Female Soldier Refuses Deployment to Care for Baby

[newlyweds 0]

and yes, i do think women shouldn't really be deployed because of a lot reasons. It's not because women are weaker, it's just one thing that people must be realistic about. In war, there is no room for special arrangements, or excuses, you cannot tell the enemy, hey can you be more considerate of me because medically I do not have the strength that every man was blessed with no matter all the resistance excercise i get, nor can she tell them to excuse her because she has PMS, or have her period, or have abdominal cramps..

you are contradicting yourself here. you say it's just one component, yet rattle off a bunch of so called physical limitations.

He didn't contradict himself. He stated that weakness wasn't the only reason. He listed other physical reasons that don't necessarily fall under the general tent of weakness, especially if by weakness he meant the narrow definition of smaller muscles. PMS isn't physical weakness even in a broad sense.

At the most, he didn't elaborate on other, non-physical reasons that women shouldn't be deployed. That isn't a contradiction, just a lack of elaboration.

uhhmm.. by the way, im the wife lol so you can refer to me, as "she" lol

[SMR 368]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

I agree the commander (probably the Company Commander or Battalion Commander) threw gas on the fire by having her arrested. If I was the commander I would have done two things: consult a JAG & get the commander's intent from higher.

Military order relies on the basis that disobeying a direct order has strict consequences. Take that away and the army is a mob. She was told to get on the plane and didn't. There have to be consequences.

Nowhereman, demonstrating that he doesn't actually have the ability to make decisions himself, would consult people. I'm not knocking asking for help when you don't know the answer, but what you said you would do isn't actually doing anything. You would just ask a JAG what he thinks and ask your CO what you should do. That isn't an action, that's consulting.

and yes, i do think women shouldn't really be deployed because of a lot reasons. It's not because women are weaker, it's just one thing that people must be realistic about. In war, there is no room for special arrangements, or excuses, you cannot tell the enemy, hey can you be more considerate of me because medically I do not have the strength that every man was blessed with no matter all the resistance excercise i get, nor can she tell them to excuse her because she has PMS, or have her period, or have abdominal cramps..

you are contradicting yourself here. you say it's just one component, yet rattle off a bunch of so called physical limitations.

He didn't contradict himself. He stated that weakness wasn't the only reason. He listed other physical reasons that don't necessarily fall under the general tent of weakness, especially if by weakness he meant the narrow definition of smaller muscles. PMS isn't physical weakness even in a broad sense.

At the most, he didn't elaborate on other, non-physical reasons that women shouldn't be deployed. That isn't a contradiction, just a lack of elaboration.

uhhmm.. by the way, im the wife lol so you can refer to me, as "she" lol

Sorry. I just saw the picture of the soldier and assumed he was the one with an opinion about army life.

[nane1104 146]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

why did she join the MILITARY? Didn't she think she would be deployed. she needs to go and do her time as the soldier she signed up to be and not be a coward. nobody twisted her arm to join. she didn't have to join the military. What did she think she was going to do be on vacation.

How can you call her a coward? She joined and then had her child, then separated from the father. The article clearly states that she was willing to deploy, she HAD a careplan for her son in place (I admit, not thought through very carefully), it just didn't work out.

She did what you'd think every mom would do- put her child first no matter the consequences.

Being a soldier does not turn you into a machine. You still worry about your child and his wellbeing and I can totally see how fostercare was no option for her.

My husband just returned from a deployment and I know he was okay because he knew our son was in good hands with me, I definitely know he would have done anything to stay home if he had doubts about the wellbeing of his son while he was gone.

And yes, there are so many guys who come up with all kinds of ridiculous reasons not to deploy and nobody calls those cowards....

[SMR 368]

Per my original post, she should be thrown out of the army. I understand that things don't always work out the way you want them to but when you make commitments and then make choices that put you in a situation that make those commitments mutually exclusive, it's your fault.

Per the AP article, the Army would appear to disagree with you:

Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child.

"I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

What's your point? I realize the army has to deal with reality. And reality means that someone has to take care of the kid. Of course if she shows up with her kid, they can't send her because there is no one to take her kid. The fact that she created a situation where basic decency means that she can't be forced to fulfill her obligations doesn't mean that she isn't at fault for creating that situation.

