Soldier-mom risks punishment to stay home and care for children

AP ^ | 11/6/2003 9:45 AM | AP

[wattsmag2]

Or in your mind, is it better to throw her ass in prison, let the government or an obviously incaple spouse take the children, and then have the rest of us foot the bill for that?

[wattsmag2]

Yes, that would be true in the case of ONE parent. So, why not just discharge the one and be done with it. Is your pound of flesh so needed that the children must bear the consequences too? I hope I never get as callous as what you have shown here.

[GB]

The problem is ... and I know this shouldn't be a consideration, but in the real world and the political realm it is ... the White House and the Department of Defense probably do not want and can't afford any additional bad P.R. or to hand the Dems any more sound bytes on this war right now. I'm sure they want this to go away with as little fuss as possible ... and I predict it will be with the general discharge you mentioned, whether it's deserved or not and a strong argument can be made that it is deserved, I see no earthly way they'll kick this woman out with a dishonorable right now because she'll be right back on TV crying about it.

Personally, I think if the woman had kept her mouth shut and worked through channels it probably would've been taken care of to everyone's satisfaction and nobody would've ever known about it.

The concept of looking after one's kids is certainly admirable ... but the more I think about this, the more the conspiratorialist in me wonders if something else isn't going on here or if somebody else isn't pulling a few marionnette strings on this person for other reasons.

[GB]

Maybe the way things are in the year 2003, the military needs to spend about five minutes talking with recruits before they take this oath and sign on the dotted line to make absolutely sure, without any shadow of a doubt, that they understand what it means. Oh, I find it perfectly clear, unambiguous and precise. Of course I'm 45 years old and went to school back in the days where they actually taught people concepts like this. I don't know if a lot of today's folks have a frame of reference for it.

[PeyersPatches]

As the government issues orders for people to register their arms, give up their arms, cease praying, etc. Does not make it right. Nor does it imply common sense or decency.

---

A friend in my college class is married to a fellow just back from Iraq. Except for him, she said ALL of the soldiers in his unit who went on R&R have gone AWOL. By your reasoning, all of them should get off the hook. I am sure they ALL have what they consider very valid reasons. That would thin out the herd fairly quickly and the war on Iraq would be the least of our concerns.

[Eagle Eye]

I've never been a fan of military parents. And this is why.

[wattsmag2]

Now where did I ever say that?

[CWOJackson]

They do counsel them, thoroughly. Unfortunately, many people tend to remember only what they want to remember, which in some cases doesn't include the oath the recited.

[GB]

What I said about working through channels, I just remembered something. I go to church with a woman who'd served in the Reserves for several years. She's single, no kids, lives with her parents. She was deployed after 9/11, not overseas but to some place up East (that's all she'll say to this day) on security duty. She'd been away for several months when her mother became ill with a serious health problem that continues chronically today. This woman's father is on the scene, but is getting up in years. And there were no other family members readily available to help him take care of his wife. So this woman asked to be discharged from her obligations so that she could go home and take care of her mother. She didn't cause a scene, didn't make a fuss, didn't go on TV, didn't write the newspapers, didn't get people protesting and picketing for her, didn't get her Congressman involved. She also didn't want to get out just to get out, she's always been proud of her service and in some ways it was really painful for her to leave. What she did was start at step A and go through channels, doing everything by the book and everything like she was supposed to, quietly and without causing a scene. She had to go through a lot of channels, probably up to Z, and it took a good while, but she eventually was granted an honorable discharge under hardship conditions, whatever the official name of that is.

So I ask again, according to the story the military was trying to work with this woman, why couldn't she play by the rules and go through channels? I really think it would've been taken care of and nobody would've known about it.

[wattsmag2]

From the article.

The Army requires two-soldier families to agree on custody plans before deployments so that children are taken care of, said Col. Rich Thomas of Army Forces Central Command in Atlanta.

