Americans for the Military Petition to President George W. Bush

Center for Military Readiness ^ | Sept. 7, 2003 | Elaine Donnelly

[Oschisms]

Petition to President George W. Bush

Whereas, the nation is proud of the men and women who are serving their country well in the War on Terrorism, and the Commander-in-Chief who leads them; and

Whereas, some activists are trying to use the capture, serious injury, and/or death of female enlisted soldiers in a support unit ambushed in Iraq as an excuse to promote radical feminist objectives, such as the inclusion of uniformed women in Special Forces helicopters, submarines, and many land combat units; and

Whereas, the majority of military women, especially enlisted soldiers, have been affected by the previous administration's 1994 decision to eliminate the Defense Department's "Risk Rule," and are therefore being required to serve in combat support units known to involve a "substantial risk of capture;" and

Whereas, there is no demographic or military need to routinely send young mothers to fight our wars, or to encourage acceptance of violence against women at the hands of the enemy; and

Whereas, numerous studies have convincingly shown that due to physical differences, female soldiers do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive, in close combat environments; and

Whereas, Army co-ed basic training has been found by the Army Training and Doctrine Command to be "not efficient" and of no objective military value; and

Whereas, the nation appreciates the leadership of President Bush in restoring military readiness and morale, but the families of both men and women in the armed forces are still concerned about personnel policies that make military life more difficult or more dangerous;

We Respectfully Ask, Mr. President, That You Direct Uniformed and Civilian Pentagon Officials to: Find a way to allow military women, especially those in support units, to serve without undue exposure to "a substantial risk of capture" in or near close combat units, to the greatest degree possible;

Restore single-gender basic training in the Army, which experts have recognized as a more efficient and militarily effective format for male and female trainees alike;

Review and revise well-meaning but problematic pregnancy and family policies that hurt readiness by increasing single parenthood, and poverty in the military, as well as the incidence of long-term separations of young children from single or dual-service parents;

Revoke perceived pressures for gender-based recruiting goals and quotas, which unnecessarily burden recruiters and increase the cost of maintaining a strong and ready All-Volunteer Force.

SIGNED:

[Oschisms]

I met Elaine Donnelly at CPAC this weekend. When she found out I was a FReeper, she asked me to post her petition on FR.

So if you agree with it, go on and sign it.

[Oschisms]

Bump for later bumping

[Prodigal Son]

Find a way to allow military women, especially those in support units, to serve without undue exposure to "a substantial risk of capture" in or near close combat units, to the greatest degree possible;

It's not possible. You're either in the military or not.

[Oschisms]

I disagree. The Israeli Army has women serving, but how many times do we hear of female Israeli soldiers being captured, wounded or killed?

Note that the petition doesn't call on the military to completely assure that female soldiers are never captured. It says:

Find a way to allow military women, especially those in support units, to serve without undue exposure to "a substantial risk of capture" in or near close combat units, to the greatest degree possible;

What you are saying is that there is no way to lessen the risk of capture for female soldiers. That's patently absurd. For instance, female soldiers could be banned from low altitude flights over enemy territory. Surely that would lessen the risk of capture.

And note that it says "find a way." If, as you say, such a way does not exist, fine. At least we tried. Personally, I think we should try.

[Prodigal Son]

I disagree. The Israeli Army has women serving

And the Israeli Army has troops deployed to how many countries? The situation they deal with is drastically different from the one we deal with. They have a known situation with know danger areas. We do not. Today our battefield is Iraq. Tomorrow it is Sierre Leone. The fact is we just don't know.

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not. You can't have it both ways. Either females are in the military or not. They're either allowed to do certain jobs or not. There is no proper front in Iraq. It is impossible to demarcate an area where males can go and females not. You either ban females from military service or you accept the fact that a military job will place the person in the line of fire- regardless of gender.

That's patently absurd.

Ok. Whatever buddy. It's not possible. The military isn't set up along gender lines. A truck driver is a truck driver because the effing truck has to get from point A to point B not because of the sex of the driver. If your job doesn't involve you in the combat nature of the operation- you're not really essential to the military are you? If you aren't essential to the mission, there's no reason to carry a weapon is there?

Either ban women from the military or not. If not, allow all people meeting the physical standards to serve. Cut and dry.

