Single Mom Soldier Refuses to Go to Afghanistan

Sorry to hear about your brother. I'm afraid to ask how old he was; the answer will probably make me cry. It is so sad to hear of such young people losing their lives. It's hard enough to stomach anyone dying for a cause they can't even put a finger on; yet, I know it took at least a year or two of persistent training for me to get where I needed to be with my weapon.

Nonetheless, there IS a lot of good one can obtain from joining the service. Most soldiers bring an individuality that makes you proud to serve just being in their company and when you come together on one accord - training together, learning to work together, and getting to know that one special something that makes each and everyone of us worth dying for, look out. Yet, it only takes a few bad leaders to wipe all that gain away.

I only hope your brother got to meet a few good soldiers who compelled him to be content with putting his life on the line, 'cause really, that's what it all boils down to.

Even so, I hope he knew the Lord 'cause, if he did, he's most likely saved. God does not let go easily. In fact, there have been times in my life when I've awakened from what would be a devastating nightmare - scary real - and, yet, I'd find myself calling on the Lord.

I take great comfort in that - that subconsciously, even when I'm unaware, my spirit calls on the Lord - so that when my time comes I know I'll be okay and that one day I will see my loved ones again.

May it be so for your brother.

WELL LETS SEE HER MOM IS TAKING CARE OF THE CHILD NOW SO SHE DID HAVE SOMEONE TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WHERE IS THE DAD AT SHE SIGNED A CONTRACT TO GO IN THE ARMY SHE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE SHE HAD A KID SHE WAS IN THE ARMY BEFORE SHE HAD THE CHILD

SKL, as a single mother yourself, I am surprised that you do not have more compassion for this young mother. If you read the article, it did state that her mother had recently become ill, and she has no other relatives to care for the child. Since she is only a cook in the army, I highly doubt that she is urgently NEEDED overseas, and surely someone whose family situation is more stable could have been sent in her place. Mothers will do anything for their children, and they do come first, before jobs and all other duties. This young mother did what she felt she had to do, and since she can't just quit her job, she did the next thing. It might not be what you feel a soldier should do, but then we women aren't soldiers first. We're mothers above all others.

From what I have read about the situation on other sites she did not enlist as a mother. She got pregnant after joining and the father decided he wants nothing to do with her or the baby.

It is an Army rule that if you are a single parent and come down on orders for deployment and have no one to care for your children then you are not to be deployed.

She went to her chain of command told them she had no one to care for her son and was told to place him in foster care. They had no right telling her that. She did her job by informing them of her situation, they failed to do theirs by canceling the deployment orders.

This isn't about her not wanting to be deployed this is about having no one she trusts to care for her child while she is gone.

She is in the right the Army is in the wrong.

Elizabeth, your comment (especially toward the end) is a great rationale for discriminating against women in the armed forces.

They have a procedure for this situation. The two sides are not telling the same story. I don't know who's telling the truth as every human is capable of lying.

I do know that I personally would not enlist in the armed forces because I know that could cause me to be separated from my kids. Hence I would not be fraudulently drawing a paycheck on the US taxpayers.

I am not saying whether she should or should not go. But I am saying that if she didn't do what she was supposed to do, she should be punished, as should any other defrauder and defector in the armed forces.

Even if it's true that she got pregnant after she enlisted, that doesn't change the fact that she needed to follow procedures. Like I said before, almost any woman could become a single mom while serving. If people think these woman ought to be no longer subject to the rules, then maybe they should all be kicked out of the military the minute they get pregnant or the minute they get divorced.

SKL, what I said is not to discriminate against women, but what many people in the business world need to realize is that women do have different priorities than men--ie, children and family first, and they should be given different consideration when it comes to work schedules. It's not to say that women are any less capable of doing an assigned task, but they don't need to complete it in a 9-5 window frame. Women are much more capable of multi tasking, and it is to both their advantage and the company's to ulitize it. Many companies are now allowing working moms to come in at ten after dropping the kids off at school, leave at 2:30 to pick them up, and then go back to work in the evening after the kids are in bed, or allowing them to work from home and only go into the office a few days a week.
The armed services should be no different. There should be special consideration for all single parents--both male and female, especially if their positions aren't critical to the job at hand. I highly doubt a cook is needed more than a medic or weapon's expert. It's not as if she could just quit the army, like any other job. Knowing her situation, the army should have accommodated her, or else yes, there needs to be an opt out clause for people who have no one to care for their children. I say this not to discriminate against anyone, but women are different with different needs, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Elizabeth, the military is not like other companies, and anyone taking a job there knows it from day one. And I do think that it's important for the deployed soldiers to have something to eat. But be that as it may, if a mother or prospective mother doesn't want to be deployed, she can get a civilian job like most of us. To insist that the military give women an out just because they are women is discrimination and it can only lead to discrimination in hiring.

