BBC: General Defends Court Martial for Pregnant Soldiers

[twa]

okay super. What about a cold?

Based on improper hand-washing before you eat and improper use of hand sanitizer, of course. i.e. negligence.

....

A cold should not make you unfit for duty,and certainly not call for ya to be removed from the theater.

What are ya a wimp?...wear a skirt?

[JMS]

Well, that calls in the entire question of integrated combat units. I am against it, war is no place for social change. If women want to fight, fine, make them their own units. Mixing the two is a recipe for bad morale and a host of other problems.

~Bang

Yeah the military is no place for social change...

When George Washington issued orders that any slave who fought for the revolution would be freed after two years of service, what was he thinking?

When President Wilson decided to segragate the then unsegragated Military to advance his racist agenda... don't you think it was an effective strategy for advancing his agenda?

Likewise when Truman desegragated the military.... over the objections of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Omar Bradly... don't you think that was effective social engineering too?

Fact is the Military see's it's abilities and support inside the country increase when it closer represents the values of the country it protects. The military is necessarily more conservative and anti change than the population of the country. It's a necessary evil to adjust the militaries cumpass regulary to keep it in alignment with the nation as a whole. To not do so is much worse.

As for court Marshalling Pregnant Soldiers. They will never do it. It's a redicoulous proposal by a black and white thinker out their which hasn't fully thought through the ramifications. Regardless of what they say, this policy is severly descriminatory towards women, who are only half the problem when discussing pregancy as a problem.

What's next manditory perternity tests for soldiers serving together? Extended Jail sentences if the women don't name the fathers of their babies? It's a bad policy which will never survive the political process when it's elivated to the level of elected officials.

[ZoEd]

Fact is the Military see's it's abilities and support inside the country increase when it closer represents the values of the country it protects. The military is necessarily more conservative and anti change than the population of the country. It's a necessary evil to adjust the militaries cumpass regulary to keep it in alignment with the nation as a whole. To not do so is much worse.

Have to disagree with you on this JMS, the military is extremely slow to change and we don't adjust our compass often at all. Our rules and guidelines are rooted in our core values and the military isn't going to change just to appease the civilian sector.

As for court Marshalling Pregnant Soldiers. They will never do it. It's a redicoulous proposal by a black and white thinker out their which hasn't fully thought through the ramifications. Regardless of what they say, this policy is severly descriminatory towards women, who are only half the problem when discussing pregancy as a problem.

Again, wrong answer. Yes they can and will be prosecuted due to the strain on the forces involved in this conflict. If a woman gets pregnant, unless it's immaculate conception, she and whomever she had sex with violated a direct order. Also, by being sent home she causes someone to be deployed out of cycle during a time when the military is trying everything in it's power to ease the deployment stress by giving people ample notice before deploying. Getting pregnant in the AOR is wrong on so many levels it's not funny. If it occurs often enough it can have serious ramifications on morale and the mission.

What's next manditory perternity tests for soldiers serving together? Extended Jail sentences if the women don't name the fathers of their babies? It's a bad policy which will never survive the political process when it's elivated to the level of elected officials.

Next? They already do. When we process through the deployment line before leaving for combat skill training every woman on the deployment is giving a pregnancy test. GO1 starts the minute you process, any sex after that is a violation of that order. You get prego after that and you disobeyed a direct order.

This isn't a new concept so I don't really know what the big deal is. When I deployed in 07' our Commander made no secret about prosecuting anyone who violated GO1. You don't get to pick and choose what pieces of GO1 you want to prosecute. If someone gets caught with porn it should carry the same penalty as someone coaught drinking, having sex or any other infractions of the order.

[Bang]

Yeah the military is no place for social change...

When George Washington issued orders that any slave who fought for the revolution would be freed after two years of service, what was he thinking?

When President Wilson decided to segragate the then unsegragated Military to advance his racist agenda... don't you think it was an effective strategy for advancing his agenda?

Likewise when Truman desegragated the military.... over the objections of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Omar Bradly... don't you think that was effective social engineering too?

Fact is the Military see's it's abilities and support inside the country increase when it closer represents the values of the country it protects. The military is necessarily more conservative and anti change than the population of the country. It's a necessary evil to adjust the militaries cumpass regulary to keep it in alignment with the nation as a whole. To not do so is much worse.

As for court Marshalling Pregnant Soldiers. They will never do it. It's a redicoulous proposal by a black and white thinker out their which hasn't fully thought through the ramifications. Regardless of what they say, this policy is severly descriminatory towards women, who are only half the problem when discussing pregancy as a problem.

