Recently much has been made about female soldiers becoming pregnant while serving in a combat zone. Maj. General Anthony Cucolo III, determined to maintain combat readiness, has made clear that there would be repercussions (for both male and female soldiers) should they chose to engage in behavior that removes them from their duty:
"Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status or contributed to making someone no longer deployable is not in keeping with a key element of the Army's warrior ethos – 'I will always place the mission first,'" Cucolo said. "I believe there should be professional consequences for making a choice like that."
US general in Iraq defends tough pregnancy rules
It is important to note that the soldiers are not being punished for being pregnant; they are being reprimanded for violating their oath, and committing to actions that made the solider unable to perform their assigned duties. I understand, primal urges are hard desires to resist; but that is what we ask of our soldiers every day, to be at the optimum of their mental and physical best.
There is nothing new with the military, and by extension combat commanders, taking steps to ensure full combat effectiveness. Pregnancy is just another in a long list of physical and/or mental changes that are known to deter fighting readiness, and can result in punitive actions against the solider:
Being overweigh, excessive drug or alcohol use, self-injury, reckless behavior, even getting a sunburn (if it affects the soldier’s ability to perform their duties to their fullest) can result in an official warning.
Unfortunately, the debate has taken a wrong turn. Pro-abortion groups, liberal feminist organizations (such as NOW, which called the policy "ridiculous.” “How dare any government say we're going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant," NOW President Terry O'Neill said. "This is not the 1800s."), anti-war groups want to somehow make this an issue about choice in favor of pregnancy (a hard sell considering their fanatically support for abortion at all cost). Each of these groups has ulterior motives, none of which have anything to do with the combat readiness of the US Military.
But the most operant intervention is when politicians decide to intervene for self-seeking motives, and not in the best interest of the combat status of a unit serving in a hot zone. Four US Senators, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-California), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) prematurely sent a letter in opposition to General Cucolo’s orders:
"We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child," the senators wrote to General Cucolo. "This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy."
The heavy tone of the letter is not only indicative of the Senator’s misunderstanding of the true role of the US Military, but the factual crisis General Cucolo was trying to address…….the selfish actions of a few soldiers under his command that were jeopardizing not only the mission, but the lives of fellow soldiers. It is the actions of these soldiers, some more than likely getting pregnant to avoid a long deployment, which “defies comprehension.”
Additional links:
Senators Demand General Rescind Order on Pregnant Soldiers
Posts
