She's an interesting one, and I think it highlights the "down side" of having a higher percentage of females in combat zones. When you consider Vietnam, Korea, and the Dubya Dubya's the contact they had with chicks was minimal. They were either mostly local nationals, whores, or nurses. But the nature of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and increase in female frontline roles has created a need for controversial rules of engagement, so to speak.
Check this article out.
"A US general based in northern Iraq has defended his tough punishments for soldiers who get pregnant or impregnate a fellow soldier.
The Stars and Stripes military newspaper reported that seven US soldiers, including three men, have already been punished under Gen Cucolo's November 4 policy statement.
They received letters of reprimand that will not remain in their permanent military file.
Under his new rules, which have unleashed a fiery debate, violators are threatened with criminal charges or even a court-martial.
They apply both to women who get pregnant and men who get female soldiers pregnant, even if the couple is married.
"How dare any government say we're going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant," National Organisation for Women president Terry O'Neill told ABC. "This is not the 1800s."
Gen Cucolo defended his decision as a means to help guard against the loss of valuable female soldiers. US troops get sent back home if they become pregnant.
Gen Cucolo currently commands around 22,000 soldiers in northern Iraq, about 1700 of whom are women.
"I need every soldier I've got, especially since we are facing a drawdown of forces during our mission. Anyone who leaves this fight earlier than the expected 12-month deployment creates a burden on their teammates," he said in a written statement."
Agree or disagree?