What's next manditory perternity tests for soldiers serving together? Extended Jail sentences if the women don't name the fathers of their babies? It's a bad policy which will never survive the political process when it's elivated to the level of elected officials.

I must disagree. Lets face a certain fact that is being ignored by your post.

Soldiers are NOT CITIZENS like you and I are citizens. They are government PROPERTY. They do not enjoy the same rights you and I do as citizens. The military has every right to tell them what to do with their bodies, including sending it directly in front of lethal projectiles and high explosives. In fact, they can legally command a soldier to go to certain death, and often have.

Truman did not integrate the military during the war. Units of black soldiers and white soldiers were separate. The idea is that we're there to fight the enemy, not each other, and if you had integrated combat units, you'd have had plenty of infighting. Integrated units didn't fight until the Korean and Vietnam wars, and they had very large problems of racism, infighting, fragging, and all sorts of nastiness.

Read some of the experiences of the Tuskegee Airmen, who took plenty of hatred from the men they were protecting. There's plenty of books from the African American perpsective of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, and the theme that pervades all of those books is one of racism and how much of a strain it caused on their units.

George Washington would accept anyone who would fight, because he barely had an army that would stay together. What he was thinking was desperation, he had no money to pay his army, and they deserted like you wouldn't believe. (It's a nice romantic notion that they all fought bravely for freedom, but it wasn't that way at all. Some of them were dyed in blue, but most were farmers fighting for money.) By the time Washington was at Valley Forge, he was paying the army with IOUs from his own pocket (and that of a few other private financiers.) Our Continental Congress was wasting the money with parties, they were withholding supplies over politics, and again contrary to popular history, a rather wasteful bunch of politicians more concerned about their own social standing then the standing of the Army. Washington took anyone he could get to follow him. That was what he was thinking. I mean, if as you insinuate he did it for social change, then why not free the slaves upon victory? Why wait another 80 years? Hell, why not free just his OWN slaves if he was so interested in making a social comment?

Race integration is no big deal to us now, but it was not too long ago. Even now the number of ignorant racists is still mind boggling. but fifty years ago it was practically a normal state of mind for many Americans.

It's not bad policy. If you think it is, and the politicians change it, well then by all means, why ever even bother to train women for combat duty? All they have to do is get knocked up to avoid it. Training is very expensive, and if any woman trained can simply decide to have a baby whenever she wants, she severely undermines her combat readiness, and the readiness of her unit. She jeopardizes everyone around her. Sorry,, someone else will have to man the machine gun... Private Pam is having morning sickness. Need to deploy? Oh, well, Corporal Cathy can't go,, she's having a baby,, so we must either swipe someone from another unit to do her job (leaving that unit undermanned) or we need to wait while we train a whole new soldier to do what she was trained to do.

If that were to be allowed, there would be no reason for the military to admit women at all. The military exists to be ready at a moment's notice to go where needed and to perform the worst of tasks. If women cannot be counted upon to do that, then they waste everyone's time, money, and lives.

And then of course, once you allow that lawsuit to change policy, then you open the door for soldiers to sue their officers when commanded to go do something dangerous. I don't want to walk up that road, the enemy is up there, and he might shoot me. Talk to my lawyer, lieutenant.

Soldiers are tools, as in implements. They are trained and created for the purpose they signed up for, and if they can't handle what they signed up for, they should not sign up, or should not be allowed to sign up. It's a volunteer army, after all.

I'm not a sexist, but I believe that if women want to be in combat roles, then they forego certain rights while they are enlisted. Just like everyone else.

~Bang

[JMS]

Have to disagree with you on this JMS, the military is extremely slow to change and we don't adjust our compass often at all. Our rules and guidelines are rooted in our core values and the military isn't going to change just to appease the civilian sector.

History doesn't support that statement. Facts are the President is the commander and cheif and the military always follows civilian rule in this country. Hell the majority of the people working in the defense department are civilians and have been since shortly after the draft went the way of the doe doe in 1973.

• When Wilson said to segregate the military, it griped and segregated.
  
• When Truman said to desegragate the army, it griped and desegregated.
  
• When Senators openned up more MOS's to women in the 80's-90's the military gripped and submitted.
  

The military has always had change forced upon it from the civilian leadership. In an all volonteer military that is a very important and benificial thing.

