U.S. Army Commander 'General order #1': Ban on becoming pregnant for soldiers serving in Iraq

By | December 23, 2009, 5:18am PST

Summary: Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, Commander of the Multi-National Division-North in Iraq has generated standing orders for soldier’s under his command; General Order 1, bans female soldiers from getting pregnant.

Highly qualified personnel are demand across all industries. Keeping such talent is a competitive challenge in the work place. It’s no different in the military. Analysts, engineers, communications specialists are highly trained individuals and are the backbone of the logistics, command and control intelligence divisions in the Armed Forces. When a woman working in a corporate environment becomes pregnant, they simply go on maternity leave, and her role is often filled on a temporary basis. But what happens in the military creates a different set of challenges, especially in war zones like Iraq or Afghanistan. Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, Commander of the Multi-National Division-North in Iraq has generated standing orders for soldier’s under his command; General Order 1, bans female soldiers from getting pregnant. But the order doesn’t just hold women accountable, male soldiers fall under the same guidance and responsibility.  In a press release on the Dodlive.mil website, Maj. General Cucolo points out clear reasons for such an order:

“I can’t tell you how valuable my female soldiers are,” he said. “They fly helicopters. They run satellites. They’re mechanics. They’re medics. Some of the best intelligence analysts I have happen to be female. You start losing them when you’re facing a drawdown, and you really hurt the unit.”

Cucolo discussed the policy that bans soldiers from becoming pregnant while on duty in Iraq on a phone interview today. This policy falls under the Command’s General Order No. 1 and he said he was prompted by his experience as Division Commander with the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Ga. and his intense desire to maintain fighting strength any way possible for a very tough and complex mission.

He said the purpose of this rule is to cause soldiers to pause and think about the decisions they make and how a personal decision has major consequences, like leaving their teammates shorthanded in combat, not the consequence of punishment. He also said that he believes he can handle violations of this aspect with lesser degrees of punishment and has not considered court marshalling.

“I don’t ever see myself putting a soldier in jail for this.”

The soldiers will not face a general court, but there are several reprimand options that command has at its disposal and for some, it will be permanently entered into their service records.

Seven soldiers have been reprimanded under the new ban. The four female soldiers who became pregnant were given letters of reprimand that will not remain in their permanent military file as were two of the male soldiers. A third soldier who is married received a permanent letter of reprimand for impregnating a subordinate who is not his wife and fraternization. The four female soldiers were all reassigned outside of Iraq and the three men remained.

There were also four other female soldiers who were sent home without punishment, after finding out they were pregnant shortly after arriving in Iraq.

The U.S. Navy is reviewing its own policies with respects to women and its Nuclear Submarine service, which routinely head out on extended sorties, often lasting 70 plus days at sea, without ever going into port. Since September, the U.S. Navy has been reviewing the possibility of women serving on submarines.

“I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Thursday in a statement to Navy Times.

His comment comes one week after Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told congressional lawmakers that he thought it was time to end the ban against women on submarines.

Should a woman hide her pregnancy and be aboard a ballistic missile submarine, it could raise significant operational challenges; including a significant change to operations and procedures, including a new requirement to surface should medical complications arise. One of the sacred tactics of Ohio class submarine commander’s is to remain submerged and mitigate as much risk possible in preventing detection.  Being forced back to port or rendezvousing with a surface ship will be a topic of heated policy debate both within the Pentagon and on the Hill. A possible solution maybe women officers and sailors are required to take a pregnancy tests prior embarking on a sortie.

According to the Navy Times, the Navy as of May had 7,900 female officers and 44,000 female sailors, comprising about 15 percent of officers and sailors in the 330,500-strong active component.

Additional Resources:

Special Report: F-35 Fighter Lightning II to be delayed to 2015/16 - Lightning does strike twice.

Northrop Grumman drops bid for of Air Force air tanker

Women to serve aboard U.S. Navy submarines

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Doug Hanchard

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=5774

Biography

Doug Hanchard

Doug is the principal of Rapid Response Consulting, an advisory group that integrates ICT solutions. He has worked at some of the largest telecommunications firms in Canada, including Bell Canada, Telus and AT&T and is a guest lecturer for several universities and associations. He serves on several advisory boards in Canada and the United States.

Starting with a new national ISP in 1993 in sales, positioning internet access, web sites and network services began the path of telecommunications technologies from the early Bulletin Board Services (BBS) to the first web pages for commercial clients.