[Oschisms]

All very good points. The sex segregation is much tougher to deal with in counter guerilla warfare. I think we should try to avoid female POW's for several reasons, first and foremost their propaganda value.

As to banning women from the military, if it increases military effectiveness, I'm all for it. If it decreases military effectiveness, I'm against it.

I disagree with your point that GI's not involved in the combat nature of the operation are nonessential. Doctors are not involved in combat, but they are certainly essential to the military. Clerks that deal with the endless paperwork involved in getting supplies to the men and women in the field are not involved in combat, but they are essential to the success of the military enterprise they are supporting.

If we get a more effective military by restricting female soldiers to those kinds of jobs, great. If we get a more effective military by allowing female soldiers to be Special Forces, also great. I just think that the former is more likely to be true than the latter.

The argument that when you take the king's shilling, you ought to expect to be shot at is a compelling one, but if having certain soldiers wounded, killed or captured undermines the effectiveness of the army, it might be wise to not put them in harm's way. Or that is to minimize their exposure to combat. Cause your point that you can't completely eliminate the danger is correct. Although it is not an argument I was making.

[Prodigal Son]

Doctors are not involved in combat, but they are certainly essential to the military.

Yes they are. You cannot achieve combat without all the clerks, doctors and mechanics. The overwhelming majority of people in the military are not trigger-pullers but support for the trigger pullers. Remove the support and the trigger pullers cannot function. Support is definitely related to combat effectiveness.

BTW, Iraq is typical of the combat scenarios America will face in the future. It is not atypical guerrilla warfare. There are only two countries capable of fighting a convential war against the US- China and Russia (and those only under stict conditions). It is very unlikely that we will fight either. No matter where we fight in the future, our enemy will memorize the page from the insurgent's handbook not from the Cold War Soviet one. This atypical combat is what we have on our plate from here on out- until the next thing is evolved.

Therefore: any military job that places you in proximity with combat troops (ie- close support) will place you in proximity with the enemy. If females are pulling those jobs- they will be on the 'front'. End of story.

[Oschisms]

Yes they are. You cannot achieve combat without all the clerks, doctors and mechanics. The overwhelming majority of people in the military are not trigger-pullers but support for the trigger pullers. Remove the support and the trigger pullers cannot function. Support is definitely related to combat effectiveness.

Yeah, that was my point. We agree on that, at least.

Therefore: any military job that places you in proximity with combat troops (ie- close support) will place you in proximity with the enemy. If females are pulling those jobs- they will be on the 'front'. End of story.

And since it isn't politically possible to call for a ban on female soldiers in close support, the petition works around that by calling for

Find a way to allow military women, especially those in support units, to serve without undue exposure to "a substantial risk of capture" in or near close combat units, to the greatest degree possible;

If it turns out that the greatest degree possible is pulling them out of close support roles, that will be the next step.

BTW, the military already reserves certain jobs for certain sexes, hence the ban on females in combat. So in truth, your argument is not with me, but with the Pentagon and the CINC.

Agree 100% with the fact that Iraq is what we'll be facing in the future as opposed to conventional warfare. If only our military vocabulary evolved as quickly, then I would never use the word "front," which has led to some confusion.

[David Isaac]

I am of the opinion that we are arguing around the main point. Women may have uses in the military, but definitely not to the point they are being used now.

How many people, of either gender, do you think were really behind the "inclusion" of women in the military in far more roles than was historically the case. To risk answering my own question, I would say very damn few and those few were radical fems. But their view seemed to capture the fancy of most of our politicians and (then?) the Pentagon. I would stake my life that there was not one person in a hundred (a thousand perhaps) who thought that women needed an expanded role in the military.

This most definitely would not be the first case of policy being adopted that has been the wish of some small fringe group of liberal fruitcakes. You can expect responsible, rational behavior from your elected leaders, just do not expect to get it.

[joesnuffy]

I am a combat inf vet...lived for a year with other grunts in the jungle

there is NO place for a woman nor should extra accomadations be made for them
in an infantry unit..or any unit close to the fighting

end of story
imo

[Lucy Lake]

Ping.

[UCANSEE2]

The usage of females in the military is not a new thing, and they do have a place to serve, as do the males.

