Iraqis raped Lynch during her captivity, book reveals

Yes-fork lift operators (called heavy equipment operators) go on field problems. Supplies have to be brought to the field and they have to be lifted off trucks (that accounts for truck drivers). Soldiers in the field have to eat so that accounts for cooks, be more specific about what type of machine operator and I'll tell you exactly how they go to the field (boy-you really showed how you weren't ignorant or uninnformed there).

I used to work in a factory and we had women running fork lifts and operation heavy machinery and they did just fine. We had some 50-some year-old women that could outwork men in their 20s because they had run those machines for 15 years and were in better shape! lol

You walk into a recruiter's office and you tell them what kind of job you want (not your rank-idiot). If you are a male and you want a combat position, no problem, if you want a "push-button" job-also no problem. the recruiter will tell you how long the training is, how long you have to enlist for and what bonuses are available. If you're a female the recruiter will tell you that you are ineligible for combat duty.

Yeah, I bet. I watched a show about an aircraft carrier. There were some on the aitcraft carrier that said their jobs sucked. My guess is that they didn't go in and say "I want this job".

Regardless we are going to have as many infantrymen or artillerists are we do now, because we are already getting that number from only the males who are already coming in. They are choosing the jobs they want and aren't ineligible for whatever they choose. If they want to be a mail clerk (they go to the field too) they can as much choose to do that as be in the infantry.

I find that hard to believe.

Now, what you do is you take that $2.2 billion dollars that you've saved and you give everyone a $1000 raise. Then you take the $700 million (effectively adding 40% to the recruiting budget-or to put that in terms you can understand-about 40 NASCAR sponsorships) you have left and you go to those males who haven't joined and you say "We've got all these 'push-button' jobs-we've got plenty of infantry, thanks-and we're paying a lot more than we were before. I'd say that would overcome the "law of diminishing returns" you keep talking about.

Nah. You're losing credibility with me by saying "any job is yours, you don't have to be a grunt", so now I'm questioning everything else you said. And let's not forget your first claim, that men will not join if they think there may be women around where they train. Come on now, you're pulling this stuff out of your butt. So I'd say I was right in the first place about my second point, that recruiting females for less-demanding jobs saves exponentially in recruitment costs. And of course my first point is my main point and hasn't been touched that a better choice of a human resource leads to a better force and less casualties.

Of course, since those same males who go into combat arms now are still going to be there regardless, it will not make any difference in terms of lives saved at the front if we replace the females in the "push button" jobs at the "rear", but it might save a few lives when those "push-button" types discover that they aren't always confined to the "rear".

Nah, by filling less-demanding jobs with women, a better choice of men is available for the more-demanding jobs and that saves lives.

See-your problem is that you think the "choice" about who does what job is made by the military. But, there is no "pool" to choose from. The individual decides the job that he wants when he visits the recruiter (when he goes to MEPS really, but the choice is still his). A guy goes in and looks over his choices (he isn't ineligible for any military job so long as he meets some basic requirements-MPs have to be so tall for instance). He can say "Infantry-now that might be fun or exciting" or he can say "Water purification specialist-that sounds like one of them 'push-button' jobs-that's for me". The military then has to make do with whatever the individual decides. It's not as if an infantry officer is hiding behind a two-way mirror and says "That's a big, strapping lad. He wants to be a dental assistant, but we're going to make him become a machine gunner". The quality and quantity that you get have to come from the decisions that the individual make-not the military.

Yeah right! Once you join, you're in. And when you get done with basic, you're put where they need you.

Nondeployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more nondeployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm ...

That same article points out that 43% of women who joined the Army in 1995 did not complete their enlistment contracts (the overall rate is 30%, meaning that it is somewhere around 24-25% for males, thus females are about 180% more likely not to complete a tour of duty). The article further notes Every recruit who leaves early must be replaced early, in effect doubling the $35,000 it costs to recruit and train each of our soldiers.

Of course none of this takes into account the extra money needed to refit ships to accomodate females, the fact that one study found that 45% of military females could not throw a hand grenade outside of its blast radius (in effect they couldn't throw it far enough not to be hit by its own explosion) or the fact that it is marginally more expensive to outfit and equip a female than it is a male (think clothing and feminine hygeine products).

Thanks for that VERY INFORMATIVE post. Your post highlights some of the problems I have in general with putting females in many military positions and in particular the position Lynch was put in. Just as the women mentioned above put a hardship on the Army by not fulfilling their enlistment obligations, Lynch put a hardship on her unit by not fulfilling her duties as a soldier during the journey to various checkpoints and the ambush on her unit in Nasireyeh. By doing nothing, she was actually less than a zero during this mission: she was a burden and a handicap. Those familiar with military exercises know that resources are scarce and must be used frugally. Jessica was a waste of needed resources out there: she consumed needed food and space and provided nothing in return that was needed to complete the military objective. From what I've read of the ambush, it was clear to me that the First Sergeant was protecting her instead of treating her like he would have treated a male soldier -that's why she was riding in the back of the Humvee in the first place. Do you think the First Sergeant would have let a male soldier just ride in the back when he had a 50 cal. that needed manning as they made it through the city the second time? Yet this is where they needed her to be, but, let's be honest, it was no way that he or any other guy was going to put her out there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.