Pregnancy - a court martial offense?

[Entropy]

Interesting story. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1237333/Serving-U-S-troops-face-prison-fall-pregnant-active.html) I can see both sides of this issue so am a bit conflicted.


A top US commander is threatening soldiers who fall pregnant on active service with jail.

Under the new policy, troops expecting a baby face court martial and a possible prison term – and so do the men who made them pregnant.

And the rule applies to married couples at war together, who are expected to make sure their love lives do not interfere with duty.

Usual US Army policy is to send pregnant soldiers home from combat zones within 14 days.

But Major General Anthony Cucolo, who runs US operations in northern Iraq, issued the new orders because he said he was losing too many women with critical skills.

He needed the threat of court martial and jail time as an extra deterrent, he said.

[Stan]

I can see both sides of this issue so am a bit conflicted.

It looks like a disaster in the making. I recall many soldiers at Ft. Benning suddenly becoming pregnant prior to orders for Korea. There wasn't a clear answer then.

Do they actually intend on jailing pregnant service members ? Reduced to E1 and jailed til child birth :wry:


And they cannot spend the night with a member of the opposite sex, unless married or with express permission.


I reckon there'll be a caveat soon specifying the use of "issue" condoms :D

[Schmedlap]

It's about fricken time.

I'm reminded of an earlier thread...

But I also know that pregnancies in our MSB and FSB's had an uncanny correlation with deployments, to include NTC rotations prior to OIF or combat deployments once OIF kicked off - often times the pregnant Soldiers were not married and were hard pressed to narrow down the list of possible baby-daddies to what a reasonable person would regard as a short list. The size of the pregnant PT formation should be considered an EEFI because it is the best indicator of a unit's deployment timeline.

Our current system seems to be an honor system that lacks any honor code by which it can be self-policing. There are legitimate unplanned pregnancies, to be sure. But the number of unmarried Soldiers who fill the ranks of the pregnant PT formation, coincidentally at the same opportune time, many of whom cannot say with certainty who impregnated them, suggests that the honor system is being taken advantage of.

I would also add that we're sending a conflicting message here. I had to occasionally visit the larger FOBs on my second deployment. We would take the opportunity to buy random stuff in the PX that the supply system was not responsive to. It always amazed me to see an entire aisle of cologne, perfume, lingerie, and condoms. Outside of the PX there was a beauty salon. Seriously, I don't mean just a fancy barber shop. It was a full-blown beauty salon. The list of amenities that appealed primarily to preening one's self in preparation for a romp in the sack or just going out on date nights was incredible to behold. There was no tanning booth, if I recall correctly, but there was plenty of room around the pool to sunbathe (albeit, that ample space filled up quickly with bikini-clad Soldiers fresh from the beauty salon).

[IntelTrooper]

I'm interested in seeing how this pans out. I imagine certain ideological positions on the left and right will be upset about this rule.

[Schmedlap]

I'm interested in seeing how this pans out. I imagine certain ideological positions on the left and right will be upset about this rule.

Heh. I'm trying to think of something that those people don't get upset about.:p

[Adam L]

I'm interested in seeing how this pans out. I imagine certain ideological positions on the left and right will be upset about this rule.

Unfotunately, I think you are right. I don' think this will last too long.

Adam L

[IntelTrooper]

Heh. I'm trying to think of something that those people don't get upset about.:p
So true!

[Fuchs]

"Usual US Army policy is to send pregnant soldiers home from combat zones within 14 days."

Maybe someone with more medical education or maybe ovaries can explain how this may be a good idea.

That date would be at about 2 months pregnancy. Almost all women should still be able to work pretty well at that time and for many more weeks.

[IntelTrooper]

Maybe someone with more medical education or maybe ovaries can explain how this may be a good idea.

That date would be at about 2 months pregnancy. Almost all women should still be able to work pretty well at that time and for many more weeks.

My main concern would be the horrible environmental quality on FOBs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Afghan contractors used to burn anything and everything in the trash pit at the PRT (including cleaning fluids, refrigerators and other equipment and appliances). All my friends stationed there had respiratory problems for months after coming home. I can't imagine what that kind of stuff would be doing to a developing fetus.

