Soldiers facing trouble for marrying Iraqis

[Chewbacca]

The Military can order you not to get married and punish you for doing so?


Source

Two Florida National Guard soldiers are being investigated for allegedly defying a commander's order by marrying Iraqi brides and the Army is trying to prevent the women from coming to the United States, their families said. The men, both Christians who converted to Islam so they could be married under Iraqi law, had expected to return to the Florida Panhandle this month, but a new Army policy that requires troops to remain in Iraq for 12 continuous months may keep them there until April. In the meantime, Sgt. Sean Blackwell, 27, of Pace, and Cpl. Brett Dagen, 37, of Walnut Hill, want to send their wives, both physicians, to the United States because of murder and kidnapping threats from anti-American Iraqis. Vickie McKee, Blackwell's mother, on Friday said her daughter-in-law has asked that the women not be identified for that reason. "She's being threatened over there on almost a daily basis," McKee said. "He just wants to know that she's safe." McKee also Friday delivered letters from her son and his wife to the district office of U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Chumuckla, in Pensacola. Dan McFaul, a spokesman for Miller, said the congressman cannot do anything until the women request visas. Blackwell's wife, now working as an interpreter for an American company in Baghdad, wrote that her husband already is being punished because the Army has prevented him from seeing or talking to her since the double wedding on Aug. 17. "Is this freedom in U.S.?" she wrote. "Where is the human right? Where is justice?" McKee said the soldiers are being barred from using e-mail. For a time they also were prohibited from calling home, but that privilege has been restored, she said. "It's an embarrassment to the Army," said Dagen's mother, Laverne Warren, of Soso, Miss. Army officials in Baghdad declined comment. Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, spokesman for the Florida National Guard in St. Augustine, said he did not know whether disciplinary action had been taken or is contemplated, but that the soldiers' battalion commander, Lt. Col. Thad Hill, of Jacksonville, had said he was worried the marriages might distract his troops from their mission and compromise their safety. Blackwell wrote in his letter to Miller that the Army Inspector General's office has told him he cannot be punished for getting married, but that he could be disciplined for disobeying an order. Other soldiers, including his company commander, were supportive, but Hill and a sergeant major opposed the marriages, Blackwell wrote. He added that the sergeant major told him "Muslims and Christians just don't jive togther." An Iraqi judge married the couples while the soldiers were on a foot patrol, Blackwell wrote. The soldiers stopped briefly in a secluded courtyard to complete the ceremony. Family members have agreed to take the women in until their husbands are home. McKee said she plans to see an immigration lawyer who thinks the women may be able to seek political asylum because of the threats in Iraq. Blackwell wrote that the threats began even before they were married because of his wife's Western way of dress and thought. The marriages just increased the threats, McKee said. Both soldiers had served in the regular Army before joining the National Guard. Blackwell was discharged last year and planned to attend Pensacola Junior College but was called up with the Guard before classes began in January, his mother said. Blackwell has two young daughters, one from a previous marriage and the other out of wedlock, McKee said. Each child is living with her mother. Dagen, a marine engine mechanic in civilian life, has never before been married, said Gwen Tuton, a cousin and Walnut Hill neighbor. "He has always wanted a wife and children," said Tuton said. "I was kind of surprised he found her there. Actually, it's a fairy tale."

[ 10-03-2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[True_Moose]

I can't say I understand the order, myself. Aren't there some things that are unlawful to order (like murdering innocent people)? I guess they'd have a case for disobeying the order, but it's kind of making a mountain out of a molehill.

"Muslims and Christians just don't jive togther."

He had better have a better reason than that, cause I don't buy it.

[ 10-03-2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by True_Moose: I can't say I understand the order, myself. Aren't there some things that are unlawful to order (like murdering innocent people)? I guess they'd have a case for disobeying the order, but it's kind of making a mountain out of a molehill. quote: "Muslims and Christians just don't jive togther."

He had better have a better reason than that, cause I don't buy it. [/QUOTE]Instead, how about:

"The enemy and the enemy just don't jive together" or
"Occupier and occupied just don't jive together"

The US and Iraq are *still* at war - so the commander's order makes sense on that basis alone. Secondly, by marrying the women, they have effectively labled the women as 'collaboraters' to the entire populace - thus putting their lives at risk.