Again, wrong answer. Yes they can and will be prosecuted due to the strain on the forces involved in this conflict. If a woman gets pregnant, unless it's immaculate conception, she and whomever she had sex with violated a direct order. Also, by being sent home she causes someone to be deployed out of cycle during a time when the military is trying everything in it's power to ease the deployment stress by giving people ample notice before deploying. Getting pregnant in the AOR is wrong on so many levels it's not funny. If it occurs often enough it can have serious ramifications on morale and the mission

Yep that's a very simplistic way to reason which seems perfectly sensable. Problem is men soldiers have been having sex in war zones for years, decades, centuries, and eons. Nobody is saying that's a court marshable offense. Go home from rotation, knock up your wife. It's as American as Apple Pie.

But women doing the same think is now a crime? Women hold the bag as men continue to have sex as they please? That's never going to happen. They can try to threaten. And that might helpt the situation. but they will never prosecute it, cause the backlash would be swift and terrible.

I can already feel the heat from my wife and she's nearly twenty miles away right now.

Next? They already do. When we process through the deployment line before leaving for combat skill training every woman on the deployment is giving a pregnancy test. GO1 starts the minute you process, any sex after that is a violation of that order. You get prego after that and you disobeyed a direct order.

When they start giving men involentary paternity tests to prosecute for these criminal pregancies then you can claim they already do. Then you can claim they are attempting at being equal. It's just not going to happen.

This isn't a new concept so I don't really know what the big deal is. When I deployed in 07' our Commander made no secret about prosecuting anyone who violated GO1. You don't get to pick and choose what pieces of GO1 you want to prosecute. If someone gets caught with porn it should carry the same penalty as someone coaught drinking, having sex or any other infractions of the order.

Problem is Zoed, they haven't prosecuted women for pregancy yet, and they likely never will. they can blow all the smoke they want too; but the rubican is when they actually start mass prosecutions. That's when the majority of the people who live in the country will be like WTF?

Not because the women aren't letting the military down by their actions. but because it's inherantly unfair policy which falls 99% onto the shoulders of women while letting the men skate free on something the men have always done and will always do in peace and war time. Getting their rock on.

Think of what they would have to do just to find the dude involved? it's an inherantly unfair policy which they've been pretty lucky hasn't come to a head yet.. pardon the pun.

[JMS]

I must disagree. Lets face a certain fact that is being ignored by your post.

Soldiers are NOT CITIZENS like you and I are citizens. They are government PROPERTY. They do not enjoy the same rights you and I do as citizens. The military has every right to tell them what to do with their bodies, including sending it directly in front of lethal projectiles and high explosives. In fact, they can legally command a soldier to go to certain death, and often have.

Granted, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying the enlisted force change upon the military structure. I'm saying the civilians ultimately command the military in this country. I'm saying the civilian leadership ultimately controls the financing of the military in this country.

Historically as systemic issues are decided by the civilians in power, they bring the military in line with their decisions regardless of whether the military like it or not... That's historical reality.. Controversial issues typicaly hit the military early, long before they are totally accepted in all of the civilian world. They did for segragation, desegragation, and womens roles with regards to men.

those are just the historical facts.

Truman did not integrate the military during the war. Units of black soldiers and white soldiers were separate.

Not true. The integration of the military in Korea actually went forward faster than the military units in the United States. The commander in Korea Matthew Ridgeway reported all units under his command were integrated years before the CONUS comands did so. Took until Eisenhower before all CONUS military commands were integrated.

The idea is that we're there to fight the enemy, not each other, and if you had integrated combat units, you'd have had plenty of infighting. Integrated units didn't fight until the Korean and Vietnam wars, and they had very large problems of racism, infighting, fragging, and all sorts of nastiness.

• Truman anounced the integration policy for the DoD in July 1948.
  
• June 30th of 1950 Truman commits forces to Korea to enforce the United Nations Resolution for North Korea to withdrawl from South Korea.
  
• March 18, 1951: The Department of Defense announces that all basic training within the United States has been integrated
  
• April 1951: General Matthew B. Ridgway, head of the United Nations Command in Korea, requests that the Army allow him to integrate all African-Americans within his command.
  
• July 26, 1951: The Army announces that the integration of all its units in Korea, Japan and Okinawa will be completed within six months..
  
• October 1953: The Army announces that 95% of African-American soldiers are serving in integrated units..
  

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

Read some of the experiences of the Tuskegee Airmen, who took plenty of hatred from the men they were protecting. There's plenty of books from the African American perpsective of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, and the theme that pervades all of those books is one of racism and how much of a strain it caused on their units.

Tuskegee Airmen served in WWII in a segragated army. That hardely proves the problems with desegregation.

