Single Mother Jailed for Refusing to Deploy

[tekisui]

Source: Army Times

When Spc. Alexis Hutchinson’s airplane left Hunter Army Airfield, Ga., for Afghanistan on Nov. 5, she was not on board.

The 21-year-old single mom stayed home because she had no one to care for her 10-month-old son. Her mother in Oakland, Calif., initially took the boy in but became “overwhelmed” and refused to keep him for the deployment.

Hutchinson is one of thousands of single mothers who have faced the order to leave a child home and go to war. But she refused to deploy.

Hutchinson, an Army cook assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division, was arrested the day after she skipped her flight. She is confined to Fort Stewart, Ga., hoping for a discharge instead of a court-martial.

In the past two years, more than 3,000 people have been discharged — voluntarily or involuntarily — for pregnancy or lack of a family care plan, the Army says.

Hutchinson’s “is a perfect case, exactly why the Army has an administrative discharge due to parenthood,” said her attorney, Rai Sue Sussman. “There must be other people being placed in this horrible predicament: ‘I don’t want to disobey orders, but I don’t want to abandon my child.’ ”

more: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/army_refuser_112809w/

[rd_kent]

1. All military personel are FULLY trained and educated on Family Care Planning...

When they come into the military AND when they become pregnant. She had a choice to make BEFORE she had her child and was given MANY opportunities to come up with a Family Care Plan.
As a 21 year navy guy, recently retired, I had MANY women that worked for me who were in this same position. They ALL were assisted in coming up with a Family Care Plan to deal with deployments. Only one failed to do so, citing the SAME excuses that this woman has. It all came down to the fact that she did not want to deploy so the was "unable" to find care for her child. She too was discharged under Other Than Honorable conditions, a fair solution, IMO.

[beyurslf]

2. Agreed.

[tabasco]

3. The chain of command will help soldiers in this situation.

This individual probably just didn't want to go.

[EFerrari]

35. A statement for which there is counter evidence which argues bad faith on your part.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

41. Your assumptions are your burden, not mine.

This woman tried to set up daycare for her child. And there's no evidence that she was helped by anyone at any point. You produce that, that's your assertion.

[tabasco]

60. Facts:

1) The Army said Hutchinson knew her deployment date for months and that she’d already gotten one 30-day extension.

2) “There are thousands of single parents and dual military families where mom and dad are soldiers in similar predicaments,” said Army spokesman Kevin Larson, of Fort Stewart. “They have to have that family care plan, they have the time to set it up, and then they go forth and do their duty to their country and their comrades.”

3) Although the Army does not allow single parents to enlist, there are 37,000 single parents on active duty. According to the Army, 8,300 single parents are currently deployed. About 1,800 are single mothers.

4) Legal experts said the Army tends to accommodate family needs, to a point. And most single-parent soldiers tend to tough it out.

5) The soldiers was provided an opportunity to make a plan and failed to do so.

6)The soldier was given a 30-day extension.,

7)The chain of command is responsible for making sure their troops are deployable and for assisting them with family needs.

YOU are the one making the assumptions. You assume that the statements of the soldier's LAWYER are true.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE?

[EFerrari]

63. #5 is wrong. She made a plan. That plan fell apart through no fault of that soldier's.

That's the crux of it. And there is no evidence that when that plan fell through that anyone tried to help out.

Oh, and your cap lock key seems to be stuck.

[rd_kent]

81. The crux is that her "plan" really wasn't a plan at all.

My OP above explains MY personal experience with this issue. Had you read it and comprehended it you would see that the military DOES assist and DOES try to help out, but there is only so much the military can do. This woman had a child AFTER she knew she was going to deploy and should have had a true plan BEFORE she made the decision to have a child.

You seem to think that the military is responsible for finding someone to care for her child. It's not. It is HER responsibility. SHE failed.


Oh, and your ignorance button seems to be stuck.....

[EFerrari]

85. Insulting people who disagree with you is not an argument. nt

[rd_kent]

86. Arguing with those that choose to be ignorant is futile.

You have yet to make a valid point, and I am not insulting you.

[EFerrari]

93. "This is not an argument"

[rd_kent]

100. "Yes it is!"

[EFerrari]

105. LOL

[rd_kent]

106. I'm sorry, is this just the half or the full hour?

[rd_kent]

43. I dont understand. Please explain.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. A mother with a small child should not be deployed. Period.

[Taitertots]

5. Then she shouldn't be allowed in the military. Period

[TexasObserver]

11. No, she shouldn't be allowed to STAY in the military.

You've got it ass backwards.

