The New York Times reviews Stop-Loss, the latest anti-war film to come out of Hollywood.  Unshockingly, they recommend it.  Just as unshockingly, they leave unasked the question of whether the movie has anything to do with the stop-loss policy employed by the Pentagon.

Judging by the trailer (which I saw a few months ago in the previews for Charlie Wilson’s War — a terrific pro-American, anti-Soviet film about running guns to the Afghan Northern Alliance), the protagonist returns from a tour of duty in Iraq, looking forward to his discharge and a life with his fiancée.  On the way out, he is informed that he is being “stop-lossed” and sent back to Iraq.  Tragedy ensues.

In reality, the stop-loss policy is intended to maintain cohesion in units deployed to war.  According to the Christian Science Monitor, soldiers can have their commitment extended for the duration of a deployment and up to 90 days before and after that deployment.  So, it would not happen that a soldier who had just returned and was due to be discharged would get transferred to another unit and re-deployed.  Indeed, from the perspective of unit cohesion, that would entirely defeat the purpose.

There’s certainly a legitimate debate about whether stop-loss is a good policy (I have no strong opinion), but judging by the trailer, this movie just spreads misinformation and doesn’t advance that debate at all.

One Response to Stop-Loss

  1. oceanstatedemocrat says:

    Conservative bloggers are writing that the movie tanked in yesterday’s opening. Nothing official on Variety yet.

    p.s. I can’t believe how much you’ve written in one week.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s