By the time Washington was at Valley Forge, he was paying the army with IOUs from his own pocket (and that of a few other private financiers.) Our Continental Congress was wasting the money with parties, they were withholding supplies over politics, and again contrary to popular history, a rather wasteful bunch of politicians more concerned about their own social standing then the standing of the Army. Washington took anyone he could get to follow him.

Granted everything you say is true. The point is Washington for whatever reasons, did employ new social standings on the military. He moved the military culture beyond what the folks in the military were comfortable with and the military remained an integrated institution up until Wilson desegragated it in the early 1900's.

That was what he was thinking. I mean, if as you insinuate he did it for social change, then why not free the slaves upon victory? Why wait another 80 years? Hell, why not free just his OWN slaves if he was so interested in making a social comment?

Clearly Washington acted out of necessity as you say. But that doesn't mean it wasn't social change. Also Washington did free the slaves who fought for the colonies as he did free his own slaves upon his death. He was the only founding father to do so. (*)

(*) Washington freed his own slaves upon his death. He did not free his wife martha's slaves. Martha was a wealthy woman of means when George Married her, and her slaves were not freed.

why ever even bother to train women for combat duty? All they have to do is get knocked up to avoid it. Training is very expensive, and if any woman trained can simply decide to have a baby whenever she wants, she severely undermines her combat readiness, and the readiness of her unit.

The problem is the double standard.

True a woman can get pregnant and get out of active duty, but a man can simple pee in his pants a few times to get out of active duty service. In vietnam you threw your speciman in the Sargents face and that would get you out of the non volenteer army... too confrontational.

There are many avenues much less complex to get out of active duty military service which aren't criminal than getting pregnant, having a baby, and raising that baby for the next 26 years. There are books written on the subject!

Soldiers are tools, as in implements. They are trained and created for the purpose they signed up for, and if they can't handle what they signed up for, they should not sign up, or should not be allowed to sign up. It's a volunteer army, after all.

Yep but society always determines what is acceptable use for it's soldiers. Sometimes over the objections of the military officers.

I'm not a sexist, but I believe that if women want to be in combat roles, then they forego certain rights while they are enlisted. Just like everyone else.

~Bang

You mean just like every other woman. Certainly you don't mean just like every other soldier. Which is why this policy will never fly.

[ZoEd]

[/color]

History doesn't support that statement. Facts are the President is the commander and cheif and the military always follows civilian rule in this country. Hell the majority of the people working in the defense department are civilians and have been since shortly after the draft went the way of the doe doe in 1973.

• When Wilson said to segregate the military, it griped and segregated.
  
• When Truman said to desegragate the army, it griped and desegregated.
  
• When Senators openned up more MOS's to women in the 80's-90's the military gripped and submitted.
  

The military has always had change forced upon it from the civilian leadership. In an all volonteer military that is a very important and benificial thing.

Yep that's a very simplistic way to reason which seems perfectly sensable. Problem is men soldiers have been having sex in war zones for years, decades, centuries, and eons. Nobody is saying that's a court marshable offense. Go home from rotation, knock up your wife. It's as American as Apple Pie.

But women doing the same think is now a crime? Women hold the bag as men continue to have sex as they please? That's never going to happen. They can try to threaten. And that might helpt the situation. but they will never prosecute it, cause the backlash would be swift and terrible.

I can already feel the heat from my wife and she's nearly twenty miles away right now.

When they start giving men involentary paternity tests to prosecute for these criminal pregancies then you can claim they already do. Then you can claim they are attempting at being equal. It's just not going to happen.

Problem is Zoed, they haven't prosecuted women for pregancy yet, and they likely never will. they can blow all the smoke they want too; but the rubican is when they actually start mass prosecutions. That's when the majority of the people who live in the country will be like WTF?

Not because the women aren't letting the military down by their actions. but because it's inherantly unfair policy which falls 99% onto the shoulders of women while letting the men skate free on something the men have always done and will always do in peace and war time. Getting their rock on.

Think of what they would have to do just to find the dude involved? it's an inherantly unfair policy which they've been pretty lucky hasn't come to a head yet.. pardon the pun.

In every thread involving the military you bring up the fact the commander in chief is a civilian, well no ****. Don't know what point you're trying to make about that. Sure we're subject to civilian law but we're also subjected to military law which is much more strict than civilian law. Yes we are slow to change, we don't take all of our cues from the civilian world. Just because Mary and Bob are doing it on the streets doesn't mean we're going to do it in the military. We can argue about this till we're blue in the face brother but facts are facts, you constantly talk about how you think the military is and people in the military are constantly telling you you're wrong.