She was legitimately IN the military. The question is whether she should remain in the military now.

[Taitertots]

17. You missed the point

If women with children shouldn't be deployed, then they shouldn't be allowing in the military.

Not that she should be denied entry now.

[TexasObserver]

19. No, you missed the point. And you still do.

Your statement that "if women with children shouldn't be deployed, then they shouldn't be allowed in the military" is asinine.

As I have noted, the military has many, many jobs that are non combat. If our military prowess is reduced to requiring single mothers to deploy against their will, then our military is pretty craptastic.

Frankly, soldiers should always have the option of taking discharge for the convenience of the military any time they don't wish to deploy. It's the only way to make the volunteer army truly volunteer. If we had such a volunteer army, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over 4 or 5 years ago.

I know. You think military are indentured servants. I don't.

I served four years. And you?

[Taitertots]

22. Won't accept the time, don't accept the dime

If our military is reduced to accepting single mothers unwilling to fulfill their already agreed upon duties, then our military is in a sad state.

Oh yeah, I didn't join because college seemed like a much smarter idea. Also I graduated high school right into the start of the Iraq war. I was unwilling to fulfill the duties of the military so I didn't join. I didn't take the money and run when they expected anything from me.

During those four years did you fulfill your commitment to the military? Why, obviously you don't see anything wrong with accepting payments with no intention of fulfilling your duties.


I think if you want to leave at any time then they should pay back the training, health care, and income they took from the government.

[TexasObserver]

24. I find you unreasonable on this topic.

I find you unreasonable on this topic.

I can hear your point of view by watching Fox News during any of its 24 hours of daily propaganda.

[Taitertots]

25. I find you just as unreasonable

If you sign a contract you should intend to abide by it. If you don't want to do the time, don't accept the dime.

Personally, I think there should be a non-combat branch of the military for people who want non-combat jobs. Sign up, get extensive training and get put to work in a non-combat role.

[TexasObserver]

36. That's because I'm a progressive.

[knightinwhitesatin]

37. Is that what you call it when you

encourage people to not honor the Oath of enlistment? I am as against the surge as the next person, but once the orders are given we as soliders are honor and duty bound to follow these orders as they are legal orders. In this case, if this young woman truly had a family care plan issue, I would let her correct the problem and then join her unit in country. If she tried to skip out on a deployment, I would conduct Article 15 proceedings and then send her to join her unit.

Finally addressing those who believe single mother should not be on the battlefield. I say this with respect but anger. Screw You! If a single mother volunteers for the military she is volunteering to deploy, to go where the Army tells her to go. We would destroy the very fabric of the military by allowing single mothers an opt out. We would in effect create a separate but unequal military. But in this case it would be based on sexism, I can hardly believe I am seeing progressives argue for a two tiered military where single moms are exempt from the duties of everyone else. Somehow I doubt this is the equal world feminists imagined.

[TexasObserver]

42. Bullshit.

I don't find your comments worthy of further discussion.

[knightinwhitesatin]

46. No explanation

just a simple expletive.....Nice.

[TexasObserver]

47. Your thought processes are controlled by your superiors.

You'll find that many soldiers have no idea what's going on in the world until they've been OUT of the military a good while. All you know of adulthood you've learned from the military. You think like them because that's all you know. After you get out, you'll learn more than "what is the military reg on this?"

This matter with the young mother is a matter of public policy, which civilians, not military, set. The military's job is obey us, not tell us how they intend to be, and we'd better like it. No, you and your bosses had better listen to what the civilians think about this issue, because we don't agree with you, and we write your paycheck.

[knightinwhitesatin]

56. You need

to look at my posts, few that they may be. I have repeatedly questioned my superiors on the war. However in this case, we don't have all the facts, if she did indeed take her oath of enlistment, if she did indeed have a family care emergency then she should be given the time to correct this problem and then rejoin her unit without getting in any kind of trouble. If on the other hand she tried to pull a fast one on the Chain of command then an Article 15 investigation should be started, appropriate punishment should be dealt to her and then she should be sent to her unit to finish their tour in country. My conclusion is based in logic and fact, if a real emergency give her time to fix it, if she can send her to the war zone, if she can't find out why and then give her a desk job. If she lied, punish her and then send her to her unit to fulfill her oath.

I must say it's twice in two days people have called me stupid or a mindless slave, once for being completely against the surge in Afghanistan and now once for wanting someone to honor their word and their oath. I am enjoying the spectacle of you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah nah"..............I understand what the militaries role in civil-military relationships are, you apparently do not.

