US Military rips away pet of deployed US Soldier shortly before Baghdad Pups can send puppy to safety in Minnesota

(This isn't my normal fare here, but I had to write about this because it is so tragic. Please read.)

One of my good college friends is in Iraq right now. A couple months ago, she told me about Baghdad Pups, a really amazing organization that provides medical care, clearance and transport for the animals U.S. soldiers have come to love during deployment in the Middle East.

There are some initiatives that everyone - regardless of their political views - can agree are fabulous. This is one of those.

Baghdad Pups gives our soldiers hope by helping them send their pets home to safety. It's such a unique and touching idea. I couldn't wait to write about it.

Except today, I wish I could be writing about anything else. Because something so awful has happened that I'm writing this through tears.

My friend has been held in Iraq by the stop-loss policy for over 15 months longer than her original commitment to the military. It hasn't been easy for her--and the puppy she saved has been one of the few things that has kept her going.

For the full article, and how you can help... check the source.

http://www.getfreshminds.com/2008/10/baghdad-pups.html

This is absolutely horrible, yet entirely unsurprising.

"The United States Army states that enlisted soldiers facing stop-loss can now voluntarily separate by request, under provision 3-12, but only after they complete an involuntary deployment of twelve to fifteen months and 90 days stabilization time (time allowed to "out-process" from the military) can they apply."

She can get out of this stop-loss.

What nobody seems to know is that General Order #1 from the top commander in Iraq states that US personnel are not allowed to have pets. No questions, no vagueness, no room to be misinterpreted. Any soldier who violates this order (which also prohibits alcohol and pornography) is subject to punishment under UCMJ. I don't feel bad for any soldier who gets attached to something illegal. (I am also serving in the military, just in case anybody is wondering) This rule is there due to the many diseases that animals carry and can transmit to humans and military working dogs.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob1991

What nobody seems to know is that General Order #1 from the top commander in Iraq states that US personnel are not allowed to have pets. No questions, no vagueness, no room to be misinterpreted. Any soldier who violates this order (which also prohibits alcohol and pornography) is subject to punishment under UCMJ. I don't feel bad for any soldier who gets attached to something illegal. (I am also serving in the military, just in case anybody is wondering) This rule is there due to the many diseases that animals carry and can transmit to humans and military working dogs.

What you don't seem to know is that just about any blanket rule that does not take into account individual situations and exceptions, such as this one, is ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob1991

What nobody seems to know is that General Order #1 from the top commander in Iraq states that US personnel are not allowed to have pets. No questions, no vagueness, no room to be misinterpreted. Any soldier who violates this order (which also prohibits alcohol and pornography) is subject to punishment under UCMJ. I don't feel bad for any soldier who gets attached to something illegal. (I am also serving in the military, just in case anybody is wondering) This rule is there due to the many diseases that animals carry and can transmit to humans and military working dogs.

Fuck that. I'd be pretty pissed off if the government took all of my booze and porn away. We're lucky you guys don't fuck around and invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia when you get bored.

At least let them rub one out for God's sakes.

Good news, Kanzen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4982951.ece

"Dressed in a red, blue and white stars and stripes scarf, Ratchet the dog wagged his tail excitedly, leapt out of his crate and onto US soil for the first time after leaving his Iraqi home for a new life in America."

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

What you don't seem to know is that just about any blanket rule that does not take into account individual situations and exceptions, such as this one, is ridiculous.

No, the situation we have placed our soldiers in is ridiculous. The rule is not - it's there for a reason. It's there for the safety of the troops, their units, their counter-parts and the mission. That's what a soldier does. That's what it's there for.

It's tragic, I agree. At the same time a soldier knows the rules when they go in. A soldier agrees to those rules - or at least they say they do under oath - and if they can't do so then they shouldn't be soldiers.

I'm prior military. Being a good soldier is hard. I know that. This is a most unfortunate situation - the entire thing is. The rule is not asinine, however. It is there for a reason. It is not designed to punish a soldier. It is designed to help keep them safe; and it does.

Sad? Yes.

Stupid? No.

What is both sad and stupid is that we allowed our soldiers to be placed in this situation in the first place. This rule however, is sound and passes the test of reason.

Again, "Unfortunate, but necessary."

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

What you don't seem to know is that just about any blanket rule that does not take into account individual situations and exceptions, such as this one, is ridiculous.

You have obviously never served in the military. We have lots of rules and regulations that must be adhered to, for the good of the force. Not for an individual, but the greater good of the force. Like I stated before, stray dogs taken in carry diseases. The military doesn't have a lot of veterinarians, and the ones we have are here to take care of military working dogs. What you obviously don't seem to know is that "blanket rules" in the military are placed due to a past history of problems, and they fix the problems. That is life in the military. If the soldier doesn't like "blanket rules", get the fuck out. We have plenty of good people who follow the rules and love our profession.

The bottom line to this whole situation is this, she was briefed on the rules before deployment and chose to disobey them. She violated a direct order from a commissioned officer in a combat theater. She should be punished under UCMJ for this blatant violation.

