Mom goes AWOL from Iraq - says children need her at home

Does anyone know if this is the family that was profiled in TIME magazine?
I remember a family with lots of kids, and both parents were sent to Iraq,
with the grandmother leaving her then somewhat not terribly healthy
husband
to take care of the kids. After the grandmother got there the grandfather
took a turn for the worse, she couldn't go back to help and has been
watching these kids and worrying about her husband and having no idea when
anyone is coming home. The stress was wearing on the grandmother, and her
health was beginning to look iffy. It was an excellent article detailing
how
much hardship war puts these families in, even when they thought they had
back up. I'm disappointed our military can't give these families more
help
back home. I'd pay more taxes for that.



I read that article too and something makes me think it's the same family.
The grandfather stayed in their house and the grandmother went to the kids'
house.

On 5 Nov 2003 15:34:18 GMT, Ignoramus14934
wrote:

Enrolling into NG with 7 kids was absolutely the stupidest
thing to do.

Did she have 7 kids when she enrolled? I wonder how many
she had and why she enrolled in the first place.

Still I do think that she should have known that deployment
was a possibility and she has to honor her commitment despite
any change of heart.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Sophie" wrote in message
...
She's crazy if she thought she'd never have to leave her
children at some point.

On the other hand, you have to wonder (or at least *I* have to wonder) how
the recruiter "sold" National Guard service to her. I don't get the
impression that there's a whole lot of talk when people sign up about doing
long terms of service in foreign wars, especially when you're talking about
the National Guard, which most people tend to think of as being intended
more for domestic defensive purposes. I agree it was naive of her to think
that she wouldn't be deployed, but I also think a *lot* of people who sign
up for things like the Reserves and the National Guard are really led down
the garden path: Look, here are all these wonderful benefits and all you
have to do is be available a couple of weekends every year and if we ever
call you up (with the unstated assumption that such call-ups are rare).
Obviously, I think people'd be less likely to buy that line under current
conditions, but if she enlisted five years ago--well, she might not have had
much reason to question that it was a win-win deal.

I just think we have a serious problem in the way our volunteer military
operates. I have the utmost respect for people who choose to go into the
military, but I also believe that a large majority of people in the military
wouldn't be there if they had other viable options. The military, especially
the enlisted forces, is hardly a representative cross-section of the
American population; instead, it's disproportionately made up of people
whose grew up at or near the poverty line. I strongly suspect that the way
we treat our military forces (when we use them, how much we pay them, etc.)
if we had mandatory service for all able-bodied citizens. IOW, it's a lot
easier to expend military resources when the people making the decision
don't have family members paying the price.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Circe" wrote in message
news:Bafqb.5857$7B2.2952@fed1read04...
"Sophie" wrote in message
...
She's crazy if she thought she'd never have to leave her
children at some point.

On the other hand, you have to wonder (or at least *I* have to wonder) how
the recruiter "sold" National Guard service to her. I don't get the
impression that there's a whole lot of talk when people sign up about
doing
long terms of service in foreign wars, especially when you're talking
about
the National Guard, which most people tend to think of as being intended
more for domestic defensive purposes. I agree it was naive of her to think
that she wouldn't be deployed, but I also think a *lot* of people who sign
up for things like the Reserves and the National Guard are really led down
the garden path: Look, here are all these wonderful benefits and all you
have to do is be available a couple of weekends every year and if we ever
call you up (with the unstated assumption that such call-ups are rare).
Obviously, I think people'd be less likely to buy that line under current
conditions, but if she enlisted five years ago--well, she might not have
had
much reason to question that it was a win-win deal.

Oh it's known recruiters fib. We've all heard about the guy who was joining
the Navy and was told he'd never have to go on a ship eyeroll

I just think we have a serious problem in the way our volunteer military
operates. I have the utmost respect for people who choose to go into the
military, but I also believe that a large majority of people in the
military
wouldn't be there if they had other viable options. The military,
especially
the enlisted forces, is hardly a representative cross-section of the
American population; instead, it's disproportionately made up of people
whose grew up at or near the poverty line.

Wow, that's SO off. Do you know how many Enlisteds have college degrees?
Believe it or not, some people *choose* to go Enlisted.

I strongly suspect that the way
we treat our military forces (when we use them, how much we pay them,
etc.)
if we had mandatory service for all able-bodied citizens. IOW, it's a lot
easier to expend military resources when the people making the decision
don't have family members paying the price.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

"Sophie" wrote in message
...
"Circe" wrote in message
news:Bafqb.5857$7B2.2952@fed1read04...
Oh it's known recruiters fib. We've all heard about the guy who was
joining
the Navy and was told he'd never have to go on a ship eyeroll

I just think we have a serious problem in the way our volunteer military
operates. I have the utmost respect for people who choose to go into the
military, but I also believe that a large majority of people in the
military
wouldn't be there if they had other viable options. The military,
especially
the enlisted forces, is hardly a representative cross-section of the
American population; instead, it's disproportionately made up of people
whose grew up at or near the poverty line.

Wow, that's SO off. Do you know how many Enlisteds have college degrees?

Not nearly as many as in the population at large, I don't think. Don't most
people who have college degrees in the military wind up in the officer
corps, though? (Showing my ignorance here.)

Believe it or not, some people *choose* to go Enlisted.

Oh, I believe. And "low income" was probably the wrong term to use. There's
no question, however, that wealthy are virtually non-existent in the
military population. Minorities are vastly overrepresented (12.5% of all
Americans are black, but 22% of people in the military are black; that's a
pretty stark demographic difference between the American population at large
and the volunteer military population).

And there's little doubt that you don't see very many kids of top level
politicians enlisting in the military these days. My point is that, without
a draft to put *all* young people, including the children of the folks who
choose how to exercise military power, the people at the top are not putting
their own sons and daughters in the line of fire by sending the country into
war.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Ignoramus14934" wrote in message
...

As much as I hate this criminal war, the parents brought it upon
themselves and put the kids at risk. No one drafted them.

i know here (for example) though, the enlistment ads on telly imply that
joining an armed force means you get to fly an aeroplane (whee!), or build
playgrounds for orphans in east timor (awww) or "make friends for life"
(smashing!) or some such thing. the recruiters' job is to recruit, not to
break up people's fragile notions of what joining an armed force might
actually mean, and by the time that part is explicitly mentioned, the
recruitees are as likely as not to be carried away with what they're doing,
not thinking long & hard at the very last moment. my dh wanted to join the
army (& tried twice) in order to get a trade (he wanted to be a fitter &
turner). he wasn't thinking that being a fitter & turner might mean being
killed in combat. one simply doesn't think that - particularly in australia
in 1985 when you are only 17 years old... and *most* recruits are like he
was, join at a very young age, during peace time, and with the exception of
officers, they are highly unlikely to be educated people. they just need a
job & the armed forces make it easy for them.

The war does
not strain that family. This war strains families whose parents were
killed by American cluster bombs, etc. As for the 7 kids family, the
parents own immense stupidity strains that family.

i agree with your summation of this war, however, what of the people who
join up in good faith (i.e. that they may be called upon to *defend their
own country*)? many people (e.g. me) *would* defend their own country if
necessary, but be highly disinclined to go making war in someone else's. but
if they join up in good faith that they would only be called upon to defend
their own country & that's an acceptable risk to them, it's a bit unfair to
say they're "immensely stupid" because they are disinclined to participate
in some *other* war when, by that point, they don't have much choice.

in general, though, i tend to agree with you. i dislike the idea of mothers
in the military, full stop. it's not a question of discrimination. children
need their mothers & that is more important.
kylie

"John Stone" wrote in message
m...
A woman on 15 day leave in the US from Iraq is refusing to return
to Iraq - she says her 7 children need her at home and that she is
quitting the
military. The US govt. says otherwise and may prosecute her for
desertion.

Apparently her husband is also in the military and the childrens
grandmother has
been caring for the children while they have been gone.

This presents a touchy situation for the Pentagon. Do you want to look
like you
are beating up on a mother of 7 by sending her to prison or do you let her
out and set an example that others are going to use to get out of their
military
obligations?.

I saw the story on CNN this morning.

Don't join if you can't handle the responsibility. I hope she goes to court
martial.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Circe" wrote in message
news:kPfqb.6001$7B2.4200@fed1read04...


Not nearly as many as in the population at large, I don't think. Don't
most
people who have college degrees in the military wind up in the officer
corps, though? (Showing my ignorance here.)

No. Because having a college degree doesn't necessarily mean you can become
an officer. I'd take Boot camp over OCS any day of the week. I think in my
graduating boot camp class, at least 1/3 of us had college degrees, 1/3 were
kids right out of high school and the other 1/3 was made up of people who
just couldn't find their niche in the civilian world and single moms.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I think the custody fight with the dad's ex-wife is a key part of this
(from watching the piece on it on Today this a.m., which included a
brief interview with the mom).

My understanding is that the ex-wife (who is the mother of two of the
couples' yours-mine-ours family) is now suing for custody of her two
kids, and the law in the state where this is happening (Wash?) says
that if neither custodial parent is actually able to reside with the
kids, then custody goes to the other parent -- in this case, the
ex-wife. This seems reasonable to me, though I really feel for the two
military parents and don't feel comfortable that, essentially, they
are being penalized for doing military service.

I mean, if I were to divorce my husband and he got custody but then
couldn't be there, I think I should be "next in line" to keep my kids,
not my ex-husband's wife's mother! Unless, of course, I had been found
unable to care appropriately for my kids.

The military (now AWOL) mom on the Today show said she and her husband
had decided to have her go AWOL because they believed that placement
with the ex-wife would not be good for the two kids, but noone said
that any judge or otherwise "objective" individual agreed.

I sympathize with the current natl. guard members over in Iraq,
depending on how long ago they joined up. I knew some people who
joined the guard back in the mid-80s and none of us ever considered
the possibility they'd be shipped overseas. What's happening in the
guard now (that is, so many being sent overseas) is unprecedented,
AFAIK. However, for the past few years, we have seen that the world
has changed, and noone should voluntarily enlist in any of the armed
services unless they *expect* to go to war. And noone should ever have
joined any of the armed forces unless they were 100% ready to go. I
have always thought that two married people with kids should not be
allowed to both be in the service. Not sure how a policy could be
devised to effect that restriction, but it should, somehow.

It does seem that a draft is the only fair way to go (regardless of
how many enlisted poeple have college degress, most who enlist do so
because they need good work), though I can only hope and pray that if
the draft is ever reinstated, then our leaders will take their
war-making and peace-planning responsibilities a lot more seriously
than our current president and his people have.

(John Stone) wrote in message m...
A woman on 15 day leave in the US from Iraq is refusing to return
to Iraq - she says her 7 children need her at home and that she is quitting the
military. The US govt. says otherwise and may prosecute her for desertion.

Apparently her husband is also in the military and the childrens grandmother has
been caring for the children while they have been gone.

This presents a touchy situation for the Pentagon. Do you want to look like you
are beating up on a mother of 7 by sending her to prison or do you let her
out and set an example that others are going to use to get out of their military
obligations?.

I saw the story on CNN this morning.

In article , Nevermind says...

I think the custody fight with the dad's ex-wife is a key part of this
(from watching the piece on it on Today this a.m., which included a
brief interview with the mom).

My understanding is that the ex-wife (who is the mother of two of the
couples' yours-mine-ours family) is now suing for custody of her two
kids, and the law in the state where this is happening (Wash?) says
that if neither custodial parent is actually able to reside with the
kids, then custody goes to the other parent -- in this case, the
ex-wife. This seems reasonable to me, though I really feel for the two
military parents and don't feel comfortable that, essentially, they
are being penalized for doing military service.

Ah, I knew there had to be more to this...


I mean, if I were to divorce my husband and he got custody but then
couldn't be there, I think I should be "next in line" to keep my kids,
not my ex-husband's wife's mother! Unless, of course, I had been found
unable to care appropriately for my kids.

Custody concerns permanent situations - it isn't obvious to me that, if a parent
has custody, then they could not make the same kind of alternate arrangements
intact families do for situations like this and health emergencies, etc. That
grandma stays with the kids, even for months, does not neglect or abandonment
make. Whether full custody is arranged by a court or simply a given in an
intact family.

Of course, a hostile ex wanting custody waiting in the wings is bound to see
what edges of the law can be pushed around in their favor.

Sucks.


The military (now AWOL) mom on the Today show said she and her husband
had decided to have her go AWOL because they believed that placement
with the ex-wife would not be good for the two kids, but noone said
that any judge or otherwise "objective" individual agreed.

I sympathize with the current natl. guard members over in Iraq,
depending on how long ago they joined up. I knew some people who
joined the guard back in the mid-80s and none of us ever considered
the possibility they'd be shipped overseas.

Excuse me? What exactly did they think they were joining?

They just figured the odds were small.

What's happening in the
guard now (that is, so many being sent overseas) is unprecedented,
AFAIK. However, for the past few years, we have seen that the world
has changed, and noone should voluntarily enlist in any of the armed
services unless they *expect* to go to war. And noone should ever have
joined any of the armed forces unless they were 100% ready to go. I
have always thought that two married people with kids should not be
allowed to both be in the service. Not sure how a policy could be
devised to effect that restriction, but it should, somehow.

It's always been a matter of odds. The *purpose* of the guard and those monthly
weekends and yearly weeks in training pointed to - now what on earth do you
THINK that was about?!

Perhaps it's because I grew up in a military family with a father who is a
veteran of three wars, but this odds-betting "I didn't mean to do war"
begging-off about guard deployments is just mind-boggling.

A colleague I work with every day, a man in his 30s with three girls, joined the
Army National Guard. He came back from basic and armoured training and reported
again to work on September 10, 2001. Guess what came in a phone call the next
evening.

Banty (ya think he just thought he was playing soldiers-and-tanks...I don't
think so)