[TexasObserver]

58. Unlike you, I have both military and civilian experience.

Unlike you, I got out of the military and worked the stop the war I knew was wrong, got a decent education, and worked in the electoral, legislative, and executive processes. If you'll do that, you'll know much more than you do now. Right now, you're just a guy whose whole world as an adult has been the military telling you what to do and how to think.

If you have any integrity, you'll get out of the military if you're really opposed to the war.

[knightinwhitesatin]

62. Umm how do you know I have no real world experience.

I'm 35. I worked most of my adult life, got a college degree had a career, a house, a life and then 9/11 happened and in 2002 I joined. Please don't assume you know me. I had a decent education before my military service so taunts of being a brainwashed peon really have no bearing on me.

I plan on getting out as soon as I can, I and so many others thought Obama would be different and he isn't. I stayed hoping the military would be fixed after 8 years of Bush misuse......Alas all I see is more war......

Finally all you have done is denigrate me, I am still looking for any substantive answer as to why this young woman should not be held accountable if she indeed did something wrong. Your personal attacks bore me.

[TexasObserver]

65. I don't believe any of your posts.

Let's just leave it at that.

[knightinwhitesatin]

66. Of course you don't

I disagree with you. So the next best thing when confronted with someone who can disprove your claim is to just discount them or call them a liar. I don't really care. Have the last word.....

[TexasObserver]

67. Time will tell.

[uppityperson]

104. Don't forget "Your thought processes are controlled by your superiors"

that was quite a reply also.

[rd_kent]

91. No, you choose to be ignorant, and thats a difference.

You choose to not believe one poster but expect others to believe you. That's hypocrisy, and hardly a progressive trait. Your personal attacks are very telling of someone that no longer has a valid platform from which to argue, but you know that.

Your decision to not even argue your position regarding the actual discussion here, but to say anyone that disagrees with you is somehow brainwashed, is also telling. I believe in a previous post that you said you served 4 years. I am willing to bet that those four years were filled with stories of how you were continually "screwed over" by your superiors. About how everyone above you didn't treat you fairly, or had a grudge against you, or something like that. Am I right? In my 21 years in the Navy, I saw many of your kind come and go, all with the same attitude you have.

At any rate, you are no longer to be listened to on this issue, as you no longer have a valid point or a valid argument. Your is the position of name calling and obfuscation, and you are to be relegated to irrelevance and ignored. I bid you good day.

[TexasObserver]

96. Can I get you a crying towel?

Would you like to call your mom and see if she'll come pick you up?


My four years in the military were filled with outstanding performance reviews, promotions in the minimum time allowed by law, and medals for my exemplary service. I dealt with lifers, of course, but most of them were like you - pretty useless. They stayed in because they had no future outside the military.

I had top secret and cryptographic clearances, I worked in a vault at major command posts, and I handled matters people like you never saw in your jobs.

Face it. You're another lifer who thinks the military is all that, because he's never really known anything else.

[rd_kent]

101. If thinking that makes you feel better, then ok....

but you and I both know that those that bragged about what they did and how important they were really were none of the above.

I bid you, your stove-top secret clearance, your outstanding performance and your medals a good day.

[Cid_B]

109. Amazing isn't it?

90% of anyone who ever served was a Ranger, SOF, had a TS ( at the very least), pulled a couple of HALO jumps and helped crack the code that saved us from the Nazis.

Its the 10% who don't say squat about what they do/did that are most likely doing something worth a shit.

[knightinwhitesatin]

102. LOL

I have a TS/SCI as well big man.....nice try

And you did four years you say? With crypto? That means you were an E-5 at the most, which also means you were a chogi-boy in a G-2 or worse up at a J-2....If you tell me you were a Trojan operator I am going to laugh my ass off. If you were a 33 series ditto.........Don't presume to know what others did or did not do friend.

But what do I know, you don't believe me anyway........ ;)

[11 Bravo]

124. I too, have both civilian and military experience ...

and I disagree with you. Of course, you're free to call me a liar as well, but I'll match DD-214s with you any time you wish. Mine shows a Combat Infantryman's Badge with star (2nd award), a Bronze Star with "V" for valor, and two Purple Hearts.
You see, I took their money, so when they sent me to do what I was trained to do, I honored my commitment. It's a shame you don't seem to understand the concept.