[Schmedlap]

I've got to second that. Even the person with the most do-nothing job in Iraq or Afghanistan can be struck by a mortar at any time on their base or struck by an IED or RPG while traveling from point A to B. That includes the child in the womb. That kid didn't sign up for combat. I'm not a big proponent of rewarding bad behavior (sending someone home if they purposely got pregnant to avoid duty), but you can't punish the innocent and helpless for someone else's irresponsibility.

I would add one thing to the thread. I know a woman who was a very good officer. She was married to my FSO. She found out that she was pregnant shortly after deployment. It was neither planned nor expected and she was the type who really wanted to deploy with her Soldiers. I'm not sure how this policy would have impacted her (or her husband) seeing as how she was unknowingly pregnant before deployment and found out about it in theater.

[Entropy]

Schmedlap,

That's really the rub. How is it possible to discrimate the honest folks from the dirt-bags, especially considering there is probably going to be a lot more nookie pre-deployment than is typical?

[Schmedlap]

Entropy,

In terms of administering a centralized system like we administer most other things, I think it would be very difficult to come up with objective standards. But small unit leaders know who is trying to get pregnant. I know we don't like doing this, because subjective calls are more difficult to defend, but we might need to rely on small unit leaders to police the bad behavior.

[Adam L]

I suggest that everybody can either be on birth control (the pill, IUD, etc.), or they can face the heat when they get pregnant. I know it might be a little hard on those women who suffer from adverse reactions to the pill, but it seams like a reasonable proposal.

Adam L

[Dayuhan]

Maybe someone with more medical education or maybe ovaries can explain how this may be a good idea.

That date would be at about 2 months pregnancy. Almost all women should still be able to work pretty well at that time and for many more weeks.

Aside from the hazards stated above, almost all miscarriages are 1st trimester. There's probably a certain reluctance to be held responsible.

Requiring the use of effective contraception would seem a reasonable move to me.

[stanleywinthrop]

Aside from the hazards stated above, almost all miscarriages are 1st trimester. There's probably a certain reluctance to be held responsible.

Requiring the use of effective contraception would seem a reasonable move to me.

This is a true catch/22......if you require contraception, you've now run aground of those with religious objections to contraceptions.

I mean the real effect of this reg is a strong incentive to use contraceptives, but to actually expressly require them is a whole 'nother ballgame.

[Cavguy]

Someone posted on another site - what happens if she gets preggers on her mid-tour leave?

Another unconfirmed source said the punishment was downgraded to a letter of reprimand instead of a court martial after pressure resulting from the article.

[marct]

I suggest that everybody can either be on birth control (the pill, IUD, etc.), or they can face the heat when they get pregnant. I know it might be a little hard on those women who suffer from adverse reactions to the pill, but it seams like a reasonable proposal.

That might work if you had one that worked at 99.999% efficiency. Since we don't, it is a bust. A simpler solution would be to use the previous policy - out of the zone in 14 days - and extend their enlistment time for the time off.

Marc

[MNDNPAO]

