Female prisoners of war: feminism's triumph?

TownHall.com ^ | March 28, 2003 | Rich Lowry

[Tailgunner Joe]

The captured American Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, by all accounts, had no intention of becoming a feminist icon.

A note of unseemly glee has greeted the tragedy of her falling into the hands of the Iraqis, as if to say, "Look, women can be prisoners of war, too!" The New York Times ran an editorial titled "The Pinking of the Armed Forces," hailing Johnson's capture a reminder of how the American military has evolved, slowly and sometimes reluctantly, into an organization where the dangerous jobs of war are performed by both sexes."

One can only wait for other leaps ahead in social mores, like seeing American women gassed, pulverized by tank rounds and sniped at in block-to-block urban warfare.

Johnson is the victim of a feminist revolution that swept the military in the mid-1990s. As part of the backlash against the frat-boy excesses of the Tailhook Convention of 1991, critics of the male-dominated military pried open direct-combat positions, in aviation and the Navy, for women.

Ground combat was still taboo -- but barely. In 1994, President Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin relaxed the definition of "direct-ground combat," removing "inherent risk of capture" as one of the considerations. And he axed the Risk Rule that barred women from combat-support units that would encounter some of the same threats as direct-combat units.

"The new policy," crowed a Defense Department press release at the time, "means that women will no longer be excluded from military specialties simply because the jobs are dangerous." Feminists hailed the change for opening tens of thousands of new positions to women.

One of the major potential problems with the 1994 definition was obvious, and identified in a 1998 General Accounting Office report: The "definition of direct combat links these [combat] tasks to a particular location on the battlefield -- 'well forward.' In making this link, the definition excludes battlefields that may lack a clearly defined forward area."

Precisely like the battlefield in Iraq. Johnson, a single mom, joined the military with no thought of encountering the enemy. She signed up to get cooking experience. Unfortunately, women like her were now to be afforded "an equal opportunity" to get captured on the battlefield.

"Since soldiers must do what they are told," Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness writes, "the young mother was 'cross-trained' for a maintenance unit in support of the infantry." Two women were captured with the 507th Maintenance Company: Johnson, and 19-year-old supply clerk Jessica Lynch, fate unknown.

Johnson's aunt has expressed understandable surprise that she wasn't safe somewhere in Kuwait: "I was really shocked. I thought that she was going to be doing something in the background, you know, the cooking does not take you to where she ended up being."

Male prisoners can be abused, but aren't vulnerable in the way women are. Women get raped, a crime that any civilized society considers particularly horrific.

One of the two female POWs in the first Gulf War was sexually abused immediately upon her capture (she had two broken arms at the time). The other has never publicly talked about what might have happened to her.

There is something odd about the same feminists who, rightly, make campaigning against rape one of their highest priorities applauding the fact that American women -- who might, like Johnson, have no idea of what they were signing up for -- have been put in danger of terrible abuse in Iraq.

There is a reason that almost all societies in human history -- with a few exceptions, like the desperate, and brutal, Red Army in World War II -- have avoided putting their women in danger of falling into enemy hands. Because the consequences are too awful to contemplate.

In contemporary America, however, the paradigm of gender equality trumps all. The tide runs so strong that it might well be impossible to reinstate the Risk Rule. Feminists can savor that victory. They shouldn't pretend that they have done Shoshana Johnson any favors.

[Bigg Red]

The disgusting feminists, which evidently includes the NYT, are proud of this!

[annyokie]

NS. When is Chelsea going to the Front?

[Argus]

Holding my breath waiting for Hillary or Patricia Ireland to volunteer to be exchanged for Soshanna.

[jnarcus]

There is a report out this morning that uniforms were found that were torn off of the female POWs...one can only guess what else has gone on...a tragedy indeed...Hell no my daughter will not be going. I appreciate the service of our armed forces but the front line ain't a place for women

[ClearCase_guy]

Male prisoners can be abused, but aren't vulnerable in the way women are. Women get raped, a crime that any civilized society considers particularly horrific

Oh, sure, I guess male prisoners could be ... abused. But, really, I think we can all agree that nothing really bad could ever be done to a male prisoner. Women, on the other hand, could be [gasp!] raped.

