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.
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.