I appreciate the discussion about one aspect of a general order I have applied here in the combat zone of Iraq. The true intent of my directive cannot be easily understood from one or two brief articles, so I would like to clarify my rationale for the directive.
In this 22,000 Soldier Task Force, I need every Soldier I've got, especially since we are facing a drawdown of forces during our mission. Anyone who leaves this fight earlier than the expected 12-month deployment creates a burden on their teammates. Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status -- or contributes to doing that to another -- is not in keeping with a key element of our ethos, "I will always place the mission first," or three of our seven core values: loyalty, duty and selfless service. And I believe there should be professional consequences for making that personal choice.
My female Soldiers are absolutely invaluable, many of them holding high-impact jobs that are often few in numbers, and we need them all for the duration of this deployment. With their male counterparts, they fly helicopters, run my satellite communications, repair just about everything, re-fuel and re-arm aircraft in remote locations, are brilliant and creative intelligence analysts, critical members of medical teams, in all areas of logistics and personnel support across this Georgia-sized piece of Iraq north of Baghdad, and much more. Since I am responsible and accountable for the fighting ability of this outfit, I am going to do everything I can to keep my combat power -- and in the Army, combat power is the individual Soldier.
To this end, I made an existing policy stricter. I wanted to encourage my Soldiers to think before they acted, and understand their behavior and actions have consequences -- all of their behavior. I consider the male Soldier as responsible for taking a Soldier out of the fight just as responsible as the female Soldier who must redeploy.
To ensure a consistent and measured approach in applying this policy, I am the only individual who passes judgment on these cases. I decide every case based on the unique facts of each Soldier's situation. Of the very few cases handled thus far, it has been a male Soldier who received the most severe punishment; he committed adultery as well. Though there have not been any cases of sexual assault, any pregnancy that is the product of a sexual assault would most certainly not be considered here; our total focus would be on the health and well-being of the victim and justice for the perpetrator.
I do not expect those who have never served in the military to completely understand what I have tried to explain above. Recently I was asked, "Don’t you think you are treading on an intensely personal topic?" As intensely personal as this topic might be, leaving those who depend on you shorthanded in a combat zone gets to be personal for those left, too. This addition to a standing general order is just a small part of our overall effort to foster thoughtful and responsible behavior among our Soldiers.

Proudly serving you,
Tony Cucolo
Major General, US Army
Commander, Task Force Marne
Tikrit, Iraq

[William F. Owen]

Sorry, but what's the problem?

Order: Do not get pregnant. Getting pregnant, without authorisation, is a breech of discipline, especially while deployed. I'd venture it's actually criminally stupid.

Get pregnant and you are out of the army. Get another soldier pregnant and he's gone as well. No court-martial. Go on leave till the paper work is done. Dishonourable discharge, same as if convicted of drunk driving.

[Steve Blair]

I do not expect those who have never served in the military to completely understand what I have tried to explain above. Recently I was asked, "Don’t you think you are treading on an intensely personal topic?" As intensely personal as this topic might be, leaving those who depend on you shorthanded in a combat zone gets to be personal for those left, too. This addition to a standing general order is just a small part of our overall effort to foster thoughtful and responsible behavior among our Soldiers.

Well....I was never in the military and I understand what you explained. Frankly, I'm with Marc on this. If they choose to get pregnant, send them home but tack the time away on to their ADSC or enlistment. The AF does this with officers if they take advantage of certain advanced education programs, so why not do it for pregnancy?

And Wilf, while your proposition is great in theory, I just can't see it working in the U.S.

[marct]

I appreciate the discussion about one aspect of a general order I have applied here in the combat zone of Iraq. The true intent of my directive cannot be easily understood from one or two brief articles, so I would like to clarify my rationale for the directive.

Thank you, sir - 'tis appreciated.


To this end, I made an existing policy stricter. I wanted to encourage my Soldiers to think before they acted, and understand their behavior and actions have consequences -- all of their behavior. I consider the male Soldier as responsible for taking a Soldier out of the fight just as responsible as the female Soldier who must redeploy.

In general, an excellent policy.


To ensure a consistent and measured approach in applying this policy, I am the only individual who passes judgment on these cases. I decide every case based on the unique facts of each Soldier's situation. Of the very few cases handled thus far, it has been a male Soldier who received the most severe punishment; he committed adultery as well. Though there have not been any cases of sexual assault, any pregnancy that is the product of a sexual assault would most certainly not be considered here; our total focus would be on the health and well-being of the victim and justice for the perpetrator.

That is something of a relief. There is a danger that any policy directive will be implemented "even handedly", i.e. without any regard for the context. Just out of interest and as an hypothetical, if a female soldier does get pregnant by her husband (assuming both are serving at the same time) and is in a non-combat role and wishes to stay as long as the pregnancy wouldn't interfere with her work, would you be amenable to that?


I do not expect those who have never served in the military to completely understand what I have tried to explain above. Recently I was asked, "Don’t you think you are treading on an intensely personal topic?" As intensely personal as this topic might be, leaving those who depend on you shorthanded in a combat zone gets to be personal for those left, too. This addition to a standing general order is just a small part of our overall effort to foster thoughtful and responsible behavior among our Soldiers.