"When there are extenuating circumstances, we obviously want to find a solution to work for both sides," he said.

The parents did do their duty, they made arrangements. An exspouse apparently decided this was a good opportunity for court aided child snatching and changed the basis of the prior arrangement. The government is obviously reaching out to reconcile this. So is it so unreasonable to suggest they simply release her?

[CWOJackson]

Exactly. Getting a hardship discharge isn't instantaneous but I never saw one turned down that wasn't legitimate. In many instances I have even seen the service administratively assign the member home awaiting orders...sent them home so they could address the hardship while still being paid and waiting for the system to work.

The military isn't usually the heartless organization a lot of people try to make it seem like. What a lot of people tend to forget is that the Armed Forces exists to protect this nation and to project our strength. It isn't a jobs program. It isn't an educational benefits program. It isn't a day care and it isn't an income supplement in the case of Guards and Reserve. It's the United States Armed Forces.

[hattend]

The Air Force has (had?) a policy that if both parents are military members, they have to list some people who are willing to take care of your kids if you have to deploy.

Is that policy not in force anymore? The Army doesn't have such a requirement?

This woman needs to get out.

[SpookBrat]

I tend to agree with you. I don't think it's a good idea.

[hattend]

Okay, I see later on in the story that they did make arrangements but the "arrangement" screwed her over. She should still just get out, one way or the other. After this incident, she's undeployable.

[TEXOKIE]

Bingo. This is another case in the pattern of judicial abuses we are seeing running rampant throughout the judiciary. There are some good judges out there, but increasingly, we are seeing some real skanks on the bench, and imho it is reaching crisis proportions. God help us.

[RLK]

Hmmm. I had a family while in the Army. Most of the guys I knew did.

------------------------

Hmmm. So how many months were you pregnant and how long were you nursing?

[FreedomPoster]

>>I've never been a fan of military parents. And this is why.

That's right up there in statements I've seen on FR, and not in a good way.

As an Army brat son of a career Army officer, I ask you: What do you expect? That the military be a bunch of family-less homosexual Spartans? < /maximum sarcasm>

Get real. There are issues here on a number of levels, but I assure you that the schools full of military brats, like those I attended grade schools with at bases across the country, aren't going away, if we want a military worth having.

[Xenalyte]

Maybe the way things are in the year 2003, the military needs to spend about five minutes talking with recruits before they take this oath and sign on the dotted line to make absolutely sure, without any shadow of a doubt, that they understand what it means

Like this?

Interviewer: Have you ever been convicted of a felony?

Winger: Convicted? No, never convicted.

Interviewer: Are either of you homosexual?

(Winger and Ziskey exchange glance)

Winger: You mean, like, flaming?

Interviewer: It's a standard question. We have to ask it.

Ziskey: No, we're not homosexual, but we are willing to learn.

Winger: Would they send us someplace special?

[SpookBrat]

Don't take it so personal. Lighten up.

Get real you say???? Realistically, it's not such a great idea many times. To each his or her own, eh? I can’t tell someone what to do with their marriages, families or careers. Do I think it’s always a good idea for both parents to serve? Nope.

I am an embassy brat myself. I know the heartache that comes when both parents work for the government and the country they’re working in at the time (Sudan) is under constant terror threats. My family lived separated for a few years, with a brother with grandparents, a sister with the other grandparents and the other sister in boarding school. Family life serving the government is hard sometimes. It comes with the territory.

Do I think it’s a good idea for both the husband and wife to be diplomats? If children are involved, an absolute NO.

I stand by my opinion. Have a nice day.

[FreedomPoster]

Primarily a comment on Eagle Eye's statement. Like I said - there are issues here. The big one is the much enlarged role of women in the military.

But to say "I've never been a fan of military parents" is just absurd on the face of it. You can't expect long-serving officers and NCOs to not have families.

If he meant "both parents in the military" he should have said so, but that's not how I parse his statement, and it rubbed me the wrong way.