I'm sure the film is terrible (I have no plans to see it), but I'd also make the point that fleeing stop-loss is not the same as deserting.

I have to agree with Dorian. Stop loss is basically a violation of contract law. The military wonders why it has trouble recruiting (and yes, when you have to increase the number of waivers you're having trouble)? That'd be part of the reason.

Iraq movies fail because they valorize the troops. In real life some soliders are sterling guys. Some are shits. Hollywood should put both models on screen, instead of hewing to the Blue Dog Democrat paradigm of "Bush Bad, Soldiers/Nation State/Secularist Smiley Faces Good" at the expense of honest character development. I've never served in the military. But I'm confident in assuming there's sterling guys and shitty guys all jumbled up together in each company. Like life.

It is standard procedure to extend term of service when the nation is at war. I believed General Washington have the same problem with soldiers term of service coming up in the middle of a war. It is not a breach of contract when the contact say that for several years after after or till you pass a certain age you can be called back for service.

Like I wrote when I reviewed this movie without seeing it, the fact that stop-loss is part of their contracts makes it legal - not right.

Um, actually Anh, you're missing the key part--when the nation is at war. In every case before the current contretemps, a soldier either had to be part of the reserves, active retirement, etc. or there had to be an actual declaration of war.

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges with regards to the force. With the exception of Washington and the initial Civil War units, in most cases you were talking about forces that had been drafted. Having a draft in the first place indicates that the Republic requires compulsory service. On the other hand, we have a volunteer force now. Not to mention, the Army is even doing things like arbitrarily extending the time entire year groups are on inactive ready reserve. If you read the documentation when you enlist, it clearly says how long you have on IRR--and this is not supposed to be extended outside of Congressional legislation or, yes, a declaration of war.

Now, before you tell me that the AUMF is a declaration of war, I'd point out that in time of war Habeas Corpus can be suspended without comment by the courts. The courts, in time of war, refuse to even hear HC cases for the most part. Notice SCOTUS actually ruled on Hamdi--so would that indicate that we're in a time of war based on the AUMF? I'd argue no.

I'd add to James' point that the major problems with deserters and mutineers in Washington's army came due to the men not being paid by Congress and with morale in the toilet. Sir Henry Clinton (no military genius to be sure) even promised the Americans to pay them what the Congress owed them if they came over to the British side and that was one of the chief reasons of the mutiny of January 1781-which was put down by, of all people, Robert Howe of North Carolina (who was probably more famous for his amazing egotism, staggering capacity to booze and his whoring than any military ability-needless to say I like Bob Howe). Oddly enough Howe, whose only real service in battle had been in his rather tepid defense of Savannah back in December 1778 (if memory serves, in the defense of Charleston in 1776, Bob Howe's chief task was to look after Charles Lee's legion of dogs), also put down the June 1783 mutiny which also was over the simple fact that men were not paid.

So as James said, apples and oranges.

James,

Courts change over time. It's not clear to me the same courts we have now transported back in time to 1941 would decline to hear habeas corpus cases.

Yes, this is true--but the courts still use some of those cases as precedent.

Some fail to read their enlistment contract. You serve active for a number of years but that doesn't release you from the military.

Maybe someone should check a person's military records before slandering them. Most of the right wing blogs do so and 'out' many phony soldiers.

Scrapiron,

Trust me, it's not just the failure to read the enlistment contract. A lot of folks getting nailed by stop loss or "personnel holds" (same thing but when you want to be able to reply to a Congressional that your unit isn't doing "stop loss") are college educated junior officers. I can say with firm authority at least one or so of those guys read their contract. I can also say with equal authority that the Army attempted to bone at least one or two year groups of said junior officers recently. How firm authority, you may ask? I'm not speaking of these cases in the abstract, that's how firm of authority. IRR is supposed to have a pretty firm end date unless extended. One of the best explanations of IRR is here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-irr.htm

Note the limitation on time and numbers of folks who can be called up. This is why the military in general and the Army in particular has been trying to only call up a few (10-15,000) at a time. It is also why the Army attempted to arbitrarily extend a lot of folks' IRR dates. That one sorta fell through in a few cases--something about "Calls to CNN" and "Class action lawsuits" when the Army was already having trouble meeting / retaining its officer numbers. Might've helped if the Army hadn't decided to announce this about 30 days before one of the year groups' in question 8 year date. Er, not that I know anything about that.