Became the National Data Network Service Manager for Frame Relay and Internet access for AccTel Enterprises which was acquired (after 3 mergers already) by AT&T Canada. Interested in how marketing could expand service availability, he moved to Telus to become the Frame Relay / ATM Product Manager and expanded the network across Canada. In 2002 he went to Bell Canada becoming a Solution Architect to get back to his passion for technology working with enterprise clients. In 2006, became the Director of R&D and Senior Solution Architect for Bell Canada Security Solutions Inc, developing I.P. based physical and logical security platforms and ICT services.

This position created new commercial concepts such as Crisis and Disaster technology solutions required for emergency use after an event occurred. He designed interoperable technologies and application combinations allowing any to any I.P. service through landline, broadband, satellite and wireless technologies to be deployed anywhere

29
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: U.S. Army Commander 'General order #1': Ban on becoming pregnant for soldiers serving in Iraq
aviatrix1 28th Dec 2009
Just to return to the original thought several posts ago - NORPLANT, IUD, Depo...

Mandated vaccines, might as well mandate birth control that is relatively foolproof.

As both a woman in the military, and a Christian, I have very little issue with this. Yes it's a violation of my personal space, but membership in the military is a voluntary commitment and places people in harms way too often to quibble about something that will prevent harm.
0 Votes
+ -
Norplant
Ad Astra 23rd Dec 2009
You serve overseas in the military, the military
spends the $220 on Norplant for you for the
duration of your term of service. Issue largely
solved.

We pay that much for overseas vaccinations. Why
not vaccinate against pregnancy?
...it would enrage all the bible-thumping right-to-lifers out there.
0 Votes
+ -
Uhm...
Stuka 23rd Dec 2009
I take it you have issues with anybody who is religious. As you clearing show that you have quite a bit of hate towards them. But I will look past this for now.

But a few points...

1: Majority of religious people are pro-birth control.

2: Birth control has NOTHING to do with "right to life". As you are not killing a baby like you do with abortion. You are preventing its creation.
0 Votes
+ -
Issues with religion? You bet.
IT_Guy_z Updated - 23rd Dec 2009
Most all conflicts on the planet have been...and currently ARE, over religious differences. For an "institution" which professes tolerance...there is no more IN-tolerant institution in the world.

And oh by the way...I have TWO ministers of differnet religions in my family (one a former District Superintendant for her church), who are the most narrow-minded people I know, and have little tolerance for religions outside of theirs. And the illegal and immoral crap I hear from them about what their colleagues have done...and are currently doing...is sickening. They steal from their churches, they cheat on their spouses, lie about other transgressions, yet these same hypocrites get up in front of their flocks every Sunday, and pontificate about how people should be more "Christian". Bull$hit!

"1: Majority of religious people are pro-birth control."

OK...I'll give you that one.

"2: Birth control has NOTHING to do with "right to life". As you are not killing a baby like you do with abortion. You are preventing its creation."

Really? Well don't tell THAT to these folks:
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

...or these folks:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html

...or these folks:
http://prolifeaction.org/events.php?page=case

...or these folks:
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/PlannedParenthood.htm

Shall I go on?
0 Votes
+ -
Ignorant blanket accusations
T1Oracle 23rd Dec 2009
A few bad apples does not define the barrel itself. If they cheat then they are violating their own beliefs and thus could not possibly be a good representative of that belief system.

Regardless, birth control is considered bad by at least by Catholicism since sex according to them exists only for the purpose of creating children.

Are their religious people that say one thing and do another? Of course, but that human behavior and anywhere you find people, you will find dishonesty.

If you want to understand a belief system do not look at a few believers, look at the doctrine. Study what it teaches and think for yourself. The believers are only human and as such will always have flaws.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry...not buying into the doctrine.
IT_Guy_z Updated - 23rd Dec 2009
Religion is for weak minded people who need someone else to make up their minds for them.

"Ignorant blanket accusations"?

Ah Sparky...you may want to re-read my FIRST paragraph. Simply statements backed up by facts.
0 Votes
+ -
^ Troll
MStalnecker 23rd Dec 2009
"Religion is for weak minded people who need someone else to make up their minds for them."

Troll much? sheesh.

Oh.. just incase you don't know what that means look it up.
0 Votes
+ -
you have no understanding of religion.

So why are you still talking on the subject.

So, the preacher steals and tells his flock not to? I guess that's hypocritical.

Definatelly a lot different then those non-preacher types who steal, and tell their friends and family not to. No hypocrocy there.

Maybe the problem isn't with the religion, but those pretending to follow and uphold it.

Really no different then law: Is the law wrong if a police officer bust a person for drunk driving, then drives home drunk from a party the next night?
0 Votes
+ -
Better solution...
T1Oracle 23rd Dec 2009
Abstinence, it's 100% full proof.