[briant]

Not to mention all of the enlightened pseudomen who think they can hide their own ballessness by pretending this war-fighting isn't their duty.

[FirstTomato]

The leftist influence in this society has resulted in bizarrely immoral paradigms, where the abortion of innocent children is considered a feminist imperative, and the exposure of women to the perils of combat is considered a right.

The sickness of the left has infected this society, in ways that most civilized nations shun. The killing of our unborn and the unnecessary exposure of our females to combat reveals the depths of immorality we suffer as a nation, because of the hegemony of the socialist left.

[iranger]

Brutal and repeated gang rape is as much a part of arab culture as bowing to Mecca. Most "men" I know would gladly take any torture theses savages could dole out if it would save their precious daughters or wives.

[Calpernia]

Ok, this story leaves out Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, of Tuba City, Ariz. There are 3 female Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown


Shoshana Johnson, 30, of Fort Bliss, Texas

Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, of Tuba City, Ariz.

Jessica D. Lynch, 19, of Palestine, W.Va.

[MayflowerMadam]

"When is Chelsea going to the Front?"

Hey, we follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. We aren't allowed to be that cruel to the enemy. What if they looked at her or something?

[annyokie]

Chelsea Clinton = WMD? LOL

[2rightsleftcoast]

I don't think women should be on the front lines at all.
This is disgustingly stupid. I saw a female soldier brushing her teeth outside a tank on tv. How do the men feel about living in such close quarters? This is wrong on so many levels.IMHO

[TheSpottedOwl]

Lets wait until this is over before we start hollering about feminism. There are still women over there and they deserve our full support. When everyone is out of there, this policy of having women soldiers removed from the front lines can be seriously reviewed.

Male soldiers can be raped and tortured too.

[skeeter]

This is wrong on so many levels.IMHO

Half this country lives in a fantasy world, with regard to this issue anyway. The current policy needs immediate reviewing - after this business in Iraq is concluded.

[Onelifetogive]

Here is my problem with the Geneva Convention...

I can't imagine two countries who would each be willing to abide by the "Rules of War" and yet not be able to diplomatically work out their differences. Wars are fought by at least one uncivilized entity.

The allies would never have engaged the Axis if they had left everyone else alone, we would have gladly remained out of Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Panama, Haiti, Somolia and Iraq if civilized governments had been in charge.

[HairOfTheDog]

This is not the time for daily threads bashing female troops while they are over their fighting. Support all the troops!

Policy criticism can wait. Right now, take the cards we have been dealt and stay together.

[ClearCase_guy]

To be perfectly honest, I think the Geneva Convention, and Rule sof Engagement are bad ideas. Seriously. War is hell. Sherman knew it. Look at WWII in Europe and in Asia. We did bad, bad stuff. And why? Because we were serious about winning.

I don't think we should try to be bad. I would be reluctant to torture POWs. I would be reluctant to shoot civilians. But, I think if we want to get serious about winning wars, and reducing our own casualties, we should be more serious about saying: "Take the city. If it moves, shoot it. There will be no war crimes trial for any of you. Because we're gonna win, and the winners don't face charges."

[/rant]

[MayflowerMadam]

I totally agree that women should not be on the front lines. Feminism has not been kind to women. All it did was make men weaker and less responsible. In the end, feminism was bad for women and good for men. Rush Limbaugh wrote a great essay about this, but you don't hear much about it. (But we're talking about two separate things here: Woman. Chelsea. Similar but not matching.)

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh, sure, I guess male prisoners could be ... abused. But, really, I think we can all agree that nothing really bad could ever be done to a male prisoner. Women, on the other hand, could be [gasp!] raped.

Your point is not lost on me... Cruelty is something only women can be subjected to, and the type of cruelty hardly matters. They all need our prayers.