Now, if you want to argue that we're a "nation at war" and these patriots should be perfectly willing to, oh, return for their third or fourth tour in Iraq, then I will give you the standard reply: The Armed Services are at war--America's at the mall. If our civilian leadership would like to retain an able instrument for the "last resort of kings," then they might want to start thinking about having to alleviate the situation rather than using the military as a political football or back drop.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of company grade officer would NOT want to serve. Probably the kind that I wouldn't want serving. After all, it's clearly understood that it is at the pleasure of the President. One does sign away a great deal of freedom before raising that right hand. Some serve, some sacrifice, a few do both.

Casca,

Really? What company grade officer wouldn't _want_ to serve? There was a great article in the WashPost recently which explains _why_ many of the company grade officers you are so pithily dismissing don't want to continue fighting in this war. I'll give you the short version: It's da*n hard to maintain a family when you're on your fourth or fifth trip to Iraq. As one of my friends got told by his ex-wife--"I can't be rid of the Army unless I'm rid of you. You're never here, and I can't be married to a photograph."
One _does_ give away a lot of freedom when you raise that right hand. However, the other part of that contract is that, should the nation ask you to sacrifice, it will be in due earnest. Likewise, given that it's a _volunteer_ force, there is also the understanding that the contract will be honored unless the _entire_ country is sacrificing. The country, at the moment, is giving up "jack" and "sh*t" with emphasis on the latter. Furthermore, it took the President three years and losing Congress to realize that, hey, maybe our approach was a bit off and he needed a shake up at Defense. Think maybe a lot of these officers "you wouldn't want to serve under" got tired of being ask to ride the rodeo during that time?

How about Malcolm Pantano ("Of no worse enemy..."-fame)? He's no longer in--you telling me you wouldn't want to serve under him in war? If so, you're a bigger idiot than that blanket statement makes you sound. I know of at least two company grade officers who walked away yet are combat award winners--I'll be sure to pass along your uninformed opinion. They'll probably pass along well wishes for the imminent surgery to cut the porthole in your navel so you can see where you're going.

Down boy, and wipe the froth off your mouth. I know why Ilario Pantano is out of the Corps, and you would too if you understood how the military works organizationally. His career was dead, so he moved on. On a related note, I wouldn't have worked under him, since I'm still senior.

Fourth and Fifth tours? Maybe, somewhere, but those guys would be volunteers to a man. Now third tours, I understand, but mostly in the Marine world where tours are seven months. I know a lot more guys who extend to make another tour, than those who try to dodge the pump.

As for maintaining a family, and the thanks of a grateful nation, it has ever been thus, even in peacetime. Go listen to the doc's final words in Hamburger Hill, or reread Tommy Atkins. It's all too sad but true. I was a mid-rank Captain in a B billet when I figured that one out. If the Army can't keep their talent, they need to work on that whole leadership thing.

Casca,

Okay, I'm a little frothy--but the whole "company officers" thing ticks me off a bit when I hear it. While you are senior, I would not be--those would be my former peers you refer to.
Actually, no, not volunteers. I have several classmates who have had the misfortune to do the "wrong place, wrong time" reassignments game. It happens. I just think it's a crock of sh*t that it happens. While I'm quite familiar with the "throw 'im out, the brute" mentality, I still find it infuriating.
I know why Pantano is out of the Corps--but my point is, the man _should not_ have had his career ending. At all. It was cleared all the way through Division as a righteous shoot yet some knucklehead gets to change it?
I could go for days on what is wrong with the Army and keeping its talent. Days. You think I frothed above, this is one of topics where I rage long and often.

Another ten years will make you more sanguine about the vicissitudes of life. I've always loved the Claude Reins line in Lawrence of Arabia "Life is a veil of tears." Or as the company gunny would say, "Fair is where they sell cotton candy." Anybody in uniform today, who doesn't want to be in Iraq, doesn't belong in uniform. The part that sucks is that a lot of fuckers who have dodged the sacrifice part will prosper in their careers, while those who paid the price may not fair as well.