You aren't supposed to be having sex on military duty anyway. Chances are you violated a fraternization rule just by thinking about it. This is active duty in war, not free time at college/university.
0 Votes
+ -
just say no?
mr_bandit Updated - 23rd Dec 2009
Umm ... to think that single military folks a long way from home in stressful/dangerous conditions would give up sex completely is rather naive. Also ignores a great deal of history. The lines in Hawaii in WWII in front of the brothels often went around the block, whenever the fleet was in.

I will assume married folks have a reason not to stray, although some ignore the reason. That is a private matter between those involved, except when other issues become important (pregnancy, breaking regulations, etc).

There are many cases where there is not a fraternization issue. The military does not try to control these cases, except where there are other problems. This new policy is dealing with one of those problems.

I happen to be a Christian, but am all for birth control, and do not try to beat abstinence into other folks. It is a silly task, like teaching a pig to sing.

"You aren't supposed to be having sex on military duty anyway."

On watch, no. That is a court-martial offense, like sleeping on duty. On your own time or on leave, completely separate issue. You show ignorance of reality.
0 Votes
+ -
you can't equate corporate employment to army
Linux Geek Updated - 23rd Dec 2009
You can not quit while on a mission or endanger others because your 'urges'.
0 Votes
+ -
good rule
coffeeshark 23rd Dec 2009
As with anyone who has served, you know the frustration that comes when a valuable soldier goes on maternity leave, and you have to retrain another soldier or hope they come back soon.

Any activity that prevents a soldier from deploying or takes them out of their current deployment is subject to penalty, so why not pregnancy? It's a deliberate act and can easily be avoided with the military's available family planning and birth control.

Women have fought hard to be considered on equal footing with men in the military. They deserve to have both the advantages and disadvantages of having that footing, namely the requirement to be available to serve at all times.

If they don't want that penalty, then I would ask that the male soldier that got that female pregnant should also have the same time off, all things being equal. You see where that will get us?
0 Votes
+ -
ya know
medezark@... 23rd Dec 2009
the ancient Greek and Roman armies didn't have the problem of their soldiers becomming pregnant.
IT_Guy_z is right you know.
0 Votes
+ -
NO...He is not...and neither are you...(NT)
linux for me 23rd Dec 2009
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Think long term!
meusterer 23rd Dec 2009
They are pregnant with next generation soldiers who will be bog down in Iraq again.
0 Votes
+ -
They have turned into quagmires worse than Vietnam ever was.... and the only solution from the conservacreeps is "FIGHT THE WAR LIKE IT IS A WAR! KILL EVERYONE INCLUDING THE DAMNED CHILDREN!"

That will only lead to MORE hatred against the United States, more suicide bombings, and more terrorists being created.

Simply put, terrorism cannot be fought with military methods..... it has to be fought with POLICE METHODS, like the ones that were used to find Timothy McVeigh.
0 Votes
+ -
Escaping from Iraq
meusterer 23rd Dec 2009
Pregnancy may be the only way that female soldiers can escape the hell of Iraq. Now this is not possible without penalty. One otion may be to run away to Canada.
0 Votes
+ -
Um, dude...
wolf_z 24th Dec 2009
...military service in the United States is *voluntary*. If you don't want to serve in Iraq (or Afganistan, or New York or Iowa) *don't enlist*.

A little education is a dangerous thing. Better get some more...
0 Votes
+ -
Not anymore it is not 'voluntary'
Lerianis10 25th Dec 2009
With things like 'stop-loss', which can keep you in the Army WELL past your 4 year sign up, and which should have been thrown out as violating the contract that you signed with the United States government to only be in the Army for, at most, 4 years.

It is voluntary to sign up for it at first.... but then, they get you with these 'stop-loss' things (which should have been made illegal) and keep you in the Army.

Really, we need to say that unless another foreign country attacks us, we are NOT going to attack another foreign country, period and done with.

Neither the war in Afghanistan after we got rid of the Taliban, nor the ENTIRE war in Iraq, were really necessary.... they were wars based on lies, misdirections, fabrications, etc.
It's in their contract.

Here's an article on stop-loss:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

It's been in place since before the Civil War, and withstood repeated legal challenges.

As for the necessity of the war in Afganistan and Iraq I'll withold judgement, except to note the Taliban hasn't been gotten rid of yet. As for Iraq, they're trying to withdraw as soon as Iraq can stand on its own.

It is, after all, expensive to be at war, in financial and human terms. Nobody likes it, and everybody wants it to end, good guys, bad guys, and the poor civilians stuck in the crossfire.

