US Army prevents marriage to Iraqis

[Theben]

Okay, read the column.

The sargeant major is, if quoted correctly, being an azz. Hill has a better assessment but I think his reasoning is faulty. The two men obviously have feelings for the women already, otherwise they would not have converted to Islam. To keep them out of touch with their wives (or even if not married, fiances) and leaving the women in dangerous settings will cause the men, IMHO, to be even more distracted from their duties.

The men should get punished for disobeying a direct order, but the army should take a serious look at the idiot issuing the order.

[monolith94]

The two women are doctors, if I read the article correctly. They probably met while the soldiers were protecting a hospital or something...

And not all of Iraq is a war zone - just scattered areas are.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The military has had a long standing (i.e. back to the beginning) policy regarding overseas stationed enlisted personnel marrying foreign nationals.

Partly this is so every other horny, lonely farmboy didn't get hitched to the first piece of tail that would have him, then get back to the US and lose interest once the reality of culture clash and intercultural marriage set in.

Partly it's to prevent abusive situations wrt brokerage or exploitation of the women.

Partly it's to prevent exploitation of naive dupes being used as meal tickets to get to the US and automatic green cards (or semiautomatic now that you get a temporary green card first and have to stay together until the permanent one issues.

Can the military void a lawful marriage that has already taken place? No.

Can they deny permission to personnel who request it? Yes.

Can they court martial personnel for disobeying those orders? Hell yes.

Should they? It's a very tough call, but occupation of a foreign country you've just conquered is a problematic situation, especially when the culture and social mores are as different as they are between the US and Iraq.

Is it a potential security risk? Yes, so is every form of contact with the locals.

It's something that should be handled on a case by case basis, but setting up boom-boom houses really ain't gonna fly, and you have a lot of unattached, horny young personnel there, so it can be a real problem.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Theben
And who cares what the extremists think.

Oh, maybe the people whose brains get splattered on the road when they get shot by the extremists, or who get their asses blown through a concrete wall when a car bomb goes off....

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Theben
I don't think the experts will give you a different answer. Since when has an invading (liberating for you right-wingers ) army NOT fraternized with the enemy's women? Normans/franks, Arabs/goths, romans/mediterraneans, chinese/everyone around them, homo sapiens/neanderthals, etc.

The historical mode has been "kill the men and boys, rape and enslave the women and girls." Something we've tried to avoid in the last century or so.

And these unions do help build trust between both sides. Imagine what it would be like if if we said no, i.e. "those women aren't good enough for us."

Just fine with everyone.

Instead, what you get is:

"That's the hussy that made mah poor little boy convert to that heathen religion so they could have their heathen "wedding"

"It is not enough that they come to steal our oil, now they dishonor Allah with their false conversions and steal our women"

Blah blah ****ing blah.

It's not like running our new colony isn't giving us enough headaches.

[Theben]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Oh, maybe the people whose brains get splattered on the road when they get shot by the extremists, or who get their asses blown through a concrete wall when a car bomb goes off....

So we should cater to their desires because they kill us?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Or they kill the women... or...

Meanwhile, we have a country to run, and not waving red flags in front of bulls unecessarily is generally a good idea, especially when you're in the middle of the ****ing pasture.

The other side of the coin is there are a lot of cultural / social / religious conservatives over there who don't fall in the extremist category (yet), so not antagonizing general accepted cultural and social norms in the territory you occupy is occasionally helpful.

Our job is to run the ****ing country, not to run a ****ing dating service.

[Theben]

Drake: Doesn't matter if I believe it or not (I don't). It matters if religious extremists living in the country believe it.

This is what I was referring to when I said, "who cares what they think." And I meant it in general. I wasn't referring to local moderates or conservatives. Yes, we SHOULD care what they think. The extremists will hate us and shoot at us regardless.

I agree with the points you made on your 1st post. But from the article, the point raised by the commander was that they would be distracted from their duties if they got married. Which is bs, IMHO. They'd be less distracted if the women were in the U.S, and if they weren't going thru the court martial wringer. The feelings were there for the women anyway. If this hadn't been overblown by media coverage, it wouldn't have been a 'red flag'.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Theben


The extremists will hate us and shoot at us regardless.

Yep

[yavoon]

happens all around world. if poor unskilled dirty men w/ big dongs could marry american women they would.

[Ben Kenobi]

I see your point MtG, the problem with the Iraqi women using the American soldiers as a meal ticket to get to the US.

Something all the men ought to consider when prepositioned.

[Az]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Have the Israelis tried this? It could solve many problems.

Doesn't end well. Hell, what would happen to such women is being outcast, AT BEST. And this is our own citizens I am talking about.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see your point MtG, the problem with the Iraqi women using the American soldiers as a meal ticket to get to the US.

Something all the men ought to consider when prepositioned.

The men are mostly the ones doing the hunting. You have tons of young, horny, red-blooded USA government issue, flag-waving testosterone over there, with nothing to do with itself.

And the thing is, unlike places like Vietnam (which had it's own sex industry well established) we just can't go set up boom-boom houses in occupied Iraq.

The issue is a mess all around, one of those unfortunate aspects of occupation. And one of those reasons to be thankful you're not a commanding officer of a unit over there.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have tons of young, horny, red-blooded USA government issue, flag-waving testosterone over there, with nothing to do with itself.