[Cid_B]

108. Get used to it...

Those of us who serve are just mindless drones... at least according to the enlightened minds around here. I mean if we only could accept how right they are. Why then everything would be a-ok! Its not our fault we are cannon fodder / sheeple / poor uneducated minorities / economic draftees etc.. etc.. We just haven't seen the shining glorious light from the civilian sitting behind his computer or going out to harass and protest Soldiers at Walter Reed or hamper recruiting efforts.

[rd_kent]

53. I find it curious that you call yourself a progressive, yet when you are presented with a sound

argument that differs from yours, you call bullshit and say you will no discuss it further. Yes, very progressive.

[TexasObserver]

57. Some posters either don't have anything to say or are not credible.

You're in that group, by the way.

[rd_kent]

59. Please add your own name to that list. If ANY of us have nothing to say and are not credible

then YOU need to take a look in the mirror and at your posts. Hypocrite.

And you STILL have not responded intelligently to the sound and rational argument presented to you, but I suspect you never will.

[Cid_B]

72. Slippery slope...

Single mothers.. single fathers.. any parents (kids need both you know).. married people...

Eventually we get down to male bachelors. We all leave something at home. That is the life we chose.

[Lorax]

119. I agree with you knightinwhitesatin

"But in this case it would be based on sexism, I can hardly believe I am seeing progressives argue for a two tiered military where single moms are exempt from the duties of everyone else. Somehow I doubt this is the equal world feminists imagined."

I thought feminism was about having the same choices as men. Choices come with consequences. Anyone advocating that this woman should not be deployed and/or reassigned to a less dangerous job, is basically saying that she shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of her choices because well, she's a woman after all. Statements like that tell me send feminism back 60 years.

At one point in my life, I wanted to enlist in the AFNG for the career training opportunities and educational benefits. I took my ASVABs, and qualified for the job I wanted. However, I was a single parent of a toddler at the time. The recruiter was very clear in explaining to me that I would have to come up with a family plan in case I was ever deployed. Unfortunately the only option I would have had at that time was putting my child in the full time care of my parents. For many reasons that I won't go into here, that was a horrendous option. It was an option I couldn't live with, and for that reason I did not enlist.

That was my choice. As much as I wanted to enlist, I knew that the possibility existed that I would I have to place my child in a care situation I was not comfortable with. I could have taken the gamble, hoping that I never had to be deployed anywhere, served my time, and gotten out with the job training and education benefits I wanted. On the other hand, if I tossed that pair of dice and LOST, then I'd have to live with those consequences. I chose not to take that bet.

This woman had a child after she enlisted. That was her choice. It was her choice to enlist, a choice that results in both obligations and benefits. It was her choice to have a child, while being aware of her remaining obligations. Now she is being asked to fulfill those obligations and she doesn't think she should because she made another choice? "Oh sorry, I didn't know that I might actually have to go to war when I joined the military?" What do people think the military is about? Wearing cute costumes and collecting a paycheck? But she shouldn't have to go to war? The entire purpose of the military is war! You can't say, well I liked everything else about it but I didn't actually want to go to war. I just wanted to do the stuff I liked or that was convenient for me because I still wanted to live my life the way I want. It doesn't work that way.

In my mind, it's simple. If you don't want to be deployed, don't enlist. If you don't want your mother raising your child, don't enlist or don't have a baby after you enlist. If you don't want to be deployed because you don't believe in it, or don't think mothers belong in war, or it's against your religion or whatever, then don't enlist. It's not rocket science.

[uppityperson]

103. "I can hear your point of view by watching Fox News during any of its 24 hours of daily propaganda."

yup, you are progressive all right. I'm an astronaut brain surgeon

[FLDCVADem]

69. Dumbest thing I've ever read here

People volunteer knowing what could happen - if they don't want to deploy, they shouldn't volunteer.

And before you ask, I served 20 years.

[Lorax]

120. I don't understand

Are you disagreeing with the statement, "People volunteer knowing what could happen - if they don't want to deploy, they shouldn't volunteer"? If so, I'm curious to hear why you believe that's invalid.

[Daemonaquila]

76. Nope, it's 100% correct.

If you're in the military, you have to expect to be deployed. That's the bargain you make when you enlist. An army can't work if it's "truly volunteer" in the sense you're talking about. Sometimes a situation may get so crazy that soldiers have to fight dirty to avoid going to war because they know they'll be involved in war crimes, etc. That's legitimate. But other "voluntary" reasons like having a kid, whether you're male or female, is no reason to avoid deployment. If it becomes a "get out of deployment free" card, then those soldiers should simply be discharged.

[rd_kent]

82. This has nothing to do with combat and non-combat jobs. This is about deployments.

Even non-combat jobs deploy, and she knows that. Now you do too.

