Received at MilitarySpot.com:

Christopher Matthew Sprague
Littleton, Colorado

Save_A_Soldier030483@yahoo.com

Dear Citizens:

Over the past year, as many of us have, I have become aware of a policy called “Stop Loss” that is affecting many of our country’s great soldiers. After much time researching the policy, hearing the victims’ stories and trying to understand why a country based on freedoms could entrap a sector of its own citizens, I have realized that there is only one resolution to the problem: Action. The military and our government fear the loss of “unit cohesion” and have implied that if they do not retain the current active duty soldiers by involuntarily extending their contracts they will not have enough soldiers to fulfill the current missions abroad. Well, to Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush, the Secretary of the Army Dr. Francis J. Harvey, The Media, the Troops both on and off United States soil and all others reading this: here is one more able body willing to step up to action for the release of the one stop-lossed soldier of my choice who has performed the duties of his job beyond what has been asked of him.

Through my research I have realized that lawsuits, posters, awareness campaigns and protest are not enough for our government to realize that the involuntary extension of our soldiers’ contracts are not what the United States’ Citizens wish. This institution of the order was done by the authority of a person who is not at the mercy of a democracy, outside of the president--who is ultimately responsible--being that he is the Commander in Chief of this country. The person deeming that the national scope requires the extension of soldiers’ contracts is not one that must face the piercing voices of the United States Citizenship. We are a country that prides itself on the Constitution, the very Constitution that houses the 13th Amendment, which states that our country will not participate in involuntary servitude; however, case law of the past has set the precedent that the military is excluded from respecting this part of the Constitution. As a soldier you take a vow to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, but how can one defend something he/she does not even have the luxury of knowing? These immoral restrictions on our military personnel are all things I am very aware of and yet I am willing to relieve Specialist Scott Anthony Sprague and take his place in the United States Army, whether it is at his home duty station or in the line of fire, because he has fulfilled the duties and commitment to the Regular Army.

Scott Anthony Sprague is the perfect example of a man being persecuted by this policy, more importantly, he is only one face of those being persecuted by this policy. He fought to enlist in the military for love of his country. His dedication to his position through his active duty commitment has been deemed nothing short of exemplary as stated on his Bronze Star with Valor orders. These orders come straight from his chain of command, signed by the Acting Secretary of the Army and US Army General Raymond T. Odierno. He received this award for his actions during his year in Iraq, initially a mission he was not supposed to have even been able to participate in due to a broken hand, but he had his medical profile ended early so he may contribute in the combat parachute assault into Bashur Drop Zone. Later in his deployment, he personally apprehended High Value Target Number 79. Even after losing two of his best friends to acts of terrorism against his unit, he continued to behave in such a way that exemplified who he is as both a soldier and a man. His orders also point out his selfless commitment to his team and squad, that his attitude helps create a productive and rewarding spirit throughout the squad and that Scott Anthony Sprague has set the example to perform above the standards set for him. Now, it is time for Scott to come home and finish out his enlistment as the reservist his contract requires him to be. But, the military disagrees. The military has set the example that Scott and thousands like him have not performed enough and that their time in the military falls short of being worth an honorable discharge.

The Stop Loss Policy haunting our army personnel today is wrong. I have watched as people protest this policy through awareness campaigns, lawsuits and news articles only to see no result prevail in the favor of those giving all they possibly can to our country. The military says they need more people: well, you have got one. In an effort and action of Patriotism to this country, I am willing to donate myself to the cause against stop loss by relieving the said soldier. Seeing as how Specialist Scott Anthony Sprague “has not given enough,” I insist that we trade my shoes for his boots, my tooth for his tooth and my eye for his eye.


Sincerely,

Christopher M. Sprague

Bring back the draft.

A hot load of BS, that is what this letter amounts to. The terms and conditions of the military contract are not "hidden" in small print. You raised your hand and signed your name...nuf said.

Yeah, that stop loss deal is great for morale. Makes ya feel wanted doesn't it?

The "Stop Loss" is the only solution for now to keep from losing so many military personnel at one time, it is a matter of time the draft will be reinstated. Thinkk about it if it wasn't for the "Stop Loss," our most experience military personnel is very important to the newly soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines.

I think “Stop Loss” is warranted in context to the need of national defense. Without “SL,” we would indeed lose too many seasoned troops in short periods of time. The media outcry over this hasn’t been as bad as I would have thought so I think most people seem to understand.

However, I can’t understand being against Stop-Loss and for the draft. That seems incongruous on principle alone.

Without SL of course, the need for a draft would be rapidly sped up.

As for guys complaining about it; they should really get over it. This isn’t as if a former employer is holding one to a contract that they’re trying to get out of. A person’s connection with their service is an intimate one and doesn’t, or shouldn’t extend only as far as a paycheck. Taking such complaints public is a little like airing the family’s dirty laundry in public.