August 20, 2004

On August 19, Nathan made this comment about an article in the Free Market.Net Commentary, to which the editor made the following response. This article is his answer to the question posed: "Show me where they signed up for an indefinite time."
4- Soldier sues U.S. military over stop-loss enslavement
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
I certainly welcome a lawsuit like this, but fear the man has very little case: he signed the contract voluntarily and had it explained to him in language designed for a fifth grader to understand (even though the army isn't taking anyone but HS grads) - "stop-loss" is no more slavery than any other employment contract, or, for that matter, than a wedding vow "until death do us part."

Mama's Note: Now, wait a minute! They didn't sign up for life! They signed up for a definite limited period and being forced to stay after that time is up most certainly IS slavery. Show me where they signed up for an indefinite time.

There is generally a time limit of 30 years, but yes, they effectively signed up for an indefinite period within that time. I don't have a copy of the enlistment contract, but it is stated very plainly and clearly in there that with a large number of restrictions, the Army can require them to serve until such time as the needs of the service allow them to be released. In practice, though, it generally works like this:

Initial enlistment: 6 years, with from 2 to 4 on active duty and the remainder on reserve duty, either Individual Ready Reserve or in a reserve unit (including National Guard). Today, mostly the minimum active duty time is 3 years (because of the cost of training). A person can be involuntarily extended under set conditions for up to the full term of their six-year enlistment. If they have been released from active duty, they can be called back to serve. If they are in a national guard or reserve unit, they normally have to agree to a minimum two-year extension of their enlistment: say someone gets off active duty after four years service, but doesn't join a national guard unit until six months later. He has to agree to serve in that national guard unit for at least two years, or for a total of 6.5 years from the time he first enlisted. There are certain limits on extension in case a unit is mobilized, but generally, a person isn't forced to go past that time unless certain overall requirements (declaration of war, national emergency, etc.) are met.

If a person joins the National Guard or Reserve directly, they usually have NO active duty except as necessary for their training, but in return usually agree to a minimum six-year enlistment in the unit, followed by two years in the Individual Ready Reserve. Again the contract allows the Army under certain conditions to extend their enlistment in the unit up to the eight years. Say a sergeant Jones has served 5.5 years of his enlistment in the 22nd Typewriter Battalion, and has decided to get out at the end of his 6 year commitment, and transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve for the last two years of his contract. Then the 22nd Typewriter BN gets mobilized for 12 months duty in Iraq. SGT Jones gets "involuntarily" extended for an additional six months so that the unit doesn't lose him halfway through their tour of duty - so he doesn't get to go into the IRR until after he's served 6.5 years, a half-year longer than his original plan. When the unit returns home from their duty in Iraq, he will be released and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve for the remaining 1.5 years of his initial 8-year obligation. If certain conditions (Congressional approval, emergency triggers etc.) are met, he could be called back to active duty for another 1.5 years, at any time up to the 8-year anniversary of his initial entry on active duty.

It is all very confusing, but it is very carefully explained to all enlistees when they first sign an intent to enlist, when they actually do enlist, and when they make any change. Attending certain schools and accepting certain assignments can require an extension of an enlistment for anything from a few months to 2 or 3 years, and you can renegotiate your enlistment obligations when you reenlist. You can reenlist for two-, three-, four-, five- or six years at a time, in order to be paid certain bonuses, attend certain schools, or get certain assignments, and also to lock in for a minimum of time necessary for retirement.

Enlisted retirement is normally at 20 years of active duty, or 20 years of "points" for reserve duty, but part of the conditions for getting retired pay is the understanding that you may, under certain conditions, be called back to active duty up until age 55 or 60, depending on your rank and skills. And certain enlisted can stay on active duty for 30 years, in return for a higher pension, but also, an extension of their "vulnerability" to recall.

With officers, it is somewhat different. When you accept a commission, you are told flat out that it is "until death do us part" - that you can be called back to duty at any time, if certain conditions are met and you are needed, even if you are in ill health or other conditions that would keep an enlisted soldier from being called back to duty. You are generally told this fact at several points: when you first volunteer to go into a program which can lead to a commission as an officer (when you submit your application), when you are accepted into the program, when you reach the "point of no return" in the program (because people DO flunk out or are found unfit, or can in extremely rare conditions "buy" themselves out), and finally when you raise your hand and sign to accept your commission.

I suppose you could still claim it is slavery, but if that is the case, then so is any employment contract that has a minimum term, or which can be broken only with great hardship. Enlistment, and especially accepting a commission, is viewed as a very solemn and binding agreement, not to be entered into lightly, and not to be broken simply because "I want out." I think it is reasonable to compare it to a marriage contract - or to orders in the Catholic Church - certain obligations, freely accepted, can not later be rejected.

It is fascinating to me, in part because it obviously has a direct impact on my life. In a purely subjective way, it was both the second hardest and third easiest decision of my life to accept a commission - second after accepting the new birth into Christ, and third after marrying Debby.

But I see my obligation is to the Constitution - as I saw the document and its promise at the time as clearly stated, and not as viewed by some (and I admit, by me, today) as an evil fraud perpetrated upon us by a few conspirators. It is the reason I put myself in a position that got me arrested two years ago, for standing up for the rights of another person - I had freely accepted an obligation, a lifelong obligation, to "defend and protect the Constitution of these United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I and I alone am responsible for living up to that obligation, and I do not see it as slavery to do so - knowing full well that it may very well lead to me refusing to obey "unlawful orders" of those appointed over me, when those orders conflict with the Constitution - the Constitution read honestly and NOT as an intentionally warped document designed to permit an unlimited federal government and enslavement of all to it.

And although it is not really right to compare enlistment or accepting a commission to putting on Christ in baptism, there ARE certainly some valid comparisons - how could I possibly remain faithful to myself if I attempted to reject such a freely-given and solemnly-made obligation? And remember what the centurion said to Jesus regarding himself and his soldiers.

There is always one way out - you could call it the "Robert E. Lee" maneuver: you reputiate your oath because it violates a previous or a senior one - as he did because his allegience to Virginia was both previous to, and senior to, his allegience to the Union. The Army does (or at least did) recognize holy orders and the equivalent in other faiths to override the enlistment oath, although the person might be required to repay training costs or other costs created by not fulfilling his commitment. This NCO didn't strike me as that type, I have to admit.

Archives

Free Immigration - Part 1

Communica-
tion - The Essentials of Self-Defense

Free Immigration Part 2

Tribal Wisdom vs Government

Water And Guns

TSA busybodies tweak federal code to give their snooping privacy

Police Biker Gangs In Wyoming

Part 2