[robinlynne]

15. exactly.

[FLDCVADem]

68. Agree 100% n/t

[Darth_Kitten]

94. Maybe the fathers of said children should step up to the plate....

and actually (shock!!) help raise their OWN children? :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

9. Agreed.

If we are down to sending mothers with infants into war, we've already lost.

This is an indication of how desperate our "volunteer" army has become for warm bodies.

[kiva]

10. Then all women with children should not be in the armed forces.

What is wrong is saying that fathers, or people without children, should be expected to deploy but that mothers should not.

[TexasObserver]

13. Nonsense. Most jobs in the military are non combat.

Most stations in the military are dependent friendly, so it isn't having kids that is the problem. It's leaving them for long periods of time.

The remedy for the military when a soldier doesn't want to deploy is simple. Discharge the soldier, cancel their benefits package, and demand repayment of any bonus paid. When the allegedly greatest military on earth is reduced to beating up on single mothers who suddenly realize they cannot leave their baby to deploy, it's not much of a military, now, is it?

[kiva]

26. I agree that the military should do exactly that.

But some people on this thread (not to mention the earlier threads on this subject) propose that she should be allowed to remain in the military and just be reassigned to a 'safer' job that doesn't require that she leave the country. Of course then someone else would have to go in her place - maybe another parent with the bad luck to have actually done a reasonable family plan, or maybe a non-parent who has an ill parent or sibling.

In the interest of full disclosure, I admit that I oppose this war and think that ALL of our military needs to be out of Afghanistan.

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. There are no non combat positions?

[kiva]

38. She is a cook, so she's not in a combat position.

And, as I said above, someone else will have to go because she did not. Unless we are willing to say that no woman with a uterus capable of producing children should ever be allowed to join the military, the issue of separating a mother from her children will always be present in the military.

[Cid_B]

110. Just as a side note...

The previous unit here had a cook as a convoy commander for a logistical run. They took a VBIED (everyone survived aside from the asshat driving the VBIED).

There are no true non-combat roles any more.

[kiva]

114. A good point - I think that anyone deployed to Afghanistan

is put into a risky situation regardless of their job description. My argument is with people who seem to think that this woman is a more valuable human being - because she's a mother - than fathers or child-free adults.

[Warpy]

18. Not into a war zone, anyway

There are plenty of military jobs that need to be done where she can keep the kid with her.

It's not like she's that essential to the war effort.

When the kid gets older, then they can shift her around more.

And yes, I feel exactly the same way about single fathers of very young children.

[marshall]

23. I would hope the same standard would be applied to a father with a small child.

Period.

[951-Riverside]

32. Women shouldnt be deployed. Period.

Putting women in the midst of many undisciplined men who have little or no respect for women is like integrating male and female prisoners in a state pen. Women should not be allowed to be deployed until the Military comes up with a policy that protects them otherwise women will continue to be raped and assaulted by their male counterparts.

[Thothmes]

44. Then they have no business enlisting in the Service.

[laylah]

118. I wish I could

rec your post!

[rd_kent]

52. You're right. And she KNEW she was GOING to be deployed so she SHOULDNT have had a child. Period.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. So what's the answer? Forced sterilization?

[rd_kent]

112. The answer is that she made a choice.

And she had free will to decide what to do and knew that if she chose to have a child she needed to find care for it. The answers are already there. This is not a debate on how to handle this type of situation because a solution has already been found.

[southernyankeebelle]

88. Well why did she join. These women that join the service want equal jobs. It isn't the

responsibility of the military to take on single soldiers. That is not their mission. The military's mission is war and be prepared for war. I have seen with my own eyes how this isn't working well with female soldiers who don't have a good family plan. These people once they have children they should be let out. Hire them with civil service and they can stay home and be good mommies. I hate to tell you and many others a mother can't be a good soldier and a good mother. I knew some soldiers that understood that and did get out. It does effect the children. I know many people don't want to hear it. But here it is in a nutshell the military has a mission and babies aren't part of that mission. When they have to get up and leave at a moments notice that have to be able to move out. This woman should have know her mother couldn't handle the child. Maybe her mom was older. I know I have a grandchild and I watch her. Sometimes I send her to day care because 8 hrs is a long day for me and am 62 yrs old. But having her 6 hrs isn't so bad. We do projects together and watch tv. Some people can't do it. Plus my husband helps to.

[Matariki]

28. Sounds like she had a plan and the plan fell through.

Things like that happen and aren't always in a person's control.

