Internet surfing, that I'm not supposed to be doing, has led me to the woman who reported for active duty with her children, and the comment trail that followed.
Some comments said she shouldn't serve, others said she should, some said she should serve stateside, and many said she should have planned to have children after her commitment was complete.
I say, it's a complex issue. In November, 2003 I had 5 more months to serve in the military. I scheduled my wedding for June 26, 2004, which was one month AFTER my enlistment was due to be completed. In January 2004 I got 18 month orders for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now, I can agree that I should have to serve from January to April (my final days in the military) but my time was extended beyond my contractual obligation.
If the army is going to go changing contracts around, they should have a bit of flexibility for people whose life circumstances change. When you sign up, it's an 8 YEAR commitment. Who the heck knows what will happen in 8 years! If you're 18 when you sign up I doubt you even consider what a parent would go through having to leave their child behind for a year spent at war. There's a big difference between 18 and 26.
We're supposed to have a volunteer army, which should be a good thing. The backdoor draft is no joke however. Stop Loss is a program that doesn't allow you to leave the military. You're too valuable to be let go. If you're not allowed out, how is that voluntary?
If the army can't get enough people interested in going to fight, then we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. Many reservists are on their 3 or 4th tour by now. Active duty is even worse. People have used this to justify keeping people in or pulling people back who have completed their obligations. Why shouldn't they share the workload?
Well, because if you want people to stay in and continue to serve you don't treat them like pieces of equipment. Actually, equipment gets more consideration than soldiers do. At least equipment is regularly examined to see if it's still serviceable or if any problems have developed.
I have little patience for people who are qualified to go downrange and who avoid deployment when they have no justified reason. One girl I worked with was extremely qualified to go but actively avoided deployment because she didn't want to be placed at risk. No children, still within her active 6 years of service, and she joined the Army AFTER we were already at war.
I think there's a failing on the part of the Army though. If people recognize that they don't belong in the Army they should be allowed out. I'm not saying leave a big loophole that allows you out of war if you're scared, but if you're personality is just not right for the military you should be medically boarded out.
If a woman gives birth after her active years of service and has the typical two years of inactive service left over I can see the argument that she should serve. Technically she's still in the army. The problem with that is that now she's leading a civilian life. Her life has changed and she's supposed to be called up only in case of national emergency.
At the very least there should be more stateside positions that can be taken over by soldiers in this predicament. There are people actively avoiding deployment and they should be ousted if they don't have a real reason for staying stateside.
2 comments:
Do you have the link? I am not qualified to really offer an opinion, having never served in any armed forces. However, as a working mother, I find the concept interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29441874/
Every initial enlistment is for 8 years. She served 4 years active duty, but was inactive for 4 years. During inactive years you can be called to active duty in the event of a national emergency. The war in Iraq has been classified as such and people in the IRR have been called up in droves. If she joined in 2002 her final IIR year is 2010, so they are likely trying to catch her before she exits the IRR. The reserve personnel program shows people who are about to leave service and they can be pegged to serve.
I'm generally against people avoiding service. BUT I think the Army has been acting in a way that violates the promise of a contract.
I've known people to go to war and come home to find their child doesn't remember them, then have to go one year later and face additional problems readjusting to family life.
In this case they're arguing that the father can't step up and take over care of the child by himself. Could he hire a sitter, probably. They could find a way to make it work. I've got a friend in New Mexico who has had custody of her grandchildren for over 2 years while her daughter was in training and overseas.
Yes, you sign the line, but the nearer you come to your exit date I think the closer the Army should consider your argument that you are done serving.
Post a Comment