A soldier who has been stop-lossed has a variety of options to consider. First, they can obviously return to war and fulfill another tour, however, less desirable options are available as well. I do not think that seeking asylum or going AWOL is the right way to go about handling the situation, although many soldiers seem to choose the latter. Although many soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress from their tours, seeking asylum seems like it will only bring more mental problems to the soldier, and hinder his progression to living in society. I believe that going AWOL will have similar consequences on the mind in the long run, as the separation from family, friends, and the familiarity of home will eventually take its toll on the soldier. Fighting the order seems to be the only way to effectively get across the views of the soldier. If they aren’t willing to go to war again, they must be willing to face the injustice in court. Jail is not the ideal solution to any problem, but if serving a little bit of time to make an important point is what it takes then by all means. It really is up to the soldier to decide how strongly he feels against the stop-loss movement. I also agree with Alyssa’s idea that there is strength in numbers. If every soldier who was stop-lossed rallied together against the government, I think the effect would be powerful, in comparison to a single man standing up against it.
Overall, stop loss is the only way for our government to not lose their troops, but the cost is often too great. The mental health of both the soldier and their families is already at risk after one tour, a second would be suicide in many people’s eyes.
Very thoughtful comments. Stop Loss does seem to be hurting the military because there are fewer enlistments, but that, in turn, makes stop loss necessary. A real dilemma.
ReplyDelete