• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

BGen Ménard relieved of Afganistan Comd & other fall-outs

What is the policy of other military forces in Afghanistan ? If intimacy/sex is allowed is there a corresponding decline in military strength.
Didn't I read somewhere that relationships are allowed in the US military in battle zones?
As the "columnist" says:
"These are soldiers we're talking about, not hormone-crazed adolescents. Most professional adults are able to balance intimacy and work relationships and members of the Canadian military are no exception. Those who disagree engage in the sort of hysterical, prudish thinking that kept women and gays out of the military for so long on the grounds they might cause a “distraction."
 
Baden  Guy said:
As the "columnist" says:
"These are soldiers we're talking about, not hormone-crazed adolescents. Most professional adults are able to balance intimacy and work relationships and members of the Canadian military are no exception. Those who disagree engage in the sort of hysterical, prudish thinking that kept women and gays out of the military for so long on the grounds they might cause a “distraction."

Define "most".

For the remainder, some of whom who may not be able to balance adding the stresses of sexual relationships to an already stressful environment (either because they are getting some, or because they are not), what's the acceptable failure rate?

Why would we want to add that, and its potential administrative and disciplinary fallout, to our operational responsibilities.

The reporter doesn't explain to her readers the male to female ratio among Canadians (or other nations) in Afghanistan? How will this change the reactions of those who might "get some" in a 50/50 balance in Canada, but may be feeling a little left out if the ratio is (for example) 90/10.

We are not talking about "most professional adults" who, at the end of the day, get to go home - or at least get to go out to a bar and try to find someone to sleep with.
 
Michael O'Leary said:
The reporter doesn't explain to her readers the male to female ratio among Canadians (or other nations) in Afghanistan? How will this change the reactions of those who might "get some" in a 50/50 balance in Canada, but may be feeling a little left out if the ratio is (for example) 90/10.
Not to mention the reactions of the 10% in AFG vs the 50% in Canada.
 
The 800 pound Gorilla sitting on the whole issue is....

Fine it's allowed

....then, what do we do with all the drama that ensues because relationships don't work out, go south, or are uninvited? What about revenge issue in a weapons filled environment?

It all happens in everyday life where there are other outlets.....so you want to encapsulate it in a stress fill environment?

I think not...
 
More food for thought:

Pentagon's Plan B Won't Stop Battlefield Sex
Posted 02/12/10 Read all 274 comments +6 / -1 raves War is hell, but apparently it comes with a comforting benefit: sex. Commanders seem to acknowledge that it happens in the forward operating bases: Base exchanges sell trashy lingerie, medics hand out condoms and, in some places, have a supply of pregnancy test kits available - and now the morning-after pill.

All U.S. military health facilities around the world have been ordered to carry a pill known as Plan B One-Step. We’re not talking about a quick-kill pill for American soldiers captured in combat; no, we’re talking about a pill meant only for women who fail to follow Plan A: Keep your legs together.

A new Department of Defense policy now requires all medical facilities, including those on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, to carry it.

The decision, made last week, comes on the heels of a commander in Iraq who attempted to enforce a clause in his code of conduct that would have made getting pregnant in combat a punishable offense. Although the code was struck down, now he’s got Plan B.

I won’t object to the pill, as long as the commander takes it too, and every soldier who has sex with a female comrade. After all, the side-effects only cause headaches, nausea, painful breasts and irregular vaginal bleeding. I’m sure it won’t cause too much damage to the male appendage, other than make him follow Plan A for a few weeks if not a few months.

I’m digressing from my original point, however. And that is: What woman is going to follow Plan B if she can’t follow Plan A? The pill has to be taken preferably within 24 hours, or up to 72 hours, to prevent pregnancy. I doubt that sexually active soldiers plan to take it every time they have sex. And apparently, “Sex runs wild in the U.S. military,” according to a 2005 report by Newsmax.

“It is only natural for the teens and 20-somethings who make up the majority of U.S. forces in Iraq to do what civilians of their age back home are doing,” Newsmax quoted Iraq soldiers, who had interviewed with the Salt Lake Tribune on condition of anonymity.

“They can try to keep us apart as much as they want, but they miss the point,” said one female soldier. Sex is "what people this age do," she said. Popping pills, which cause less than desirous effects, are not.

If anything, pregnancy and venereal diseases could increase as a result of a woman relying on the emergency contraceptive pill. This gives soldiers - female and male - another reason to not use condoms. And then a woman has to take the pill in too short of a timeframe to prevent conception.

This does not sound like the answer. So it's back to Plan A - No sex. But that's illogical as well.