[nowhereman 1]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

I agree the commander (probably the Company Commander or Battalion Commander) threw gas on the fire by having her arrested. If I was the commander I would have done two things: consult a JAG & get the commander's intent from higher.

Military order relies on the basis that disobeying a direct order has strict consequences. Take that away and the army is a mob. She was told to get on the plane and didn't. There have to be consequences.

Nowhereman, demonstrating that he doesn't actually have the ability to make decisions himself, would consult people. I'm not knocking asking for help when you don't know the answer, but what you said you would do isn't actually doing anything. You would just ask a JAG what he thinks and ask your CO what you should do. That isn't an action, that's consulting.

Good leaders don't make decisions in a vacuum unless the situation dictates it (e.g. a battlefield decision that has to be made on the spot). This scenario isn't on the battlefield & I'm pretty sure the chain of command knew about the situation beforehand, so consulting a JAG and your higher HQ is prudent & not a sign of weakness or indecision as you are implying.

You don't know me or my experiences so please do not make baseless assumptions on my ability to make decisions by myself. Stick to the topic at hand.

Edited November 17, 2009 by nowhereman

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

I agree the commander (probably the Company Commander or Battalion Commander) threw gas on the fire by having her arrested. If I was the commander I would have done two things: consult a JAG & get the commander's intent from higher.

Military order relies on the basis that disobeying a direct order has strict consequences. Take that away and the army is a mob. She was told to get on the plane and didn't. There have to be consequences.

Nowhereman, demonstrating that he doesn't actually have the ability to make decisions himself, would consult people. I'm not knocking asking for help when you don't know the answer, but what you said you would do isn't actually doing anything. You would just ask a JAG what he thinks and ask your CO what you should do. That isn't an action, that's consulting.

thanks for trying to educate someone who's retired from the army.

commanders have leeway with the situation described. they can do what's right or demonstrate to the world that they shouldn't be in command. this commander chose the latter course.

eta: he'll also be atlas the next time oer's come due.

Edited November 17, 2009 by charles!

[Krikit 1,164]

I can't imagine how effective they think she'll be in a combat setting given the circumstances.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Per my original post, she should be thrown out of the army. I understand that things don't always work out the way you want them to but when you make commitments and then make choices that put you in a situation that make those commitments mutually exclusive, it's your fault.

Per the AP article, the Army would appear to disagree with you:

Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child.

"I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

What's your point? I realize the army has to deal with reality. And reality means that someone has to take care of the kid. Of course if she shows up with her kid, they can't send her because there is no one to take her kid. The fact that she created a situation where basic decency means that she can't be forced to fulfill her obligations doesn't mean that she isn't at fault for creating that situation.

My point is that your take on the situation is quite extreme - more extreme than it should be. As I said earlier, life happens and that has got to be taken into consideration. The Army does that obviously. Only you can't find it in you to understand that this woman finds herself ina situation that she's not happy being in. You make it sound as if she planned this whole thing to avoid deployment and there's nothing in this story to suggest that is the case.

But since you're superior and without any fault, keep throwing them stones.

[Anna C. 4]

It's harsh, but it is what she signed up for. Don't join the services if you want to be a stay at home mom. I personally would never join for that very reason and I don't understand women who want to have children who do. Maybe they don't understand how hard it is to leave a baby behind until they have one. Even breastfeeding for a year is impossible, one reason right of the bat to never join for me.

[newlyweds 0]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

why did she join the MILITARY? Didn't she think she would be deployed. she needs to go and do her time as the soldier she signed up to be and not be a coward. nobody twisted her arm to join. she didn't have to join the military. What did she think she was going to do be on vacation.

How can you call her a coward? She joined and then had her child, then separated from the father. The article clearly states that she was willing to deploy, she HAD a careplan for her son in place (I admit, not thought through very carefully), it just didn't work out.

She did what you'd think every mom would do- put her child first no matter the consequences.

Being a soldier does not turn you into a machine. You still worry about your child and his wellbeing and I can totally see how fostercare was no option for her.

My husband just returned from a deployment and I know he was okay because he knew our son was in good hands with me, I definitely know he would have done anything to stay home if he had doubts about the wellbeing of his son while he was gone.

