Recently in Military Category

A soldier and single mother, Army Spc. Alexis Hutchinson missed her deployment flight to Afghanistan because no one could care for her ten-month-old son while she was away. She was arrested and taken to Hunter Airfield in Savannah, GA, while the child was taken into custody for 24 hours. AP and the Oakland Tribune have more:

"Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care. [...]

The Army requires all single-parent soldiers to submit a care plan for dependent children before they can deploy to a combat zone."

Hutchinson submitted a plan for her mother to care for the infant, but her mother's responsibilities to care for three additional sick family members made this impossible after two weeks. The underlying lesson below this egregious oversight is that the military, like all bureaucratic institutions, operates by standard operating procedures that cannot accommodate for the unexpected. There's no question that the insistence that a soldier put their child in foster care is egregious. Still unsettling is the Army's initial treatment of this single mother like a deserter.

With yesterday's National Equality March and President Obama's promise (again) to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell (the speech transcript was released last night), we missed the story last week about government stats showing that women are more likely than men to be discharged from the military for Don't Ask Don't Tell.

While 619 people were discharged under DADT last year, one-third of them were women (when they only account for 15 percent of all active-duty and reserve members). The numbers were particularly prevalent in the Air Force, where women represent just 20 percent of the Air Force but were 61 percent of the members discharged for DADT.

Folks say there's not enough evidence yet to know if women really are being targeted, possibly as a result of the prevalence of sexism and misogyny that the military is often charged with, or if it's just the case that there are more lesbians in the military than gay men. (Community poster Spiffy McBang beat us to the punch on the story and had some discussion on this.)

But regardless of the breakdown of who is discriminated against through DADT, what matters most at this point is that all people should have the freedom to serve openly. We'll be waiting, Mr. President.

UPDATE: NBC's John Harwood reports that the White House believes LGBT mobilizing is merely part of the "internet left fringe":

HOLT: But in general when yo look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven't?

HARWOOD: Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe" Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Just, wow.

Lately I have been mulling over military moms who, upon notification of deployment, scramble to find childcare for their children. I can't help but wring my hands and ask: where are all the fathers? And I am not talking marriage here or even money. I am talking about mutual parental involvement. Women are expected to step up when their husbands go off to war. We should expect the same of men whose wives are deployed.

My heart goes out to army moms, women who are practically invisible in war coverage. This piece stumbles on so many kernels of truth about the societal discrimination women face. For me, this narrative is particularly revealing:

Sergeant McFadden, who holds only an associate's degree, wanted to hold on to her career. "It matters what I do," Sergeant McFadden said. "I love helping people. It's for our country. My dad was a Vietnam vet. I feel like I owe it to him."

It hit me like a ton of bricks: McFadden is expressing something afforded to men that we haven't quite gotten around to prioritizing for women. The plain truth is that boys and men grow up in a culture where their careers matter. Many employers insist on policies that make it impossible to reconcile the role of parent and with the role of wage-earner. McFadden, and the many other women who are torn about deployment because of motherhood, reveal how we lose out as a country when we don't give both men and women equal opportunity to be employed in a profession where they can work to their fullest potential. 

This is about so much more than military moms in heterosexual relationships. What about single moms and gay and lesbian parents who are being discriminated against by the military? What about women of color who are the least likely to be in positions where they can rely on child care? What about the rights of queer women and women of color to have non-normative paths to motherhood? All of these people have the right to express their service to country by enlisting in the military, but our country's policies and prejudices work against them.

Much ado was made about the President's back-to-school speech, but not nearly enough folks have made the connection between the potential of today's students and work/family balance. In this speech, President Obama said: "What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you're learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future." When girls grow up to have equal access to reaching their professional potential, only then can we truly have the best and the brightest in our military and at all levels of public service.

H/T to Smita Satiani Huff Po blogger who referred me to this article and wrestled with these issues with me.

So, as you know from Military Missive Part One, I'm having an adventure in military life and culture this week. Through out the briefings I've attended, the facilities I've toured, and the panels I've observed, a few things have been foremost on my mind--first among them my interest in holding the military accountable for the epidemic of military sexual assault that takes place.

First I have to admit that this whole experience has been far more trees than forest. In other words, we've focused much more on the nuts and bolts of military training, protocol, and infrastructure than we have on bigger social, organizational, and moral questions. Thus, it's been sort of hard to figure out when to ask various military leaders about my concerns. (For official military speak on the issue, go to thise site.) In any case, you know that a little awkwardness can't keep me quiet, so here's an account of my attempts to get answers:

First I questioned a strategic communications officer--a likable guy who told us all about the army's changing philosophy of "engagement." According to him, the priority is to become "an agent of change" (yes, they are using this exact language) and shift the army's reputation from "cumbersome and bureaucratic to coordinated, collaborative, and cooperative." Great, I asked him, then what is the army doing about the military sexual assault problem. His answer:

I personally have never experienced an issue with gender.