Basically your argument is "give us more because we're going to give you less because we're women."

I don't think you are right about that, actually. I think that in most cases, military women are just as patriotic and responsible as military men. So I think it's inappropriate for you to make statements about women being generally unwilling to do their job at the expense of their kids. Every parent in the military sacrifices family to some extent. It sucks but it's the nature of the beast. And people of both genders make a choice to do it. And people of both genders have the integrity to follow through on their duties.

SKL, as usual, you are twisting my words. If anything, my argument is give women more because we can give you more. I am not saying that the army should give women an "out because they are women." What I was saying is that SINGLE PARENTS, of both genders, who do not have anyone else to care for their children should be given either the option not to be deployed or a "get out of the army free card". I'm sure that if your parents were ill and you had to care for them, you could take a leave of absence from your job. Unfortunately, you can't do that in the army, because, as you said, it's different.

Most people sign up for the military to get help paying for college, and yes, very few think they will actually be deployed to war. This is naive, of course, but then, it's not like the army really emphasizes that in their recruiting films.

I am not saying that women in the military are unwilling to do their jobs in favor of their children, nor am I implying that women who choose their children over the military are unpatriotic. However, if a woman is in the military and she finds herself not only pregnant, but a single mother, what would you have her do? Have an abortion, which I believe you are against. Would you have her give up the baby to foster care, which we have agreed is a drain on a society? It's not as if she can quit the army. If you sign up for a four year hitch, they have you those four years. It's not as easy as just getting a civilian job, nor does it happen very quickly.

To say that a woman has no integrity because she chooses her child over a job is very narrow minded. I'm sure that if the woman just left her child in foster care you would be saying what a bad mother she is. I'm sorry, but the military is not the higher calling you make it out to be, and the people in it are not these heavenly angels you think they are. They are human and they make choices, good or bad. I just think you could be a little more sympathetic to a mother who is trying to do right by her child by taking care of him herself, like parents should.

Elizabeth, I can't believe you are now implying that the army is hiding from recruits the fact that it's, well, the ARMY. Oh, my.

My brother was in the Air Force and yeah, the education etc. was an incentive, but he was never in doubt about the fact that there could be combat, separation from family, and lots of other inconveniences. The pay and perks are designed to make up for that. You can't take the benefits and then turn and run when it's time to pay the piper.

I did not say this woman should be separated from her child. I merely said she needs to follow procedure just like every other single parent in the military, of which there are many, including many who get deployed, and many who don't.

I don't understand how your mind works. You want me to have so much compassion that it blinds me. Being a single mom who did NOT take a job in the military and allegedly break the rules, I should be that much more sorry for someone who did. Being a single mom who did NOT make a mistake resulting in an untimely pregnancy, I should feel that much more sorry for someone who did. Because I am a single mom, I am supposed to be the chief sympathizer for bad choices. NO! The reality is that being a single mom, I have the same ability to make good choices and pull my family's weight as everyone else, and I resent the implication that the opposite is true. Talk like yours causes problems for responsible single moms like me.

SKL, once again, if you read the article, this woman did follow procedure, and she still got screwed, so she did what she felt was right. I'm glad that you are perfect and you do everything right as a mother and a moral person, and I guess that gives you the right to throw the first stone. However, for the rest of us who are human, we make the choices that we feel are correct for ourselves and our families, and if they are wrong, we don't need your condemnation, but rather your understanding that we are human, and we have our failings. What did this woman do to you personally? For that matter, what did she do that was so wrong? Did she kill anyone? No. Did she beat or abandon her child? No. She just refused to be sent away from him. I'm sorry if you feel that's "unpatriotic."

Once again, you are twisting my words. I am not saying that the Army is hiding the fact that its main job is to fight in wars. What I am saying is that when people sign up for the army, though they know in the back of their minds that it is a possibility that they can get sent to war, it is usually one of those "it won't happen to me" scenarios. I have friends in the military who were still surprised that their units were going overseas. It is scary to leave your children. Perhaps what this woman did is not becoming of a soldier, but you know what, there are plenty of women in this country who do worse things than fight to be with their children.