"It all came down to the fact that she did not want to deploy so the was "unable" to find care for her child." You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Ultimately, I would bet that this is a direct result of Reagan's policies of dismantling financial aid for low to middle class students - so that the only way people can afford education is to take on a life time of debt or join the military and fight some bullshit and probably illegal war.

[Obamanaut]

31. The "plan" she had was not a plan. The designated care giver

was listed as her Mom. Her mom was already caring for her own mom, a sister, and a special needs child. That was not a plan, that was a train wreck waiting to happen.

A more prudent person would have looked at what the designated care giver was already doing, and made a 'real' plan.

She bought this ticket, now she must take the ride.

[Matariki]

49. Did her mom tell her she would do it then change her mind?

Do you know the answer to that? If not, try not to be so damning and judgmental.

[Obamanaut]

50. Do you know the answer to that? If not, try not to be so gullible.

Hutchinson went to the Georgia base in Feb 2008. No doubt, considering the age of her child, became pregnant soon after. All of this is covered in the multiple threads on DU of two or three weeks ago.

Manipulation, malingering, gaming the system - nothing new. This soldier knew what she was doing, when she was doing it. She had to have a care plan, made an imprudent one, didn't work out, try something different using the sympathy angle - and it seems to be working.

[rd_kent]

54. Did you actuially read the story? Yes, her mom actually TOOK her kid

then gave her back when it was too much.

[Matariki]

98. That was a rhetorical question to Obamanaut

- who clearly thinks he knows this woman's inner thoughts.

[rd_kent]

113. Your question was not rhetorical at all. It had an actual answer.

An answer we already knew.

[SoCalDem]

70. Exactly.. Too many people see the benefits offered ,..the carrot

but eventually the stick shows up..

The military is all about fighting & war at the core. Peacetime military is a great opportunity for parents, but even then there are disruptions like transfers and training missions.

People who do not want to have their family lives "disrupted" should not be military families..

There was a time when UNMARRIED young male draftees were the go-to people for the military, and they had to reach a certain rank and even then had to get permission to marry.. The military is not a social service organization. It has pretty strict rules, and saying "the recruiter lied to me", or "they told me x y or z" is no excuse.

I'm sure this woman is quite upset at having to leave her baby, but she had plenty of time to make necessary plans, but of course this "story" makes great copy..poor young woman with baby vs the mean ole US government. She was not complaining when she got all the free medical care for her and her child, or when she got a housing allowance or free job training.. There's a "charge" to her for all this.. it's honoring her commitment she made or getting out without the honorable discharge she would have gotten had she obeyed the rules..

I don't think that baby's gonna end up sleeping in a clothes-basket at a homeless shelter, or in the hands of Dickensian foster parents.

She'll just have to take her lumps, and the dishonorable/general discharge, and go on withe her life.

and her soap-opera just made it a little harder for women who join up and DO follow the rules..

[Taitertots]

6. Sounds to me like a case of

I'll take the money the military will give me, the health care the military will give me, and then I'll refuse to meet my obligations.

I'd like to see her have to pay the Army back for all the money and services they gave her before she refused to meet her obligations. Refuse service, refuse payment.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Sounds like she wanted the "pay" for the job, without having to do the job "duties."

No one forced her to sign up for the military. We all know what it means, when someone signs up for it. It means you could be deployed. Duh.

[robinlynne]

16. especially with 2 wars going on.

[Matariki]

29. That's the problem with a 'volunteer' army staffed with the poor and middle class.

- who probably really just want to afford an education.

You can blame Ronald Reagan for that. One of the first things he did in office was to dismantle financial aid for college students.

I was in my last year of college when that happened and I sadly watched a large number of students forced to drop out.

My nephew just told me that he graduated from college with $100k of student loans, and that was just a regular 4 year college. I can't imagine starting adulthood with debt like that and can see why a lot of young people in that situation look to joining the military in order to pay off the debt.

It's a stupid policy that is surely putting our nation on the course of becoming a less than first world country. Heading toward the South American model that the Republicans seem to love so well - twelve rich families and the rest of us living in utter poverty.

[Thothmes]

45. The United States Army has always been staffed

by the poor and middle class from then end of the Revolution. So what the hell is new about this.

[Matariki]

48. Thanks for your 'intellegent' reply.

what's your point?

[Thothmes]

71. You act as if using the poor and disenfanchized

to man the army is some thing new. It is not. except for a 3 year period during the civil war, the army was all volunteer from its inception until 1916.
It was all volunteer again from the end of WWI until 1940. From 1940 to 1972 the draft was used to staff the army. In all of those times when there was no draft, who do you suspect enlisted in the army.

