More on Pagan - Hutchinson Army deployment.

.
Well, I have to show some respect and admiration to anyone fired up enough about their perspective to spend this much time discussing it.

The comments in question are the product of a Craig Fosnock as opposed to anon.

Let me set the table here. To reiterate, I have a problem when ANYONE uses their kids as an excuse to violate their word, said word given when they enlisted. In this instance, the excuse for that violation is limited to the children of the mother in question.

In the first instance, Pagan's excuse was "her husband had a job where he frequently had to travel."

Tough. Change jobs, or don't have the kids until your service commitment is completed.

Pagan had FIFTEEN MONTHS to set up another program or option, and made the choice, quite deliberately, not to do so.

Thus, as I have repeatedly pointed out, she had no excuse.

I would again ask the question: what would happen to these kids if their mothers, in this case, Pagan and Hutchinson, were run over by a bus?

Would Pagan's husband give them up for adoption? Or would he do what he SHOULD have done THIS time, and CHANGED HIS FRICKING JOB?

What about Hutchinson's kid?

Sussman (Hutchinson's lawyer) said Hutchinson is no longer in a relationship with her son's father.

So? So what? GET the son's father BACK into the picture. Make HIM take custody of the kid.

But the idea that Hutchinson has no options is ludicrous.

BOTH of these women were/are making an attempt to manipulate the system. Pagan was unnecessarily successful. Hutchinson's actions are the result.

Failure to imprison these women and give them dishonorable discharges will result in dramatically increased numbers of others using the same dodge to get out of duty.

PAGAN was the time to send the message. But failing that, Hutchinson will do.

As for the other "7500," (Where does that number come from? I don't know.) I cannot speak for or about them. Clearly, however, they received deferments that were authorized regardless of the reason.

Pagan and Hutchinson did not. Unfortunately for the military, Pagan's convening authority blinked, because as Hasan seems to have proven, we've turned into an Army of expedience; doing the easy, low noise thing without any long term view of consequences... until now.

Court martialling Hutchinson will put an end to this, because if these women can't figure out what to do with their kids while they're deployed, perhaps they can figure out what to do with them while they're imprisoned.

What do any of us think would have happened if Pagan's commander had sat her down and told her that her choice was between prison/DD and her finding a way to have her kids taken care of and she deploys... what would that outcome have been?

Same thing for Hutchinson.

Either way, these two deploy, even if their kids are put into foster care, so some other poor bastard doesn't have to do their duty in their place.

LOL...well you got my point about this then you just ignored it. I will make a few more points then reinstate it. First a (low) percentage of women have always hidden behind their kids. How you may ask, well they get pregnant to avoid deployments, a lifetime commitment to avoid a deployment makes no sense to me but you figure that one out.

I appreciate your observation, but it's irrelevant what a "low percentage of women" do.

What's to "figure out?" They get pregnant, their unit leaves, they stay behind; or they deploy, they get pregnant and then are transferred out; they get an abortion.

It's only a "lifetime commitment" if they want it to be, and those willing to use their kids to avoid doing their duty ain't gonna score real high on the integrity meter.

You state that "her husband didn't feel like taking care of the kids"...the article states his job required him to travel...was he suppose to quit his job. Maybe he lied about the travel but until proven different I will say he was not going to be able (instead of not wanted) to put the kids into daycare.

That may be a difference between us. As I already stated, he could damned well change his job to one where he DIDN'T frequently travel.

Did he marry this woman in a vacuum? Do you suppose she never told him that she had an 8 year commitment and that she was subject to recall? Do you suppose she just forgot about that? Do you think she COULD have been responsible enough to put her commitment to possible deployment ahead of her biological clock?

He needed to man up and do the right thing.

And, of course, if he had done that, well, we wouldn't have heard anything about this, would we?

I again ask the question: what would this clown do if Lisa Pagan had been killed or crippled in a tragic bus-train accident?

Well, whatever THAT is, is what he SHOULD have done this time.

That he refused to put his family first and do what was required to help his wife honor HER word and HER commitment does NOT provide Pagan with ANY adequate excuse to avoid deployment.

There is a HUGE difference between "can't" and "don't want to." Clearly, both of these cases are of the "don't want to" variety, as opposed to the "can't" variety.

This wasn't a promise to run a cheerleader fund raiser car wash for a Saturday.

This was a sworn oath to do her duty for the 8 fricking years she signed up for. And her CHOICE not to do that duty SHOULD have resulted in her court martial and imprisonment.

You also ask "why the Army caved to this woman is a mystery to me." The simply answer is for the same reason they caved for the other 7,500 deferments, and for the same reason they will put on a dog and pony show about Hutchinson. This is the new military, and military readiness comes second to public relations.

Really?

Then why didn't they treat Hutchinson the same way? Why didn't they just kick her to the curb like they did Pagan?

Charges were never preferred against Pagan. So, why charge Hutchinson but not Pagan if it's just all about a "dog and pony show?"

You state the "7500" who didn't go MAY have had damned good reasons for it...the key word here is MAY...my argument is who determines this, unless you can determine the criteria then the argument is a moot point. Using your criteria all 7,501 people who got deferments are cowards so why pick on just one.

And using your criteria, anyone in the military should be able to get out whenever THEY feel like it, and get full benefits in the process.

In this instance, WHATEVER the criteria used to allow those others to leave, these two women obviously didn't qualify for it.

Another point Per military.com:

Hundreds of other IRR members, meanwhile, simply have failed to show up at deployment stations when ordered to do so.

And... so.... what, exactly? Does that make it right?

ANYONE missing their deployment should be arrested and court-martialled for desertion.

After the first few of those happened, what would the impacts be on the rest?