Like I've told you time and time again, "Good Order and Discipline" is extremely important in the military and we'll do anything to preserve it. That's what you fail to realize. We live in a world where perception is everything, proof is sometimes secondary. A Commander doesn't need proof to reprimand you, conduct unbecoming or bringing discredit upon the military is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Life is far from fair in the military.

As for prosecuting women for pregnancy, maybe not. However I guarantee you many have been prosecuted for violating GO1. It's been repeated several times in this thread by people who are extremely familar with the military that sex in the AOR is in direct violation of a GO1, why wouldn't it be a prosecutable offense? You're really not making any sense.

Ask any girl who has deployed if she's been given a pregnancy test. Then again what would I know, I've only been doing this for 20 years.

[Bang]

Granted, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying the enlisted force change upon the military structure. I'm saying the civilians ultimately command the military in this country. I'm saying the civilian leadership ultimately controls the financing of the military in this country.

Granted, but not when it affects the readines of the military in an adverse manner. If female soldiers want to retain the right to get pregnant whenever they want, I can see that there may be someday a system in which permission is ascertained first. But to just allow it willy-nilly is counter-productive the military's primary mission.

Historically as systemic issues are decided by the civilians in power, they bring the military in line with their decisions regardless of whether the military like it or not... That's historical reality.. Controversial issues typicaly hit the military early, long before they are totally accepted in all of the civilian world. They did for segragation, desegragation, and womens roles with regards to men.

those are just the historical facts.

Tru, but again, not to the detriment of fighting readiness. Civil rights and racial integration caused problems, but not problems that would affect readiness and the ability to fight. A soldier may have been insubordinate in fighting alongside another race, but fight they would. Being pregnant is a bit different

Not true. The integration of the military in Korea actually went forward faster than the military units in the United States. The commander in Korea Matthew Ridgeway reported all units under his command were integrated years before the CONUS comands did so. Took until Eisenhower before all CONUS military commands were integrated.

Tuskegee Airmen served in WWII in a segragated army. That hardely proves the problems with desegregation.

I think we misunderstood each other here. I know they were integrated by the Korean war,, but Truman also presided over the end of WWII, and that war remained segregated. the Tuskegee airmen do prove my point,, read some of their books.. they caught more hell from their "fellow" airmen who were white than you can shake a stick at. Bomber crews who's lives they had saved would not dine with them, drink with them, socialize with them, in fact they treated them like dirt in many cases.. simply because of their color. The problem with de-segregation was that it would haqve been unwise to do during wartime. Peacetime, that's different. But during war, that is a problem they knew existed, and knew they didn't need on the battlefield.

Granted everything you say is true. The point is Washington for whatever reasons, did employ new social standings on the military. He moved the military culture beyond what the folks in the military were comfortable with and the military remained an integrated institution up until Wilson desegragated it in the early 1900's.

Clearly Washington acted out of necessity as you say. But that doesn't mean it wasn't social change. Also Washington did free the slaves who fought for the colonies as he did free his own slaves upon his death. He was the only founding father to do so. (*)

(*) Washington freed his own slaves upon his death. He did not free his wife martha's slaves. Martha was a wealthy woman of means when George Married her, and her slaves were not freed.

Fair enough. However, desperation is what prompted his acceptance of slaves into the army.

The problem is the double standard.

True a woman can get pregnant and get out of active duty, but a man can simple pee in his pants a few times to get out of active duty service. In vietnam you threw your speciman in the Sargents face and that would get you out of the non volenteer army... too confrontational.

There are many avenues much less complex to get out of active duty military service which aren't criminal than getting pregnant, having a baby, and raising that baby for the next 26 years. There are books written on the subject!

Yep but society always determines what is acceptable use for it's soldiers. Sometimes over the objections of the military officers.

You mean just like every other woman. Certainly you don't mean just like every other soldier. Which is why this policy will never fly.

Well, first off, the guy flinging pee in his NCOs face didn't "get out" of anything.. he just let himself in for another kind of hell. Some guys did get discharged for a lot of fakery, but many did not.. many were punished under UCMJ for a variety of reasons.

Nowadays with a volunteer military they're more than willing to let you out easier because there's so many knocking on the door. Draftees were usually unwilling to begin with, hence needed stricter laws to keep them in line.

No, I mean just like every other soldier. If a woman gets pregnant or if a guy shoots off a toe.. both are ways to get out of service, and both should carry penalties.

