Pregnancy - a court martial offense?

[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

[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

[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 .

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.

[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.

[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.