And yes, there are so many guys who come up with all kinds of ridiculous reasons not to deploy and nobody calls those cowards....

sometimes, the society because they are tax-payers, think they have a big hold or can control what people in the military should do; like for example her, just because she couldn't deploy (couldn't not because she ddnt want to) with her current situation doesn't mean she should be attacked with reasons she was paid with "everybody's tax, yours or mine" she should do her job and yes, be like a machine and go leave her child.

It is a job yes, but even in your job you get sick days, and for most of us we want to be excused for absences at work so we can't just attack her not being able to deploy; She has so many reasons that they are willingly trying to find out hence the investigation.. The final say would be when the investigation ends and we get answers.

Just think of it this way, it wouldn't be fair to make someone do something they are not fully prepared for, and in her case, part of the preparation was making sure someone is there to care for her child whilst she serves the country.

My husband too had been deployed, he said he never wants to do that ever again; Him not wanting to deploy doesn't mean that he's a coward, he doesn't want to be blown up and have pieces of his helmet stuck in his brain like what happened to someone in his unit; Luckily, he doesn't need to be deployed in his unit now

so there's a difference and there are reasons

Per my original post, she should be thrown out of the army. I understand that things don't always work out the way you want them to but when you make commitments and then make choices that put you in a situation that make those commitments mutually exclusive, it's your fault.

Per the AP article, the Army would appear to disagree with you:

Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child.

"I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

What's your point? I realize the army has to deal with reality. And reality means that someone has to take care of the kid. Of course if she shows up with her kid, they can't send her because there is no one to take her kid. The fact that she created a situation where basic decency means that she can't be forced to fulfill her obligations doesn't mean that she isn't at fault for creating that situation.

My point is that your take on the situation is quite extreme - more extreme than it should be. As I said earlier, life happens and that has got to be taken into consideration. The Army does that obviously. Only you can't find it in you to understand that this woman finds herself ina situation that she's not happy being in. You make it sound as if she planned this whole thing to avoid deployment and there's nothing in this story to suggest that is the case.

But since you're superior and without any fault, keep throwing them stones.

[SMR 368]

defer her deployment for several months - and relieve her commander for idiotic decisions.

I agree the commander (probably the Company Commander or Battalion Commander) threw gas on the fire by having her arrested. If I was the commander I would have done two things: consult a JAG & get the commander's intent from higher.

Military order relies on the basis that disobeying a direct order has strict consequences. Take that away and the army is a mob. She was told to get on the plane and didn't. There have to be consequences.

Nowhereman, demonstrating that he doesn't actually have the ability to make decisions himself, would consult people. I'm not knocking asking for help when you don't know the answer, but what you said you would do isn't actually doing anything. You would just ask a JAG what he thinks and ask your CO what you should do. That isn't an action, that's consulting.

Good leaders don't make decisions in a vacuum unless the situation dictates it (e.g. a battlefield decision that has to be made on the spot). This scenario isn't on the battlefield & I'm pretty sure the chain of command knew about the situation beforehand, so consulting a JAG and your higher HQ is prudent & not a sign of weakness or indecision as you are implying.

You don't know me or my experiences so please do not make baseless assumptions on my ability to make decisions by myself. Stick to the topic at hand.

My point is that asking someone is not an action and you don't know if the CO in question did ask the people you suggested. He took an action and that is what the news story is about. Maybe he asked higher HQ and a JAG and they told him to arrest her. Since you would have to ask them anyways, you don't know what they would say. You haven't offered an alternate course of action, just a way to arrive at a course of action.

[SMR 368]

Per my original post, she should be thrown out of the army. I understand that things don't always work out the way you want them to but when you make commitments and then make choices that put you in a situation that make those commitments mutually exclusive, it's your fault.

Per the AP article, the Army would appear to disagree with you:

Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child.

"I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

What's your point? I realize the army has to deal with reality. And reality means that someone has to take care of the kid. Of course if she shows up with her kid, they can't send her because there is no one to take her kid. The fact that she created a situation where basic decency means that she can't be forced to fulfill her obligations doesn't mean that she isn't at fault for creating that situation.

My point is that your take on the situation is quite extreme - more extreme than it should be. As I said earlier, life happens and that has got to be taken into consideration. The Army does that obviously. Only you can't find it in you to understand that this woman finds herself ina situation that she's not happy being in. You make it sound as if she planned this whole thing to avoid deployment and there's nothing in this story to suggest that is the case.