Two very irresponsible soldiers that ought to be on a charge for wilfully disobeying a lawful order.
Funny, I thought we were done with that thread...

not insulting my fellow american grunts but being in the US military can sometimes suck. that's why i left. it's not a life for those who would want more freedom. i saw the news yesterday about the marriages and just shook my head yet not surprised. the US is so stupid. they should have allowed the marriage and at least see that this could be a good thing to help improve relations with the iraqi people.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Skunk: Instead, how about: "The enemy and the enemy just don't jive together" or "Occupier and occupied just don't jive together"

That is not what the commander said though, it doesn't equate. He drew a religous distinction. The U.S. military is not a Christian organization.

The US and Iraq are *still* at war - so the commander's order makes sense on that basis alone. Secondly, by marrying the women, they have effectively labled the women as 'collaboraters' to the entire populace - thus putting their lives at risk.

Well, unless I am mistaken the Commander in Cheif stood on an aircraft carrier and with a banner behind him that said "Mission Accomplished". Also considering war was never declared in the first place at best you can say that parts of Iraq are still a combat zone. According to the article at least one of these women served as an interpreter and adopted western style of dress before the marriage, so she was already a target for being a collaborator.

Two very irresponsible soldiers that ought to be on a charge for wilfully disobeying a lawful order. Funny, I thought we were done with that thread...

Finally, I must consider the many war-brides from occupied Europe and Asia after WW 2, Not to mention the many war-brides from Vietnam. It is not like what they did has no precedent. I agree they disobeyed an order, but I wont be so swift to call them irresponsible.

[ 10-04-2003, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Well, unless I am mistaken the Commander in Cheif stood on an aircraft carrier and with a banner behind him that said "Mission Accomplished".

Unless I am mistaken, US troops are currently occupying the country, Saddam has not signed a surrender document and there is no alternative democratically appointed government to sign such a document. Furthermore, the US military is suffering between 13-20 attacks a day against its forces - doesn't sound like the war is over to anyone - except Bush.

Originally posted by :Chewbacca Also considering war was never declared in the first place at best you can say that parts of Iraq are still a combat zone.

So the Second World War wasn't a war but just a 'combat zone'? Invading a country is generally considering a defacto declaration of War. Hitler never 'declared war' formally on Russia when he invaded - the Russians even mistook the invasion as an 'error' on the part of a German Commander...
To deny that the US was/is at war with Iraq is to deny that the Russians and Germans were at war in WWII.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: According to the article at least one of these women served as an interpreter and adopted western style of dress before the marriage, so she was already a target for being a collaborator.

Saddam's regime was secular! Just about every educated woman wore non-muslim dress (hence the reason why Al'Qaida hated Saddam so much). Wearing 'western style' clothes does not get you called a collaborater - having a relationship with one does. It was the intimate relationship and the relationship alone that has endangered these women's lives - not the style of dress that they were wearing before the war began.

I'm also suspicious about motives here too. It's not often that highly educated women are attracted to 'grunts' - it's more likely that they saw a couple of tickets to the rich west on offer, and viewed it just like any other 'arranged marriage' - something for convenience, rather than for love. On the troops side, they might have seen a couple of lottery tickets - wives who are capable of earning more in a year than they could in 5 years...
But hey, I could be wrong and maybe there won't be divorces soon after the women achieve US citizenship and maybe a country that is struggling to surive won't need a couple of highly educated doctors either.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Finally, I must consider the many war-brides from occupied Europe and Asia after WW 2, Not to mention the many war-brides from Vietnam. It is not like what they did has no precedent.

If you can name a number of US soldiers that married German citizens while the fighting was still going on, or US soldiers who brought home Viet Cong brides during the hostilities, I might agree with you...otherwise, there is no precedent for this behaviour.

Every 11 year old knows what happened to female collaboraters during and after WWII - to go ahead and form a relationship with these women knowing this was stupid to the extreme.

[Seraph]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: That is not what the commander said though, it doesn't equate. He drew a religious distinction. The U.S. military is not a Christian organization.

If you read the article, you will see that the soldiers commanding officer, Lt. Col. Hall said that he "was worried the marriages might distract his troops from their mission and compromise their safety." I'm sure you will agree that this is not a religious distinction.

You may be confused by "Muslims and Christians just don't jive together."
However if read carefully you will notice that this was from someone significantly lower in the chain of command than Col. Hill.

