Proposed coourt martial for pregnant soldiers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dukebound85, Dec 20, 2009.

  1. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm

    I agree with this as
    1) You sign up for a length of time...You need to fulfill your obligation
    2) Pregnancy has been used as a means to get out which is not right


    I know my coworkers who had served in the Navy have stated that some women who were assigned to billets that they didn't like used pregnancy as an escape

    Thoughts?
     
  2. cjmillsnun macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    #2
    1)You're gonna have to prove that they did this specifically to get out beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it's sexual discrimination.

    2)Accidents do happen.

    3)What would be wrong with taking a sabbatical with the commitment to come back?

    4)If the man who knocked her up was also enlisted, does he get a court martial? It takes two to tango ;)

    On the whole, NO I don't agree with it. It's unfair in the extreme. The general says he has a finite resource, that's his problem. The US army is the biggest in the world. Compared with any other army they have next to infinite resources.
     
  3. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #3
    Abortion could be offered in lieu of court martial?
     
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    Counting reserves and paramilitary forces, the U.S. has the 6th biggest Army in the world, behind Vietnam, China, North Korea, South Korea, India, and Russia respectively.

    Counting only active and reserve, the U.S. ranks 5th, with India dropping out of the above order.

    Counting active military only, the U.S. (1.5 million) ranks second behind China (2.2 million), and only slightly ahead of India.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops


    It's only military spending where the U.S. is unparalleled.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops
     
  5. colourfastt macrumors 6502a

    colourfastt

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    #5
    The order states: no pregnancy. Any female soldier in the command affected will be court-martialed. The other party involved (if military or a civilian attached to the command) will also be court-martialed.
     
  6. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #6
    This is a just a grand statement by the general to highlight the extreme measures that he has to go to to keep his resources to an adequate level.

    The emotive subject at hand means that it will never be followed through but will get a large amount of media attention, essentially he is just using it to strong arm his superiors to send him the resources he needs.
     
  7. joepunk macrumors 68030

    joepunk

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    a profane existence
    #7
    Clearly, the only way to prevent more army pregnancies in Iraq is to enlist more gay service members and stop court marshaling them.
     
  8. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #8
    I think we have a winner.
     
  9. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #9
    Now the general says he wont do it

    ABC report

     
  10. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
  11. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #11
    Military procedures already discriminate based on sex (and sexual orientation, honestly, until there's really been change in that arena) in a wide number of ways, do they not? With the existence of the selective service requirement, I'm somewhat unsympathetic. :p

    However, the article does address the equality issue...

    Yeah, of course. I do feel for the military -- both the command and the soldiers. The command are being asked to do things that, as I have made it clear I believe, require many decades of large troop presence on the ground as well as trillions of dollars in overall outlay. I honestly think we have an extremely capable military, and if we keep them in Afghanistan for 50-100 years, then the chances are good that there will be a stable democracy there. But imagining them doing it in 18 months without adequate troops and money is silly.

    The soldiers are going through hell. Too many of them have been on way too many deployments, without enough flexibility or sufficiently long intervals between tours.

    Of course, you know my solution to this. :p
     
  12. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #12
    You've never served in the military or had to really fulfill any obligation it would seem or you wouldn't have such a jaded way of looking that things.

    Perhaps women have gotten pregnant to get out of their service, none that I know of but I knew few in the service anyway. It also seems that you don't know anyone yourself as this is hearsay information you're acting on (your co-workers knows women). However, I don't think that the punishment fits the so-called crime. You also do not know that pregnancy has been used as a means to get out of duty. Just because it was reported on the news doesn't mean it has really happened.

    My thoughts, this is wrong and that I agree with a poster above who said the man should also be "punished" if this were the case as she didn't quite act alone.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Sure that is true against conventional forces, but I'm not convinced that is true overall. See Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan for examples where overall the US has failed against far weaker powers.
     
  14. dukebound85 thread starter macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #14
    Frankly Jessica, I am tired of you giving baseless thoughts concerning me. You do not know who I am so please keep your comments to yourself. You have shown this attitude towards me in numerous threads.

    If I were to venture a guess, you have never been in the military as evidence by your post
    I know many who have served, my friends, coworkers and what not.

    To think that this has not happened is just being ignorant of the situation

    From a direct source of women in military
    http://militarywoman.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7774
    http://community.babycenter.com/post/a15422625/getting_pregnant_to_avoid_deployment

    Yes they are forums/blogs but they are from women in the military that recognize this "fact" and as a result have much more credence than you do. Funny how it is consistent with my ex military coworkers and friends....
    If you were to read the article, you would realize that the man would also be punished:cool:
     
  15. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #15
    The issue with the Vietnam wasn't a lack of military skill, it was mostly military underestimation of the drive of the opposition, political interference, domestic resistance. If the US had been willing, it would have succeeded in destroying the VC. We would have destroyed most of the country at the same time, but we would have done it. Instead of sending a generally broad spectrum of volunteers (thus helping to galvanize broad support), we most drafted a bunch of poor folk (leaving the rest of the country comfortable with looking down on them).