Well, the girl is hot.....



Oh yeah and touching story also, she can get a dog back in the states, there are billions of them to get attached to, as you can see I agree with bob up there, there is a rule in place to protect Americans, and it's the soldiers duty to follows those rules.

I also agree with Tarquin, it's been a stupid idea for us to be over there, and we should get out before something really bad happeneds again.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob1991

What nobody seems to know is that General Order #1 from the top commander in Iraq states that US personnel are not allowed to have pets. No questions, no vagueness, no room to be misinterpreted. This rule is there due to the many diseases that animals carry and can transmit to humans and military working dogs.

sound logical.

a bit sad story but she knew she couldnt adopt the dog yet she disobey a direct order,if you cant folloew rulles you shouldnt be in the army.

most army(s) have rulles that look stupid to pepole from the outside,but what those pepole dont get is that those rulles actully are for the soldiers safety to begin with.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

...

No, the situation we have placed our soldiers in is ridiculous. The rule is not - it's there for a reason. It's there for the safety of the troops, their units, their counter-parts and the mission. That's what a soldier does. That's what it's there for.

You know what else was implemented for the safety of the troops, their units, their counterparts and their missions? Enlistment contracts that stipulate end of term of service date. Of course, the military chooses to disregard these at their will, so apparently it's ok for them to bend some rules, but not others.

Soldiers are people first. To ignore, or worse, intentionally disregard, the emotional needs of a person in horrible circumstances, under unimaginable stress, in life and death situations, thousands of miles from home is asinine. Treating them as uniform automatons is not realistic, despite what the UCMJ may say.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob1991

...

You have obviously never served in the military. We have lots of rules and regulations that must be adhered to, for the good of the force. Not for an individual, but the greater good of the force. Like I stated before, stray dogs taken in carry diseases. The military doesn't have a lot of veterinarians, and the ones we have are here to take care of military working dogs. What you obviously don't seem to know is that "blanket rules" in the military are placed due to a past history of problems, and they fix the problems. That is life in the military. If the soldier doesn't like "blanket rules", get the fuck out. We have plenty of good people who follow the rules and love our profession.

The bottom line to this whole situation is this, she was briefed on the rules before deployment and chose to disobey them. She violated a direct order from a commissioned officer in a combat theater. She should be punished under UCMJ for this blatant violation.

You're right, I never have served in the military. And there is a reason for that: I think for myself and question authority. When a rule is stupid, a sensible person doesn't capitulate and apologize for the infraction, they question why the rule is there in the first place. Think about the big picture here.

You state that a stray dog befriended may carry disease. The flip side of that argument is that subjecting people to the stresses of war with little to no respite, leading to excessively large numbers of suicides amongst soldiers in active duty and who have returned from duty is MUCH FUCKING WORSE.

I'll take a case of kennel cough or fleas any day of the fucking week when the alternative is PTSD & suicide.

Write to your local congressman.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

You know what else was implemented for the safety of the troops, their units, their counterparts and their missions? Enlistment contracts that stipulate end of term of service date. Of course, the military chooses to disregard these at their will, so apparently it's ok for them to bend some rules, but not others.

Soldiers are people first. To ignore, or worse, intentionally disregard, the emotional needs of a person in horrible circumstances, under unimaginable stress, in life and death situations, thousands of miles from home is asinine. Treating them as uniform automatons is not realistic, despite what the UCMJ may say.

That's factually inaccurate. Every soldier is thoroughly schooled on the terms of his contract. By enlisting the soldier agrees that he gives the government the right to deny his discharge in times of need. This is not a new thing. My discharge was delayed for manpower reasons as well, and it was big news when it happened to my peers and I.

It's not as though it came out of nowhere and that those that currently serve weren't aware it could happen to them.

The circumstances and rules are explained very clearly, and they know about it before they sign any papers or take any oaths.

Even if what you said were true however, I again stated it was unfortunate, but needed. That's the reality of it. They're over there, and that's sad. That does not mean they should be exposing themselves or others to more risks than are needed. This rule is designed to help prevent that very thing from happening, and does.

Ooookay, maybe I should have PMed the good news to Kanzen...

Wow people get all pissy over a fucking dog, when human right are violated every day in every part of the world.
As far as this soldier she should receive a court martial and dishonorably discharge including forfeiture all benefits and pay. Its that simple.

There are rules for a reason, during a war you cannot be preoccupied with trivial things that take your mind off staying alive and keeping your fellow soldier alive.

Quote:

Originally posted by firereign

There are rules for a reason, during a war you cannot be preoccupied with trivial things that take your mind off staying alive and keeping your fellow soldier alive.

You're not familiar with the concept of "mental health" are you?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

You're not familiar with the concept of "mental health" are you?

And taking their dog away because it can endanger lives is good for their mental health how?

Thus the rule, so that they don't get attached in the first place.

I sent plenty of dogs back to the states during my times in Iraq. I don't see what the problem is.