But since you're superior and without any fault, keep throwing them stones.

Actually, I'm not suggesting that she planned this whole thing. My point is that she didn't plan. And that's her fault.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Actually, I'm not suggesting that she planned this whole thing. My point is that she didn't plan. And that's her fault.

she had the army required family plan. i've never heard of there being a requirement for a plan b, plan c, and so on.

your point is void.

Edited November 17, 2009 by charles!

[newlyweds 0]

Per my original post, she should be thrown out of the army. I understand that things don't always work out the way you want them to but when you make commitments and then make choices that put you in a situation that make those commitments mutually exclusive, it's your fault.

Per the AP article, the Army would appear to disagree with you:

Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child.

"I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

What's your point? I realize the army has to deal with reality. And reality means that someone has to take care of the kid. Of course if she shows up with her kid, they can't send her because there is no one to take her kid. The fact that she created a situation where basic decency means that she can't be forced to fulfill her obligations doesn't mean that she isn't at fault for creating that situation.

My point is that your take on the situation is quite extreme - more extreme than it should be. As I said earlier, life happens and that has got to be taken into consideration. The Army does that obviously. Only you can't find it in you to understand that this woman finds herself ina situation that she's not happy being in. You make it sound as if she planned this whole thing to avoid deployment and there's nothing in this story to suggest that is the case.

But since you're superior and without any fault, keep throwing them stones.

Actually, I'm not suggesting that she planned this whole thing. My point is that she didn't plan. And that's her fault.

well, she did have a plan, it just backfired on her. You cannot blame her for that, some things just don't work out.

Actually, I'm not suggesting that she planned this whole thing. My point is that she didn't plan. And that's her fault.

she had the army required family plan. i've never heard of there being a requirement for a plan b, plan c, and so on.

your point is void.

[SMR 368]

Here's the link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thoughts?

why did she join the MILITARY? Didn't she think she would be deployed. she needs to go and do her time as the soldier she signed up to be and not be a coward. nobody twisted her arm to join. she didn't have to join the military. What did she think she was going to do be on vacation.

How can you call her a coward? She joined and then had her child, then separated from the father. The article clearly states that she was willing to deploy, she HAD a careplan for her son in place (I admit, not thought through very carefully), it just didn't work out.

She did what you'd think every mom would do- put her child first no matter the consequences.

Being a soldier does not turn you into a machine. You still worry about your child and his wellbeing and I can totally see how fostercare was no option for her.

My husband just returned from a deployment and I know he was okay because he knew our son was in good hands with me, I definitely know he would have done anything to stay home if he had doubts about the wellbeing of his son while he was gone.

And yes, there are so many guys who come up with all kinds of ridiculous reasons not to deploy and nobody calls those cowards....

sometimes, the society because they are tax-payers, think they have a big hold or can control what people in the military should do; like for example her, just because she couldn't deploy (couldn't not because she ddnt want to) with her current situation doesn't mean she should be attacked with reasons she was paid with "everybody's tax, yours or mine" she should do her job and yes, be like a machine and go leave her child.

It is a job yes, but even in your job you get sick days, and for most of us we want to be excused for absences at work so we can't just attack her not being able to deploy; She has so many reasons that they are willingly trying to find out hence the investigation.. The final say would be when the investigation ends and we get answers.

Just think of it this way, it wouldn't be fair to make someone do something they are not fully prepared for, and in her case, part of the preparation was making sure someone is there to care for her child whilst she serves the country.

My husband too had been deployed, he said he never wants to do that ever again; Him not wanting to deploy doesn't mean that he's a coward, he doesn't want to be blown up and have pieces of his helmet stuck in his brain like what happened to someone in his unit; Luckily, he doesn't need to be deployed in his unit now

so there's a difference and there are reasons

So, your husband decided he didn't want to deploy and chose a unit that doesn't require it. That's called planning and decision making. Good for him.

Whether or not it's fair to make someone do something they aren't prepared to do is debatable. I doubt anyone can really consider themselves fully prepared to deploy to a war-zone unless they are crazy. But it isn't fair to commit to do something and then not do it. When you commit to do something, preparation is your responsibility.