Some males become leaders, some fighters, some clerks. I believe that women may see and have been contesting their non-inclusion as fighters to be discrimination.

It is not. It is recognition of the best value, the best use of an American's time in the military to serve his or her country. Our country gets the most out of it, and so do you.

We want the BEST results, or we risk losing our country. I don't want a fighter cooking for me, nor do I want a woman with a chip on her shoulder fighting for me. I want total concentration. It's not about what you, male or female, can or cannot do.

It's not about you.

It's about SERVING our country in whatever capacity you are selected. Being proud to be an American, to have equal rights, to be able to do what is needed to protect, to take whatever role assigned and give it your best, that's what it is about.

[Arpege92]

I am signing this petition for one reason and one reason only....my son. He is only eleven years old right now but with the world the way it is, wars are coming and going and one of these days when my son is grown, his country may call on him to serve. It's something I pray that will never happen, but if it does, I want my son and everyone else's sons to have every opportunity and advantage to get home safe and sound.

If our son's are going to risk their lives, shouldn't we at least alleviate any unnecessary burdens they may carry with them. Let's face it, women are physically weaker than men. Their's no shame in that and we need to stop pretending that their is. Women cannot carry their own weight in combat and before I had become a mother, I would have disagreed and protested that line of thinking. It's different now....I love my son, I want my son to be safe and I don't care who may be offended by my remarks.

Women have a place in the military, but it's not beside the men in combat.

[jla]

^

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.


For...


We Were Soldiers Once and Young


http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
(Photos)

.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

"Either females are in the military or not."

I agree...and I am a female. My husband is a Marine officer. Women screamed "equality," and that is not how it is. It's either women are in or women are out. Women should have to run the same times, perform the same # of sit-ups and pull-ups, or else they should step aside. The military is *not* a social experiment. The military shoots to kill & runs to survive. End of story. No whiners need apply.

[PsyOp]

As a former Army officer who came up through the ranks and who now has a daughter serving in Iraq with the 1st Cav as an NBC specialist, allow me to weigh in here.

I agree with much of the petition. I do believe that women should be kept out of harm's way as much as possible and kept in the service units performing the non-combat functions. I do not believe they should be kept out of the military entirely, though. As citizens, they to have a right to serve in this nations defense if they so desire, and as long as that service does not degrade operational capabilities.

The biggest problems I found with integrated units was not that women could not do the job, but that the presense of women affected how the men did their jobs. One reason is that men are naturally protective of women, and in combat situations this can cloud the decision-making process in ways that most of you can figure out for yourself.

One of my biggest concerns for my daughter is not so much what will happen due to enemy fire, but in what could happen in a theater of operations where our own soldiers are not allowed contact with local females. Far from home, stressed, lonely, some of her fellow GI's may be more of threat than Iraqi's. I have thoroughly counseled her that her conduct in Iraq has to carefully thought out so as to minimize those dangers. I even provided her with pepper spray and told her that she take it with her everywhere, even to the shower, and never to travel, even in garrison without someone she trusts.

As for Iraqi's, I told her to shoot first and ask questions later.

Unlike a conventional war, Iraq has now degenerated into a guerilla conflict in which there is no front. That makes things difficult when you are trying to keep women out of harm's way.

One must also remember that women have served in one way or another in all our military conflicts. Mostly in the medical corps, but in other capacties as well. Their presence and service has been a plus both for the jobs they performed, and for the morale boost their presence gave to male soldiers. This should not be discounted.

Today, with an all-volunteer service, we would not be able to meet recruiting goals if we did not accept women. Unless, of course, you want to lower the standards even further than you think they've been lowered.

As for my personal stake in this, I know that I worry far more for my daughter than I would if I had a son there (I won't even go into how my ex feels). But that is my cross to bear. If she were captured by some of the animals that are operating there, I don't know what I would do. I want my daughter to be able to serve because that is what she wants, but It would be better if she were doing so here in the states doing some vital job in place of someone better suited to pull a trigger. Something I hope she never has to do.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

You're absolutely right.

The women who died in Iraq were not purposefully sent into combat zones. In fact, they were driving trucks, supply trucks. Their convoy took a wrong turn.

