Soldier sues over order to stay in Iraq

By ANDREW GUMBEL in Los Angeles

A decorated United States combat veteran has become the first Army reservist to sue the Bush Administration over its policy of ordering soldiers to continue serving in Iraq beyond the end of their agreed term of enlistment.

Lawyers for the soldier, identified only as John Doe to protect his privacy, said the Army's so-called "stop-loss" policy, which affects up to 40,000 military personnel, was "arbitrary, unfair and unauthorised by law".

For now, only one defendant is involved. But the case touches on one of the most sensitive political issues of this presidential campaign season.

President George W. Bush has come under heavy criticism for a policy known to its detractors as a form of back-door draft. Conservative critics of his Iraq policy, meanwhile, worry the military is being stretched to breaking point in Iraq and could not handle another major crisis were one to erupt.

John Kerry, Bush's Democratic Party challenger, has proposed increasing the overall strength of the United States Armed Forces by about 40,000 troops so those in Iraq can go home on time.

Several US newspapers have run stories about reservists who can't hold on to their civilian jobs because of long absences - despite official policy obliging employers to hold their spots open for five years - and interviewing worried family members who do not know when their loved ones will return from an already controversial military adventure.

According to the lead lawyers in the new suit, John Doe, a sergeant, has an impressive military record over more than nine years' active service. He took part in last year's invasion of Iraq and is on a one-year enlistment with the California Army National Guard, which expires in December. The stop loss could oblige him to leave his wife and two young daughters and return to Iraq for two years or more.

His lawyer, Michael Sorgen, argued in his brief that the stop-loss policy was based on an executive order issued by Bush three days after the September 11 attacks. The order referred to preventing future terrorist attacks against the US.

"The former Iraqi regime has been removed from power, and Iraq cannot be considered to present any threat of terrorism against the US, if it ever did," Sorgen wrote. "The stop loss order, accordingly, is invalid."

- INDEPENDENT


Herald Feature: Iraq