Al's Morning Meeting

When Legislators Are Soldiers

Stateline.org has a great story about the number of state legislators who have been called up to active military duty. It puts the lawmakers in a bind because military regs forbid them from doing the things that legislators do. The story says:

There are at least 57 state legislators who serve in their states' National Guard or Reserve units, and 30 of them have been deployed while working in the legislature, according to a survey by Hawaii Rep. Mark Takai (D), a Hawaii National Guardsman and the first chairman of the newly formed National Network of Legislators in the Military.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rage on and more legislators are called to service, they clash with the Defense Department directive banning them from participating in partisan politics. That means no voting, introducing or signing bills.

Missouri state Sen. Jon Dolan (R) came up against this directive in 2004, when he received permission from military officials to fly home from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to vote on a concealed-weapons bill. He was later reprimanded by the military and chose to resign from the Army National Guard rather than risk court martial or leave his constituents without representation.

At least five states -- Indiana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have a law allowing activated legislators to name a temporary replacement. In Texas' last legislative session, Republicans Reps. Frank Corte and Carl Isett, who only recently returned from the Middle East, named wives Valerie Ryder Corte and Cheri Isett to take their places.

Legislators also cannot campaign while on active duty. In 2004, the wife of reserve Army colonel Tom Umberg carried a cardboard cutout of him from event to event because, Robin Umberg said, her husband was in Guantanamo Bay prosecuting terrorists.

Why Can't American Soldiers Marry Iraqis?

In Korea, Vietnam and Germany, it was not so unusual for American GIs to fall in love with a local girl and marry her. But last weekend, after a U.S. soldier (who is Iraqi-American) was abducted in Baghdad, it was disclosed that he had taken a secret Iraqi wife.

A military spokeswoman quoted by The New York Times said soldiers aren't allowed to marry local civilians under the military's fraternization policies. So why is Iraq so different from other combat zones?

Slate explains that it is local commanders, not the Pentagon, who set rules of field behavior:

The Department of Defense doesn't have any rules about whom American troops are allowed to marry. The policies on how to treat the locals are generally established by regional command centers and then refined by officers further down the chain of command. When American forces set up shop in a foreign country, the rules on behavior are laid out in a document called "General Order No. 1." As the top commander at United States Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid's "General Order No. 1" [PDF] covers the basics. Then, each subordinate general comes up with his or her own version; these may be a bit more strict and specific.

Other cases of American soldiers marrying Iraqis have come up. A Florida National Guardsman was discharged for leaving his patrol and disclosing the location of his patrol to get married.

Historians note that in other wars, there have been attempts to ban fraternization:

Enacted as the army first crossed into enemy territory in 1944, American personnel were expressly forbidden to have any social contact with the Germans. But this policy simply proved unenforceable and tied up army commanders just as the war's tensions eased. In June 1945, Eisenhower lifted the ban on American soldiers playing with children. The following month, the fraternization ban fell apart and was formally abolished in October (with the exception of American soldiers marrying Germans or billeting in the same houses).

(Here is a slightly different timetable from the diary of General HH "Hap" Arnold, but it makes the same point.)