SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > The Small Wars Community of Interest > The Whole News

The Whole News Post and debate the news; good, bad and ugly. News ignored by the mainstream media especially welcomed here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-21-2009   #1
Entropy
Council Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,457
Default Pregnancy - a court martial offense?

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

Quote:
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.
Entropy is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #2
Stan
Council Member
 
Stan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Estonia
Posts: 3,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
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

Quote:
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
__________________
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #3
Schmedlap
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,444
Default

It's about fricken time.

I'm reminded of an earlier thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
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).

Last edited by Schmedlap; 12-21-2009 at 08:37 PM.
Schmedlap is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #4
IntelTrooper
Council Member
 
IntelTrooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: RC-S, Afghanistan
Posts: 302
Default

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.
__________________
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White


"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap

"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
IntelTrooper is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #5
Schmedlap
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelTrooper View Post
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.
Schmedlap is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #6
Adam L
Council Member
 
Adam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NYS
Posts: 388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelTrooper View Post
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
Adam L is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #7
IntelTrooper
Council Member
 
IntelTrooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: RC-S, Afghanistan
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
Heh. I'm trying to think of something that those people don't get upset about.
So true!
__________________
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White


"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap

"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
IntelTrooper is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #8
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
"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.
Fuchs is offline  
Old 12-21-2009   #9
IntelTrooper
Council Member
 
IntelTrooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: RC-S, Afghanistan
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
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.
__________________
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White


"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap

"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
IntelTrooper is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #10
Schmedlap
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,444
Default

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.
Schmedlap is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #11
Entropy
Council Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,457
Default

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?
Entropy is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #12
Schmedlap
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,444
Default

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.
Schmedlap is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #13
Adam L
Council Member
 
Adam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NYS
Posts: 388
Default The Pill

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
Adam L is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #14
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
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.
Dayuhan is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #15
stanleywinthrop
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
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.
stanleywinthrop is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #16
Cavguy
Council Member
 
Cavguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 1,127
Default

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.
__________________
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
Who is Cavguy?
Cavguy is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #17
marct
Council Member
 
marct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 3,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam L View Post
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
__________________
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
marct is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #18
MNDNPAO
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Default Clarifying my intent

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
MNDNPAO is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #19
William F. Owen
Council Member
 
William F. Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Posts: 3,947
Default

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.
__________________
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Last edited by William F. Owen; 12-22-2009 at 02:50 PM.
William F. Owen is offline  
Old 12-22-2009   #20
Steve Blair
Moderator
 
Steve Blair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 3,195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNDNPAO View Post
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.
__________________
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Steve Blair is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror davidbfpo Law Enforcement 600 03-03-2014 04:30 PM
The International Criminal Court - Legitimacy in Counter-Leadership Operations AusPTE Law Enforcement 11 01-07-2010 09:52 PM
Pre and post deployment support reed11b Politics In the Rear 78 02-04-2009 04:35 PM
Estonian convicts appeal to Court of Human Rights Stan Law Enforcement 6 03-31-2007 10:10 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation