Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
“Let no manual put asunder”
In an historic move “aimed at preserving marriages, boosting morale, and perhaps bolstering re-enlistment rates,” the Army is now allowing a number of married couples to “bunk” together while deployed in Iraq.
Long-standing Army rules barred soldiers of the opposite sex from sharing sleeping quarters in war zones. Even married troops lived only in all-male or all-female quarters and had no private living space.
But in May 2006, Army commanders in Iraq, with little fanfare, decided that it is in the military’s interest to promote wedded bliss. In other words: What God has joined together, let no manual put asunder.
And since even married couples are prohibited from public displays of affection in camp, many couples are hailing the chance for a little privacy and intimacy as a marriage saver. But there is a “downside” to married sleeping quarters: Some couples might end up with a bun in the oven.
back to top17 Comments to ““Let no manual put asunder””
Hmmm.. on one level, this seems like a very compassionate move, but I am not sure it’s a good idea. I think there is potential for resentment among non-married soldiers for what they may perceive as preferential treatment.
Some people suggest that soldiers below the rank of Sergeant shouldn’t even be alliwed to marry because they’re not mature enough and their lives are too unstable.
Report comment to moderator
If you have a volunteer military, you’d better be prepared to make some concessions. I have no doubt that there’s a clause somewhere that can end this depending upon the combat situation. This will help with re-enlistments.
Report comment to moderator
It sounds great at first thought, but I see this getting very messy. Probably would be best just leaving it the way it is.
While deployed, it is expected that there will be sacrifices. Getting to sleep with your spouse seems to be one. I would think the vast majority of married soldiers don’t have the luxury of their spouse also being in the military. So they’re not “getting any” either.
Report comment to moderator
A pregnant soldier will probably end up getting reassigned.
Report comment to moderator
Soldiers who are married to each other sould be treated the same as other married soldiers. They should live by the sme rules for the same reasons. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up.
When soldiers are deployed, they are sent to do a round-the-clock job–not to hang out with their spouses the way they would back home.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s a reasonable concession, especially given a volunteer army. It’s an easy way to improve morale, albeit within a small group.
KyleA–soldiers socialize and hang out on their down time with other soldiers. Some just get to with their spouses.
I read the article two days ago and one soldier even mentioned it was more difficult in that each knew to the hour when the other should return from a mission and worry could become more specific than it would for spouses with more geographic distance (both in the military or not).
Report comment to moderator
Friends still serving have raised concerns like Cameron’s above. While it is wonderful to be able to hear from family all the time via the cheaper phone rates, e-mail and IM, it also puts a lot of pressure on the soldier.
2 Timothy 2:4: “No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer,” but it also detracts from the mission. How attentive can you be walking down a Baghdad road if you’re still rehashing the latest argument about money with your spouse over e-mail?
At least this is an improvement over Bosnia, where the opposite sexes were orderd to share tents with people they weren’t married to.
Report comment to moderator
And the logic for DADT continues to erode. There goes the argument for sexualized space destroying mission focus.
Of course DADT won’t survive even a McCain presidency, so it’s a bit of a non-issue.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many soldiers will get married while deployed and then ‘disengage with the enemy’ when leaving to go home
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. For the purposes of morale and marital encouragement, I’m in favor of this. After all, it’s a bit silly to have married couples (both in the military), stationed at the same post, not able to spend time together.
But there are questions raised by this. The issue of pregnancy, for one. What happens if the woman becomes pregnant? Should birth control be used while deployed? What if this is against someone’s moral/religious beliefs? And what happens, God forbid, if a marriage dissolves amidst all of this?
So much for us to figure out….
Report comment to moderator
Some people are acting as though deployed women don’t get pregnant outside of this scenario. Let’s face it: they do, and then they’re reassigned.
Report comment to moderator
This is probably good for the morale of those involved…but I’d guess not for the overall health of the unit. (I personally don’t like the idea of women in the military, and this is just one of the “problems” of women in the military.)
When I was in college, all students were required to live on campus. The only exceptions were (1) students over 40 (!) asking for an exemption and (2) married students. There was a little bit of married student housing on campus, just a few units, and apparently the married students were allowed to have their own households without room inspection and all the things that single students were subjected to. I was 25 when I graduated, and had lived on my own (with my sister) before going to college; 19-year-old married students were treated as “adults” in a way that I was not, and it struck me as a little odd.