And instead of declaring the scofflaws as “absent without leave,” or AWOL, the Army is choosing to give these people “the benefit of the doubt,” Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman in the Pentagon, said in a Tuesday interview.

Again... so what?

This is the WRONG decision to make, and at some point (and maybe the Hutchinson case is the point in question) the military will come to understand that a part of their critical manpower shortage could be solved by making these people do what they promised TO do.

And one thing that ain't happening, is that these people aren't getting any benefits.

Don't show up?

Then try getting VA.

Once again the main point of my argument is that yes it sucks that she "hid behind her kids". What sucks even more is that 7,500 hid behind something else, but they get a pass because they MAY have had a good excuse.

I, for one, believe that there IS no "good" excuse.

But let's run out the string.

Would I make a parent deploy if their child was dying?

No. Nor a wife or a husband, for that matter. Nor would I provide some sort of permanent deferment. Once the situation is resolved, one way or the other, then you're going.

And of these "7500" (and where did that number come from?) it is not unreasonable to assume that many of those fell under that or some similar situation.

Only communists deal in absolutes. But in the end, the glaring, gapping hole in your position is that NO ONE forced these people to sign up.

No one. And their decision to violate their word, which results in someone else having to uproot their life and go in their stead, cannot be condoned by either an indifferent military or government.

For the sake of argument lets say I agree with you but then until the military goes after the SOBs who do not even bother showing up why complain about Lisa Pagan.

You know, I tried the "everyone else is doing it" argument when I was a kid as well.

And it never worked for me, either.
.

The question is asked: How do I compare Pagan with Hutchinson?

.
Got this anon comment, and though I'm not a huge fan of anon comments, I saw it worthy of a response:

How how do you compare Lisa Pagan with Alexis Hutchinson? You claim that Lisa Pagan is a coward who refused her duty...fair enough but please then tell me what are the excuses for the 7,500 who were granted deferments? Can someone tell me what the Army standard is used to grant them? If Lisa Pagan is a coward then so are the other 7,500 individuals. She served, she was honorably discharged, and she fought and won a deferment just like 7,500 other individuals. Alexis Hutchinson on the other hand is active duty, she needs to be court-martial, and then kicked out to maintain discipline.

(Anonymous) 1:27 PM

Simple, really. They both attempted to use their children as a scam to avoid doing their duty, a duty we paid them for, paid to train them for, and would expend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars directly to them as a result of their enlistments in the resulting benefits.

Pagan read the tea leaves and thought she could get away with screwing the Army and whoever it was that had to take her place. She guessed right because my Army is the same Army that led to scum like Major Hasan.

Pagan should have been court-martialed, sent to prison and given a dishonorable.

Hutchinson is in the same boat, but her convening authority seemed to have found a pair of testicles somewhere and remembered that the patch says "US Army."

I cannot speak to the "7500" others who got out of going. I am not going to say that there are never legitimate reasons to avoid deployment.

What I AM going to say is that NEITHER Pagan NOR Hutchinson HAVE ANY legitimate reason to avoid going.

She (Pagan) served, she was honorably discharged, and she fought and won a deferment just like 7,500 other individuals.

Uh.... no. Revisionist history doesn't work here.

Pagan deliberately had children ENTIRELY to avoid redeployment. And when she came out on orders, she REFUSED to do her duty, and had NO other reason to avoid deployment, save her husband didn't feel like taking care of the kids she had to AVOID deployment in the first place.

Why the Army caved to this woman is a mystery to me.

That they are NOT caving to Hutchinson is the thing.

To the anon poster, the issue of "getting a deferment" is settled BEFORE you show up for deployment.

If it ISN'T (and in neither case was that issue settled before they were to show up for deployment) then you GO.

The "7500" who didn't go MAY have had damned good reasons for it, and then went through proper channels and followed the rules to get their deferments.

Neither Pagan OR Hutchinson had the reasons or went through the process. And that makes Pagan a cowardly deserter who failed to keep her word and who had no problem screwing some other poor schlep who had to take HER place because she didn't FEEL like DOING HER DUTY.

And the same can be said about Hutchinson.

Since you asked.
.

Common sense and the US Army: Court Martialing single moms who use their kids as a reason to avoid deployment.

.
For those of us who've actually served in the military, we are made to understand the commitment BEFORE we sign on the dotted line.

Even though we know what that commitment calls for, the Army has made horrific mistakes in the past when "Moms" have used their children to escape from their commitments... doing so while they keep full benefits.

That practice, finally, seems to have come to an end.

Army charges single mom who refused deployment

The Army said Wednesday it has filed criminal charges against a single-mom soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan last year, arguing she had no family able to care for her infant son.

By RUSS BYNUM

AP Military Writer

SAVANNAH, Ga. —

The Army said Wednesday it has filed criminal charges against a single-mom soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan last year, arguing she had no family able to care for her infant son.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, a 21-year-old Army cook, could face a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge if she is convicted by a court-martial. But first, an officer will be appointed to decide if there's enough evidence to try a case against her.

This part is kind of bizarre:

But first, an officer will be appointed to decide if there's enough evidence to try a case against her.

She failed to deploy. That failure was deliberate. That's all.

With Hutchinson's decision to blow off her duty, I warned that this pattern would get bigger.

It seems that the Army has arrived at the same conclusion and now wants to end this practice, once and for all... a step they SHOULD have taken with the first case, Lisa Pagan, who used her kids as a shield like the Spartans used theirs at Thermopylae.

In that case, the Army STUPIDLY caved, and that worthless waste of skin got over like a fat rat, benefits and all, an insult to all of those who answered the call, did their duty... and sometimes, spilled their blood for this country.

Court Martial the hell out of Hutchinson... and throw away the key. She has no excuse, no reason and no justification. Lock her up for a few years and let her figure it out in prison... while someone else goes in her place.
.