Since this is my final blog post, I thought it might be interesting to highlight a few pop culture items, in various formats, that raise military law issues.
First on the list is a new movie about a U.S. soldier just back from Iraq, “Stop-Loss.” This movie highlights a U.S. military policy that is little-known and rarely discussed in the news. This policy essentially extends the term of enlistment for a soldier whose enlistment end date falls during his unit’s deployment to a war zone, or within the three month period before that deployment.*fn1* If the soldier falls into this category, they must deploy with their unit and cannot the military until 90 days after their unit returns home.*fn2*
I have always been intrigued by the inconsistency between civilian employment law and military employment law. No civilian employment contract similar to the military enlistment contract would be upheld – indeed, the very idea of imprisoning an employee for quitting their job would shock most Americans. The stop loss policy goes even farther, and would probably also fail in a civilian context – imagine a worker at Wal-Mart not being allowed to quit during the holiday season, or rental lease being extended because no new renters are forthcoming. The specific terms in the contract that are invoked to justify stop-loss are:
“Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document.”*fn3*
Legal challenges to this policy have consistently failed.*fn4*
Moving from movies to books, former Navy Captain Alfred McLaren has written an account of piloting a submarine under the Arctic ice cap during the Cold. The book, “Unknown Waters,” includes tales of the submarine getting stuck in the ice and of tracking Russian ships near Siberia. The political climate and the territorial claims of each government that overshadowed McLaren’s mission implicates both international and military law. The Russians “claimed seas extending 230 miles from its shores . . . [b]ut [the United States government] recognized just a 12-mile territorial limit . . . .”*fn5*
If we assume that invasion by a foreign force justifies war, whose boundary definitions count when deciding if an action counts as an invasion? An answer to this question may never be agreed upon, and the question is once again important as various countries wrangle for control of the Artic Circle (and its resources).
In the online magazine arena, Slate has posted an article detailing “How to Fix the U.S. Military.” The article addresses many of the current concerns around the state of the military after almost seven years of a multi-front war. The authors, Phillip Carter and Fred Kaplan, came up with a laundry-list of ways to fix the damage that has been done (as well as problems that pre-existed 9/11):
- Overhaul the budget
- Rejigger the military services
- Fix the Army
- Invest in people
- Promote the right leaders
- Create incentives for a real nation-building or counterinsurgency capability
- Spread the responsibilities around
- Taxes
I would add an additional idea to this list: Don’t be afraid to take inspiration from the private sector. Many military policies and rules are justified by the idea that “the military is different.” This may be true, but it would still be wise for the military to look to the private sector for ideas on what to do (and not to do) to retain valuable personnel, bolster their public image, and encourage cooperation from the civilians in foreign nations.
And finally, because no multi-format extravaganza is complete without music, here’s a unit from the Mongolian Army doing a cover of “Yesterday.”
***
1. Josh White, Soldiers Facing Extended Tours, Washington Post, June 3, 2004, A01.
2. Id.
3. Santiago v. Rumsfeld, 425 F.3d 549 (2005).
4. Id.; see also Doe v. Rumsfeld, 435 F.3d 980 (2006).
5. William J. Broad, Cold War Duty in the Arctic's Frigid Depths, San Francisco Chronicle, March 23, 2008, A-2.
Comments