[Honeycombe8]

74. I couldn't agree more! And Poppy Bush FURTHER cut college aid!

I remember being just shocked by that! The one way a poor person can better his circumstances is by education, and that because increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

I wonder if Obama and his team have done anything about that?

[TexasObserver]

8. K&R

The Army is way out of line on this one.

She should be discharged, and those who chosen not to discharge her and carry on this handling of the situation should also be discharged from the military.

[JVS]

12. I didn't know we had army cooks anymore. I thought that was all subcontracted to corrupt companies.

[G_j]

14. the Army had suggested the baby enter foster care

and threatened to ship Hutchinson to Afghanistan for a court-martial.


It seems there are people on this thread who agree with that, but this sounds like REPUBLICAN family values to me!

[RC]

30. I agree with you

Some here sound like they'd be happier at Freeper.com
There are plenty of military jobs and places to do them where she could care for her kid herself. Who know what lies recruiter told her anyway.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orsino]

27. I'll just add one obvious question into the mix...

Where is the goddamned national emergency that absolutely has to split up so many families? Before I hate on SPC Hutchinson, there are a few congresscritters and presidents who need to be called to accounting.

Without an emergency, we're just getting upset over a contractual obligation that is taking precedence over the raising of a child.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. +1

[NOLALady]

40. +1000

[rd_kent]

55. No, thats 100% wrong.

There was a contractual obligation that the Army lived up to by providing money, training, housing, food, etc. SHE put a child in the mix AFTER she found out she was going to deploy, or got assigned to a unit that would deploy. SHE failed to live up to her obligation. The Army, and all other branches, have a program designed to accommodate those that have or choose to have children....SHE failed here, not the Army.

[TxVietVet]

61. EXACTLY

She SCREWED UP. NOT THE ARMY. She was given ample time to have her family plan in place. She was looking for an excuse to get out. Probably hoping for an honorable discharge. Kick her out with a less than honorable just for being stupid and lazy.

[EFerrari]

64. Well, no. Her worst failure was not being the Wizard of Oz

and being able to invent out of thin air someone to care for her kid after her other plan fell through.

If the army can't help this lady figure out daycare, I hate to think how they're handling national security.

[rd_kent]

75. You seem not to have all of the information regarding this story.

Read up on what her "plan" was, then come back and tell me if you feel the same way.

[EFerrari]

78. I've read the story, thanks. n/t

[rd_kent]

80. So then you know your arugument is bunk?

[EFerrari]

83. You don't have children, do you?

[rd_kent]

84. Yes, I do. But what does that have to do with this topic?

Nothing. I served 21 years in the military. I have children. I had women work for me that were in the same position this woman is in. Read my post #2, but I'm sure you already did, and ignored it.

[Orsino]

73. Not so.

The soldier's oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not to pay for room and board with limitless deployments to useless pseudo-wars.

SPC Hutchinson, like all the rest of our troops, was first reneged on, by us, when we allowed Bush and Cheney to use our forces and our Treasury to enrich their buddies. It's because we continue to let our government get away with the Big Lie that our government can pretend that SPC Hutchinson is the criminal.

[rd_kent]

77. Hahahahahaha!

You seem to confuse what the Government does with the military with what the individual obligations are TO the military. Yes, you are right about everything you said, but NONE of that changes what she swore to do, to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, AND TO FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THOSE APPOINTED OVER HER. You left out the last part there, which is most important. THAT part is where she swore to do what she was ordered to do, and she failed.

But nice try. Stay focused on the topic here friend.

[Orsino]

92. Nope.

The failure of the individual to follow orders, in this case, came many years after our collective failure to make those orders meaningful.

I can't judge SPC hutchinson yet, but I sure as hell can document the willful, repeated failure of citizens and government to find a real war for her to fight. Her failure to follow orders comes long after the collapse of the system that presumes to call her actions criminal.

[rd_kent]

99. No, you wont stay focused on the topic?

Then what are you responding to the post for?

[Orsino]

107. You position demands that sort of focus, I know...

...but in your rush to judgment, you are ignoring the context.

[rd_kent]

111. No, I am not. You are ignoring what this conversation is about.

You somehow think that this woman, who violated her obligation, even though the military provides assistance and gave her time to get help, should get a pass because you disagree with the handling of the war. I dont get it or what it has to do with the topic being discussed. If you want to discuss what you are talking about, start a thread about it.