    The issue with Afghanistan is that we went trying to be police and soldiers at the same time. We wanted to read AQ their rights and say, "Book 'em, Danno," instead of getting into what the Soviets showed us would be a protracted war (remember how when we got to Kabul, people talked about how we accomplished what the USSR never did? Eight years later...). Because of that, we went in without sufficient planning, lost initiative, and never recovered. Not only should we have had plans on the shelf for such an occasion, but we should have engaged in effective planning after the fact - resulting in a logical response. Instead, we went in emotionally. We also let ourselves get distracted 18 months later.

    The issue with Iraq is that we just didn't know what we were doing. We knew we wanted in, but we didn't know what to do when we got there.

    Point being, we have the superior military. We just seem to lose our focus on how to use it.
     
  16. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #16
    like in any other job, a woman worker who gets pregnant will cause some logistic problems to their employers. they are predictable and easily solved. thousands of companies deal with it all the time.
    like any other decent employer in the civilized world, the military should give them maternity leave and arrange so they can properly take care of their kids. At some point the mother will decide which kind of compromises between family and career she is willing to find acceptable, and act accordingly, this should include the option of quitting the job. at any time. (of course this should be applied to everyone in the army, it's not slavery).
     
  17. dukebound85 thread starter macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #17
    While the military is not slavery, it is not an at-will employer like other "jobs"
     
  18. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #18
    Plus, how realistic is the ability to quit at will in the military? Maybe individuals could quit whenever they're not deployed, and something should be done about the kind of unexpected and too-rapid re-deployments that are happening these days, but I don't think it's sensible to suggest that a soldier out in the battlefield just be able to say, "Meh, sorry, I'm out, dudes."

    Are there any countries who run their militaries in that kind of fashion?

    Consistently, it's the generally accepted concept, as far as I know, that soldiers in turn receive at least some kinds of job security others would not expect.
     
  19. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #19
    i know. i am saying it should.

    quitting at a moment's or short notice wouldn't be feasible during war deployment, but it shouldn't be a big deal at any other time. it's a contract that should be treated like other contracts with (reasonable) penalties if it's broken (and depending on the reason), and/or incentives not to be broken.

    for example, deployment that exceed that originally agreed or described, should be ground to get out of it, or be exceptionally compensated.

    in a voluntary/professional army, a soldier should be there because s/he wants to.
     
  20. dukebound85 thread starter macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #20
    The issue with that thought is that the military invests alot of training into their soldiers which

    1) costs a great deal to train
    2) takes a significant time to accomplish training aka cant have quick turn arounds in replacement soldiers

    It just is not reasonable to have the military be at-will as you propose.
    And yes, the soldiers are there because they want to already. No one forced them to sign up

    How do you propose this would work? I have a very hard time seeing how an at will military (in terms of quitting anytime) would be a good thing.

    Interested to hear your thoughts on this :)
     
  21. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    We failed because there were too many civilians wrapped up in the war and had no clear targets. We disabled Iraq fairly quickly, we just didn't have any targets after that.
     
  22. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #22
    i don't mean this as a knock on the military in general. i think it would be a better military.

    some sort of opt-out clause would force the military to re-work itself so it wouldn't happen frequently, to the benefit of the soldiers and of the military itself. A similar shift in focus occurs when an army goes from draft-based to professional: you have to make it worth for the soldiers to stay in. And the army gets better.

    you can structure the pay to make it worth, and have monetary penalties (commensurate to the training received) to get out early. link most/best of the benefits to the fulfillment of the commitment. Introduce a "premature discharge" (that alone would disincentivate some ;)) different from honorable and dishonorable. or many other ways.

    the basic training itself is not particularly long and/or expensive and the specialized one is not very different from what happens in many companies, so i don't think this is a particularly strong argument.

    I also don't think that many soldier would actually quit. you'd just get rid of the least committed/motivated, who are likely lousy soldiers anyway. on the other hand it would prevent the military to short change the soldier's (family/veteran benefit, excessive/repeated tours and so on).
     
  23. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #23
    I do (at least) see what you're saying conceptually. I think the transition away from drafts (although the option has been held too long) to a volunteer army has a good one. I think in the same way, some kind of balanced system that doesn't legally lock people into the military when they're not deployed might possibly also help the military.

    Now I know that some of the training opportunities for non-combat personnel actually work this way. For instance, at least in psychology training in the Army, one can join as a commissioned officer or as a civilian; they're both obligated to serve as psychologists in the Army, but the civil obligation is financially binding instead of having criminal penalties. I've heard estimates of $30-50k to train a soldier, which isn't out of the realm of feasibility.

    All in all, a volunteer force certainly makes the government come to grips with whether popular support for a large war action really exists.
     

Share This Page