Second...

I've been in two unlikely places this week--Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. That's right, I've left behind my Brooklyn coffee shops and my MLK books for an adventure in military culture.

The Media & the Military Workshop, a collaboration between the University of Kansas Journalism School and the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, is in its second year (funded by the McCormick Foundation). It is an attempt to help journalists understand the military better, and visa versa. A group of about 25 of us have been learning about the military, meeting new soldiers, and even experiencing a bit of life inside (I did "PT," aka physical training, at 4:30am yesterday with a group of soldiers!).

It's been thrilling to have the experience to really learn firsthand about an institution that I have such complex feelings about.

As some of you may know, I've become increasingly interested in veterans' affairs over the last few years because my dear cousin Lang was in the Marines and served two tours of duty in Iraq, and also because I wrote an in-depth profile of Maricela Guzman, an amazing veteran activist who co-founded the Service Women's Action Network. This led me to write frequent columns on the topics of military sexual assault, veterans' benefits etc. While I've learned a lot from my interviews, and even a trip to a Congressional Round Table of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in DC, I felt like I was lacking in very basic knowledge about how the military works, and how those involved in it relate to their work.

I'm particularly interested in--shocker, I know--the intersections of gender and class in the military and military culture, more generally. Stay tuned for Part Two to hear some of my insights after a few days in the trenches...

I saw this on Facebook friend Jen's feed and wanted to share, I thought it was an awesome image - this is Command Sergeant Major James Ervin, the Fort Stewart garrison command sergeant major and Brig. Gen. Patrick Donahue, 3rd ID deputy commanding general for maneuvers, in a Take Back the Night march on Fort Stewart this April.

While we can't ignore the history of sexual assault in the U.S. military, we also can't disregard those who advocate for change with us.

The military announces that mental health training will be part of a new initiative for all of those who serve. Why, for God's sake, is military sexual assault not mentioned anywhere in this frickin' article?

A military coup in Honduras this weekend deposed President Manuel Zelaya. The Honduran Congress has stripped Zelaya of his office and appointed the president of the Congress, Robert Micheletti, to be head of state. It is Central America's first military coup since the Cold War.

Eva Gollinger in Caracas, Venezuela reports:

The text message that beeped on my cell phone this morning read "Alert, Zelaya has been kidnapped, coup d'etat underway in Honduras, spread the word." It's a rude awakening for a Sunday morning, especially for the millions of Hondurans that were preparing to exercise their sacred right to vote today for the first time on a consultative referendum concerning the future convening of a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution. Supposedly at the center of the controversy is today's scheduled referendum, which is not a binding vote but merely an opinion poll to determine whether or not a majority of Hondurans desire to eventually enter into a process to modify their constitution.

Such an initiative has never taken place in the Central American nation, which has a very limited constitution that allows minimal participation by the people of Honduras in their political processes. The current constitution, written in 1982 during the height of the Reagan Administration' s dirty war in Central America, was designed to ensure those in power, both economic and political, would retain it with little interference from the people. Zelaya, elected in November 2005 on the platform of Honduras' Liberal Party, had proposed the opinion poll be conducted to determine if a majority of citizens agreed that constitutional reform was necessary. He was backed by a majority of labor unions and social movements in the country. If the poll had occured, depending on the results, a referendum would have been conducted during the upcoming elections in November to vote on convening a constitutional assembly. Nevertheless, today's scheduled poll was not binding by law.

Kim Pearson has a great summary this morning over at BlogHer.

I'm left wondering about the safety of the women in Honduras during military coup and state instability--these are often the times when sexual assault increases, women struggle to get access to the medical help they need, not to mention all the other basic resources that are necessary to keep families going. We'd love to hear from readers with family in the area...

There will be a protest of the military coup of Honduras at the United Nations today from 3 to 6 pm for those in the New York area.

Update: Christy Thornton, the head of NACLA, recommends this post on the subject. She'll be writing something for us tomorrow on the topic.

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case challenging Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which according to TPM was in response to the Obama Administration's request. From Talking Points Memo:

The Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

The AP has more details here.

The optimist in me hopes this is because the Obama Administration wants to handle the dismantling of Don't Ask Don't Tell legislatively through Congress. It was one of his campaign promises, but we have yet to see any movement on overturning the policy, or stalling the dismissals of people in the military based on this policy.

From HuffPo:

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

The Servicemember's Legal Defense Network has counted 238 discharges based on DADT since Obama was sworn in.

A bunch o' peace organizations have created a coalition to push a nationwide day of reflection on and renunciation of military escalation in Afghanistan. I'm totally sympathetic to their cause, and always a fan of stepping back and considering non-military solutions, but also feel confused on this issue. As I've written previously in this space, I'm most concerned with what the nonviolent citizens of Afghanistan, especially women, want the U.S. to do.