[Orsino]

115. I haven't said that the soldier in question should get a pass.

I've said that I can't begin to judge her--particularly without details of her case--when the rest of us so clearly share in whatever blame there is. I'll add that since a military court-martial will not allow itself to consider the broader context, she will be unable to get a fair hearing of her case.

While it's tempting to limit discussion to SPC Hutchinson's recent disobedience, I'm saying that endless, purposeless war (years in the making) must be partially at fault. If we weren't fighting useless wars, fewer soldiers would be fighting deployments.

[rd_kent]

116. The details are there.

And "we" share in NONE of the blame for the situation SHE put HERSELF in, even though there was help for her. There IS no broader context IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, thats the point. The wars have nothing to do with this, because even in peacetime, she would have to go on deployments and she STILL would have needed care for her child. In this case, there is nothing else to consider.

[Orsino]

117. Are you seriously defending our current wars?

Are you denying that they put some undue stress on military families?

[rd_kent]

126. No, not at all, but you keep turning back to it.

As I said, in THIS case with THIS woman, the current wars have nothing to do with WHAT SHE HAS DONE. In an earlier post, I stated THAT I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE WARS! Do you not read my posts or what? FFS, man, how more obtuse can you be?

[Orsino]

127. How have you concluded that the wars are irrelevant? n/t

[southernyankeebelle]

90. Well we are in 2 wars. This girl knows that. The army is only worried

about the mission. That is not their probable to worry about a baby. Its cold but its true. There is an old saying. If the army wanted you to have a wife they would have issued you one. I guess you could say that about babies to. Think what the military wants then its an easy assessment. Its not hating on the soldier. They should let her out. She isn't able to meet the mission.

[dsc]

51. There are several issues here

1) apparently she is being treated worse than other women who have done, in essence, the same thing. That is wrong. Discharge her just like the others.

2) She had a trainwreck of a plan. Her middle aged mother, who was taking care of an elderly parent, a special needs child, another child, and running a day care. That was doomed from the get go. But the army should have figured that out unless they did ask the questions and she directly lied. These plans should be forced to be real and the army should check them at the very least within the context of a deployment.

3) I do find it bizarre that people are advocating that sending fathers of young children, apperently even single ones, off to war is OK but sending young mothers, even married ones, is not. That is a recipe for a two tiered by gender military which we already have but it would be even worse. I don't know the solution to this (well I do, end both wars, but it is politically not feasable at this time) but the solution isn't to have a two tiered military.

[Obamanaut]

79. There are some good posts for both sides of the discussion in

these previous threads on this. Also some posts that are not as good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7035774

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7035169

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7009606

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7015520

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7012490

[southernyankeebelle]

87. When a woman has a baby she should get out of the military, period.

The military has a mission and that doesn't include babies. I know people don't want to hear this but it is the truth. They should go back to the old ways once a woman has a baby she is out. The military just doesn't have the freedoms to pick and chose who goes and who stays. They have a mission and that is it.

[rd_kent]

89. Then by that rationale, if women are allowed to join the military

then they should not be able to have a child while in the military. Otherwise, you would have women that had babies whenever they decided they wanted to get out. Where would the accountability be?

[Darth_Kitten]

95. Women don't have babies on their own?

n/t

[Pool Hall Ace]

121. Spc. Hutchinson's mother blames herself for backing out

of keeping her grandson while her daughter was to be in Afghanistan. However, she is already caring for 14 children in her home care business, in addition to her own mother, her own special needs child, and her sister.

And Spc. Hutchinson chose not to name the baby's father on the birth certificate, so it looks like he and his family are out.

It appears that not a great deal of thought went in to her family care plan. What is the army to do?

I'm thinking the best option would be a less-than-honorable discharge and send this mother on her way.

[knightinwhitesatin]

122. The best option

is for her to find suitable daycare, there are options, and then rejoin her unit in Afghanistan and honor her oath.

[Pool Hall Ace]

123. I've never been in the military

but how can she find suitable care if she is in jail?

I can't say I have any sympathy for this woman. She became pregnant after enlisting, opted to deliver the child and keep him, and refrained from naming the father (thus excluding him or his extended family as an option for the baby's care upon her deployment).

Obviously, I can't get inside this woman's head, but I cannot help but wonder if she may have neglected to come up with a workable plan for her son's care in the hope that she could play the "I have a child" card in order to avoid deployment.

If she is given another opportunity to find truly suitable care -- not her already overburdened mother -- then yes, she should do so and catch up with her unit in Afghanistan. I do not believe she should just be given a stateside assignment.

[knightinwhitesatin]

125. She should not have been

jailed