Posted on 05/17/2004 3:21:47 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Now that we've skipped over ''a chicken in every pot'' to ''an orgasm in every bed,'' maybe it's time to rethink this business of women in combat.
That smirking soldier-girl of ours, Pfc. Lynndie England, in all those Abu Ghraib ''prisoner abuse'' photos, well, that's another story--partly. The first part is that we've had enough of that wall-to-wall coverage of how BAD we are, when in fact 99.9 percent of our military is heroic, honorable, and decent. Also, we didn't bring this war to them, they brought it to us, and when it comes to abuse, brother, we're the amateurs at their profession.
But the second part is why I called this meeting to order. In my innocence, I always believed that men go off to war for the safety of their women back home. Sure, it's all for Duty, God, and Country, but it's still about protecting Mom, Sis, and Sally Next Door. There's also a pretty standard belief that guys should always be heroic and never be cowardly, and that there is no such thing as a cowardly woman.
Childbirth, by the way, is something no man could possibly endure. Raising a family is beyond the courage of most men.
Women are heroic for just being women. It's different with men. We've got to constantly prove ourselves. So, off we go into the wild blue yonder. That's one means to authenticate our worth. But what the hell are American women doing on, or near, the front lines? Things go wrong when you mix women with men-at-war. Sex happens.
Pfc. England, who's been reassigned from Abu Ghraib, is pregnant. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
If it's too politically incorrect to say that women belong in the kitchen, okay, girls, run a corporation, make yourselves doctors and lawyers, but stay out of our foxholes. That's why God Created Men. If you're out there with us in the same jeep, what have we got to protect? Who's taking care of the kids? What are we fighting for if there's nobody home?
Women do belong in the military, just as men belong in the kitchen…far away! Women excel in behind the front-lines valor, and that's where they belong.
Still at this moment, even after those books and movies, the ''heroism'' of Pfc. Jessica Lynch comes with an asterisk. Actually, when Lynch was returned to us, my first sigh was of relief, my second sigh was: What the hell was she doing there? Same goes for Pfc. England at that Iraqi prison camp. What the hell was she doing there?
Back in 1994, Bill Clinton decided that ''A Few Good Women'' weren't enough, so, heeding the feminist agenda, he flung open the doors of boot camp to what used to be called the fairer sex and issued executive orders allowing women to ''engage in all but direct battlefield combat.'' That's vague enough to put women in harm's way. Lynch was part of a supply unit when she was captured--and abused.
Let's not even try to imagine the abuse Lynch endured, or the tortures reserved for women who fall into the hands of our savage enemy.
Already one of those Iraqi mullahs has issued some kind of a fatwa, a demand that his followers seek out our girl soldiers for use as ''sex slaves.''
Women in battle fatigues--was this the deal when God Created Woman?
Apparently no fan of Clinton's ''gender quotas,'' or of a more ''sensitive'' military, is this particular woman, Elaine Donnelly, of the Committee for Military Readiness, a private organization that examines personnel issues in the armed forces. She says: ''Young mothers are being sent off--is this really the way we ought to be running our military?''
Who can argue with that cry of dismay, unless you're someone who believes that men and women are exactly the same, except that women have longer hair?
Most women who enlist never think it'll lead to war. Army Specialist Shoshana Jackson, another captive, wanted to be a cook, just as Lynch probably thought she'd be pushing papers in some safe preserve. Most women sign up for desk careers and seldom imagine themselves dodging bullets. It's only their feminist sisters, and leftist enablers, who insist that girls become G.I. Janes for the sake of ''gender equality.''
It's a terrible switch in our conditioning to imagine girls otherwise, as being trained to spit, cuss, burp, and shoulder a rifle with a company of grunts, as is being promoted by the feminist dogma that seeks to neuter the military and everybody else. Cyndi Lauper had it right: ''Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.'' I think that's how most guys think of girls, as the better side, the sweeter side, of our lives.
They are ours to love, honor, cherish, and protect, not the other way round.
If I do keep referring to women as girls, well excuse me, but that's how it was when girls were sweethearts. Novelist Irwin Shaw gave us the gift of a beautiful short story: ''The Girls in Their Summer Dresses.'' That wouldn't work as ''women'' in their summer dresses, and, how about that for a phrase that's worth a thousand pictures? Yes, girls!
Let's get it straight. War is hell. That's no place for a girl.
*I don't understand why they need to run down the service of female soldiers who are doing a good job*
That's a figment of your own silly imagination, Skylark. No one has done any such thing. Please *READ* the posts before you hit "reply."
If i said something too harsh then I'm sorry. I don't mean to be too critical of any of my friends here.
I got a sense that a few people here are pretty comfortable saying women shouldn't be in or around a combat zone without ALSO having some words of thanks or repsect for those who DO that dangerous service overseas for the country. That just grates on me. Many of us (like me) have changes we'd like to see in the way women and men work together in the military -- but before I'd make any of my suggestions I'd also say "thanks" for a lot of really good service I've seem from female soldiers.
