Stop-loss vs a life of war....

Saw a film the other day called 'Stop-Loss' and it's about US soldiers who get stop-lossed to return for another tour in Iraq when they are supposed to be getting out.

I must admit I find it rather hard to believe this is worth making a film about because these soldiers are the ones who made the mistake when they signed up to the army when they only wanted to serve for a few years - it is made clear when anyone joins the armed forces that the gov't basically owns you for 10 or more years.

So what is it exactly that makes these men feel so entitled to early release that they feel some great injustice has been done when that release is taken away from them? And why would one think of visiting a senator to sort things out - surely the army has a contractual right to cancel it & send them back?

I got the impression that some of these soldiers are coming back feeling as though they are the only men in history who have suffered from being on a front line.

I would like to know just how more difficult it must be for a 1900 soldier, an 1800 soldier and so on throughout the ages. Surely the soldier from 500 BCE would have had a far more difficult life and seen more terrifying and disgusting things in his lifetime as a warrior than these young men do in Iraq over a couple of years?

Where are all the true warriors gone?

Perhaps it is psychological n the sense that knowing there is no 'early release' makes a man accept his fate as a lifetime warrior and tries to welcome the changes in him? Perhaps this is why the history books aren't filled with warriors crying about how war changed them and they never want to fight again?