Capt. Eryth Zecher, an officer with the 146th Transportation Company, said the Defense Department has not issued a blanket ban on sex in Iraq, although in most commands male and female soldiers are not allowed to be in the same room with the door closed or be "out of uniform" anyplace.

"We don't really have any other choice than to go to each other," said a male soldier in the 872nd Maintenance Company headquartered in Mosul. "In past wars, they could go into town and there would be girls there or boys or whatever you want. Here, you can't really leave the base because you'll get killed."

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/pentagons-plan-b-wont-stop-battlefield-sex/blog-259255/
 
Baden  Guy said:
What is the policy of other military forces in Afghanistan ?

The Dutch seem to have free reign. I wonder if it's like in Bosnia for them, they can do whatever they want with each just not the locals.



Baden  Guy said:
More food for thought:

no, we're talking about a pill meant only for women who fail to follow Plan A: Keep your legs together.
Or like, get raped...
Cause I hear  reporting rape in the US army is a real great time.



The decision, made last week, comes on the heels of a commander in Iraq who attempted to enforce a clause in his code of conduct that would have made getting pregnant in combat a punishable offense.
That's actually a really good idea. I thought we have something like this in Canadian laws in the Military?


If anything, pregnancy and venereal diseases could increase as a result of a woman relying on the emergency contraceptive pill. This gives soldiers - female and male - another reason to not use condoms. And then a woman has to take the pill in too short of a timeframe to prevent conception.

That's right, it will increase the risks. Just like teaching kids about sex education (compared to letting them find out on their own) will make them rush out and have sex early.
Giving young girls that needle that helps prevent HPV or whatever also makes them want to rush out and have unprotected sex with everyone in sight.

::)

 
Apollo Diomedes said:
That's actually a really good idea. I thought we have something like this in Canadian laws in the Military?

I can see only one major glitch with that "charging a woman for becoming pregnant in combat" regulation ... and that would be that there obviously must be a male involved in the process of getting her there as well. Our current regulations cover it with that "No inappropriate relationships" in a much more even manner of enforcement.

Female soldier couldn't keep her legs closed, but the male half of the equation couldn't keep his pants up and thus she is now preganant and they are both going to be parents perhaps.

And this rule wouldn't do much in the CF ... I can't imagine in today's enviornment - where charges etc for any infractions are declining (seems enforcement has become soft over the past few years - have you tried to get something past the AJAG lately??) that they'd actually get the go-ahead to CM some woman who, along with her partner (who obviously could not be charged under the same clause) gets herself knocked-up in a combat zone as CMing her would immediately be deemed "too stressful upon her and would place the unborn child at risk, increase risk for spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) etc" .... I just can't see us going there.

Female soldiers have been RTUd from other theatres previously for being knocked up. As far as I'm aware, none have been CMd for breaking those "relationship" rules; but, I can name you a few men who have been CMd under those rules.
 
ArmyVern said:
I can see only one major glitch with that "charging a woman for becoming pregnant in combat" regulation ... and that would be that there obviously must be a male involved in the process of getting her there as well. Our current regulations cover it with that "No inappropriate relationships" in a much more even manner of enforcement.

Female soldier couldn't keep her legs closed, but the male half of the equation couldn't keep his pants up and thus she is now preganant and they are both going to be parents perhaps.

I concure it takes two to tango and two to make a child. Charge one, charge the other. I think our rules work well they just need to be enforced. :2c:
 
I think its already been proved that these rules don't really effect the situation on the ground.  We all know that people are shagging over there whenever the chance is given.  KAF is not the only place either.  Upon arriving on the west coast I was told our warships are often dubbed as "love boats".  Why would that be?  As was pointed out by one of the commentators, when you put in place such an unrealistic rule, the enforcement becomes arbitrary.

Are we really sending home EVERYONE who is guilty of intimacy overseas?  Not even close, and yet we all know its happening.
 
ltmaverick25 said:
I think its already been proved that these rules don't really effect the situation on the ground.  We all know that people are shagging over there whenever the chance is given.  KAF is not the only place either.  Upon arriving on the west coast I was told our warships are often dubbed as "love boats".  Why would that be?  As was pointed out by one of the commentators, when you put in place such an unrealistic rule, the enforcement becomes arbitrary.

Are we really sending home EVERYONE who is guilty of intimacy overseas?  Not even close, and yet we all know its happening.
Two points:
First: BS on the assertion that people are shagging "whenever the chance is given".  I've been there, and argue that point from one of experience.
Second: No, we aren't sending home everyone who is guilty of innappropriate relationships.  But we are sending home all those convicted of it. 

