Marker: Stop Loss

The way that the stop-loss policy is implemented today essentially makes it a draft. In the original contract a soldier signs with the military a term of service is laid out. It can be assumed that if someone gets stop-lossed he or she has completed said term of service. Thus the soldier has upheld his part of the contract so it only seems fair that the military should have to uphold its end as well by discharging the soldier. This, however, is not the case with stop-loss as an option. The military can essentially force a soldier to continue serving beyond his designated term without his consent. This policy is unfair and unjust, even if the soldier is warned of its existence prior to entering the military. Both parties should uphold the terms laid out in the contract without exception. It seems unmerited that the military is allowed to essentially disregard the original contract to suit its own needs. Whether or not stop-loss is actually implemented legally is not the issue in my mind. The real issue lies in the morality of implementing a policy of stop-loss at all. There are few circumstances under which stop-loss can be justified.

When faced with being stop-lossed, in order to best represent discontent, one must not continue service. Instead, he either has to seek asylum in another country or simply continue to run and hide within the U.S. Both of these options are far from ideal but are seemingly the only realistic options if continuing service is not.