Stop-Loss

There is a movie coming out about American soldiers being sent out involuntarily to tour Iraq for a second time after already returning from a tour.
Why should this be a conflict?
Upon joining the armed forces, soldiers make their military involvement into their job. They are contracted by the American government to serve and protect in their respective positions. This is their sole duty.

Being sent off to war is part of this duty. And should the government decide that their presence is necessary somewhere, then they are obligated to fulfill this duty. If they were concerned about being deployed or re-deployed, they shouldn't have enlisted at all. This is the sacrifice they chose to make as a soldier.

Now, I understand there are complications to a stop-loss, but that is insubstantial. It was decided by those in command that they need to return to Iraq. I understand this might violate a contract that was made, but they are still soldiers being paid to be soldiers. Perhaps one of the most important occupational positions in our country, but if anyone in any other career of any seemingly less importance should decide to disregard their work because of contracts, it would seem outrageous.
Should a trauma doctor work all day in an ER finally get leave to go home, but be called back to the ER after 14 patients were admitted after a shooting, should that doctor not want to return because he was "told he could go home", his job would be endangered and he would be breaking oaths he made as a doctor.
Should a teacher not wish to stay after school with a struggling student because they were "told they could go home after their hours were done", they would be viewed as a poor student and be breaking commitments they made as a teacher.

I know, it's stretching it a bit to compare the jobs of doctors and teachers to the role of a soldier who puts his life on the line, but the analogy still holds. They promised to protect and to serve when their commanders deem justified. That is that. No complaining. No backing out. Deal with your commitments.

And even though their lives are endangered by returning to Iraq, that shouldn't daunt them. Who joins the military if they fear ultimately being put in a life-threatening position? They realized this when they enlisted, they shouldn't be concerned to return.

There are soldiers who have been waiting here in America and have not been deployed while other soldiers go back for 2nd or 3rd tours, true. But why send a new group of soldiers to perform the tasks overseas that others have already mastered. Though all soldiers receive training here in America, upon reaching the Middle East they receive further extensive training on how to perform their specific tasks in their new environment. Why bring new soldiers in to have to learn the jobs that others already know. In a dangerous environment, the hundreds of tasks of mine-sweeping or water treatment or nursing or combat or whatever they may be are best done by soldiers already familiar and experienced in performing those tasks.

Ultimately, a soldier signed up to perform a duty. They took an oath to serve and protect and to possibly give their life for their country. A second or third or fourth tour is not something that should be protested, but accepted with obedience and honor. Let soldiers do their jobs.