It was tragic, but they also were heroic in their behavior. Every single one of them. In fact, by their actions they defy what this petition is asking. Those women who are flying jets, or who have asked to be put in positions of danger, do so knowing what they may endure. Such as nurses.

Not to mention the women who served when I did. The nurses who gave their lives during Vietnam. I might add that there are women and men, like myself who are still paying a price for our service, even dying from it. Because I took care of troops who were sick. I would argue against those who would say that I shouldn't have served. In fact, I consider it a slap in the face considering all I have gone through and will continue to go through. I'm not the one complaining after all. I'm proud to have served. I'd gladly do it again, even knowing what I know.

Women losing their lives isn't new. Women have been patriots for a long time. Read on:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FACT: Over 400 women died as a result of their World War I service.

... in World War II approximately 400,000 American military women served stateside and overseas. Women served in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and as members of the Women Airforce Service Pilots. Women served in every theater of the war and in many nontraditional roles. Eighty-eight female military nurses were held prisoners of war. More than 460 women lost their lives during World War II.

... women did not receive permanent military status until the Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 (P.L. 625-80th Congress)? This bill, signed into law by President Truman on June 12, 1948, granted women permanent status in the Regular and Reserve forces of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and newly created Air Force.

... during the Korean era over 50,000 women served stateside and overseas? In-country Korea, Army nurses served in Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals (M.A.S.H.), and general hospitals, while Air Force nurses supported air evacuation missions and Navy nurses served on nearby hospital ships.

... that 7,000 American military women served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War? The majority were military nurses assigned to military hospitals, air evacuation, hospital ships, and field units. Some were wounded and the eight women who died are memorialized on the wall at the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial.

... the first woman general was promoted in 1970? On November 8, 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Public Law 90-130 removing legal ceilings on women's promotions that had kept them out of the general and flag ranks. This law also dropped the 2% ceiling on officer and enlisted strengths for women in the armed forces.

... in the fall of 1976, women enrolled in the military service academies? Only months after President Gerald Ford signed Public Law 94-106, establishing the admission of women into the academies, 119 women entered West Point, 81 entered the US Naval Academy, and 157 enrolled at the US Air Force Academy. Women also enrolled in the Coast Guard Academy and the Merchant Marine Academy.

... approximately 41,000 American military women deployed for Operation Desert Shield/Storm making it the largest single deployment of military women in U.S. history? Women served in all areas of the Operation except direct combat. Two women were prisoners of war and five women were killed in action.

... women have participated in US military operations in Grenada, Panama, Honduras, Bosnia, Croatia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti? They deployed in expanded roles and with new risks because the laws banning women flying in combat were repealed in 1991, and those banning women from duty on combat ships were revoked in 1993. Today military women serve in all jobs and assignments stateside and overseas except in direct ground combat and in units with a high probability of direct enemy contact. There are currently an estimated 362,000 women in the armed forces, on Active Duty, and in the Guard and Reserves.

... in March 1996, Sergeant Heather Lynn Johnsen became the first woman to earn the badge for guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? Later that same year, Patricia Tracey, USN, and Carol Mutter, USMC, became the first women promoted to three-star rank. US military women are deployed throughout the world and have supported major missions including Operation Able Sentry on the Serbian/Macedonian border; Operation Joint Endeavor and Decisive Edge, NATO missions in Bosnia; and Operations Southern Watch, Pacific Haven and Provide Comfort, supporting the no-fly zone established against Iraq and offering humanitarian relief to Kurdish evacuees.

Here is the website it is from (in the *Did you know* section).

http://www.womensmemorial.org/


http://www.womensmemorial.org/DidYouKnow.html

[NMFXSTC]

I was a USMC grunt platoon "doc"...ditto....1965 - 1966, no tents (poncho was home), ambushes, patrols, Bn size eight and nne day ops, slit trenches, C-rats, no soap, no shower (paddy water!), and no combs (I was Navy, of course...am FMF doc, soi I refused to cut my hair...what they gonna do, send me to Nam?)...

Yeah, give the gas support billets, preferably completely out of theater.

Sngle parents? Keep 'em out, throw 'em out!

Prego? Outta heuh!

This "new" force is too small, too slow, too clumbersom with "touchy feely" crap...the job of the military is, after all, to KILL PEOPLE AND BREAK THINGS...Big Time!