Mother, You Had Me, But I Never Had You: Mothers in Combat
The NY Times is kicking off a year-long series of articles following a battalion from the 10th Mountain Division that will be spending a year in Afghanistan. The first article is about the deployment and the "wrenching" effects it will have on the soldiers' personal lives. Future "wrenching" problems: a hostile welcome from the locals, dealing with troubles at home while you're thousands of miles away, the death of a beloved NCO, etc. Honestly, what do the hermans at the Times expect?
The details of the deployment are suitably melancholy: the young kid packing his gear while listening to Ludacris, the captain savoring a last peaceful cup of coffee, the tearful father holding his 6-month old son. All of the last lingering moments of people caught up in something much bigger than they are (no, I don't mean a front page story in the NY Times). But, there was one thing that set me off: A Year At War
Sgt. Tamara Sullivan pulled out her cellphone charger and braced for a night of tears. She called her children in North Carolina, ages 3 and 1, and told them she would soon be going to work in a place called Afghanistan. For a year. She reminded her husband to send her their artwork. She cried, hung up, called him back and cried some more.
“I asked for him to mail me those pictures, those little sloppy ones,” she said. “I want to see what my children’s hands touched, because I won’t be able to touch them.”
I've actually written on the topic of sending mothers into combat before. It is unspeakably cruel and does absolutely nothing to enhance America's national security. I mean, what is Sgt. Sullivan's husband doing? It had better be lying in a bed with two broken legs because I can't think of anything more emasculating than sending your wife into combat while you stay home like a Mr. Mom.
My recollection is that, when people were arguing in favor of women in the armed forces, Phyllis Schlafley-types made a big stink about the possibility of young mothers being sent into combat. Oh, No! came the response. Women will only be in support units behind the lines and far away from harm. That made sense when you imagine wars as being like the Civil War and WW2, where the support units were often (but not always) far from the front lines. But what about now, when the whole of Afghanistan - and before that, Iraq - is a war zone? (don't forget Lori Piestewa, who was with Jessica Lynch at the battle of Nasiriyah, was killed in action, and left behind a young son).
The fact is that the US military is sending women, including mothers, into combat. At the very least, they are being separated from their children for a year - and often there isn't a Mr. Mom in the picture to take care of the kids. At the worst, these mothers can and do become casualties. And this helps, how? I know what people will say: these women knew what they were getting into when they signed up and, anyway, the PC military doesn't want to be seen as discriminating on gender. Again, this helps, how?
I am agnostic on the issue of "women in the military," especially as (1) it works well in the Israels Defense Force, without compromising Israeli pulchritude and (2) it's too well established. However, I think sending the mothers of young children into combat is too much. I don't know how this works in the IDF, but it seems to me that a woman becoming pregnant while in uniform, or presenting herself to a recruiter with babes in tow, is grounds for a state-side desk job, at the very least. But, sending a young mother into a combat zone strikes me as unspeakably and unnecessarily cruel.
This entry was posted on at 12:45 PM and is filed under afghanistan, military, women. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can