It still takes two...

I'm sure both will be amenable to a relationship. given the current situation.

[Kirnwaffen]

Out of curiosity, is there any way to contend that the order, assuming it was given, was unlawful?

[Drake Tungsten]

This is what I was referring to when I said, "who cares what they think." And I meant it in general. I wasn't referring to local moderates or conservatives. Yes, we SHOULD care what they think. The extremists will hate us and shoot at us regardless.

I agree. I'd be more opposed to this if I thought the majority of the Iraqi population considered America to be an evil "crusading army", but I haven't seen any evidence of this as of yet. Those beliefs seems restricted to extremists and **** what they think.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Out of curiosity, is there any way to contend that the order, assuming it was given, was unlawful?

It's a very "interesting" area of military law. That's why you usually Art. 15 these guys and ream 'em that way, or else give them an SCM and take a stripe or two, but don't admin sep them or less than honorable them.

Just going out for fun and ****ing the locals can be clearly regulated as service discrediting and detrimental to good military order and discipline under the General Article of the UCMJ - either for officers or for enlisted.

Marriage with a foreign national of age and local legal ability to consent is a bit tougher, because it is in general a universally recognized and sanctioned relationship. The legal argument for proscribing unauthorized marriage or requiring command authorization rests on whether there's a service discrediting or order and discipline contravening issue within the meaning of the UCMJ General Article - that's the only possible source of authority.

The problem there is two-fold. One, is the activity in question clearly in a prohibitible category under the General Article? AFAIK, marriage to a consenting adult has never been found to be a clearly prohibitible act.

The second, tougher part, is how far does command authority stretch to make a marginal or even arguable incorrect determination that an act could or should be prohibited under the General Article?

In military law, an order from proper authority is presumed to be valid and lawful unless shown otherwise, and the burden of proving the order invalid or unlawful is on the party who would disobey that order. That means that marginal or questionable orders will be viewed in favor of the command authority. There's always a line somewhere, between "questionable judgment" and "clearly unlawful" but where that line falls is a pain in the ass to determine.

I would expect that a legal challenge to the permission to marry requirement would be resolved in favor of the command authority, on the basis that the order and discipline needs of the service and it's mission outweighs individual rights, but I wouldn't bet my life savings a military court or CMR or CMA would rule that way. I'd give it 10:1 odds, but not absolute.

There's also a whole political question, especially with these guys being reservists, which is why violations of this rule are almost never prosecuted.

The one thing that is for sure is that the military can not void the marriages or deny their legitimacy, unless there's actual evidence of a sham marriage. (same as immigration law in that instance)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It still takes two...

It does, but in human poker, a pair of gonads usually beats a pair of brains.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

This is what I was referring to when I said, "who cares what they think." And I meant it in general. I wasn't referring to local moderates or conservatives. Yes, we SHOULD care what they think. The extremists will hate us and shoot at us regardless.

I agree. I'd be more opposed to this if I thought the majority of the Iraqi population considered America to be an evil "crusading army", but I haven't seen any evidence of this as of yet. Those beliefs seems restricted to extremists and **** what they think.

word

[Drake Tungsten]

Just tryin' my best to represent, dawg.

[Ted Striker]

Maybe you should bust a cap in General Cockblocker's azz.

[The Mad Monk]

I think that would definately violate the UCMJ.

[Drake Tungsten]

Real gangsta ass niggas don't worry 'bout no UCMJ.

Far East side!

[Ted Striker]

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Theben
... homo sapiens/neanderthals, etc.

Neantherthals were another species. That would be like screwing a gorilla.

[The Mad Monk]

As if that ever stopped this species.

[Chemical Ollie]

Not stopped us from screwing, maybe, but marriage?

[The Mad Monk]

Don't make me run the required Google search.

It won't be pretty -- trust me.

[DRoseDARs]

*Sigh*

Ted, Drake

Anyway, you're missing the point about the extremists and what they think. What matters is, even if they ARE in the minority, that their numbers might be large enough that they can influence how the goverment of Iraq forms and thus its policies and attitudes, let alone those of the general population. The most vocal voices are the ones that often end up shaping things, regardless of general sentiment.

You seem to enjoy naively dismissing the possiblility that the extremists living in Iraq could be influential enough to cause problems down the line. That will cost lives down the line as well. We need to be careful in how we antagonize the radical forces. Building upon the secular foundation of Iraq's former government is obvious, but the religious culture is what we must be warry of. Extremists have a way of converting fence-sitters based on seemingly minor incidents.



F*** what other people think, eh? Gee, that sounds familiar...hmm..oh yeah, that's what got the US into this in the first place WITHOUT broad international support (prior to the war AND on-going), costing us a great deal of diplomatic capital. Yeah, maintaining that mentality will really help us in the future, especially if the rest of the civilized world should one day get fed up with it...

Brilliant policy.

[Drake Tungsten]

You seem to enjoy naively dismissing the possiblility that the extremists living in Iraq could be influential enough to cause problems down the line.

You're missing the point that these extremists are going to cause problems down the line no matter what. Why tear some fine-ass honeys away from their soldier boys in order to placate some crazys that are going to hate us no matter what we do? Seems rather non-sensical to me.