~Bang

[JMS]

In every thread involving the military you bring up the fact the commander in chief is a civilian, well no ****. Don't know what point you're trying to make about that. Sure we're subject to civilian law but we're also subjected to military law which is much more strict than civilian law. Yes we are slow to change, we don't take all of our cues from the civilian world. Just because Mary and Bob are doing it on the streets doesn't mean we're going to do it in the military. We can argue about this till we're blue in the face brother but facts are facts, you constantly talk about how you think the military is and people in the military are constantly telling you you're wrong.

I'm just stating the fact that even though the military is necessarily slow to addopt change. The history of the country constantly shows the civilian leadership of the country inforcing it's will to change military culture again and again and again. Typically these changes have been very sucessful, even though they've all been beyond the militaries comfort level.

Hell the military culture in the civil war for the union wasn't comfortable with introducing the repeating rifle. The quatermaster was worried troops would waste too much amunition and it would cost too much.

The military typically is not the first to institute change, especially big changes.

Like I've told you time and time again, "Good Order and Discipline" is extremely important in the military and we'll do anything to preserve it. That's what you fail to realize. We live in a world where perception is everything, proof is sometimes secondary. A Commander doesn't need proof to reprimand you, conduct unbecoming or bringing discredit upon the military is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Life is far from fair in the military.

Granted but if "good order and discipline" were the chief concerns of those with say over the military we wouldn't have blacks, hispanics or women in the services today. Not in their current roles, not nearly as many of them. Nobody can argue that, so why are you trying?

As for prosecuting women for pregnancy, maybe not. However I guarantee you many have been prosecuted for violating GO1. It's been repeated several times in this thread by people who are extremely familar with the military that sex in the AOR is in direct violation of a GO1, why wouldn't it be a prosecutable offense? You're really not making any sense.

We are talking about several different things here. Sex on deployment and before deployment resulting in pregnacy. Unprotected sex and protected sex resulting in accidents. All of which can fall under depleating units for deployment and necessitating replacing people on deployment.

Ask any girl who has deployed if she's been given a pregnancy test. Then again what would I know, I've only been doing this for 20 years.

How about we ask every man who has served with a woman who recieves a pregancy test if they got a paternaty test? How about they outlaw sex for every soldier uniformally both men and women not only when deployed but for eight months before deployment. When they do that, you will have a point. But we both know, they aint going to do that.

[JMS]

Granted, but not when it affects the readines of the military in an adverse manner.

Yes bang, then too. The moral and readiness argument is continously used to defeat change imposed upon the military. It's not a trump card.

The civilians ultimately decide those issues too.

Fact is that was the entire reason Omar Bradley gave to oppose integrating the military in 1949. Truman over ruled him the very next day.

If female soldiers want to retain the right to get pregnant whenever they want, I can see that there may be someday a system in which permission is ascertained first. But to just allow it willy-nilly is counter-productive the military's primary mission.

My point is bang, that the entire issue is a red herriing. If a soldier male or female wants to get out of service there are much easier ways to do it than getting pregnant.

Also the policy is inherantly unfair because it won't/can't be applied uniformly across the sexes.

[JMS]

Well, first off, the guy flinging pee in his NCOs face didn't "get out" of anything.. he just let himself in for another kind of hell.

~Bang

Actually that was one way to go 4-F and get out of active duty in Vietnam.

[sacase]

As for court Marshalling Pregnant Soldiers. They will never do it. It's a redicoulous proposal by a black and white thinker out their which hasn't fully thought through the ramifications. Regardless of what they say, this policy is severly descriminatory towards women, who are only half the problem when discussing pregancy as a problem.

What's next manditory perternity tests for soldiers serving together? Extended Jail sentences if the women don't name the fathers of their babies? It's a bad policy which will never survive the political process when it's elivated to the level of elected officials.

Well here is where you are pretty much wrong. I can guarentee you that this has already been through the legal review process before it was annonced. Here is the thing about the military, things are never fair. Be it officer or enlisted, NCO and soldier, its never fair.

[seriously]

I completely agree with this policy.

This is my 4th deployment I am on, the shortest of them was 8 months. So nothing in the 3-6 month range like some enjoy.

I can think of several females that have been assigned within my Brigade (aviation) and they have been in longer than me yet have dodged every deployment with a pregnancy.

There are also 3 females that got sent home within months of of 2 of the deployments since they convienently got knocked up with a few weeks to months into that tour.

It's a slap in the face to everyone else in the unit and it needs to stop. It's sad really that measures like this have to be taken just to try and put a stop to people treating the military like another type of welfare system, which anyone that's been in knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I am in now way against females in the service though, before anyone gets on their soapbox jumping to conclusions.

Not only does this policy need to be upheld, it needs to be 100% strictly enforced.

[seriously]

Well here is where you are pretty much wrong. I can guarentee you that this has already been through the legal review process before it was annonced. Here is the thing about the military, things are never fair. Be it officer or enlisted, NCO and soldier, its never fair.

words could not have been spoken with more truth, no officer in any position of command takes a dump without running it through JAG 1st.

and no, nothing is fair, ever.

[sacase]

Furthermore JMS, the military can tell you who you can have sex with as well as who you can marry, what makes you think they can't tell you not to get pregnant in a warzone. You might want to check out Article 134, which is the essentially, the because I said so article.

Your hatred for the military is eveident in every thread that you enter that is about the military. Get off your high horse, especially when you know nothing about the UCMJ.

[Redskins Diehard]

My point is bang, that the entire issue is a red herriing. If a soldier male or female wants to get out of service there are much easier ways to do it than getting pregnant.

Also the policy is inherantly unfair because it won't/can't be applied uniformly across the sexes.

The easiest is to just say they are gay. But I don't think anyone is making the argument that people want to get out of the service...the argument is they want to get out of the deployment and stay in the service.

There are multiple policies already that apply to pregnancy...none of them can be applies across the sexes. Only an idiot says that a pregnant woman should be treated the same as a non-pregnant man in every situation.

[Redskins Diehard]

This isn't a new concept so I don't really know what the big deal is. When I deployed in 07' our Commander made no secret about prosecuting anyone who violated GO1. You don't get to pick and choose what pieces of GO1 you want to prosecute. If someone gets caught with porn it should carry the same penalty as someone coaught drinking, having sex or any other infractions of the order.

Did you punish anyone for porn?

[ZoEd]

Did you punish anyone for porn?

Actually yes. One of my geniuses tried sneaking a porn disc through customs leaving Balad. He was given an Article 15 that came with a suspended demotion to E4 from E5, $150 a month for two months and 15 days extra duty.

Because he was an NCO it was a pretty harsh punishment but GO1 is GO1 and when you preach as much as we did and still get caught it calls into question your core values and overall decision making capabilities. How can you trust someone to make a decision that matters when they can't make a sound decision on something as simple as GO1? Not to mention the fact what message does it send to his subordinates.

[ZoEd]

I'm just stating the fact that even though the military is necessarily slow to addopt change. The history of the country constantly shows the civilian leadership of the country inforcing it's will to change military culture again and again and again. Typically these changes have been very sucessful, even though they've all been beyond the militaries comfort level.

Hell the military culture in the civil war for the union wasn't comfortable with introducing the repeating rifle. The quatermaster was worried troops would waste too much amunition and it would cost too much.

The military typically is not the first to institute change, especially big changes.

Granted but if "good order and discipline" were the chief concerns of those with say over the military we wouldn't have blacks, hispanics or women in the services today. Not in their current roles, not nearly as many of them. Nobody can argue that, so why are you trying?

We are talking about several different things here. Sex on deployment and before deployment resulting in pregnacy. Unprotected sex and protected sex resulting in accidents. All of which can fall under depleating units for deployment and necessitating replacing people on deployment.

How about we ask every man who has served with a woman who recieves a pregancy test if they got a paternaty test? How about they outlaw sex for every soldier uniformally both men and women not only when deployed but for eight months before deployment. When they do that, you will have a point. But we both know, they aint going to do that.

No JMS, brother you're just not getting it.

Yes the civilians in Washington have say so over the military but they don't go around changing things all willy nilly because they feel like. There is probably more beuracracy that goes into making a change in military culture than damn near anything in politics. They only thing you've been able to point to over and over again is desegregation, that's it. That was a no brainer and the military actually set the standard for the civilian sector. I guarantee you it was embraced sooner in the military culture than in the civilian, guaranteed.

No, I've been talking about servicewomen getting knocked up in the AOR the entire time. Not one time have I said that a woman should be prosecuted for getting knocked up before deploying. If a husband and wife have sex three months before deployment and she becomes pregnant than I have no problem with that. However, if intent can be proven by lets say said women admitting to several people that she got knocked up for the purpose of getting out of deployment then yes she should be prosecuted. No different than someone purposely injuring themselves.

Good order and discipline is the core of what makes the military work. It's a powerful thing to say the least. You can't even really describe just how important it is but believe when I tell you that it is. This is just my opinion, but I'd say that Good Order and Discipline is the primary reason homosexuals aren't allowed to serve openly in the military. Good order and discipline is the main reason it took so long for women to be able to serve in combat positions.

Change is possible, but don't underestimate the power of GOAD.

[Redskins Diehard]

Actually yes. One of my geniuses tried sneaking a porn disc through customs leaving Balad. He was given an Article 15 that came with a suspended demotion to E4 from E5, $150 a month for two months and 15 days extra duty.

Because he was an NCO it was a pretty harsh punishment but GO1 is GO1 and when you preach as much as we did and still get caught it calls into question your core values and overall decision making capabilities. How can you trust someone to make a decision that matters when they can't make a sound decision on something as simple as GO1? Not to mention the fact what message does it send to his subordinates.

So nobody knew anything about anyone having porn prior to customs? Seriously? Not trying to bust your chops but porn was about as common on EVERY one of my deployments as MREs(maybe a bad analogy for an Air Force guy )

[Bang]

I completely agree with this policy.

This is my 4th deployment I am on, the shortest of them was 8 months. So nothing in the 3-6 month range like some enjoy.

I can think of several females that have been assigned within my Brigade (aviation) and they have been in longer than me yet have dodged every deployment with a pregnancy.

There are also 3 females that got sent home within months of of 2 of the deployments since they convienently got knocked up with a few weeks to months into that tour.

It's a slap in the face to everyone else in the unit and it needs to stop. It's sad really that measures like this have to be taken just to try and put a stop to people treating the military like another type of welfare system, which anyone that's been in knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I am in now way against females in the service though, before anyone gets on their soapbox jumping to conclusions.

Not only does this policy need to be upheld, it needs to be 100% strictly enforced.

And I believe this post speaks volumes.

Thanks for your service.

~Bang

[ZoEd]

So nobody knew anything about anyone having porn prior to customs? Seriously? Not trying to bust your chops but porn was about as common on EVERY one of my deployments as MREs(maybe a bad analogy for an Air Force guy )

He was just dumb enough to get caught.

Customs was getting pretty strict over there though, checking hard drives, thumbs, discs and what not. Honestly if you were able to get it in I don't know why the hell you would try to bring it home.

[JMS]

No JMS, brother you're just not getting it.

Yes the civilians in Washington have say so over the military but they don't go around changing things all willy nilly because they feel like. There is probably more beuracracy that goes into making a change in military culture than damn near anything in politics. They only thing you've been able to point to over and over again is desegregation, that's it. That was a no brainer and the military actually set the standard for the civilian sector. I guarantee you it was embraced sooner in the military culture than in the civilian, guaranteed. .

Today the military announced women who get pregnant will NOT be subject to court marshall. The General totally crawfished and said he would never actually courtmarshal women for getting pregnant the entire thing was just to underline the seriousness of the issue...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXwXb_LkLyiN0x9imczUUBREedjgD9COIFSG1

Here endith the leason!

[sacase]

Today the military announced women who get pregnant will NOT be subject to court marshall. The General totally crawfished and said he would never actually courtmarshal women for getting pregnant the entire thing was just to underline the seriousness of the issue...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXwXb_LkLyiN0x9imczUUBREedjgD9COIFSG1

Here endith the leason!

Stop being a tool. Why not tell the whole story. Oh I forgot, because it would make you WRONG.

Here is a quote that applies to you

"I will listen to critics. They provide thought, but they don't actually have to do anything," he said. ""I have a very complex mission."

Now for the rest of the story as the late Paul Harvey would say

Hutson agreed, saying pregnancies planned to relieve the female soldier of duty is a form of malingering, an Army term for a soldier who injures him- or herself to prevent dangerous assignments.

Mailgering is punishable under UCMJ, I reccommended a soldier for an article 15 for Malingering.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Nathan Banks told ABCNews.com Monday that Cucolo, like any other commander, has the right to institute and enforce policies as he sees fit.

"Under his command, that's his take," Banks said.

That means, Banks said, that troops in different parts of Iraq and Afghanistan are subject to varying regulations. Some commanders, he noted, have made DUI a potentially court martial offense, while some haven't.

John Hutson, a former longtime military judge advocate and currently the president and dean of Franklin Pierce Law School in New Hampshire, said it's well within Cucolo's rights to hand down such an order, especially if pregnancy has become a serious issue within his ranks.

Once agian someone with experience in military law unlike you.

"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," he continued. "And I believe there should be negative consequences for making that personal choice. "

Once again your lack of experience shows. Read and heed.

Honestly, I was waiting for you to come back with the exact thing you did.

[twa]

A court martial comes in levels anyway and does not mean jail time automatically.

You seriously thought jail time was proposed?