Military Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, videos - Military Times

Editorial: Small fix, bigger problem

The Army has employed stop-loss over the past seven years to keep some 60,000 soldiers in the war zone for months past their planned retirement and separation dates.

The system is legal — it’s in the fine print of that enlistment contract every soldier signs — and it keeps deploying units together, providing stability throughout a 12- or 15-month deployment. But it also represents a broken promise for soldiers who have completed the implied active-duty commitment in their contracts.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., wants to make it up to them and their families. He is pushing legislation that would pay $1,500 a month to troops involuntarily extended on active duty under stop-loss. And he would do so retroactive to the start of the war.

Lautenberg’s plan is unlikely to become law. But it does shine a light on a problem for which other solutions exist — if the Army were more open-minded. The problem is overly long Army deployments.

Though combat tours recently were cut back from 15 months to 12, Army tours continue to be nearly twice as long as those served by Marines. The longer, repeat Army tours have been linked to rising suicide rates and more cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, significant use of prescription drugs for depression and anxiety, family problems and more.

By contrast, mental health studies suggest that Marine Corps combat units, which maintain rotations of seven months overseas and at least seven months home, are coping better with operations tempo.

Paying people who are stop-lossed, especially retroactively, is a nice gesture. It would compensate soldiers and families for broken promises and changed plans. But this plan ultimately has a second, perhaps more valuable effect: It would also serve as a disincentive for implementing stop-loss in the future by attaching to it a stiff financial penalty for the service.

Seven years of war haven’t convinced Army leadership to consider a different deployment scheme. Maybe putting a price tag on stop-loss will.

SPEAK OUT: What's the answer?