The military has always been different from civilian life. And making a change like this might indeed be good for the tiny minority of military people affected, but my guess is it will only hurt the morale of those who aren’t affected, and will ultimately make those married couples less a part of the unit, as married students were less a part of student life than single students were. I’m sure it’s too late to return to a military of men, but I think the more we try to give civilian rights and norms to the military, the less we will have a military.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl — in post (12) of 12 — gets the prize for nailing down the real issue here:
Our nation’s ungodly policy of putting women in combat/war zones:
Bible scholars tell us that, since the word “man” in the phrase “to a man” usually means “mighty man” or “warrior” (thus emphasising strength or ability to fight), the phrase “shall not wear anything that pertains” means “implement of hunting or war.”
The Bible always clearly defines those who are “able to go to war” exclusively as being “men, twenty years and older.”
But we in the enlightened west think we’re doing a good thing not merely by having women in combat jobs and in combat areas, but in allowing those women who are married to male soldiers the luxury or privilege of playing house in a combat area.
Consider the brief article “Mothers Wearing Army Boots” by Lutheran minister Larry L. Beane II.
And check out the scores of articles and links on the subject at
Bible Research > Womanhood > Women in Combat
Lastly, Cheryl, you said, “I’m sure it’s too late to return to a military of men …” On the contrary, it is never too late for a nation to repent before God and return to His ways, else no nation should have any hope of forgiveness by, and reconciliation with, Him.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I read that first link. Wow.
Yes, I think God can bring repentance to our nation and our people, on any and all issues. But since we do not have a theocracy, and since we live in a day when limiting anyone from anything is considered the worst possible evil, it seems unlikely that we’ll ever take away “rights” that have been given–this one at least. I keep watching for the “right” to abortion to be seen as the “wrong” of murder, because we do still restrict most forms of murder. But the idea that we allow one group to serve in war, and don’t allow another to, doesn’t seem much more likely to return than deciding that one group of people can own another. The two aren’t morally equivalent, of course, but try to explain that to a secular society.
And I’ve seen a Christian father tell his 20-year-old daughter that if she doesn’t have a job soon, he will sign her up for the military. I don’t think that even within the church we see this distinction, in other words, and that’s really the bigger shame–that the people of God don’t honor male and female distinctions and callings.
Report comment to moderator
As to the “bun in the oven” comment, female soldiers have a rather appalling pregnancy rate as it is.
I don’t think letting the married ones quarter together is going to be a problem in that regard.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. (14): I read that first link. Wow.
Frank: I hope you’ll consider passing that one around.
Cheryl D. (14): And I’ve seen a Christian father tell his 20-year-old daughter that if she doesn’t have a job soon, he will sign her up for the military.
Frank:Wow. I’d have enough problems with a dad telling his son that. “Grow up and get responsible, or I will enlist you with Caesar’s troops.” But a daughter? FWIW, consider the following statements adopted by my denomination:
Having lived for a single enlisyment as a soldier, I can say from firsthand experience that I do not think women should be in the military. Geanted, I was in during the late 70s and early 80s, when there was still very much of a libber mindset. I was raised by a liberal thinking mom in a very liberal thinking public school, so I saw no problem with joining the military as a woman. It was quite an eye opener for me.
At that time, there were different standards for PT for women and men, and there was an outcry that women and men should have the same PT standards (nevermind the physical differences), and I remember thinking, “you can keep your equality.” Eventually, the PT standards were changed and were the same for both men and women. Much more relaxed for the men, to accommodate the women. I can’t say what the standards are today.
I was in the very last company of WACs to graduate from basic at Ft. McClellan, AL. The cycle after mine, they integrated men and women in the same company, but different platoons. Almost immediately, there were more incidents of fraternization and other such things that undermine combat readiness. I ended up held over to testify against a male drill sergeant for indecent assault. (These were the days before sexual harrassment became an issue).
The lifestyle of a soldier does nothing to discourage casual sexual encounters and promiscuity.
Women at least at that time were not as proficient at combat skills as men, and if you ask me, that is not what a fighting force needs.
There is a reason that some elite units still do not have women.
Hindsight being 20/20, I think I would discourage any young women from joining the military. It’s not the place for women.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!