Well, unless I am mistaken the Commander in Chief stood on an aircraft carrier and with a banner behind him that said "Mission Accomplished".

You are mistaken. The president did not say that "the war is over", he said that "*major* combat is over" the latter does not imply in any sense that there will be no more combat, while the former does. The simple fact that US troops are still going on raids, shows that there is still some small scale combat activities are still underway.

Also considering war was never declared in the first place at best you can say that parts of Iraq are still a combat zone.

Go up to anyone who served in Vietnam or Korea and tell them that they didn't serve in a war, go to any mother who lost a son, or any widow who lost her husband, and tell then that their loved ones weren?t in a war, but rather a "conflict". Let me know what kind of reception you get.

According to the article at least one of these women served as an interpreter and adopted western style of dress before the marriage, so she was already a target for being a collaborator.

Wearing western style clothes was not unheard of in Iraq. Saddams government was secular, so the normal "rules" that apply to women in countries like Iran were usually in place, or at least not as strong. The very fact that the two women are physicians (which requires an education) should be a clue that Iraq isn't an Islamic fundamentalist government.

Finally, I must consider the many war-brides from occupied Europe and Asia after WW 2, Not to mention the many war-brides from Vietnam.

Look at what happened to women in countries like France and Belgium who were involved with Germans. It wasn't pretty when their countries were finally liberated.

[ 10-04-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Seraph: If you read the article, you will see that the soldiers? commanding officer, Lt. Col. Hall said that he "was worried the marriages might distract his troops from their mission and compromise their safety."

My God! Was one of the soldiers called Sgt Bilko???

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Well, unless I am mistaken the Commander in Cheif stood on an aircraft carrier and with a banner behind him that said "Mission Accomplished".

Unless I am mistaken, US troops are currently occupying the country, Saddam has not signed a surrender document and there is no alternative democratically appointed government to sign such a document. Furthermore, the US military is suffering between 13-20 attacks a day against its forces - doesn't sound like the war is over to anyone - except Bush.

Originally posted by :Chewbacca Also considering war was never declared in the first place at best you can say that parts of Iraq are still a combat zone.

So the Second World War wasn't a war but just a 'combat zone'? Invading a country is generally considering a defacto declaration of War. Hitler never 'declared war' formally on Russia when he invaded - the Russians even mistook the invasion as an 'error' on the part of a German Commander...
To deny that the US was/is at war with Iraq is to deny that the Russians and Germans were at war in WWII.
[/QUOTE]Your singing to the choir here, I was actually trying to be sarcastic but it appears some of my smileys got lost in my zest to post. Of course it is a war and of course it is not over. Sorry for the miscue.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Seraph: If you read the article, you will see that the soldiers commanding officer, Lt. Col. Hall said that he "was worried the marriages might distract his troops from their mission and compromise their safety." I'm sure you will agree that this is not a religious distinction. You may be confused by "Muslims and Christians just don't jive together." However if read carefully you will notice that this was from someone significantly lower in the chain of command than Col. Hill.

Yes a Sargent Major made the Christian/Muslim remark. I should have said "higher ranking officer" rather than commander.

You are mistaken. The president did not say that "the war is over", he said that "*major* combat is over" the latter does not imply in any sense that there will be no more combat, while the former does. The simple fact that US troops are still going on raids, shows that there is still some small scale combat activities are still underway.

See my above post.

Go up to anyone who served in Vietnam or Korea and tell them that they didn't serve in a war, go to any mother who lost a son, or any widow who lost her husband, and tell then that their loved ones weren?t in a war, but rather a "conflict". Let me know what kind of reception you get.

According to my Uncle, who did 4 tours in Nam, he served as a tool for a bunch of cowardly politicians in Washington who would have rather sent him and his friends to kill and die than admit they were wrong.

Wearing western style clothes was not unheard of in Iraq. Saddams government was secular, so the normal "rules" that apply to women in countries like Iran were usually in place, or at least not as strong. The very fact that the two women are physicians (which requires an education) should be a clue that Iraq isn't an Islamic fundamentalist government.

I didnt say that Iraq was an Islamic fundamentalist goverment, but it does have Islamic fundamentalist who judge women by the way they dress, hence making them targets. I pointed out *some* of the reason the article states the woman *could* have been pegged as a collaborater regardless of the marriage, like she was working as an interpretor.