Soemthing I fundamentally LOATHE--how can I complain or bitch about after having been TAKEN CARE OF by my senior NCO's for a situation they admittedly said sucked, but were powerless to do anything about???!!

    Certainly there is more to it. I hope both you and John stay well tuned in the weeks and months to come of my story.

    but for you--stay safe.

    - Jason

  20. Phew, finally I can get a word in.
    All very interesting stuff.
    There's been so much history since I was in school. And back in the dark ages most of the modern history that was taught was scripted and censored, so we learned only what our government wanted us to learn.
    Research like that of Cockburn, Corson, Aarons et. al. would have never been published in the 60s. Hell, we were all stoned most of the time, and probably would have thought it was all propaganda anyway. I think the government liked us more in those days.
    But I digress. My stand on stop loss, while fueled by my son's current situation, is in no way about individuals. rather it is about the policy, and all who it may effect. In layman's terms, it sucks. And it needs to stop. And I won't rest until I've had my say, in a forum where it counts. All this internet jabber is good fodder for the presentation of my cause.
    Thanks to both of you for the brain waves, and intelligent debate.
    I have the feeling we aren't done yet.
    Have either of you checked out "Fuck This War"? And the comments of one "B Will Derd"?


    i havent checked his comments but i will. where are you at with the petition. how many sigs do you have. i agree that this jabber is not the best place to have your voice heard. im glad that you understand that and that you are actually actively pursueing getting your voice to a forum where things could happen. even though i disagree, i have respect for someone who doesnt back down from what he belives and is willing to take it to the top to have it heard.

    when i said to stoploss 13 to lean on his own experience when debating stoploss rather then research i wasnt saying that stoploss was about individuals. what i was trying to convey was that no one can refute his feels, how it affected him, and what he went thru. that makes his arguement stronger. i agree the issue isnt about the individuals, its about the whole policy. but when making a case for the abolishment of stoploss, individual accounts would be the best way to go, and the more accounts the better. if you aproach the arguement from the broader staticial overall policy stand point, it becomes alot easier for guys like me to make an arguement. it also makes it easier for others to bring to light alot of other problems you will run into by stoping stop loss. like do you deploy someone who is suppose to get out while deployed. if no what if he is suppose to get out in the 11th month of the depoyment, would that make a difference. do you send them up until there contract runs out. and if so when do you cut them loose to get ready to leave the army. you cant just leave the army these days. its a 6+ month process. then you get into who takes there place, and what if there isnt enough bodys to take everyones place. you would also see numbers that say x amount of people would leave iraq before there deployment is over how do you replace them then. at this point it would snow ball to the retires. guys who have put in 20+ years are being stopped from retirement to deploy. you would have to let them off the hook as well, and guys with 20+ years are alot harder to replace cause they tend to have alot of rank on thier chest and there isnt alot of others who can just walk into those positions without experience or the right qualifications.

    on the other hand when arguing the effects it had on the individual, no one can say " you didnt feel like that " or " it didnt have that kinda effect on you ". you could and would paint a picture of countless people who did their jobs and now were adversely affected by this, and how this has and does scar them. its easier when you can argue from a stand point of what has happend rather then what you think is right.

    in a nut shell i guess what i was saying is that you give me and the opposition more ammo when you depersonalize it. when you keep the issue broad and argue it from a larger picture type stance. but when you do personalize it and you keep the arguement down to many different specific people and situations and problems they have had, and the specific affects it has had its harder to refute, and its your best change at winning the arguement.

    i dont know i guess thats just the approach i would take if i were argueing from your side.

    as always good luck my friend and ill be here to keep you on your toes and remind you of what type of arguements you might hear when and if you make it to the top.

  22. Mike,
    I thought I posted an answer to this before, but maybe not.
    I fully understand the logistical issues with groups of soldiers leaving units while deployed in a combat situation.
    The contract could clearly state that if you are in a combat unit that is in a war zone, you do not get out until the deployment is over, and you complete the separation process.
    Don't call it stop loss. And don't tell soldiers in none deployable units they can't get out when their time comes.
    By non deployable I reference units that haven't completed their dwell time.

    96 signatures last check.

    Thanks. Stay safe and come home in one piece to that beautiful family...