It's what happens *afterward* that keeps the fighting going on.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't bother with Canada
snberk341 24th Dec 2009
"One otion may be to run away to Canada."
As the poster above has pointed out, serving is
voluntary. Several US soldiers have attempted to claim
refugee status in Canada due to the "illegality" of the
war. I believe all have been turned down and returned
on the basis that they volunteered, and that there is a
fair and open justice system in the US.

The Vietnam draft dodgers were accorded different
status in part because they didn't really have a choice.
Plus there was a different mind-set up here in great-
white-north at the time.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, it is possible without penalty
Lerianis10 25th Dec 2009
Because the orders have now been rescinded by the top military commander over there. It was never going to stand up to Constitutional muster in the first place.... as soon as a soldier challenged this in federal court (yes, they are allowed to do that when something is in violation of the Constitution)...... it would be thrown out!

The top military commander over there realized that and rescinded the order, like he really should have when he saw that order.
0 Votes
+ -
Utterly wrong
wolf_z 27th Dec 2009
Sorry, but your statements are flatly wrong, as the Wikipedia article shows. It *has* been challenged, it has withstood challenge. Repeatedly.

And it was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that made the order, not the head general.

I imagine the reason it can withstand challenge is *soldiers agreed to it at the time of enlistment*.

I am certainly against the Draft, but now that service is voluntary soldiers are doing this *willingly*. That's the crucial difference.
People will do what people do. But a women, just like men, are sent to Iraq and other places to do a job they are getting paid for. They are not here to create a family.

I don't see why banning pregnancy while on combat duty is a problem. No body is telling them not to have fun ... just have it safe or face the consequences.

Women aren't in Iraq to be whored out to the male troops. They are there to be EQUALS, in combat and in other jobs. They are just as important.

Allowing women to get pregnant while deployed would giving women preference over the men (not that the father won't be at fault too).
Namely, the right of a woman to decide FOR HERSELF whether to get pregnant or not. I don't see people stationed at the Pentagon being told that they cannot get pregnant while on duty, and it shouldn't be different just because you are a soldier in a war zone.

And no, this is NOT giving women preference over men, because men can get whoever they want pregnant.... this kind of order was rescinded and made VERBOTEN a LOOOOOOOOOONG time ago, during the Vietnam War!
0 Votes
+ -
Or are just anti-war no matter what.

Look, no one is denying soldiers (male or female) will have sex. Given the stress levels and human nature it's going to be unavoidable.

But pregnancy *is* avoidable. And no, it's not a violation of a woman's human rights to be denied the right to get pregant *while enlisted*.

She agreed to it, because she agreed she'd be available to serve for her enlistment period. If she's pregnant she can't serve--certainly not in a combat theater!

Look at it this way. People have the right not to get shot at, blown up, or otherwise endangered, right?

But being a soldier is *all about* being shot at, risking being blown up and otherwise endangered. It's what they *do*.

Don't want to be a soldier? Fine, *don't enlist*.

Reminds me of a quote from Wing Commander V. "Didn't anyone tell you that being shot at was part of the deal?".

It is possible, even in the United States, to willing give up certain human rights for limited periods of time. A soldier who volunteers knows the deal. They *agree* to it, they *volunteer* to do it.

That's what makes it acceptable. If we still had the Draft I'd be on your side. But we don't.

Besides, most female soldiers have no desire to get pregnant in a war zone. They are just as dedicated as their male counterparts, and just as unwilling to put their comrades in danger by being a liability. Not to mention the whole issue of raising a child!
Men and women were never intended or designed to be "equal" (men aren't women, and vice versa); that's not an oppressive view, it's how it's portrayed by the feminist agenda. There are things men can do, things women can do, and things both can do, and both can be good at what they do.

So, are there religious issues? There certainly are. And not. Morals and ethics do NOT change simply because of where you are; today's educational systems preach "flexible ethics", which is pure rot. A standard is a standard: it doesn't change simply because of times or circumstances or situations.

Make a decision to commit one's self to the highest standards of behavior and decency, and General Order #1 becomes a barren statement. Unfortunately, way too many choose the low road and only commit themselves to low (or no) standards, at which point General Order #1 becomes unenforceable.
Just to return to the original thought several posts ago - NORPLANT, IUD, Depo...

Mandated vaccines, might as well mandate birth control that is relatively foolproof.

As both a woman in the military, and a Christian, I have very little issue with this. Yes it's a violation of my personal space, but membership in the military is a voluntary commitment and places people in harms way too often to quibble about something that will prevent harm.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix