What does someone who comments having kids have to do with this? Having kids is a choice, just like entering service is a choice. If you want to have kids and raise a family, then stay out of the service. The Army is for defending this country, and is not there just to provide a job to someone and a personal day-care center.

Everyone who enlists is told upfront about their obligations, and if this woman really wanted to serve then she should have planned for it.

She didnt have kids when she joined. And if you have kid(s) odds are they wont let you join. Having been a recruiter for 3 years, I speak from experience. Now granted, things happen and every situation is different, but every single person I put in the military KNEW about the IRR part of their contract. They repeat it to them again at the MEPS station before they swear in. ""Now you understand, this is an 8 year contract, 4 years active, 6 years Inactive Ready Reserve. Whats that mean you ask? Well after your 4 years you go home. If they country gets in a WAR and more manpower is needed, there is a CHANCE you can be called up again to active duty."" I have heard this almost verbatim hundreds of times. They cannot allow a person to "Just Say No" because they didn't make plans ahead of time in case of something like this.

Now in her defense, you are in this situation now and the Army has to deal with it. There are more than enough services available thru Family Services that it doesnt need to be an "OR ELSE" between you and the Army. Go there with your kids and husband and sit down with the CO and work it out. Last thing he wants is the bad press and black eye its giving the Army. Last thing you want to do however is back him against the wall. Come to him with some other options. You would be amazed on what changes they are willing to make to your contract to satisfy both sides.

I wish you the best of luck and hope it all works out for the best.

Finally, an intelligent comment that has been formulated by a person with experience in these types of situations. This is very refreshing to read rather that all of the emotional outpouring on both sides. A perfect example of why certain things in life should be left to the professionals.

Chris:

""Now you understand, this is an 8 year contract, 4 years active, 6 years Inactive Ready Reserve.

Ah, thats 10 years, not 8.

This isn't a feminist issue (and I have often been described as one), both men and women who have served their country with honor but then kept on the list fro recall should as parents be able to care for their children. The military has the ability to provide stateside jobs and should take every means possible to provide this. It is not their duty to break apart families. Let the parent complete their military contract where they can also be the parent they need to be.

I had kids when I joined, best decision I ever made. Deployments are bad but my family took them while I was gone. I had housing and medical care. I knew if something happened to me, they would have medical care and my insurance. The chances of being killed overseas are less than being killed by a drunk driver or mugger in the US.

I completely agree. We cannot whine our way into the service and then use the fact that we can carry children to try to whine our way back out. When you sign up for the military, you KNOW this is a possibility...like it or not, you can hope it doesn't happen, but it does...now deal with it! And, YES, I am a mother!!

Stop whining and fulfill your obligation. There is always an alternative. Those children will still have their father when he is in town. Find a family member they can stay with for a few months while you honorably do your duty. If that is absolutely not possible, then there is always someone to help on base and I am sure, if the commander is a good commander, you will get the help needed to find someone willing to help you. You knew what was expected when you signed on the dotted line. No exceptions should be allowed.

i agree. this is an example of women fought for. equality. she made a conscious choice. now it's inconvenient. men would not be offered an opt out.

just think about how young boys were forced out of high school at bearly 18 years old, had their head shaved, handed a gun and put in a foxhole half way around the world only to be ostracised when they got back. that was viet nam.

now it's possible for that it happen to girls as well. equal indeed.

Jerry Verlinger wrote:

Being a mother is not a "loophole", it's an obligation!

Wait, I'm OBLIGATED to be a mother??????????????? No that, like the Army is a choice. We don't have a draft. We have a choice to enlist. I didn't know that when you were discharged you had years of "inactive duty". In that case, sorry, she needs to fulfill the obligation she did sign up for. Now that is an obligation.

I am sorry that all these men and woman have left family and friends to fight for our county. Right or wrong, they are doing it. And this woman needs to do the same.

I was a soldier and a mother for 20 years active duty and never used my children as an "excuse" to not do my duty.  This woman VOLUNTEERED, signed a contract and by damned I'm sure she is using ALL the benefits she gained from the service, so she needs to stop her whining and do her duty.  Her service obligation was clearly defined in writing when she enlisted so she has no excuse.  I'm retired and I can be recalled for the REST OF MY LIFE, so she gets no sympathy from me that she can still be called up for a few more years.

If she gets out of it then I firmly believe any benefits she is still entitled to such as GI Bill and VA should be revoked immediately.  Contrary to common belief nowadays military service isn't welfare!!

As many have mentioned, she made a commitment and should be held to fulfillment of some nature. This is one of many strong arguments for not allowing women into the military, "I demand equal status...with special considerations." I didn't make the rules but women ARE different than men. I thank God for that.

While not a popular viewpoint in our politically correct society, children need a father as much a mother. What deployment deferrments do men get? I think in extenuating circumstances, and I'm not sure this is one, she could be released from her contract, while repaying any overpayments and receiving reduced benefits.

This being said, I applaud her service to our country. Many like "Oh Well", have never and will never do anything for anyone other than themselves. They languish in the benefit of those who were willing to sacrifice. How about we take some of the burdeners of the public coffers (perpetual welfare recipients) and send them over to finish out her commitment. Or better yet, let a liberal go experience the true cost of the rights and privelages that they enjoy but wish to deny to those who disagree with them. (Enjoy your Obama-ade)

Gerald, it is not 10 years it is 4 years active followed by 6 years reserve where you can be called up to serve another 4, which would make it an 8 year contract.

The only problem I see is she put in her service time. She was returned home from Iraq, HONORABLY DISCHARGED, and went back to civilian life. Obviously she was aware of the possibility of being reactivated but sometimes preganancy ignores such 'trivial' matters. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of women who have been reactivated and, having left their babies with available family members, are currently serving out there 'sentence'. There are also men who have been exempted due to fatherhood and no one available to care for children in the absence of the father. There are also those who went AWOL and are cruising around the country since as far back as - Ooooh! Shock and Awe of the first Iraq occupation. But rather than go after those who chickened out and ducked out of their service it is easier to send out blanket call ups to those with a better likelihood of service.

I cannot imagine why this mom's request for exemption was more than once denied. And I would hope the military would think twice before it hires a babysitter and forces her to suit up and head back to Arabia. But I would also like to think, were circumstances different, she would have gone without dissent.

My friends in Iraq tell me life is getting better there. In some places they even have electricity for more than a couple of hours a day and they don't fear so much that family members may get shot or blown up in the streets by angry militants or nervous U.S. soldiers. Doctors still practice too much reassembly of war victims but, things are getting better. With the guidance of a more powerful force than we, maybe, in the near future, parents won't have to make such wrenching choices as whether to serve her country or her family.

Michelle, thank you for your service and the comments.

Dika, yes she was discharged, but it's an 8 year committment. The services have 6 years after your discharge to recall you to active duty. If they don't within those 6 years, then you're done!! But guess what? They did recall her! Now it's up to her to serve her committment!

Well, I believe in this case, they should look at the case. She has already served her time and to be honest...........women do not belong in a war type situation.

I agree with you Stacey. Coming from a woman. We cant complain that we are not treated fair then when it comes to something like this females want special treatment. Thats just crazy. If you dont want to be away from your children then dont join or if you end up having kids in the military then you know the risk. So Good point just SUCK IT UP OR GET OUT!!!

This woman is a hero in my book either way and i admire her for protecting our country and being a amazing mother. No matter what she wants to do or what the army decides to do i respect her!!! My mom was a single mother in the army and retire after 22 years and trust me as a army brat my whole life and having my mother be deployed twice it sucks not having your mother for 2 years while you are growing up...those are 2 years i will never get to have back, 2 years that me and my mom lost and i know that it killed her to be away from me and my brother. So my heart is not only with the mother who wants to be with her kids and watch them grow but my heart is mostly with the kids because i was one of them. i just hope the army is able to find a middle ground unlike they did when i was a kid. Good luck with everything and god bless

Being a Army disabled veteran with 12 years service my oppinion may surprise you. I feel that if any body serves three or four years active duty, that should be enough even if the contract has ready reserve for the next two or three years attached to it.

However if you joined the active reserves and have not requested a discharge for hardship reasons prior to a deployment order you should be ass out.

Based on this problem, I guess it might be time for a draft to be seriously looked at if we are to continue to be a free country. However use of a draft should only be in the most serious times, not another Vietnam or Iraq.

Sarge

I believe what we call "planned parenthood" should be considered and thought about in every woman's enlistment contract. You vow to serve your country then do what you got to do and what is required of you quit using parenthood as a excuse.

Thank you Stacey. Finally, someone is speaking logically. Sure it's a terrible thing to think of young children possibly losing their mothers during wartime. But equal rights means equal rights. I've heard too many women say "I am woman, hear me roar" and claim that they can do anything a man can do, but use the whole "I'm just a woman" thing when it's convenient. There shouldn't be a double standard. If we want equal rights, then the rules all have to be the same. And that includes equality for race, sex, sexual orientation, and religion. Equal rights, not special rights. If we keep making special circumstances, we'll never truly have an equal society.

yes because they entered the service to serve their country, not to have babies.

When i served in th usmc, women weren't aloud to serve in any recon companies, artilery, or infantry.

Go after the healthy lazy bums that need to serve this country, and leave the ones who already served alone. I to served as a Army Recruiter, and I can tell you that there was a time, many years ago, that you didn't need to be educated to enlist or be drafted. If this government wants to dable in everyone's business all over the world they need to lower their recruitment standards again.

Sarge

Why does a woman need a husband at all if, when she gets called up to war, her husband can't step up to the plate and do his duty as a dad while she does the duty she signed up for?

dude shes is married so she can have kids whenever the hell she wants and she doesnt have to answer to the army or you. and trust me there are thousands or irr soliders who are not mothers or have kids and they should be brought back first.

I agree Stacy !! Yes I have kids, my husband served 22.5 yrs my son is a Mr Mom he did his time and can be recalled he knew the risks. whats the difference Men have to go even with young children and women work jobs where they have to travel and dad stays home with kids. If they get a check and signed up they knew the risks as well as the men do so YES they should have to serve as the men do with the present exemptions in place if they can't meet them then yes they need to go. You don't think its hard for men to leave young children I beg to differ its just as difficult for them.

GIVE ME A BREAK! I am really surprised for the people that think it is alright for women to not have to serve if they have children. That is one of the biggest double standards I have ever heard. Why is it ok for Men to go off and fight if they have children, but not for women? I do agree that if they are a single parent the wellfare of the kids should be a priority and find them a place where the kids can join them. But if there is another able parent, then it is their duty to serve. That was the committment they made to the United States. I totally agree with the person who said that we need to stop trying to find excuses and take some responsibility for our actions!

It is amazing. How people will try to use the military to further themselves. Enlistment bonus, college, college loan repayment, etc... But when their nation/job calls on them to fullfill their contractual obligation, women have the, for the lack of a better word, easy way out. If they get pregnant have can have their contract terminated and be released from service. They can use the trump card of family. Or even, I have a family, how can you expect me to go to a war zone and have the possibility of dying and leave them motherless??? It trivializes the sacrafices other men and WOMEN have made, by dying in the service of their country. When women enlist in the military, it should be with the stipulation, of either long term birth control, (IUD) or signing an extra contract, that if they already have a family that being sent to a combat zone, will happen. If if doesn't, good but it might happen. Men are not relaeased because their wife gets pregnant. Only under extreme circumstances should any one be released. Ie... a spouse dies.

Everyone should serve their contracts equally.

Well, Here we are focused on the MOM got its the toughest job in the world but if you give women a choice to opt out of combat what about the Fathers???? i dont think that you can legitamatly give women to opt out of combat unless you give fathers the same option. In most cases the Father is the bread winner in the house now hold on ladies I am not saying in all and most mothers work now days as well but alot of families rely on the man to work and support the family agreed? If that is the case then if he dies in comabt who supports the family again. It is a terrible thing to leave your family and go into a dangerous situation TRUST me I know this from multiple experiences so NO woman should not have the option to opt out if they Dont want to leave there families then Like mike said dont join or get out but if that is the case then you should not be able to reap the benefits of the military...

I am sympathetic to this woman's cause, however, she did sign a valid contract that requires her to remain a member of the IRR even after her active duty enlistment expired. When you go to the recruiter's office, this is explained to you. It is also repeated for your benefit at MEPS when you sign your contract and once again upon your return for swearing-in on the day you report for boot-camp.

I am currently on active duty and fully understand that I volunteered for this job. It comes with both positives and negatives, but the fact remains that I was not drafted or forced to raise my right hand. I did this of my own free will.

There are many single parents (both male and female) who are on active duty and serve their country with honor and they have a hard time being away from their children. There are also many Reservists who do the same thing while on their IA deployments. They understand that this is what they signed up for. They do not enlist the media to force their commander's hand in order to get their way. I have respect for these people.

Our military leaders are not calling her up to be mean. They call up Inactive Ready Reservists to assist in filling positions so that others are able to rotate out of the zone after serving their time. (Remember, she could be relieving someone who is in the exact same position. The only difference is, they didn't play the "Woe is Me" card; they fulfilled their obligation to their contract with their country.)

When Mrs. Pagan started taking college classes, I bet she enjoyed the benefits of the MGIB that were paid to her because of here service, but when the country asked for her to hold up her end of the bargain for the IRR, she decided to complain.

Remember that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press that she is using in order to "get her story out there" was defended by the U.S. Military whose members did what others were afraid to do, of their own free will, by taking an oath and having the HONOR to follow through with their commitments.

God Bless You!! I was thinking the same thing!

War stinks, yet if the dad is at home then yes, the mother of the children should go to active duty. If not, then no. This is not a declared war, and the ready reserve are not paid members of the military until recalled to active duty. The only reason to recall Ready Reserve members should be during a National Crisis or declared war. If recalled at any other time it should be for Stateside duties to free up regular military members for deployment overseas. How many of you who think they should go will volunteer to take her place. 89 percent you us in America have never served, including most of the rich.

Back in the 70's when a woman was in the military and decided to have children they were force to get out. With womens Lib. they change that. Now they want to get every's simpathy because they have children and do not want to meet their commitment to defend this country. If this is the case then lets go back to the old way otherwise make them go or give them a dishonorble discharge for fairlure to go, meet their commitment. All military personnel are to have a plan in place for chilld care in the event they must deploy why doe this person not have one? Once again a case of wanting their cake an eating it too. Make them give up their benifits that they received while active and pay back the military for thei training etc. if they don't want to serve. Enough of this they made the commitment now make them responsible for their choice or make them pay the price.

Women keep screaming equal rights and then as soon as things get too hot for them  to handle they hide behind their kids. Well the Fathers have kids too! Women cannot have it both ways in life. They joined up with the men, doing the job of men, then they can to EVERYTHING the men are instructed and trained to do, and that encludes going off to war. I am a woman myself, and I hate this stupid equal rights crap!

Carol, let's not forget that MEN want equal rights, too, yet where is the husband in all of this? He's shirking HIS duty to the kids. If they got divorced he'd sure want his EQUAL RIGHTS - by fighting for custody, wouldn't he?

He needs to be a parent and take care of HIS KIDS.

Jerry Verilinger

So are you the kind of person that thinks women should be barefoot and in the kitchen? Why can't fathers be exempt from combat! Are they not important to raising their kids? You see, when men and women join the military, there is the inherent risk of duty in hazardous places. It's not like it use to be when we had wars with conventional armies. Things are now different in the realm of defending against the terrorist kind. So lets say a mom is stationed in Texas, guarding the front gate only to let in personnel with proper base registered vehicles. All of a sudden one of them Mexican gangs tries to bust through and in doing her job, becomes a casualty. Now do we change were we locate moms in the US Bases as well? There is no fine print when you become a member of the Armed Forces. You know what the current situation is in the World. There is no draft, just VOLUNTEERS! If mom's are willing to serve their Country (God Bless them), then they should be assigned as would any female that is not a mother.

I'm pregnant now and once the observed time for bonding allowed by the government was over if I was called up I would go. It's the BEST lesson I can teach my daughter. I made a commitment and I will keep it. No excuses.

The fact is that when you sign up you understand the commitment period. It is four years in and 2-3 years active or inactive reserves. That means that once you start your 2-3 year period of inactive you are well aware you can be called up at any time. If they serve their entire time active then once you are done you are done. The woman in the original story knew it she admitted it and now wants out of her commitment. Would they let a man out of it........probably not. Since she does have a spouse he can deal with staying home with the kids and find sitters for them or day care. The other option for him is to find another job. That is the breaks you have to deal with when in the service either doing active or inactive duty. It seems that women want equality but only at their convenience. She knew when she had the kids that she still could be called up and took no precautions for that potential issue. She should do the time she committed to and not be able to use her kids as an excuse. It would be different if she were a single mother with no family but that is not the case. Handle your obligations end of story or face the consequences. I am a woman and my husband was a marine as his father was before him so I am well aware of the committment. If you want the equality you must be willing to deal with the potential draw backs. You want to be considered equal but then want to be allowed out of the commitment because you are a woman. You can't have it both ways. There are plenty of men serving in our military that have children and a spouse at home and they have had to make sacrifices leaving their family and having to make financial adjustments so don't try to get out of it because of your gender. That lame excuse should not fly in this day and age.

Hving worked for the Army in a huge Ob/Gyn office I have seen this situation 100's of times...in fact not a week went by that at least 2 acive duty solders came into my office just prior to being deployed claiming to be pregnant and therefore were not able to ship out. These young women were trying to get pregnant to side-step their commitment.

I agree with StaceyP. Equal rights for women were fought for. I think it's wrong to pick and choose what things we get equal rights to and which ones we are exempt from. A woman signs a contract and then isn't held to it, that's just silly.

Think about the consequences for those actions, like getting pregnant and starting a family, when deployment is even a slim possibility. It's the armed forces!! Always have a plan B for where your family/children go when stationed overseas.

I'm actually embarrassed that it's such a split decision. No wonder our country is so messed up.

I have children. If you sign up for the military then you are making a commitment to the military. It is not meant for a free ride - in other words, you can't just reap whatever rewards ($(even if low), medical benefits, training, travel, retirement etc.) you like and leave the rest. If you want to be treated equally then act equally - honor the commitment that YOU chose to sign on for. Come on, even in peace time we know that there may be some type of conflict that a soldier may be sent off to face. What about the men? They have children too. It is not an ideal world. You can not have your cake and eat it too. Deal with your issue of children. Finish your tour, and get your HONORABLE discharge for doing a duty you signed up for. My one regret in life is that I didn't join the military. One other thought, FREEDOM DOES HAVE A PRICE.

As a single mom in the AF I know it is tough (yes I know we may not deploy as much as other branches of the service, but I have done my time and will sure do more). The IRR is one of those things you know about when you sign the papers and forget about because of a "IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN TO ME" attitude. Unfortunatley, as in this case, it does. Yes, she got out because she felt she can not be a mom and a soldier at the same time. She made a move that is respectable and noble, but that small print we in the military take for granted has come back to bite her and I am sure a lot of people like her in the butt. People are saying pull her back for a stateside duty...guess what those spots are filled. She is being pulled for a location where the military says she is needed, regardless of your opinions on the war..she would not be called back otherwise. If she can get out of it good for HER KIDS. If not, well, it is what it is.

I think a very big yes. Anyone who joins the military, man or woman gets a contract and its explained very well to them. People are very quick to take the beneifits but want to jump ship when the going gets tough. I have served for 28 years and I know the chances and When you take the oath is not just if it suits you

I would have to agree with you whole heartedly, I believe that woman with or without children should be given the choose in this case. I have four of my children in the U.S. armed services and this was there choose, and one just so happens to be my daughter, and she would not have any other way.

i do not disagree with a woman being in the military but i do not agree with women trying to get out of fighting in wars. you sign the papers and so do the men. they can't stay home with their children so why should the women. if you want to be treated equally then dont complain when you have to carry out your equal part. no one made you join. adn i have a daughter myself so i would hate to be away from her but if i chose to serve this country then that is my duty as well. if they will exempt the women from fighting over there because of their children then maybe they shoul exempt my husband too.

Women who work in a particular field need to perform their duties as layed out in their job description. If women don't want to serve in the armed forces and risk fighting then don't join.

Actually tens of thousands of Army soldiers desert and the Army doesn't even go after them. They come back from Iraq on leave and never return to Iraq or even the Army, and the Army does nothing. Some of them are even still receiving pay...maybe we should track them down and get back our money...Obligation, patriotism, Loyalty doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary.

Well said, alot of people joined the service just for bennys not thinking they would ever have to pay UP as to putting there a — — on the line when needed, now its time so mom or dad pay up. I thank all men or women who have pay up thank you all.

It's your job when you are in the military. Kids or not.

Well, myself I would prefer that none of our soldiers would have to go to war. But, I understand that they are soldiers for a reason,there are times when war is the last option and they must go to the defense of our Nation.

But , however on the argument of Mothers going to war, possibly getting killed and leaving children motherless...should we also then not let fathers go to war so they won't get killed and leave their children fatherless...what's the difference ?

As it stands, our military is a voluntary enlistment...those who enlist, mothers, fathers, and single individuals without children all know this and (hopefully) understand the risks involved in the event of war.

To me the whole argument is just one big mobius strip...endlessly going from one side to the other and never really going anywhere.

Anyway, no I don't believe mothers should get special dispensation because they are mothers..by that logic we shouldn't let fathers fight in wars either...only single young men with no family at all.

I hate war,, wish we didn't have to be in one. I also think the war in Iraq was erroneous. But, I understand as I said earlier,there is a need for war as a matter of last resorts.

As always...Just My Humble Opinion

Thanks for reading

Peace (someday hopefully ?)

The Army doesn't issue children, wives or husbands. I've been deployed 5 times so far, so as far as I'm concerned, if your number comes up....PACK YOUR BAGS....and don't whine about it, Do the job your getting paid to do and use the plan that you figured you would use in the event that you were to get deployed. This isn't a welfare line and you don't make the rules.

Soldier dads have to go, why should women be any different? You asked for equal rights, and now you've got them. Those equal rights should include serving the country you enlisted for. Women should not even be allowed to become pregnant if they are enlisted. They use that as an excuse to get orders (seen it happen more than once). I will never forget watching the pregnant women be flown off the Lincoln when we were at war. I know several women who told me they got pregnant just to get out of the combat zone. Pathetic.

We can't as Women demand equal rights then try to find a loophole because we are Mothers!

Being a mother is not a "loophole", it's an obligation!

For a mother to leave her children with relatives, so she can go play soldier, is just plain wrong! If she could join the militrary with a gaurantee she will get non-combat zone assignments, that allows her to be with her childen, then perhaps it would be ok. However, the military doesn't work that way.

I have seen stories where mothers have served in combat zones, sometimes when the father is also in the military, and I have thought of them as selfish and irresponsible. It is not right, and should not be allowed, for a woman to risk her life and leave her children without a mother.

When it comes to mothers and fathers, equality be damned! It is a terrible thing when a child loses their father in war, but it is more terrible for them to lose their mother. Especially when she had a choice.

Jerry--

YOUR AN IDIOT!!! You obviously come from a generation who believes that all a woman is good for is cooking your dinner and making sure your clothes are clean all while keeping up on your children. AS A WOMAN—IN THE MILITARY, I will be damned if a old crusty guy tells me it is wrong to leave my children to serve my country. You obviously haven’t spent one day fighting for this country we live it that by the way allows you to talk like an ASS!! Keep with your immoral politics and stay out of my line of work, because you couldn’t hack it.

Let's seee...

Mary has children, she gets - to stay States Side,

Jane is pregnant so - desk job States Side,

Dorothy PMS's a lot, no rife for her - States Side

Suzy (a tranny) not good in the field - States Side

Cindy a consciences objector – States Side

Men Only– Front Line

All wanting equal payscale, a paycheck and benefits.

People, what are we we doing!!!

I guess then, since WE are ALL equal you can ask the question should soldier Dads be required to served actively. ~G

the smartest thing i've heard on newsvine

bottom line is these FEW ( i am not critisizing all of them) want their rights but...... stand down and change their tune when they have to pay for them like others have to

JDaddy - I am a widowed, single father with 17 years in service. My children's ( aged 7, 10 & 13) nearest family member is 2100 miles away. I have served 5 tours in the Middle East. Why does having/not having kids change the duties YOU signed up for? BEFORE you sign your enlistment you are told you have an 8-year commitment - active or IRR. I am sick and tired of you liberal panderers wanting special rules for everyone AFTER the fact that you (and I) fought for EQUAL rights for everyone. Maybe you would like to pay my babysitters during my next deployment.

There is no draft these days and therefore, if you join you take on the risk of being called to war. Kids or no kids you you signed up so cowgirl up and do your duty. Robert

Speedy52, I have to say you sound like a bigger idiot than you make Jerry out to be. You contradict yourself about 4 times in your post. You're for women fighting, you're against it...????? Motherhood is an obligation JUST LIKE YOUR MILITARY obligation. You volunteered to join the military & you volunteered to have kids. Like I stated earlier, women want "Equal" rights and equal pay for "Equal???" work until it comes time to fulfill YOUR obligation.

It's funny how some folks (men & women) are perfectly content collecting a pay check & full benefits, having the government send them to school and reaping benefits off the backs of others but complain when they are told to do something - That is called welfare.

Anyone, male or female knows of the possibility of going to war when they join the armed forces. I have nothing but praise for them all. However I feel that mothers, in particular single mothers in the military should not be made to serve in a combat zone. They should have the choice in that matter.

What an ignorant comment!

everyone seems to forget about all the dads with kids...why shouldnt they be exempt too? ahhh what the heck lets start exempting people baised on skin colour too while we are at it..the ladies wanted equal rights...but..only when it benifits them. fair is fair..you either want to be treated like an equal or not.

This is not about equal rights....This is about what is the right thing to do for the child. Doesn't the child deserve to have a mother or is the idea of equal rights more important. Children need mothers and it is ridiculous to entertain the idea anything could be more important. I'm sorry if I come off sexist but I am very tired of all the political correctness. What's right is right and children need their mothers more than our military needs them, no matter how long they have been collecting checks.

My thoughts exactly. It's nice to hear a woman say it though.

Women have fought a longer battle for equality and not to be seen as fragile and in need of saving. This woman volunteered for 8 years of duty, not four. She elected to do four active and the rest IRR but the contract is for as much as the entire * year committment at the need of the military, not the individual. I served 10 years so I know the contract by heart.

I am a dad and it sends a signal that the fathers at war are somehow less valuable to a child than a mom and thart is bull@!$%#. Women want equality then the sacrifice must be equal. Don't on one hand ask to be treated without difference then when the crap hits the fan back out and ask to be treated like a woman in the archaic sense. equality like freedom has a price.

I agree 100% suck it up and report to duty. you signed up for 8yrs obligation, you knew the country have been at war since 2001. you have been using up the benefits that comes along with been associated with being in the military. so now is the time to pay back. i would have a little simpathy if you was a single mother but you are not, what is every single father should pull the same stunt that you are pulling? would he be looked at the same way?.... you asked for equality so here it is.....

There's no draft for women or men, they sign a voluntary contract. Once enlisted, if a woman in the military can't figure out what keeps her from getting pregnant by her late teens, she's not smart enough to be in the military, hence it must be looked as a way of collecting an equal pay-rate while getting light duty.

.... All on our nickel.

Sorry Speedy52, I thought you wrote all that crap but you cut/pasted Jerry's.

For all you that think mothers should not have to go - You should have to go. For those that are crying about the last administration - Stop getting your news from Rosie O'Fat any Catie @!$%#lic. You haven't the first idea about any of the good that is being done. All you cry babies want us to go into Darfur where scumbags are killing people but you want us out of Iraq where scumbags are killing people - and have been for a very long time.

Go into work tomorrow & tell your boss that your family life has changed and you can no longer expect to meet his/her expectations. Tell them you would like to continue to keep your job & salary (with annual & periodic raises).

It would be sweet if some of you pandering liberals suffered a home invasion and the police told you too bad, our force is running low because all our mothers are home with the kids. But then again - you are all for trespassing (illegal immigration) as well

You know what military service is training you for. If you don't want to leave your home and family when called on for duty. Don't join and take the checks for years.

How many mom's are serving in theater today? What make her any different than them. If her Command shows her favoritism and offers her concessions, what concessions is she offering up? Will she receive full pay and benefits like her active duty peers? But wait she is not peer level material. Discharge her Dishonorably or here's a thought, demote her to E-1 and reduce pay 50% for the duration of her mobilization. Its a hard life out there...why do we continue to create dependencies. Husband should care for the children and move into government housing. Yes they stand to lose a bit, but the choices were there's to make. Here's another thought, have them repay their Reserve earnings... If they decide to Dischare it should be DISHONORABLE...is there any honor it letting a fellow patriot deploy again because she deserves favoritism.

amen to that... my brothers child was born when he was over seas and has been over there 3 times....so if mothers should be exempt then so should dads but he knew what he signed up for and yes he doesnt like being away from him family its his job and he sucks it up and does it...i agree with you completely

To all you clowns who think that the ladies who joined the military should get time off for conceiving. If that's allowed then why don't we return all male soldiers home who got the wives, girlfriends pregnant while home on leave. Their kids need a father around too.

Jerry Verlinger, Why is a mother more important than a father?

When it comes to mothers and fathers, equality be damned! It is a terrible thing when a child loses their father in war, but it is more terrible for them to lose their mother. Especially when she had a choice.

You must be far off your rocker!

Selfish and irresponsible.

So its selfish and irresponsible for her to leave her child in good hands while she risks her life for the country? Wow. Crazy.

I am in the military and my husband has 2 young children and he still has to deploy and he has done so TWICE in the past 3 years. And responding to what 'justwantitover" said...they do allow the deployed soldiers who have wives to come home for 21/2 weeks to be with teir wives and newborns. Also if a soldier(male or female) doesn't have the means to work out a plan so they can work and without having to go and take care of routine childcare throughout the duty day they can get "kicked" out for not having such plan in place. And soldier's know these things and for the chick that reported with her kids is just trying to get out of deployment and fulfilling the rest of her CONTRACT that she knew about when she initially enlisted. And mothers aren't exempt at all unless they are pregnant when their unit deploys and once they have that child and are finally cleared by their doctor that they can return to full duty they will join their unit to finish out the deployment.

In a perfect world, this would be a non-issue. However, during the sixties, women protested vigorously for equal rights. Those chickens have come home to roust. Congratulations. During the sixties and early seventies, men were drafted by the hundreds of thousands, many were fathers, I know I was one of them. Men have had to leave family behind to serve this country for generations. Now, the ladies are likewise obligated if they join, Maternal urgings notwithstanding. The military treats all the same, mostly. They are making a contract with the military, in return for education or vocational training. However, wartime or no, it remains the United States military. Fighting wars is would they do, it ain't Club Med. Personally, I think the minimum induction age should be raised to 21. If they are not mentally mature enough to drink, as many sources content, then they are not mature enough to be subjected to the horrors of war. Either they are adults at 18 or they are not. I was 19 when my form letter arrived. Congress and the bleeding hearts shouldn't have it both ways. If you make a commitment, honor it. Don't play lumber jack if you can't or won't hold up you're end of the log. Don't go in for the training and education, then suddenly grow a conscience when the shooting starts. As so many seem to do, remembering a certain Doctor who's training was provided by the U.S. Army. Then she develops moral turpitude when the first Iraq war got going. Refusing to go in theater to care for the wounded as she had agreed. She was released under an other than honorable discharge. She SHOULD have gone to the D.B. at Leavenworth. More than a few male counterparts in this situation where court marshaled and served time at the D.B. Equal rights, deal with them.

Every one want to say they should not. The way I see it there are jobs that will be closed to women, just blacks were not allowed to fight and prove that we could do it. Now I say to you let them decied it is all voluntary force and no more draft.

equal rights mean equal rules. you fought for it deal with the negatives along with reaping the positives

BOBO- Okay, I will be 100% honest on this issue, because this has truly ticked me OFF!!

I dont know what you think, but having children isnt an obligation! You choose to have a baby! Your not just given one, just because you have the parts doesnt mean you have to use them. If you dont like the fact that you still have to deploy, then get the hell out of the military at your next reelistment. I choose this life, I have taken on a higher level of responsiblity because I feel like I could make a diffrence. While everyone who writes about this woman who is upset because she has two kids and she got called back to her AD status. Let me say this--until you learn how to become a soldier you should never be the one to speak ill of one.

MY ENTIRE family is in the military and while i saw my mother cry when my Dad would leave to deploy i never once heard her say a negitive thing about him being gone. My brother is a damn proud marine. And i am in the Air Force and so is my husband. She wasnt drafted, and she wasnt forced to join the Army, she made that choice on her own, just like my family did. So now she doesnt like the terms of her enlistement, TOUGH CRAP!! Suck it up for a few more years, and get over it, dont reelist again, and re-retire.

This wouldnt even be an issue if it was a man, who was a single Dad. they would just tell him to get a Family Care plan in place and hope for the best because he was going to be deploying with his unit.

AND FOR ANYONE WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH WOMEN DEPOLYING--I ACTIVELY TRY TO DEPLOY AT EVERY OPERTUNITY, AND EVERYONE COMMENDS ME FOR IT. YOU PEOPLE WHO SAY THE CHILDREN COME FIRST, NO, YOUR COMMITMENT COMES FIRST AND YOU SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND SHOW THEM WHAT ITS LIKE TO HONOR YOUR WORD!!

CHEERS--SPEEDY52

I totally agree! You sign up to serve your country whether your a mother or not...why are mothers more important than fathers, do children not need fathers??? I think they are both equally wanted by children so if you do not want to go into battle do not join the military! I am a mother and if I was in the military that would be something that we would have to deal with just like men have too!! You want equal rights than suck it up!!!!!!

With all the media attention from this event, there would be a huge boon to any company that would have the brains and sympathy for the situation that could hire the husband. He could stay with his family , get a new job and make an excellent example of how we as Americans can and must work together in times of need , not just to save ourselves in time of crisis, but to help each other in spite of our own emergencies.

Jerry Verlinger writes,"When it comes to mothers and fathers, equality be damned! It is a terrible thing when a child loses their father in war, but it is more terrible for them to lose their mother".

Fathers all over America, who won joint custody of their children in court, are glad Jerry wasn't the Magistrate in their custody battle.

Amen, sister!

For all others:

And it doesn't matter if you're active duty, guard or reserve...they all sign the same dotted line and swear in with the same oath. So, it matters not if there are checks to collect or what have you. If you're in the US Armed Forces, you're obligated to go NO MATTER WHAT; it's part of the oath that every servicemen/women take.

This story makes me embarrased to be a female.

I served my time and I am currently IRR. I know that I may get called back up just like she knew. Kids? Who cares! She signed the contract. I am a female who has no children but does that make me any less expendable than she is? I don't think so, we both signed the same contract. There are no mothers in the Army. only soldiers. She needs to suck it up. I hope she gets a dishonorable discharge.

Speed = I apologized for tagging you - you had cut & pasted another guy's comments & I thought they were yours. What I mean by "motherhood is an obligation" is if you choose to have kids it is your obligation - not that women should have kids. I have been on AD for 17 years and am a single father. I have been on multiple deployments. I have a problem with anyone and everyone who looks for a way out after they been given so much. I have a greater problem with anyone who begged to be treated equal the cries when they get what they asked for. My kids live 2100 miles from their nearest family member. I would never think of asking for special treatment. & for those of you out there who do not know - Members of the military are NOT eligible for the family leave act. We have to sign vacation days to be with our kids when they were born.

Only one problem. she was honorably discharged. She did not re-enlist. They should not force her to go back after she has done her time. Let her raise her family in peace.

I Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Soldier Dads have to serve!!!

The question implies that she is a single parent with a child with no mention of a spouse. It should be mandatory that a single parent by choice or otherwise be forced to a stateside duty! We do not need to create orphans or foster children. In regards to Women, they already are not allowed in a Combat MOS and should not be allowed in Combat Zones other than Nurses and Doctors, who would normally be in "safe area" out of any danger. The Iraq War has shown women POW'S, Amputees and those Killed in Action. All that on top of rapes other crimes in the theater of operations. It ia a waste of Taxpayer Dollar training them a Pilots and Airborne Soldiers which receive Extra Pay and yet then cannot participate in Combat. Those kids that got ambushed were a supply company, right behind the leading combat troops and women should not have been in that Unit in the 1st place. Look at the risk taken in money, machine and manpower to rescue that girl! Yet I have not seen any attempts to rescue the men captured from their guardposts! This shows the double standard and how women should not be allowed in a Combat Zone. We love our ladies so much that many men will risk their lifes for them! So back to the issue at hand is that in my opinion, any Single Parent, male or female,on Active Duty needs to be discharged from service and if in the Guard or Reserve the same discharge needs to happen. The only other option I see is that the former spouse, sibling, parents or grandparents legally have custody of the child when the service member is deployed.

Her time is 8 years, they CAN force her!!!

What people need to understand is that this is a job.

As a civilian if your life changes you do not have the right to go to your employer and tell them they have to make, create, or transfer you to a new job or position because your health or some other facet of your life changes. Your employer will show you where the door is. If you can not fuffill the needs pf the job you have to find a new job. The military is no different- granted you may have to fight a war in this job.

If your life style changes you need to either accept the change or find a new job. If your job is working in a factory and the job you do causes you to spend too much time away from your kids or becomes a health risk to your kids you find a new job. If you have a child in the military and have to go to war, and do not want to do this then get a different job. Otherwise drive on and do the job the military pays you to do.

When you join the Army it means "Fighting Soldier." We were just lucky for 20 years to go without a war to fight. The Army does not mean pay for my college or pay me to learn a trade; there is always the risk of deploying.

If your life changes and you can not handle the pressure- get out. If you are out and your life changes then your are called back in there is always the choice of a hardship discharge; request one. Yea it is not as nice as an honorable discharge, but you signed a contract and the military lived up to their end of it. I deployed twice now and my kids survived with out me; yea it was tough on all of us. I excepted the check and acknowledged the risk when I signed up.

Women have been fighting for equality in the armed forces for decades. Now that we have the opportunity to serve in combat zones like our brothers, we have no right to change our minds just because we have children. The men that have been going off to wars since the beginning of time had young children also. Fathers are no less important to their children than mothers are. If we exempt mothers from serving in combat areas more women would get pregnant not because they want a child, but because they want to stay home.

She can and should be relegated to some other type of support position, but not deployed. However, this raises the question of the role of women in the military in the first place. Having served myself I have know some very hardcore women. But once you become a mother, either you or your husband should not be allowed to be in the service at the same time. If women knew that children would end their deployability, and their career with it they would have to make a clear choice. Their contracts should not be renewed by the retention staff if they are unable to deploy without hardship. The army would be doing the best thing for their families if they kept one parent or the other out of the military and home with the kids.

A father who gets sole custody of his children, or is in similar straights as the woman in the story, and wants "out" - should be let out of his obligation as well. Not as likely to happen perhaps, but a father's kids in such a scenario deserves as much consideration.

I agree. Therefore, men should also be allowed to stay home because they have children (small or otherwise). I don't understand why there is a need to force anyone into service. Maybe it's because of how poorly service men and woman are treated during and after their many tours of duty? Look at the number of suicides of those coming home. Look at the mental illness and lack of care they receive. Is it any wonder why there is a need to force anyone into service?

Rather than force people, we should (1) stop fighting wars when they are not absolutely necessary and (2) actually take care of our service men and woman who do serve.

If our military is unable to recruit people who are physically and mentally prepared and willing to serve, then there is a problem with our military and our foreign policy. We have literally abused our service men and women. Is it no wonder why there aren't enough people voluntarily signing up?

The answer isn't to tear mothers and fathers away from their children unwillingly. The answer is to honor our commitments to those who do serve and learn to stop biting off more than we can chew in our foreign policy.

complexity 4: i couldnt agrees more. Ten years is a long time to be placing your bets (when you sign up) on whether the political class is going to do something stupid....

There is another option...Let her be a stay at home mom and recall the father. He'll still have a paid job.

This is just somebody grasping for a reason not to go because there's no reason the young kids cannot go stay with the grandparents if being with the father is not an option.

I am sorry - I didn't realize they brought back the Military Draft. Did I miss something in the article that said she was forced to sign-up for Military service or was forced to take the benefits for doing so?

Since she was not forced into anything and willfully signed a contract, she should live up to her obligations. How cheap it is to go into a contract and then bow out of it claiming Motherhood or some such BS when you freely got involved in it in the first place. She had a choice to sign or no sign and she had a choice to have or not have children. it is up to her to fulfill the obligation without expecting to be bailed out for her actions.

But she's not a single mom! It's just that dad has an "inconvenient job." Let's be adults here. Dad: Lose the job, be mister mom, and mommy: try to be a respectable adult and honor your obligations instead of wussing out and trying to use your husband and kids as a shield.

With unemployment at +8% nationwide "losing the job" is not a wise choice. He should find adequate childcare and she should finish out her contract.

steve are you in the army...no then shut the hell up. how can you be critical of this woman when your not in her shoes. and how is she sponging off the government??? please tell me. and if you read the article you would have read that they havent locked up anybody who hasnt shown up so get the facts right punk

Oh Well...Please go to another thread to spout your hate!

If People in the military become sole parents, they can receive help through several agencies that support the military. There is a Family Care Plan if they wish to stay in the military. If they do not want to, they use their chain of command and/or chaplain to seek a hardship discharge. But, people in the military that serve with children, then are assigned to hardship overseas deployments, will find it hard to make a case as stated above.

Jeff- it is NOT the draft. You obviously don't know what it means when you sign up for the military. The fact is that you sign on the dotted line knowing that you MUST serve 4 years active duty and then after that you must serve 3 years of either active reserves or inactive reserves. The other option is to serve all 7 years active. This woman knew her committment period. It is not the draft they are requiring her to fulfill her agreed upon service end of story. It's kind of like these interest only home loans you very well know down the road that your payment will come due. Since this person enlisted in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks she knew the possibilities were there of being called back up. It also doesn't matter if she expected to or not the fact is she signed a legal binding contract and unless the kids are going to end up in foster care (in this case they are not) she must serve her time. Handle it and quit complaining.

Just because you don't like the reason for the war doesn't mean that it changes anything. The fact is that the IRR portion of the military contract has been around forever, not just since 9/11. The military is voluntary and they are made well aware of the commitment and the IRR is part of that deal with it. Besides I am sure at your job you do things you don't like or agree with but have no choice. The military is the same thing except you are under a contract and can't quit, but you know that going in. So just because you don't like the war don't whine that this woman is having to complete her contract. She went in at a time we were already at war knowing full well her commitment. She should not be allowed to get out of it because of her gender.

The Army doesn't issue children, wives or husbands. I've been deployed 5 times so far, so as far as I'm concerned, if your number comes up....PACK YOUR BAGS....and don't whine about it, Do the job your getting paid to do and use the plan that you figured you would use in the event that you were to get deployed. This isn't a welfare line and you don't make the rules.

OH WELL:...and with obvious intentions by the GOP and former White House criminals, to never go after those responsible for 9-11,...

I think it important to interject here that Osama Bin Laden was a detainee under suspicion of terrorism during the Clinton administration long before the 9/11 attack and Mr. Clinton released released him. This whole mess could have been averted had proper action been taken at that time by your apparent favorite political party.

flyn - I did serve in the Army and can tell you it is strictly a matter that we do not draft nor is the contract in a foreign language. She signed on for 8 years and can request to do part of it IRR but that is subject to the discretion and modification by the needs of the service. She knew this as do all of us that sign on the line.

It is a tough call from an emotional view but as a matter of law she volunteered and was not forced to join. You can even be stop lossed after your 8 year term as well if in a critical MOS and that while unfair, is also a part of the deal. Once you sign the line it is out of your hands and into God's.

She is no different than a man on paper and is only being allowed this much room to threaten our government because of publicity she is stirring and emotions. Her husband is a coward for not manning up and finding suitable work close by so his wife can woman up as have many in her same situation. My little sister was a single mom and served in the first gulf war with me and my two brothers. I did not have a child at the time but was married and wife pregnant and both brothers where married fathers and we all served active duty and did not ask to be released from service.

winkiesixtysix; Jeff's comments about a draft = Sarcasm

Oh Well... on what date or dates did that happen? The Saudis may have expelled him...

News segments I heard after 9/11, anybody else out there hear the same? I heard it on a number of national news sources. The point is our National Security had him in their sights and nothing was done!

9/11 was a painful awakening, demonstrating that something had to be done, we had been tolerant long enough. I personally believe it best to attack a problem at its source rather than continue to allow an enemy pick us apart piece by piece much like is the case in Israel. True there are a lot of fine people in Iraq that wanted no part of a war in their neighborhoods and landscape but they were powerless to sway Saddam from his policy of supporting terrorists and consequently waging war on us. How much worse off would our economy be if these acts were allowed to be continually carried out here?

Deep hand in oil? - maybe not, but I doubt it! but remember they do have their hand deep in other sources of energy and are very passionate about keeping their hand deep in every citizens pocket, driving it as deep as they can get, as long as the majority enjoy the feeling.

Please realize the indoctrination found in women's studies and other various historical studies of "minority groups" through our educational system is presented to create a view of men, women and other so called "minorities" each as a separate species, creating division, making victims out of the group of people you want to promote. The disregard for the contributions of the perceived "oppressor" only serves to destroy cooperation, progress, quality of life and the incentive to improve. The most obvious point I have received from these various "minority" studies is that they perpetuate a "victim" self image and relieve the individual of responsibility for their own decisions and actions rather than following through to completion the job and hence receive the rewards they originally set out to achieve. It is worth researching the backgrounds of the individuals who have been allowed to influence our current educational curriculum's through the last 100 years and compare their views to those of our Founding Fathers.

There have been about twenty diffrent reasons why this bytch should have never been allowed in the U S military. My personal thought is that women should absolutly never be allowed in any possible combat situation. I have served, and NEVER liked the idea that if combat occured, my life was in the hands of a woman. Like it or not women are not as strong physically as men. And when you get to the point of being in combat, physical strength is VERY important. When you are talking about front line combat soldiers, women should be not exempt, but totally excluded. You can put Jessica Lynch in a truck all you want. But don't put the worthless byotchess in a fox hole with me, no matter what you want to say about them, they just don't belong there.

They would be Erwin Rommels " weak link" in the chain.

She isn't a single mother the father is at home with the kids they just feel it is inconvenient for them because he travels for his job. Just a tip tough luck. Men are redeployed and the women are left to deal with whatever. She should not be allowed out of her contract period. Just because they don't like the circumstances doesn't mean it is a hardship because it is not. Hardship means they have no one to care for the kids....daddy is at home and is available.

Joann... So my son who is single and working really hard to make sure he can provide for his family when he does finnaly find his life mate. His future and his dreams what he contributes to society is worth less just because he is PLANNING for children instead of arbotraily bringing them into the world. Why should he be sacrifieced before anyone else thats why people enlist by choice no one is forced.

By the way he did serve 4 years already and knows he could be recalled and won't have children until that time is up.

People should be careful of their blanket statements take responsibility for what your saying.

So Joan you have decided single girls and boys have less value and right to live than a mom? You think a single boy or girl doesn't dream of having a child or marriage. Someone that has a child has passed along their bloodline and dna, they, like a spawning trout can now die having fullfilled lifes promise of procreation. That single girl or boy has yet to know the joy of parenthood or to have passed their genes on to the world so they are as vital to life as are those who have kids.

I have two boys, i would love to have a grandchild, they are necessary to that end Joan and they are as special to me as this woman is to her children. She volunteered Joan. No one forced her to join. The only thing the military is asking is for her to honor her contract, not modify it or disregard it for her convenience. She signed up for 8 years, not four. The military will allow you to do just four active if the situation allows it but make no mistake the contract she signed of her own volition was for a term of 8 years.

Joan you should volunteer to serve in some capacity since you want to voluteer those who have not. his woman volunteered, get it?

This is like the mortgages people asked for but could not afford. We always want to ask for freedom and rights but not the sacrifice that comes with it.

So Joan what you are saying that I should be recalled just because I do not have children. We both signed the same contract. In the Army she is not a mother she is a soldier. Not to sound harsh but who gives a hoot whether she has children. That is her problem and no one elses.

It happens that she signed a contract for a MOS that is critical. She probably reaped a huge bonus for signing for that particular MOS and now she needs to live up to that contract and its stipulated terms.

So true and the last administration was all about lies and deception.

No, it's not a lie. Service members, male and female, have been on the line for 4 to 6 years after they leave active duty for quite a while now. My husband was, even after 12 years of service in the Air Force. He wasn't called back, but many are.

However, I think it's ridiculous to believe that a woman should put off having a family for up to 6 years because of a "possibility" of being called back. This IS a hardship case because she doesn't have a "house-husband" and it would cause undue hardship if her husband who HAS a good-paying job in this economy would have to LEAVE his job to TRY to find a job that would allow him to stay close to home. That doesn't make sense!!!

And it is an utter disgrace for ANY active serviceman or woman to lose their children because they ARE active and overseas. Giving temporary custody to someone else, whether a former spouse or grandparent, with the understanding that the service member would regain full custody once they return should be guaranteed under Federal law. The sneaky custody battles that are started AFTER a service member is deployed are completely outrageous!

I'm guessing that a deployment, with all the tax benefits and pay that likely far outweighs her current income as a day care provider would compensate for Dad's having to trade in his sales job. I can't imagine he's racking up too much in sales since he's only a few years into the job and the current economy being what it is.

Even if she got out as an E5, that's about $30K a year, plus housing (about $1K/month) plus health care for the member and all dependents. Oh yeah...and it's tax free for the entire time she spends deployed. Add more for haz duty and combat pay, then roll in the fact that its ALL TAX FREE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DEPLOYMENT and I guarantee it's enough for the family to live off of. The math brings it to about $47K for an E5 over the course of one full year deployed (source: and my own experience in the service)... if she got out as more than an E5, start adding even more $$.

Their description does not sound like a family that is making too much more than $50K...

Sounds like she just wasn't expecting to go, doesn't want to, and wants an "out"...

sorry...source got cut off...it was www.goarmy.com

The recal is based on Individual Ready Reserve. The contract that 100% of initial term enlistees signs states that if they get out after their initial enlistment they will still be in the IRR until they reach their 8th anniversary of their initial enlistment. This is in the contractthat everyone of signed. I have been in 11 years, deoployed twice in the last 3 years and my wife served her initial enlistment with her IRR time expiring in 5 months. It is a requirement that we all agreed to. No one is lying, except those individuals that refuse to uphold their promises to a contractual obligation that they signed.

Fall in!!!!!!!!!! Dress right dress..recover. parade..rest.

She is not prior service. Prior service means you fulfilled your obligation. Her obligation was for 8 years. She had served just 4 of them active. Though the military is gracious enough to offer IRR, it is clearly stated up front in English this is at the discretion and needs of the service. They let you know you can be called up until the last day of your 8 years and then extended beyond that as stop loss if on the last day.

I served my first 8 and was stop lossed for two more due to the first gulf war and the needs of the military. I did not whine because no one told me to volunteer in the first place.

If she fails to report she can be court marshalled and should be. If she brings her kids they will be taken into custody by child services and it will cost her and the hubs a boat load of money to get them back. She has a husband, if the army wanted her to have a hubby and kids they would have issued them to her, that was told to men for decades. Now women are equals in pay, but in sacrifice as well and it sucks that they do not appreciate what they asked for. It isn't easy being a man in the military so women that ask for equal treatment are now getting ait and should shut the ruck up

Attention!! Dismissed!!

kd2652

Different article, are you lost in all this?

Well then, mothers should consider that when they sign legal obligations. Too bad for her. I guess young children will get to know their daddy instead. They will be fine.

No, young children need a parent. I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous notion that mothers are more capable of raising children than fathers. My daughter and her husband are raising my first grandson. He stays home and takes care of my grandson and she goes to work every day.

Oh, Sandy, that is such crap! Kids need a parent, not just mom! Dad is just as capable, and in this case, mom needs to honor the obligation she made. No one forced her to join the military! Now she needs to finish what she started.

I agree with you emmensely however mom should have concidered her obligations before having kids. Maybe she should have waited to start her family. So now set a good example and honor her commitment. For all others think it out before starting a family.

I agree parents, both parents need to be more active in raising well behaved children. However it sounds to me that there was poor family planning in this situation she knew she had an obligation that could take her away yet she had kids anyway. So start by setting a good example and honor her commitment then dad needs to be sure to be as attentive as possible while moms away. People need to think long term more when planning a family in this day and age theres no excuse for accidents she mad a consious choice.

All children need as many parents as the DNA that made them. Men are vital to a childs growth and stability and I am tired of the lesbian agenda pushing men out of the picture as unnecessary. Even dykes use a fake phallus and some even dress and act as men to attract fish.

This is a matter of law. She signed up for 8 years at the ddiscretion and needs of the service as to how that comittment is balanced if at all. She decided a path. If I decide to be a fire fighter it is of my own volition, but when the fire starts i need to go in the building and face the fire, not say that fire is too hot so I quit. She signed a government contract to serve 8 years not four. The government offers you the option to do as little as three at its discretion and only its discretion. They did not tell her to put having kids on hold, she signed up.

If you sign on to be president a lot of sacrifice is going to be asked of your family they might not agree with like you being assasinated or they kidnapped. It come with the position. The kids and wife of the pres did not volunteer so they are victims of his choice but you cannot blame a goverment for your poor choices.

We are in a depression not because of greedy lendors. I own two homes I could afford, not one I could not. I could have gotten much more house if I took and arm and a low buy in but I knew the cost long term. So I took a fixed mortgage on homes I could pay for in the event we lost one income and could sell in a weak market because of the area the homes are in. I could have gotten in over my head and run from what I asked for. We are a nation of whiners asking the bar to be lowered rather than stepping up and raising the bar.

So let us once again put women back in there places. In the home having babies while the men go off to work and war. Let us pretend that is what all women want and take away their right to vote on a commander in chief if they wish not to serve under him. Let us not let women in the militarty that can concieve a child. How far back do we want women to go before they realize the sacrifice others gave so they may be respected not as the weaker sex but as equals in every regard?

I agree. If she does this, she sets all the rest of us women back about 30 years. Or more. We'll be back to that point where men roll their eyes at women and think they can't handle making their own decisions... because obviously this one is too dumb to figure out what an obligation is, and that the simple solution is that dad takes a different job (or simply stops traveling). No wonder the military denied her appeal. It's ludicris.

People in this mobile society of ours have forgotten that the "family" includes ALL members. Brothers, Sisters, Grandparents, etc.

when my mom was deployed for 2 years and i stayed with my aunt it was the worst years of my life...even though "family" sounds great and all that it doesnt mean that it always is...i hated my mom for leaving me and my brother and making me stay with that woman and you cant be mad at this woman for wantin her to stay with her kids...call up the single people who are doing nothing and stop being so critcal

Boo Hoo flyn, blame yourself for wanting to be fed. Your mom had to feed you and so she joined. She left you not the goverment. She made a tough choice and you suffered. Blame your aunt for not loving you like a mother but not uncle sam, he provided means for your mom to feed you. She was off earning a living. there are CEO's and every day people that take civilian jobs that take them away from family and they do it to eat and feed a family. half of hollywoods elite leave kids with nannies and go off to pursue a career and the kids are jacked up as heck while some military brats turn out to be of the strongest character you could find. My dad did 3 tours of nam and we missed him but he volunteered so he voluteered us as well, not the Army.

flyn get a life. Your mom loved you enough to find a way to feed you when she could find no other. You hated her when you should have been proud and honored that she was protecting your freedom. You took that freedom she was putting her life on the line daily for and you chose to squander it on hating her.

I agree. I like the part about "she knew it was a possibility, but she tried to push it to the back of her mind" VERY adult of her.

I say she signed the contract. Daddy can get a different job, she gets to go back on duty. This is the way it works for so-called competant adults who sign contracts.

Ahhh! I couldn't agree more! My husband is in the Navy and I won't take a job that keeps me traveling for just this reason.

The better issue here is not about serving it's "Where the hell are all the HONEY BOYS" why aren't all those supposed virile young boys who should be serving their country, where are these "Rambo" types hiding. Women should never have had to be put in these situations if all the honey boys would just do you duty. If you dudes are having a hard time with the balls, surely you can go to "Balls are us. com".

: I have a question for you.  I see that you are quick to call out all of the "HONEY BOYS" as you put it, have you ever served?  Or do you need to go to, as you put it, "Balls are us. com"?

fred said: "Women should never have had to be put in these situations."

We fought hard to get the right to serve in battle. Women want equal rights AND equal responsibilities. We don't need "virile young boys" to protect us, thanks all the same.

Are you serious? Women are in this situation because we have demanded equal rights and we are getting them... You cannot have it both ways! She signed up, received lots of benefits, and probably had all her medical bills paid for when she had those children. Why shouldn't she have to fulfill her obligation. I could see if she was a widow or single parent, but the dad is in the home.

Oh Well...You need some serious therapy.

Oh Well, Have you ever served in the military or are you just a blow hard

Mel..Yes, reinstate the draft...that will really get the liberals howling. Adam, dollars to donuts that oh well has never served.

Unless things have changed since my time in the military you don't get that discharge paper until after your Inactive Ready Reserve time has passed. Seperation from active duty and "discharge" are two entirely different concepts.

She signed a contract and now wants to renig, as I understand it, so discharge her under less than honorable conditions and be done with it. What's so difficult?

Mel so when this draft is reinstated does that include young women as well.

Been there.. I just seperated about six months ago and I recieved my DD214 which has the seperation from Active duty as honorable discharge. But that is just seperation.. I think you are correct she will not recieve her discharge papers until after that date.

OH WELL, how many of the 30,000 UN troops do you think are combat troops. Some countries forbid their troops to go into "harms way".

Hey 911director, Have you ever served your country? It's easy to sit back and judge but if you've never walked in her shoes you should take a hike because you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!

Wen.. Do you know what you are talking about? I have served and I think the point that 911 Director made was correct. Everybody serving overseas would much rather be with family... but guess what it is the job she signed up to do. She should go back or get a dishonorable discharge.

But dad isn't dead. He just has an "inconvenient job." Simple solution. Honor your legal obligations, daddy can tell his boss he's gotta stop traveling. Duh.

Bankruptcy would not come into the equation. Look up the Soldier/Sailor Relief Act.

Don...no one is going bankrupt if she deploys. She probably stands to make about $47-55K, TAX FREE if she spends a year in the desert. This is if she was a E5 when she stopped her Active Duty service. And the numbers are accurate once you factor in her housing allowance, combat pay, family separation pay, BAS, etc...

Because that's what she agreed to do. This generation plans no further than their "want" at a particular time. She made a committment for a specified period of time of IRR after discharge. That she CHOSE to get pregnant because it's what she wanted at the time does not invalidate her contract with the military. Will it cause a change in the family dynamic while she's gone? Absolutely. But she has a husband who can adjust his schedule, if necessary. Grandparents may or may not be in the picture, but they're a possibility if they are.

Bottom line, she made the committment, she needs to fulfill it.....thus teaching her children the value of keeping their word when given.

I agree CA Mom, she needs to step up and fulfill her obligations. Maybe if more parents did that there would not be so many kids out there only thinking about themselves and what they want right that moment. Maybe then they will start thinking about responsibility and figure out that everything you do has more than one possible outcome and you need to plan ahead for all of the possible outcomes.

I agree she needs to step up and fulfill her obligations. This is so true of this generation they want what they want at the moment and do not take into consideration the consequences. She wanted the benefits but now when it is time to fulfill the commitment she made to the military she wants to weezel out of her obligations. She needs to step up and complete what she started. This generation has been so coddled they can't think any further than their wants at a particular moment. Then when it is inconvienent for them to fulfill their commitments they whine and try to find a way to weezel out of them.

Grow up. Bite the bullet and fulfill your commitment.

Also, tell your husband to bit the bullet and be a father. He is just as capable of taking care of the kids as she is. I know many fathers who are raising kids on their own and they do a great job at it. After all he chose to be a father when he chose to get his wife pregnant. Now it is time for him to step in and fulfill his commitment to his family.

To both of you Welcome to the real world - time to be a grown up.

Kali-922078: she was already honorably discharged from the military.

No she was not. She seperated from active duty. Her discharge papers won't arrive until after she completes her IRR obligations.

Kali-922078: why do they need her after all this time?

To do the job they trained her to do? ... the training we, the taxpayers paid for some years ago.

Kali-922078: there are plenty of soldiers over there now. why risk these children's mother getting hurt or killed?

Why not send one of your kids to take her place if you feel so strongly?

She fullfilled her obligation? How can you say that? Her obligation INCLUDES time on IRR too. Her obligation is still ongoing...... Also US Army Vet

The whole point is that she HASN'T fufilled her obligation yet. She signed a contract that was for 8 years minimum! She has not fufilled her 8 years. Once she finishes her obligation it would take a draft to force her back to the military.

She has obligations to the United States of America which she undertook willingly. she can not decide now that it is inconvienient for her. The Army did it's part by training her, offering her the G.I. Bill (the story said that she attended school when she got of the military) and paid her for her active duty time. Now it is enforcing another part of the contract that is well within their rights. She needs to figure out her home life, get her bags packed and report for duty! Without the children!

You had a wife to take care of your child. Her husband will be out of a job if he stays home and takes care of the kids. Can't they find a job for her stateside? Send some of the single men that are serving in the US rather than send a mother to Iraq. Thank you GWB for starting this useless war, and thank President Obama. I guess this is the only way he could come up with an additional 17,000 military to send overseas. I'm sorry I voted for him. And don't tell me the warmonger McCain would have been any better, he is just GWB with a different face.

Now we see the turn coat " grass is always greeners' " come out of the wood work . When everything is looking like it is cant go wrong, they turn up in record numbers to vote and voice their opinions, but when times get tight , as they have ALWAYS done in every administration, then they point fingers and turn away from that which they praised .I'm a 40 year old Vet who served 16 years in the United States Air Force until my injuries put me out, and now I serve as a 911 communicator helping others in need. I have seen scumbags and saints , in uniform and out . You cannot please every person, save every life or fix every problem. We as Americans have a responsibility to each other and ourselves to be the best we can, because so many ( too many ) DIE EVERY DAY. We as Americans are ALL soldiers. Since 9/11 there are no more civilians . We do not want to beat A terrorist , but to enlighten the dark hearted who support these beasts . I offer words not of hate and dissension to those here that have thoughts different from my own, but my sincere praise and thanks for giving me a chance to tell you why I feel so strongly about the choices I support. Yes my neighbors , we all made a choice - to vote, to enlist, to love and trust each other , and to risk losing that all by bringing a new life into the world we would fight and die to protect . I may not agree with every persons view, but as an American, I would listen and stand beside you to protect your right to say them. Thank you.

Wiltedrose- Nothing here says that her husband would lose his job if he asked not to travel so much. Maybe he is voluntarily traveling more for his job. Maybe there is another position in his office that he could take where he would not travel so much. Either way, being a military spouse means you have to do your part as well. I am former Army, and my husband is working on his 15th year in the Army, we have friends that are on their 3rd trip over to Iraq, and their families who have to deal with that as well. She knew what she was getting into when she signed up and he knew what he was getting into when he married her, they bith made the choice to be in this life and this situation. Now they need to figure out how they are going to deal with the situation. And it seems they are taking the route of "Me.Me. Me." not "This is what I signed up for. I knew this could happen. Now I have to do my part." Now they want to pull the media in so the army has no choice but get criticized to death or let her out. Had she made an appointment with the commander ahead of time and went in and sat down and had a conversation with him like an adult maybe they could have figured something out that would have been good for both sides. But now she is making the choice of not being an adult but to be a whining baby about her situation. Stop whining and get packed and do your duty like you signed up to do.

Wiltedrose: If a mother can stay home with her children living off of the fathers wage then why can't the father stay home with his children just the same. Individuals in the service receive equal pay based on rank.

A statement from the husband's boss, from the original article:

"In order for Travis to remain an employee, he will be required to travel."

He is a traveling salesman--he will certainly lose his job if he stops traveling. I'm not saying that should excuse her from duty...I'm kind of on the fence about this. But in these economic times expecting a father to quit a good-paying job and just *hope* that he can find another that doesn't require travel doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't believe that it is as simple as those on both sides of this argument make it out to be.

What if it were a man in this position? Would anyone even consider it an option to allow him to backout?

No, Margie, they wouldn't. It's only women. You know, if the job is an issue, then find a grandma or grandpa or aunt/uncle, cousin, someone to come in during those times and help out!! Sorry, she knew what she was getting into when she signed on the dotted line. She felt kids would keep her safe. She has an obligation to the United States and she needs to fulfil it!

Margie...thousands of men currently ARE in this position. For that matter thousands of women are in this position as well. The difference is, they are too honorable to voice their displeasure because they understand that this comes with the benefits reaped from military service. Sometimes, you actually have to serve when called.

And before anyone starts talking, this comment is not from an outsider. And yes...I understand she's been before.

The article did not say there are no other caretakers. In fact, it mentioned other family who are just living in different states. This mother has an opportunity to send her children to their grandparents until she gets home. Others have done it. We have been sending soldiers to Iraq since 2003. Believe me, many parents have faced this issue before. This woman is not the first, nor will she be the last. If anything, this article should bring to light the number of grandparents who have also sacrificed their time for Iraq.

There are other caretakers available. The children are young enough that they could easily go stay with the grandparents without even having any hassels of changing their schools.

It is hard on kids no matter which parent has to go. She signed up after 9/11, so she knew full well that this was a possibility! It might be hard and will require adjustments to be made, but it is not an impossible situation and she is making a much bigger issue out of it than needs to be. Just go deal with it and be done with it at the end of the committment.

First of all, she needs to fulfill her commitment--plain and simple. Second of all, her husband MUST STEP UP. She didn't have these children alone. It would be sad for him to have to change jobs and be inconvenienced--bankrupt? I don't have enough details to make that determination--nobody on this post does. Frankly a lot of us, if we lost our jobs, would be in that boat, so that's hardly a compelling reason. As for the grandparents: unless they were somehow a part of this couple's decision to have children, it's not their responsibility to care for their grandchildren--that's just another form of "drafting". Mom and Dad need to come up with their own solution and leave the G'parents out of it. Dad needs to get a diff. job and stop whining.

I agree with Steve. She was not forced into signing the contract, she voluntarily signed knowing that there was the possibility she could get called back whilst on IRR status. Kids are not an excuse, thousands of soldiers have small children and are deployed every year. It just happens that this one thinks she is special and should be exempt. I hope the Army gives her a dishonorable discharge for failing to go; lets see how well that works for the rest of her life.

Anthony W, you cannot possibly compare Vietnam to this. First, during Vietnam, we had the draft. I don't know if your father was drafted or not. If he was, sorry you missed him. Otherwise, he made a choice to join! Just like this lady. We don't have a draft!! No one is FORCED to join! It is a choice! And she made it! Just like thousands of other women! Now she needs to pay up!

Dishonorable discharge sounds fair to me! Probably won't happen though. Sad.......