If you are a soldier, don’t get pregnant
Well, I must say this is a first. I have never heard of such a rule, so let’s examine it a bit more closely.
Major General Tony Cucolo just assumed command of the American forces in northern Iraq last month and shortly after doing so, he issued the directive that is responsible for a bit of a stir among his troops. The directive gave a long list of things he did not want his soldiers to engage in. Among the activities that are banned, we find gambling, stealing historic artifacts, and personal firearms use, but the most controversial to date is the clause about pregnancy. Under no circumstance does he want a female soldier to get pregnant while they are deployed under his command. If they do, he holds both the woman and the man responsible and they will be punished.
So far, the order has affected seven soldier under Cucolo’s command, four female and three male. All of them received local letters of reprimand, which is a minor slap on the wrist. One male soldier received an official letter of reprimand, which will stay with him throughout his military career. His harsher punishment was merited because he committed adultery. It is worth noting that two of the cases involved married couples.
Now we get into the discussion of how valid the General’s order is. He claims he needs every soldier he can get his hands on and he probably has a very good point. Troop levels in Iraq have been drawn down. Having said that, does he have the right or the authority to order the women under his command to refrain from getting pregnant while deployed? I am not saying he does or doesn’t but it is true that when an individual enlists in our armed forces, they do give up some of their personal freedoms and rights. I do agree that he should hold both the man and the woman equally responsible, if they violate the order. It does take two to tango.
What do you think? Does Major General Tony Cucolo have the authority to give this order and expect it to be followed or has he overstepped the boundaries of personal freedom?
Actually, he does have the right. I understood when I was in that getting pregnant in this situation was not welcomed. What people don’t understand is a soldier has committed everything to serving his country and when a woman gets pregnant, she can no longer fulfill that agreement. It is also very costly for the military.
In addition, there are laws on the books in the military that the civilian world just let go of years ago, one being adultery. Again, in a war environment – or even just in a regular environment – adultery causes a lot of problems with authority and stability. When I worked for the legal office, we prosecuted several of these cases.
Anyway, to answer your question, yes, I think he has the authority. BTW – there isn’t very much ‘personal freedom’ in the military. It doesn’t work that way!
Dominique´s last blog ..a change in DIRECTION…
Its best not to get pregnant in the battle zone. Sounds like the general is using common sense. Something that is almost forbidden today. I understand the punishment for violation is something far less than the firing squad and amounts only to a mild reprimand—the offending male is also punished.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..ATTACK: Washington D.C. Nuked
I was listening to talk radio this morning and they were talking about this issue. A Vietnam vet called in and said that this was prefectly legal and while he was serving in Vietnam a soldier could be reprimanded for getting a sunburn that hamperedhis ability to perform his duty in the field, he felt as if this was no different. We must remember that these soldiers are in a war zone and as such they have to follow the rules that are laid down in front of them.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Reid and Pelosi to negotiate final healthcare bill in secrecy while a senior Democrat urges them to “kill the bill”
When one joins the military, I think it’s sort of a given that you give up (temporarily) some rights that you retain as a private citizen.
MuskogeePolitico´s last blog ..Arnett: A Gift from Boren this Holiday Season
Actually, when one joins the military, they own you 24/7. We get that when we sign on the dotted line. And I agree with Ron and Mr. Pink Eyes. In a war zone this is dangerous. In addition, you agreed to give 4 years or whatever when you join.
I guess it seems odd to those outside. I had a friend say recently she couldn’t be told what to do all the time but for those of us cut out for military duty, consistency, rules, and vision work well for us.
Dominique´s last blog ..a change in DIRECTION…
As a former military member and a female, Dominique has an unique perspective into this.
Family dinner at a great local restaurant tonight, and the conversation wound its way to this subject. Large group, yet (surprise!) the debate wound down to my nuclear family (me, my husband and my college age son).
Even though a higher officer has overturned this ruling, there is no easy answer to the bottom line question: How can women retain ALL rights (reproductive and career)without acknowleging the “special circumstances” that also accompany them? Jail time for a preganancy-ridiculous. Suspension of rank and corresponding pay for a willing pregnancy until the person becomes “combat ready”? Not so out of line, I think.
In so many ways a woman cannot fully be combat ready, and pregnancy is one of the reasons. From my experience i found that unit cohesion suffered greatly by the presence of an attractive young female, and the problems were compounded when a female began to use her feminine charms to further a personal agenda. The military has been down this road for 30 years now and it is still the problem i foresaw while serving with females under my charge.
This order is indicative of the need for combat ready troops. Major General Tony Cucolo is merely acting out in his capacity as commander to note this problem, knowing the attention this order would receive. One usually doesn’t make 2 stars by being stupid.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..Sell your coat and buy a sword?