My little brother and I enlisted in the US Army together in August of 1990. The recruiter who signed us up went over our contract with us very thoroughly.
As the United States had just declared war on Iraq, he also explained the portion of our enlistment contract that detailed the Army’s Stop-Loss policy.
While I knew plenty of Soldiers who didn’t like the policy, I didn’t know any who didn’t know about it and that it was a part of their enlistment contract.
Which is why I think that the new movie Stop Loss is just another piece of Liberal anti-war, anti-military rhetoric.
Libertas leads with this in her on-the-spot review:
What is possibly left to say about a poorly produced, poorly acted, poorly directed, and very poorly written anti-war film that defames our troops…?
I’ll tell you what’s left to say — box office bust.
Stop Loss cost about $30 million to make and another $10 million-or-so to market — and might make about $4 million when it’s all said and done.
But I doubt that’ll keep Hollywood from producing more of their anti-military, pro-defeat crap.
Libertas wraps up her review with this:
Stop-Loss is just an unforgivably cruel and stupid movie. Would an Army deserter wear Army fatigues? Do Hispanic soldiers really hope to get killed so their family will receive green cards? Is that even true? Would a soldier discharged in 2007 be so caught off-guard by a stop-loss order after years of publicity about it?
Undoubtedly, being stop-lossed has to suck something fierce, and I feel for the thousands pulled from their lives and loved ones for a contractual obligation they’re well aware of but probably never imagined would be brought to life. But they deserve better than this. Stop-Loss is Exhibit A — no, D –no, J in the case proving Hollywood can’t stand the troops. This insistent portrayal of these men and women as unstable and dangerous — dehumanized and psychotic — is outright stereotyping and the building of a stigma. It’s a monstrous act performed by these filmmakers and yet they remain undeterred even by box-office humiliation in their cruel objective to lose a war by tearing down our finest.
As long as they continue to make crap movies like this, and no one watches them, then the Hollyweird types that promote this view point are serving America well.
It is unfortunate that the movie makers have become so far left, and that they can’t understand (or wish too) why so many still believe in the basic concepts of our great nation, such as honor, courage, duty, and sacrifice, but rather view those values in our nation, and those who do believe in them as objects of scorn.
We need Joe McCarthy again, he was right about the commies in Hollywood.
Because of the stance Hollywood has taken in it’s opposition to the country I love, I am now in my nineteenth year of boycotting the box office.
Urban Grounds: I was looking for exactly a military position like this on the stop-loss policy, and you’re on my blogroll, just to let you know I dig you blog, but you’re off a bit in the analysis.
I saw the move Friday. It is anti-war, which I don’t like. However, it’s not, “poorly produced, poorly acted, poorly directed, and very poorly written.”
There’s some power in this movie, which is worth seeing and evaluating. In addition to the gritty realism of the battles scenes, the movie’s well-acted, particulary as seen in Ryan Phillippe’s Staff Sgt. King. In Phillippe’s hands, King comes off as a vigorous all-America fighter, in Iraq and on the streets back home, where his realizes his personal beliefs have been betrayed.
I disagree with those beliefs, which is that the Pentagon’s stop-loss policy is tantamount to a “backdoor draft,” and that’s the major problem with this movie (and where I can understand Little Green Footballs dismissal of the film), and that’s where I appreciate your input on the policy:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29428&only
We have an all-volunteer service, so when young Americans sign up to fight they go on the basis of choice and volition. Contractually, soldiers can be recalled to battle, and to be shocked, as Phillippe’s King is when told he’s returning to Iraq, is disingenuous, if not outright storytelling fraud.
Sure, families have been hit hard by the separations, the battle injuries, and the war dead. But the the consequences of joining the service are known in advance. Soldiers are not victims, no matter how hard the anitwar left tries to make us believe.
Thanks for the “inside intell” on soldiers’ knowledge of the policy. But there some elements that work against the antiwar message of the movie. The film’s opening scene of Phillippe’s unit manning a road checkpoint in Tikrit provides some of the most compelling cinematic footage of urban, house-to-house combat since “Black Hawk Down.” Everyday American couch-potatoes need to see these images, they need to see what modern warfare looks like, and particularly the nihilism of our enemies, who take refuge in civilian quaters, and use old men, women, and children as human shields.
I volunteered as a runner for the South by Southwest Film Festival this year, and “Stop-Loss” was one of the flicks I had to deliver, by hand, to the Paramount theatre (it came in two heavy metal reel containers).
I can’t believe I had to lug that piece of shit up eight flights of stairs.
Oh, and when it was delivered to our receiving center, it had a fake name on it. We had to consult some files to figure out what movie it was, which led my buddy and superior to sarcastically remark: “of course, EVERYONE wants to pirate this movie”.
Bah.
Every veteran understands full well that, before he raised his right hand and swore to defend his nation, he signed a blank check payable to the United States of America, for any amount up to, and including, his life. Please don’t trivialize the honorable intentions, courage, and patriotism of our troops, making them sound as though they’ve been misled, are naive, or stupid. Some tours are difficult, even for those who are sure “When it’s too tough for everyone else, it’s just fine for me!â€. God knows, someone must stand to defend others… even those who write left-leaning fairytales…
Spoken like a true sheepdog, Mark, well said.
Since this thread is about Hollyweird and it’s distorted view of America, here is an excellent link about celebrities and the President of Venezuela, Mini-Me.
Hollywood A-Listers Prove Ignorance in Supporting Hugo Chavez.
Yeah, I’m sure the details of the Stop-Loss Program were addressed in all the recruits contracts but that doesn’t make it fair. They did their time. What about all the lames that have never even been in the military. When are they going to step up? If we are short on troops that bad, we need to try something else. Having dedicated military troops being forced to re-enlist is not the answer.
Later,
Mark C.
P.S. and Yes, I have done 6 years in the military.
What most of you apologists for the stop-loss policy fail to grasp is the effect INVOLUNTARY retention has on a unit. The vast majority of people in America will never have to endure involuntary retention, let alone in an organization they vowed to fight for and defend. You will never really understand the effect that the policy has, from an equality standpoint, on personnel that are subjected to it. As an individual subjected to such a policy, why should I be forced to remain in this organization when someone whose enlistment termination date falls 1 week, 1 month, or 2 months before our unit’s deployment orders are issued, gets to go home, or to college, or to a cushy new job? There is inequality in this policy as it is applied that is beguiling to me and will never be addressed by the chain of command.