Well, I would agree that it may be hard for people who have never served in a military to understand the specifics of your explanation, the general motive behind it shouldn't be that hard at all - don't leave your friends in the lurch. Never having served in the military, I don't have any problems with understanding that one :D.

As to it being an "intensely personal topic", of course it is, but so what? Obviously, the person who asked you that question either believes that wars can be fought without bloodshed and shouldn't interfere with anyones human rights (probably believes in the Easter Bunny as well....). All personal choices influence your friends, relatives, co-workers, etc.; as the saying goes, the personal is political.

[Ken White]

...Wilf, while your proposition is great in theory, I just can't see it working in the U.S.That's what should happen but it is unlikely here...:mad:

I think the General did the Army a service -- and I'm a big supporter and fan of female troopies.

Who are not pregnant.

IMO, the service should offer pregnancy sabbaticals; two years off active (or reserve) duty upon confirmation of pregnancy but you still owe Sam the rest of the time on your contract after that. Period, no exceptions other than for miscarriage or stillbirths on a by case basis.

Yeah, I know -- that won't fly either...:(

[marct]

IMO, the service should offer pregnancy sabbaticals; two years off active (or reserve) duty upon confirmation of pregnancy but you still owe Sam the rest of the time on your contract after that. Period, no exceptions other than for miscarriage or stillbirths on a by case basis.

Yeah, I know -- that won't fly either...:(

Probably not - it makes too much sense :wry:. Damn, maybe now DoD will start looking into "tubing" technologies :D!

[Levi]

Hang on.

The GUY gets in trouble, too? Having served with women, let me say sex is going to happen. But I knew women who fell head over heels in "love" and intentionally got pregnant, in hopes of being stationed with, or at least permanently tied to the father. I was in the gulf, on a carrier, there were no women forward deployed aboard ship then, thank God. (Although I certainly thought differently at age 19 after months at sea.) The military is an impermanent place, and you are constantly moving, meeting people and then they are gone. It has to be tempting to form a tie that binds, if you believe a pregnancy might do it. I get the idea, if the directive cuts down on personnel loss, great. Any little bit has to help. But the guy? How do you prove he is the father? Her word? He might just be the least bad choice among many. And as far as critical personnel, everyone is irreplaceable, until they are replaced.
I am surprised how much traffic this subject generates. Everyone, male and female, serving in any branch knows it is a bad idea, and probably against regs, to start a pregnancy and that doing so will get you a discharge. Probably an admin sep. I watched a guy jump off the ship, into the water no less, because of family problems back home. If getting pregnant gets you a discharge, and a discharge gets you out of whatever hell you are in at that moment, then court martial or admin sep or whatever, its gonna happen. Lets put women in war zones, and in combat. Huh, seemed like a good idea at the time. This is what a General is forced to deal with? Loss of combat readiness... through unexpected pregnancy?? I don't envy him.

[marct]

Hang on.

The GUY gets in trouble, too?

Yup - "it takes two to tango", so damn straight the guy should get in trouble as well.


How do you prove he is the father? Her word? He might just be the least bad choice among many.

I don't know how MG Cucolo is determining that, however it is a pretty darn simple proceedure using an amniocentisis DNA test.

Will sex happen? Sure - hey it happened in the British navy in the 17th & 18th centuries and there weren't any women serving there! Of course it will happen, this directive is just designed to make people think about the potential effects of it.


I am surprised how much traffic this subject generates. Everyone, male and female, serving in any branch knows it is a bad idea, and probably against regs, to start a pregnancy and that doing so will get you a discharge. Probably an admin sep.

The scary thing is that that really doesn't matter "in the heat" (as it were :wry:). All too many people in North America just don't equate sex with pregnancy (take a look at the surveys of early teens if you don't believe me). Certainly from what the General just posted, this is about consequences of actions and not "morality" per se.


This is what a General is forced to deal with? Loss of combat readiness... through unexpected pregnancy?? I don't envy him.

Neither do I :wry:! It will, unfortunately, get worse.....

[Kiwigrunt]

Will sex happen? Sure - hey it happened in the British navy in the 17th & 18th centuries and there weren't any women serving there!

The more things change, the more they stay the same....:p

[Adam L]

That might work if you had one that worked at 99.999% efficiency. Since we don't, it is a bust. A simpler solution would be to use the previous policy - out of the zone in 14 days - and extend their enlistment time for the time off.

Marc



I can live with 90+ percent efficacy. My understanding is that it is 99.7% effective when it is used properly and there are no underlying medical problems or complications. I agree that the previous policy is probably the best idea, but this would do a pretty good job of preventing "essential" personnel from getting knocked up.

Adam L

[Schmedlap]

If a guy has a threesome with two girls and only one of them gets pregnant, then does the non-pregnant female get in trouble for participating in the activity that resulted in a Soldier being lost from the fight? I know it sounds like a smartass question, but it's not.

[Adam L]

If a guy has a threesome with two girls and only one of them gets pregnant, then does the non-pregnant female get in trouble for participating in the activity that resulted in a Soldier being lost from the fight? I know it sounds like a smartass question, but it's not.

Most men I know would accept a court martial in exchange for a threesome (I assume we are talking a true threesome, and not a one and then the other deal.) It's an interesting question. What would the charge be for the non-pregnant female? Would it a be a accessory charge? Would the impregnated female have undertaken the act without the presence of the non-pregnant female. Who applied the condom if one was used? Was the pregnancy as a result of improper condom application? Did someone suggest that it was "better bareback?" All of these questions would be relevant. Also, if the threesome consisted of two guys and one gal would both men be charged? If there was a sex party or perhaps a full blown orgy, would everyone be charged?

Note: I wish to state that this post is protected intellectual property that if used as the plot for a porno movie will result in legal action if a percentage and/or free copies are not awarded to members of the council. LOL!

I think it is possible that all parties involved could be found culpable of some offense.

Adam L

[Dr. C]

I thought this issue of giving jail time to a pregnant female Soldier or a male Soldier who can be found responsible for impregnating a female Soldier serving in Task Force Marne Area of Operations raised some other moral, ethical, and legal questions. If the reason is that the female Soldiers are purposely getting pregnant to be sent home and they are having an adverse effect on the unit's mission, what about the following cases. Do these equally deserve court martial and jail time?

1. Suicide attempts
2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"
3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water
4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising
5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions

Just on another note, and I really hope this isn't taken the wrong way, if you recall, one of the victim's of the Ft. Hood shooter was a female Soldier, 21-year-old Army Private Francheska Velez, who was going home early because she was three months pregnant. The news stories I read implied that she had just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I wasn't sure if that meant she was sent home early from Iraq when she learned she was pregnant, or if she completed her tour and was then going to be released for maternity leave.

[Adam L]

1. Suicide attempts


Not unless they are staged. Although, I would not call them actual "attempts" if they were staged.



2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"


Yes, if it was done for the purpose of being unfit for duty.



3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water


Yes. I remember a fellow telling me how he was disciplined for just failing to drink enough water.



4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising


Yes, if willful and/or with the intent of being unfit for duty.



5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions


It depends. As I understand it the military is really pushing motorcycle safety. As I understand it, you can't ride a motorcycle on a military base without a safety course (this is what the instructor at my safety course said.) Perhaps it won't be long before people will be punished for not wearing proper safety equipment when riding. Throughout history, military commanders have found it necessary to restrict and/or regulate many of thier men's activities in order to keep them in fighting condition.

Adam L

[Pete]

From Stars and Stripes, Mideast edition, Wednesday, December 23, 2009:



The general who made pregnancy while on duty in Iraq a prosecutable crime defended his decision Tuesday, saying he never considered jailing or court-martialing pregnant women, but simply wanted his troops to think about the consequences of their actions.

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, who commands Multi-National Division-North, said he wanted to send the message that “anyone who leaves the fight early creates a burden on their teammates” and that such decisions “should have professional consequences.”

But he also said punishment for violating the ban, which falls under the command’s General Order No. 1, will involve only administrative discipline.