Third (and extra) point: STFU if you are making claims for which you have no grounds other than hearsay or innuendo.
 
Technoviking said:
Two points:
First: BS on the assertion that people are shagging "whenever the chance is given".  I've been there, and argue that point from one of experience.
Second: No, we aren't sending home everyone who is guilty of innappropriate relationships.  But we are sending home all those convicted of it. 

Third (and extra) point: STFU if you are making claims for which you have no grounds other than hearsay or innuendo.

I am not making claims with no grounds, very far from it.  I've had the misfortune of walking in on said inapropriateness more then once while on duty and had to take the appropriate action.  And for other times when I didnt walk in on it, it was reported to me.  Too_often.

Its nice to know that not everyone takes up the opportunity but you and I both know damn well that it happens often.

And next time mind your tone and ask how someone comes to an argument instead of assuming its from hearsay and innuendo.
 
ltmaverick25 said:
And next time mind your tone and ask how someone comes to an argument instead of assuming its from hearsay and innuendo.
SIR YES SIR!  :salute:
(I still call bullshit on your assertions on what happens in Kandahar, however, in that you generalised that it happens all the time and at every opportunity.  I do agree that it happens, and when caught, they get charged.  And if convicted, they go back)
 
Technoviking said:
SIR YES SIR!  :salute:

Is this and your STFU comment before really necessary?

As for the debate I call bullshit on the getting caught leads to getting charged and sent home argument.  That is where the whole arbitrary problem comes in.  Not everyone who is being caught is facing the diciplinary action that they should be.  It all depends on who catches them.  Why do I know this?  Because of more then one NCO with whom ive worked with in the past telling me that they would also catch that stuff too often.  Some refused to report it, others were nazis about it.  I dont think its hearsay when you have these NCOs fighting openly about who did the "right" thing and who didnt.

While I am positive that there is always tons of unsubstantiated hearsay going around about this sort of thing, I like to think that I have enough sence to know the difference between the two.


And for the record, I dont personally disagree with the legitimacy of such rules, but I do question wheather they are realistic and can be enforced effectively.
 
I disagree at the everyone is coupling as soon as they find available space. 

It does occassionally happen, however in my experience in the CF and working for US DOS and DOD, that it happens a lot less with Military personnel, than it does with civilian personnel (be it US DOS, Cdn DFAIT, or Defense civilians pers...)
 
If NCOs openly admit that they have found people, but refused to do anything about it, then they (the NCOs) are contravening directives, as well as the NDA.
 
Technoviking said:
If NCOs openly admit that they have found people, but refused to do anything about it, then they (the NCOs) are contravening directives, as well as the NDA.

What's up with all this talk about NCOs that's occuring here all of a sudden?? Not saying that it's you, but let's not begin to perpetuate any myths about this offense or failing to report being any different between Officers and us - it isn't.

When I think back to some of my tours - it ain't just the NCOs doing it or failing to report it (a service offense itself); just to be clear on that.
 
I don't think ltmaverick is saying that its the "NCOs" not reporting. I think in his particular case he is hearing about this from or about NCOs because he (assuming here) is a junior officer or at the time was. Being a junior officer or at the time a jr officer it'd be unnecessary to inform him of anyone being caught or failing to report above him but below him could fall under his responsibility.
 
ArmyVern said:
What's up with all this talk about NCOs that's occuring here all of a sudden?? Not saying that it's you, but let's not begin to perpetuate any myths about this offense or failing to report being any different between Officers and us - it isn't.

When I think back to some of my tours - it ain't just the NCOs doing it or failing to report it (a service offense itself); just to be clear on that.

Im not trying to infer that NCOs are more guilty then officers or any such thing like that.  I was just recalling one exchange that I whitnessed.  Nothing else should be taken from that.
 
ArmyVern said:
What's up with all this talk about NCOs that's occuring here all of a sudden?? Not saying that it's you, but let's not begin to perpetuate any myths about this offense or failing to report being any different between Officers and us - it isn't.

When I think back to some of my tours - it ain't just the NCOs doing it or failing to report it (a service offense itself); just to be clear on that.
Totally agreed.  It's just the specific point made in the previous post that asserted that there were 'some' NCOs not reporting the goings-on.  It was those specific NCOs of whom I was referring. 

And you are 100% correct: be they NCM, NCO, WO or Offr, it's wrong.  and of course there are the regulations that stipulate that ANYONE who catches hanky panky (or any other offense) has a duty to report said "fooling around" to his or her chain of command.
 
Back
Top