Elizabeth, you are twisting my words even as you accuse me of twisting yours.

Never did I say she should leave her kid.

I saw in the article where SHE said she followed procedure, but the other party said she did not, so I refuse to conclude that she was automatically the one telling the truth just because she's got a sob story. I've heard too many sob stories in my life.

I am not judging people who make mistakes here. I am merely telling you that you are wrong to say I should have MORE sympathy than others because I happen to be in some of the demographic groups this woman is in. I am not perfect, but being a single mother doesn't mean I somehow have lower standards.

Fact is, I feel sympathy for any parent, married, single, male, or female, who has to leave his/her child due to deployment. That is sad. But having troubles as a result of intentional careless behavior? That is an entirely different thing. People who make mistakes have to own them and work through the results, for the good of themselves and others. Fact is, this woman wouldn't be in this predicament if she hadn't done something foolish, and while stuff happens in life, there is no obligation on me to support preferential treatment just because I happen to be a single mother.

Forgive me, SKL, but I fail to see how this woman's behavior was careless. She informed her supervisors of her situation and they did nothing. Knowing how honest and forthcoming government organizations are, I'm more inclined to believe this young girl. Rather than leave her child in uncertain hands, she took it upon herself to stay with him to make sure he was cared for. Would anyone else do that for this child, and more importantly, was there anyone else do so? It doesn't seem that way, because I'm sure if there were arrangements this woman would have made it. This woman seems to be the only person caring about and able to care for her child at this time.

In your posts you make it sound like she entered the army never intending to go if deployed, which is simply not the case. From what I read, she has fulfilled every duty asked of her in the way it was asked up until now. She even had a plan until it fell apart and unfortunately there wasn't time to make a new one before she was to be deployed. If you were in her situation, are you telling me you would rather entrust your children in foster care than stay with them when no one else could or would? I certainly hope not.

Elizabeth, I think the reason you were surprised I was not on this woman's side was because I'm a single mom like her. That's what you said, anyway. Various people here have said the kid was an oops, so I assume that is the case. Not sure, but that's what I went ahead and assumed. So an oops results from carelessness. That's what I was talking about when I said careless.

You have a right to your opinion about who's telling the truth here. As Sandyone said, maybe they both are. I don't know one way or the other. But the only way I'm going to take this woman's side is if I know she followed procedure and never intended to do otherwise than what she promised. Right now those are not established facts.

For the record, in no way, shape, or form do I believe the child should go into foster care. I think that is so obvious that it should not need to be spoken. If an idiot in the military said it in a serious manner, he needs to be dealt with. BUT that does not change the rest of what I have said.

SKL, I would think that all mothers, single or otherwise, would be
understanding of a woman who is trying to do her best for her child.
As a single mother yourself, I thought perhaps you would understand just how difficult it can be to balance work and family, and how important an issue it is to have a secondary care giver--and how stressful it can be when the one you had is no longer available and you have to make other arrangements. Knowing this, I thought perhaps you would sympathize with that aspect of the story, but instead you focused on the fact that she refused to be deployed. Whether you agree with what she did or not, surely as a mother you recognize she did what she felt was best for her child, as all mothers do. It is not easy to know what is right, but when it comes to your children, you go with your heart, not your head, and, if you are religious, will pray for a good outcome for her.

See, Elizabeth, you don't understand. I am talking about what's right and fair without discriminating against, or for, anyone. Compassion and sympathy are irrelevant to that. I can have compassion for someone while voting against them or convicting and sentencing them, for example. It's one thing to have feelings, it's another to let feelings cloud judgment.

The misunderstanding of compassion is what gets many people into these predicaments in the first place. If what the army said was true, then this woman failed to do what she needed to do procedurally, assuming that others' compassion would intervene for her and exempt her from the rules. There are too many instances of this. Don't pay your bills until your credit is destroyed, and then expect others to step in and help. Don't insist on using contraception, and then expect people to feed your child. It's everywhere. Compassion is a wonderful thing, but relying on compassion instead of proactivity is not.

I think it's interesting to see how different people approach these types of issues. I guess you could say one side is "cold" while the other is "warm," but I would say the "cold" side is more likely to prevent the problem (and thus the need for compassion) in the future.