“I believe I can handle violations of this aspect with lesser degrees of punishment,” he said. “I have never considered court-martial for this. I do not ever see myself putting a soldier in jail for this.”

Click below for the entire article:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66832

[William F. Owen]

1. Suicide attempts
2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"
3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water
4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising
5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions

Yes. Instant dismissal and/or jail time. Some form of disciplinary action for sure. Take your pick. Context applies.

Getting someone pregnant or becoming pregnant is not "It just happened" event. OK, some Jewish girl from Nazareth got pregnant all by herself.... but really?

[Adam L]

Getting someone pregnant or becoming pregnant is not "It just happened" event. OK, some Jewish girl from Nazareth got pregnant all by herself.... but really?

I wonder how long it will be before someone actually claims that G-d is the baby daddy. :) That never worked where I grew up. (80% Italian Catholic town)

Adam L

[Stan]

1. Suicide attempts
2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"
3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water
4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising
5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions

Hey Dr. C !
I've seen several instances of all of the above at White Sands and in Sub-Sahara, although and sadly, most suicide attempts all worked. Basically, responsibility for all of the above falls squarely on the soldier's NCO and/or PL. To be fair however, these instances are fairly easy to catch and mostly reversible.

Somewhat related - I know of at least one instance where a soldier had an abortion (without her husband's knowledge) so as to remain eligible for her deployment.

Regards, Stan

[Schmedlap]

I wonder how long it will be before someone actually claims that G-d is the baby daddy. :) That never worked where I grew up.

I doubt that it would work in this case, either. The most recent lawsuit against the almighty (http://volokh.com/posts/1224144036.shtml) that I am aware of was dismissed with prejudice. While service of process would seem a no-brainer, given omniscience, the judge concluded that the court could not conclude that papers had been filed in the absence of a legal address. Even if that had succeeded, it is doubtful that the court would have been willing to grant the injunction sought, since any attempt to enforce the court order would likely have invited a hail of fire and brimstone from the defendant.

[Adam L]

I doubt that it would work in this case, either. The most recent lawsuit against the almighty (http://volokh.com/posts/1224144036.shtml) that I am aware of was dismissed with prejudice. While service of process would seem a no-brainer, given omniscience, the judge concluded that the court could not conclude that papers had been filed in the absence of a legal address. Even if that had succeeded, it is doubtful that the court would have been willing to grant the injunction sought, since any attempt to enforce the court order would likely have invited a hail of fire and brimstone from the defendant.

Irrelevant! The court will not be held hostage by any force human or dieity. Terrorism will not be tolerated!

Adam L

[Uboat509]

Just a few things to consider from my point of view,

1. If a female is getting pregnant in order to get sent home from a deployment, how good a soldier was she likely to be to begin with? Is the goal to retain the best soldiers for the job or just warm bodies? If she is that type just get rid of her.

2. If a female gets pregnant unintentionally, i.e. a failure of contraception, is it fair or even a good idea to jail her?

3. Some people want to fry the male with the female and if he was knowingly involved in a deliberate attempt by this female to get pregnant in order to get out of service, then I would agree. Unfortunately I have seen a number of situations where females lied to a male about being on the pill, having an IUD etc. in order to trick him into impregnating her. Is that stupid on his part? Yes. But is it criminal?

4. We need to dispense with the idea that we can stop soldiers from having sex in a combat zone by threatening them with punishment. You are not going to stop it with anything short of certain very invasive surgical procedures, and I am reasonably certain that those will not play well in the press nor will they be good for recruiting.

SFC W

[J Wolfsberger]

Irrelevant! The court will not be held hostage by any force human or dieity. Terrorism will not be tolerated!

Adam L

It wouldn't be terrorism. In this situation the defendant is also a Higher Court asserting jurisdiction.

[Adam L]

It wouldn't be terrorism. In this situation the defendant is also a Higher Court asserting jurisdiction.

Perhaps, but he would be an interested party in this case. Since this would create a conflict of interest he would be obligated to recuse himself.

Adam L

[marct]

It wouldn't be terrorism. In this situation the defendant is also a Higher Court asserting jurisdiction.

Now that would depend on how you viewed the deity in question :cool:. Consider this book (http://www.amazon.com/Jehovah-Contract-Victor-Koman/dp/0977764907/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261579437&sr=8-1) as an hypothetical on the jurisdictional question....

[jkm_101_fso]

Did I miss something in the thread? I was under the impression that sex was a violation of GEN Order #1. At least that's what I thought during all of my deployments. I thought the only people authorized to have sex were married couples deployed together.

If I'm wrong on this, I'm going to feel really stupid. I know that on more than one occasion I told my Soldiers: "it is illegal for a Soldier to have sex in Iraq, unless you are married and it's with your wife".

Actually, it was probably a good thing I told them that.

[Schmedlap]

I told a whopper of my own. I told my Soldiers that "gross stupidity" was an article 15 offense. That prevented more dumbassery than I can even begin to list.

[Stan]

Did I miss something in the thread?

I thought the only people authorized to have sex were married couples deployed together.


Jake, I think that one got nixed also. Well, so long as one of the consenting and married partners doesn't get pregnant :rolleyes:

[J Wolfsberger]

... "it is illegal for a Soldier to have sex in Iraq, unless you are married and it's with your wife".


True. But about as effective as legislating rainfall. :D

[Schmedlap]

I don't understand the exception for married Soldiers. All of my married friends insist that sex ceases upon marriage.

[selil]

Irrelevant! The court will not be held hostage by any force human or dieity. Terrorism will not be tolerated!

Adam L

G_D is a terrorist? I knew it! Now I know how I ended up with twins!!! They are kinetic biological weapons.

[Entropy]

I don't understand the exception for married Soldiers. All of my married friends insist that sex ceases upon marriage.

That's only half true. Our milkman has given us two great kids with another on the way!

[Uboat509]

Does anybody actually believe that soldiers are going to stop having sex just because we tell them to? Pornography is on the prohibited list also per GO #1 and I guarantee that I can find some within fifteen minutes on any COB/COP/FOB.

SFC W

[IntelTrooper]

I told a whopper of my own. I told my Soldiers that "gross stupidity" was an article 15 offense. That prevented more dumbassery than I can even begin to list.

Don't forget that it can make survivors ineligible to receive your SGLI. ;)

[Schmedlap]

Does anybody actually believe that soldiers are going to stop having sex just because we tell them to? Pornography is on the prohibited list also per GO #1 and I guarantee that I can find some within fifteen minutes on any COB/COP/FOB.

Why the delay? On my last deployment, there was over 20 GB of it on our SIPR intranet.

[jkm_101_fso]

Does anybody actually believe that soldiers are going to stop having sex just because we tell them to? Pornography is on the prohibited list also per GO #1 and I guarantee that I can find some within fifteen minutes on any COB/COP/FOB.

SFC W

Well, we were good until some females showed up at the patrol base at about month 6 to perform some CSS task (can't remember what). All the boys started sniffing around and I told them that sex was a violation of GEN Order #1.

Maybe it stopped a few. I told the others "don't be that guy".

[William F. Owen]

Does anybody actually believe that soldiers are going to stop having sex just because we tell them to? Pornography is on the prohibited list also per GO #1 and I guarantee that I can find some within fifteen minutes on any COB/COP/FOB.


I had a pretty reasonable assumption that none of my platoon were having sex with each other. If they had, we would have had a problem. That they all extensive collections of German pornography in their lockers gave me some expectation that they were less troublesome because of it, rather than without it. :cool:

[AmericanPride]

Perhaps the problem is we shouldn't impose unrealistic physical and moral expectations on 18 to 20-something year olds in combat, in a foreign country, and in close proximity to others who are also willing. I think wilf's last comment is profound: some studies suggest that those who watch pornography are less likely to commit sexual offenses.

[Ken White]

The US Army's ability to tell Commanders how to suck eggs on things they shouldn't while allowing them great latitude in things that contravene doctrine and long standing policy never ceases to amaze and amuse... :rolleyes:

LINK. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_pregnant_soldiers_1)

[Pete]

From the time that I first heard of Maj Gen Cucolo's policy on pregnancy I knew the story had legs and we would be hearing more about it. The Army has enough going on right now without having a policy that puts it in the middle of a political and ideological minefield.

[Old Eagle]

I now hear that GEN Odierno has clarified MG Cuculo's position. The thing that really bothers me, though, is that Cuke used to be the Army's chief spinmeister. Now he paints himself into a position where somebody else has to explain, "what the general meant to say..."

And we wonder why we're losing the information war.

[Schmedlap]

And we wonder why we're losing the information war.

Pet peeve! I think it is now clear that we were never really "losing the information war" in Iraq (perhaps one could argue that were were in the first couple years, but certainly not the last couple). People would simply take stories in isolation and, in a non-rigorous selective analysis through anecdote that would make Tom Friedman proud, extrapolate from the publicized bad news (or stories of ineptitude) that we were "losing the information war." When Abu Ghraib is a rallying cry for the enemy's recruiting efforts, but the average man on the street knows that if he goes to prison that he will get decent food and bed for a week or so and then get released - I say that is a pretty good performance in the "information war."

[yamiyugikun]

"The US Army's ability to tell Commanders how to suck eggs on things they shouldn't while allowing them great latitude in things that contravene doctrine and long standing policy never ceases to amaze and amuse."

I would love to hear some examples! What are some besides the pregnancy issue in this thread?

[Ken White]

LINK. (http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1576510)

For not telling people to do what's important, here's one example: LINK (.pdf) (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB889.pdf).

[Hacksaw]

LINK. (http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1576510)

For not telling people to do what's important, here's one example: LINK (.pdf) (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB889.pdf).

Ken,
Are you saying the monograph is silly or the issue it highlights is silly...

For what its worth, Col Hope was both one of the brighter and funniest members of his SAMS small group...

I still have my emergency stash of alcohol he gave to each of us...

[Ken White]

is an example of the Nation not enforcing policy that should be enforced. By default, DoD and its competing and conflicting Commands are equally responsible for that failure. Yet, that same Nation, doD and those Commands can focus on inane things like the kinds of boots that are acceptable, reflective safety belts, haircuts, pregnancy of 18 to 30 year old singles (or married folks...)...

None of those will kill many people -- the lack of Unity of Command in the 'Stan already has killed some unnecessarily. Dumbb, with two 'b's. :mad:

[Hacksaw]

That's what I thought...

Glad as well, since at the risk of admitting it in something other than an anonymous forum... I'd have to defend Ian as a sound thinker and not prone to silliness... unless of course he's imbibed too much... which we also know by prescedent is impossible for a member of our neighbor to the north...:D

[Pete]

Colonel Hacksaw's avatar leads me to believe he belongs to the kinetic operations school rather than the population-centric nation-building one. In other words, the main purpose of his armored thrusts is to place its forward observers on optimum positions.

[IntelTrooper]

The US Army's ability to tell Commanders how to suck eggs on things they shouldn't while allowing them great latitude in things that contravene doctrine and long standing policy never ceases to amaze and amuse... :rolleyes:

LINK. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_pregnant_soldiers_1)

:mad: :(

[Pete]

Pentagon to stock health facilities with morning-after pill

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 5, 2010; 9:12 AM

The Department of Defense will begin making the morning-after pill Plan B available at all of its hospitals and health clinics around the world, officials announced Thursday.

The decision came after a recommendation by the Pentagon's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, an advisory panel that voted in November to include Plan B and the generic Next Choice on the list of drugs all military facilities should stock. The Pentagon accepted the recommendation Feb. 3, a spokeswoman said.

The decision is the latest the Obama administration has made reversing politically sensitive policies involving women's health that were implemented during President George W. Bush's administration. Previously, the Obama administration has announced that it was rescinding a federal regulation that would have expanded the ability of health-care workers to refuse to provide medical care they found morally objectionable, including abortion and Plan B; has lifted federal restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research; and has restored funding to international family-planning groups.

Women's health advocates had long been pushing the Obama administration to allow the sale of the morning-after pill at military facilities. The same panel made a similar recommendation in 2002, but the policy was never implemented.

A link to this story would not have worked because the Washington Post requires users to be registered.