Should we have pregnant soldiers serving in combat? For me, and probably millions of other Americans the answer is a resounding “no.” Are women an indispensible part of our military? Again, for me and millions of others, the answer is absolutely “yes.” The answers to these two questions appear to be self-evident – women in uniform “good”, abortion by IED, “bad”. That’s why all the fuss over MAJ GEN Cucolo’s policy on pregnancy in Iraq has been so maddening.
The commanding officer of a unit deployed to a combat zone needs all the good people he or she can muster. Losing any of them through a voluntary act not only takes valuable personnel off the battlefield, it sets a dangerous precedent for others to follow. Neither the Army or the military as a whole is about personal freedom – it’s about being a member of a well-disciplined team. For those deployed overseas performing some very dangerous duties, teamwork saves lives each and every day. In any effective combat unit individual acts of self-sacrifice are common, individuals are not. Unfortunately, the reality of life in a combat zone falls well short of the ideal. Soldiers make choices that disrupt the team.
No sane member of any rank in the military believes you can put groups of young men and women in a stressful, confined environment and prevent them from having sex. Where there is a will, there’s a way and in the military there’s no shortage of either one. The best we can hope to achieve is the establishment of reasonable and enforceable boundaries for sexual behavior - and therein lays the problem. Just what is reasonable and enforceable? In a world where the ever changing tide of social policy crashes onto the shore of ongoing military operations, reasonableness gets lost in the rip current of political rhetoric.
As female senators bemoaned the draconian lack of reproductive choice and senior officers overruled MAJ GEN Cucolo and forced a rescission of his anti-pregnancy policy, no one has asked why the hapless commander had to be the one to make such a policy in the first place. This issue has been around for decades. Long before 9/11, Afghanistan, or Iraq, military commanders have had to deal with deployment and pregnancy, yet no definitive policy has been set forth which would clearly resolve the issue. Neither Congress, the Pentagon, or the commander-in-chief have managed to craft an effective policy that provides a reasonable balance between family matters and operational necessities. MAJ GEN Cucolo should have never had to worry about this; let alone write a politically sensitive policy.
The commingling of military and political affairs is a tricky business. For commanders in the field, addressing controversial personnel issues with political overtones is about as welcome as an exploding latrine with both scenarios yielding similar results for all who come near.
Comments
There MUST be punishment for willingly disabling yourself from your post or duty. It should be treated no differently than shooting yourself to get out.
While the general has valid concerns about losing personnel, criminalizing pregnancy is not the answer. He loses more personnel as service women will and should avoid working for him.
Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Shaheen, and Gillibrand put it best. This policy encourages "female soldiers to delay seeking critical medical care with potentially serious consequences for mother and child." The Senators also point out there is "no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child".
I am 19-year officer who works at the AF's grad school. Our students are VERY motivated to not add a new family member while working on their degrees. Still, in my 8 years at the school, I've seen many an intelligent responsible military member experience an unplanned pregnancy. In high stress environments, contraception fails.
And, anyway, timing a pregnancy is not easy. It's not like shooting yourself.
clever girl, thanks for your service but KEEP YOUR PANTS ON!
I got out of the military because of several reasons after serving nearly 15 years. I am very proud of my honorable service. One of those reasons was that I disagreed with eventually enlisting women into combat forces -- Marines and Army combat trained units. Navy and Air Force is different. Such disagreement was something I couldn't serve with.
I served a three year tour on Okinawa with the US Army Garrison Command, Okinawa as executive officer for both north and south HQ Companies of the Special Troops Unit there. I was an interim commander of the WAC Company and given the privilege for a two week period until the delayed assigned commander arrived. During that time there occurred one rape incident. This is nothing classified, although it is like a family matter that happens and you don't want to tell anyone. It was put on my shoulders to try to quell the turmoil that such an incident caused. It came down to speaking to all the women all together, and reviewing all the factors contributing to what happened and what can and should have been done to prevent such things from ever happening. When I was finished talking, everyone was satisfied and there were no loose ends. But there was a price. Commanders are still responsible for this and I agree with you that whatever the commander decides should not be questioned by any politician who has authorized women in the combat units.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!