Contrary to the tired old rhetoric about the U.S. soldiers swooping in and and "saving" poor, repressed Afghan women, there is a vital movement of Afghan women working to change their own communities and cultures. It is these women that I want to hear from, these women whose opinions I trust the most. And yet, it's hard to figure out--all the way over here in my little Brooklyn hovel--who these women are and if there is any sort of consensus on what it is that they want from the U.S. When I was at the Code Pink Mother's Day Vigil, an Afghani woman spoke about the horrific conditions that so many Afghan women are facing. After she left the stage, an interesting discussion took place between her and some of the Code Pink members in which she asserted that, contrary to the peace movement's assumptions, Afghan women want the U.S. military to stay in Afghanistan. "They don't feel safe," she said. "The international presence makes them feel safer."

Of course, she was just one woman. It would be reductive to expect all U.S. women to think unilaterally on such a complex issue (think presidential election 2008 and all the ridiculous "THE women vote" talk), so why would Afghani women be any different? This video, produced by Code Pink, features a dynamic woman who opposes military escalation:

So here I am, paralyzed by all the complexity. Anyone have bright ideas or trusted sources to contribute? If you're convinced that military escalation is wrong, here are some things you can do about it.

I had the total honor of attending a Congressional meeting yesterday called "The Growing Needs of Women Veterans: Is the VA Ready?" It was hosted by the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and widely attended by a variety of women veterans' groups who each had a chance to testify about what they see as the growing and unique needs for women veterans (who are currently about 15% of our military).

I plan on writing extensively about some of the issues that were brought up (including childcare, VA climate, cultural shifts, and of course, sexual assault), but what I really wanted to emphasize here at feministing was how inspired I was by the presence of young, fearless women activists yesterday. The stand outs were Anuradha K. Bhagwati, Executive Director of the Service Women's Action Network (which I've written about before), Kayla Williams, author of Love My Rifle More Than You, and Dawn Halfaker (pictured here), of Wounded Warriors.

They each spoke with such passion, clarity, and authenticity at the hearing. As the various leaders and ED's of organizations made their remarks, I was thrilled to hear these young women's voices, which truly stood out as professional, but also unequivocally real. They didn't let the official nature of the meeting or the onslaught of statistics overshadow the fact that women are suffering unimaginable pain because of sexual harassment and assault experiences, inadequate access to reproductive and mental health care at the VA centers through out the nation, and a sense of invisibility in a country that still assumes women don't see combat or get PTSD. Though the day was overwhelming, and the sense of glacial movement in our legislative branch palpable, I left with this rock solid confidence that this generation of women vet activists are going to make things right. They're too strong and bold and eloquent and convicted not to.

P.S. SWAN's site went live today, so be sure to go over and check it out.

While promises by President Obama have been made during the presidential election to gay and lesbian members serving in the military, recent events have given us the impression that this may be a longer time coming than expected. During the election, Obama stated that he would repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that bars openly gay and lesbian officers from serving, saying:

"We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need."

Now we find the first Arabic linguist is now being dismissed from the Army National Guard because he came out on television. He was back on the Rachel Maddow Show last night discussing his dismissal:

(transcript here)

Pam's House Blend found a strong statement Choi made on the West Point LGBT Alumni Group KnightsOut web site:

My name is Dan Choi. I am a West Point graduate. I am a Lieutenant in the United States Army.

I am gay.

I serve my country. I serve my country because I heard a leader say: "ASK NOT what your country can do for you... ASK what you can do for your country." But when I step up to serve our country, to put my life on the line to protect my community, to protect my neighbors, to protect my family, to protect America, I am ordered... DON'T ASK. I am ordered... DON'T TELL.

I serve with 65,000 selfless gay and lesbian Americans; we are ordered to deny who we are. We're ordered to HIDE. But I am not hiding anymore. I am not asking permission anymore. I am done ASKING. I am TELLING. I am gay.

According to story-breaker Aaron Belkin, a study about to be released by a bunch of miltary law experts says that Obama actually has the authority to suspend gay discharges until the repeal is made. (By simply ordering folks to stop investigating servicemembers' sexuality.)

So what gives? Why is Obama not pushing for this - or at least protecting people from being dismissed in the meantime - when it seems like it could be so simple? I hope this media attention results in some action on this issue.

This is an issue that's become increasingly dear to my heart, as I've gotten to know a couple of amazing women veterans and read more about their experiences. There is no question that women vets have special needs at this time, especially as the epidemic of sexual assault and the psychological trauma that follows, is being acknowledged publicly for the first time. A few stats in case you haven't been following the issue:

• The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are employing the greatest number of American servicewomen in US military history.


