Comments on: This Week’s Show: More on “Does it Take a Mom to Defend a Country?” http://www.betsysblog.com/wordpress/2007/12/13/radio-show-more-on-does-it-take-a-mom-to-defend-a-country/ Let’s look at things a little differently.... Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:40:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Ella Steele http://www.betsysblog.com/wordpress/2007/12/13/radio-show-more-on-does-it-take-a-mom-to-defend-a-country/comment-page-1/#comment-1006 Ella Steele Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:20:53 +0000 http://www.betsysblog.com/2007/12/13/radio-show-more-on-does-it-take-a-mom-to-defend-a-country/#comment-1006 It is with interest that I read your column today, 12/17/07, in The Oakland Press re: sending moms to war. I wholeheartedly agree with your point of view. A few years back when mothers who are members of the National Guad were first being sent into combat I wrote to my congressmen objecting to this practice, but received not one response. You are the first writer that I have read that has addressed this issue. Where is the national outrage? Who will nurture our future generation if their mothers are gone and the children are shifted about like so much leftover baggage? Children should be our most treasured asset. We are supposed to be a civilized nation, but I believe that our values are seriously skewed in this regard. Thank you for addressing this issue which I believe is an indication of the decline of our civilization. It is with interest that I read your column today, 12/17/07, in The Oakland Press re: sending moms to war. I wholeheartedly agree with your point of view. A few years back when mothers who are members of the National Guad were first being sent into combat I wrote to my congressmen objecting to this practice, but received not one response.

You are the first writer that I have read that has addressed this issue. Where is the national outrage? Who will nurture our future generation if their mothers are gone and the children are shifted about like so much leftover baggage? Children should be our most treasured asset.

We are supposed to be a civilized nation, but I believe that our values are seriously skewed in this regard.

Thank you for addressing this issue which I believe is an indication of the decline of our civilization.

]]> By: C.D.Smith http://www.betsysblog.com/wordpress/2007/12/13/radio-show-more-on-does-it-take-a-mom-to-defend-a-country/comment-page-1/#comment-997 C.D.Smith Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:19:55 +0000 http://www.betsysblog.com/2007/12/13/radio-show-more-on-does-it-take-a-mom-to-defend-a-country/#comment-997 What is wrong with women who want to serve working in Peace Corps, Vista, or National Guard roles where their presence won't be required for long periods of time and they can be trained to handle and/or repair military equipment? We need active National Guard here at home much more often than in the military. One of the problems I see with the "new" military is the use of our National Guard and Reserves as front line soldiers. There may also be an active role for some of them, especially Reserves, in the military. However, actually responding to disasters/trouble here at home, guarding the nation, and filling support roles so actual trained soldiers can move to the war zone could be of very great benefit and generally not require women to be deployed to war zones or leave their families. (Think first reponders and "Rosie Riviter" types.) Most if not all of the same benefits could be earned and while it might limit some of their options it would not necessarily limit advancement since there are many spots for officers and non-coms in the National Guard or the other organized Corps. We should stop ignoring the fact that soldiers are soldiers and must commit to combat if needed. Even a voluntary armed forces should hire people who are committed to that and require women who choose serve in the active branches to be single and childless and remain that way. Any change in that status should be grounds for immediate discharge from active duty. However, I think neither of those situations would be a problem for duty that was served stateside in the National Guard, Vista, or Peace Corp, etc. What is wrong with women who want to serve working in Peace Corps, Vista, or National Guard roles where their presence won’t be required for long periods of time and they can be trained to handle and/or repair military equipment? We need active National Guard here at home much more often than in the military. One of the problems I see with the “new” military is the use of our National Guard and Reserves as front line soldiers. There may also be an active role for some of them, especially Reserves, in the military. However, actually responding to disasters/trouble here at home, guarding the nation, and filling support roles so actual trained soldiers can move to the war zone could be of very great benefit and generally not require women to be deployed to war zones or leave their families. (Think first reponders and “Rosie Riviter” types.) Most if not all of the same benefits could be earned and while it might limit some of their options it would not necessarily limit advancement since there are many spots for officers and non-coms in the National Guard or the other organized Corps. We should stop ignoring the fact that soldiers are soldiers and must commit to combat if needed. Even a voluntary armed forces should hire people who are committed to that and require women who choose serve in the active branches to be single and childless and remain that way. Any change in that status should be grounds for immediate discharge from active duty. However, I think neither of those situations would be a problem for duty that was served stateside in the National Guard, Vista, or Peace Corp, etc.

]]>