.Commander faces no-win scenario coping with pregnancies in the field.
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.
Examiner
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.
Examiner
posted by madtom at 10:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home