• Women are rapidly adding to the already existing population of 1.8 million women veterans, most of whom have yet to be adequately recognized for their sacrifices.


• The sexual assault rates among female veterans are astronomically high -- at least 30, and as high as 70 percent.

The Service Women's Action Network, an organization co-founded by a group of women veterans (mostly women of color) in 2006, is poised to step into the gap of services and advocacy and the rest of us need to support them to do this. Here's an excerpt from a recent email I received from co-founder and Army National Guard veteran Jennifer Hogg:

The issues faced by military women today present the public with specific challenges that have largely been rejected as a national priority by veterans organizations, the government and the media. Most major organizations that serve veterans pay mere lip service to the issues of women veterans. They fail to hire women veterans as staff members, and often retraumatize women veterans by minimizing, trivializing, or ignoring the experiences of women in uniform. As we all know, women's issues rarely get the attention they deserve when women are not empowered with the agency and authority to represent their own needs.

Therefore, SWAN focuses on the leadership development of women veterans. Given that few military organizations acknowledge the rampant sexism, racism, and homophobia in both the military and veterans organizations, SWAN ensures that women of color veterans and LGBT women veterans make up at least half of our staff, and that the experiences of women from these populations is featured prominently by the organization on both the website and in media appearances.

SWAN's staff and steering committee consist exclusively of women veterans whose collective experiences in the military encompass a broad spectrum of challenges faced by returning women veterans. These issues include the trauma of combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, the horrors of Military Sexual Trauma, the trials of VA health coverage and the VA benefits system for women, and discharges under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy.

If you can give money, do it:
Your donations are tax deductible. Checks can be made out to our fiscal sponsor, The Women of Color Resource Center. Please write "SWAN" in the memo line, and mail your check to:
The Women of Color Resource Center
1611 Telegraph Ave #303
Oakland, CA 94612

Or online.

If you can give some other kind of resources or support, do it:
Email Jen Hogg with grant leads, fundraising ideas, or other in kind donations or support at jen@claimingjustice.org.

Let's let the brave women of SWAN, and all the female veterans they are poised to help, know that we support their basic human rights to bodily integrity, health services, legal support, and healing community.

Go check out Courtney's newest column at the American Prospect about the need for female veterans who are sexual assault survivors and are suffering PTSD to be classified as disabled and eligible for services.

It makes a certain amount of sense that the Veterans Affairs Office is compelled to differentiate combat from non-combat veterans. Those who have been exposed to improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the stress of direct negotiation, and the trials of patrol on a daily basis certainly have a higher rate of PTSD and other disabilities following their tour than those who have not. But it's not a zero-sum game. When the sexual assault rates among female veterans are so astronomically high -- at least 30, and as high as 70 percent, according to Helen Benedict, author of the new book The Lonely Soldier -- the "combat" classification becomes a moot point. Keep in mind that sexual assault is a hugely underreported crime; even the Pentagon admits that only 10 to 20 percent of cases are probably being reported.

Add to this the reality that military culture is built on breaking down some of our most basic psychological instincts through humiliation, deprivation, and submission, and it becomes less and less logical to separate the soldiers who have seen combat from those who haven't. Everyone who signs his or her name on the dotted line of a military contract is destined for psychological trauma of one kind or another, especially if they're female.

I think this point of the culture of humiliation, deprivation and submission is not only a helpful frame in understanding the culture within the military, but also in thinking about the mindset that motivates the military to then create those types of conditions amongst the communities we are warring with be it via prisons or the use of rape as a weapon of war. It seems logical to us that a US military culture that demands a certain level of emasculation, would create, produce and sustain a culture of sexual violence.

Check out community poster ArmyVetJen's take (who beat us to the punch) on the new statistics just released by the Pentagon showing that there has been a 9% increase in the reports of sexual assault in the military over the past year. AP reports:

The Pentagon said it received 2,923 reports of sexual assault across the military in the 12 months ending Sept. 30 2008. That's about a 9 percent increase over the totals reported the year before, but only a fraction of the crimes presumably being committed.

Among the cases reported, only a small number went to military courts, officials acknowledged.

The Pentagon office that collects the data estimates that only 10 percent to 20 percent of sexual assaults among members of the active duty military are reported -- a figure similar to estimates of reported cases in the civilian sphere.

The military statistics, required by Congress, cover rape and other assaults across the approximately 1.4 million people in uniform.

The director of the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office says that the increase in reports is likely due to more women feeling confident enough to come forward rather than attributing it to an actual increase in sexual violence. While that would be great, as Cara says, there hasn't been any reported increase in awareness around sexual assault by the Pentagon so I'm not inclined to immediately buy that contention. (Also considering prosecutions are still low as ever.)

Reports in Iraq and Afghanistan have rose by about a quarter. You can find the report here. Feministe also has more.