Well, I'm one of those people who really thinks women ought not to be on the front line, anyway.
Support roles, sure. Lots of stuff we can do to free up the guys to go do the fighting.
The point isn't to run down the female soldiers or the job they are doing. Many are doing very well. We may very well be able to field an all-female army and still beat the snot out of the Arabs, who only seem to be brave and powerful with a bound, helpless victim.
The problem is that there was never a good reason to put women near combat in the first place. It was a political stunt. It is pushed and promoted by feminists who have not the slightest inclination to serve themselves.
For all of recorded history, with scarce exception the deal has been women staying home with the children while men fight. This is practical. How many empty slots do commanders have to fill that women have purposefully vacated through pregnancy?
"Oh," you say, "that isn't fair to the thousands of women who do faithfully serve." No, but the point of an army is not to deal out fairness or conduct a social experiment.
I think its evident now that the benefits are completely obscured by the problems, judging by the number of lexis nexis hits you are going to get on the femail 1LT that found Hussein, and the number of hits you'll get for PFC England.
Fact is, they should have benefitted from the same inculcation to the military that blacks did - all female units.
Personally, if a female can be as effective in combat as men, they ought to have a chance to prove it. With all-female units, they get that opportunity. With coed units, there is always the lingering question of who actually did the work.
Ask most military spouses how they feel about women in the military. I'd say being an Army mother with kids, and your mate being deployed for 12 to 18 months would be - difficult. Add the fact that your hubby is running a jail with a bunch of women and I would imagine it would increase that load somewhat.
It has ALWAYS been a bad idea to have coed units. It's history has chronicled one failure after another. Ultimately, its a disservice to qualified females as well as the CO's of the coed units. Every time a female gets pregnant, you lose another trained body, the duty rotation gets a little thinner, the 'ax murder ratio' of the enlisted mess goes up a tick.
And last but not least, you compare the unit cohesion of an all male unit to that of a coed unit - no comparison. Unit cohesion is a massive factor in the effectiveness of a unit, its ability to improvise in a bad situation, or overcome spotty or questionable or outright bad intel.
I used to share most of the views you outlined in your post. But in the last few years my views have changed a lot -- based on the things I've read and some of the great female soldiers I've met and worked with.
This is precisely the mentality that has led to today's self-centered "I am a goddess" selfish women. Just existing as a certain sex is heroic? Please.
And men most certainly could do childbirth if they wanted to. This article is lame.
Thanks for your articulate thoughts.
To make a brief reply, I'd just say that our military today is FAR more lethal and effective than it ever was in the past. Today the whole world can only stand in awe at our power.
So while we all have a few changes we'd like to see in the way our military operates, things have to be pretty much on a good track. I'd say that includes our personnel policies -- including the very high entrance standards that apply to men and women.
So what you are saying is that since our advantage on the battlefield, which I think most military experts would agree would be attributable to technology, is so large, we can afford the degradation of unit cohesion and family stress that coed units cause members and families.
Things are not pretty much on a good track. If you want to attract and keep good men and women, you have to present them with the best career circumstances you can. Separate women units from male units, and women on the battlefield is now a wide-open possibility. You also make military spouses that much happier.
With regard to your first paragraph, I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully disagree with your statement that the source of our overwhelming is mostly from technology. The caliber of our people is far higher than it's been in past decades and past centuries. Right now it's very hard to get into the military, and that's heavily due to mental screening. Removing a lot of women from the equation would cause us to lower metal standards to enlist more men, and I wouldn't recommend that.
You make your points very well -- I hope I don't seem obtuse or argumentative if I respectfully disagree with part of what you've written.
"I'm thankful for all who work for freedom in our military. I don't care if they are male or female -- they all have my respect and admiration."
You have no right to limit the framing of the question that way. Men DIE (and some of the females do too) because some girl wants to do something she is not fit to do, as proved by all of the changes that HAD to be made to have her there in the first place. (This also happens with police forces)A mans LIFE is worth some stupid broads self esteem?
I say "stupid broad" because what else do you call someone who takes something she hasen't earned but was given to her none the less (and for political reasons, no less). Who knows for a fact she can't perform to a mans standard but feels she has a right to be there any way irrespective of the danger it creates?
It isn't good enough that "they are doing their best" If my best isn't good enough to do a particular thing then I can't do it. They don't belong in many of the jobs they're in. That is not an opinion--it is a FACT. Check with Elaine Donnely. And, for that matter, the late Lt. Hultgren
Beautifully put.
When you look at that again, my hunch is you'll say, "Oops, that was a mistake." But it's not a mistake. It perfectly captures the argument certain people are making.
"Are you telling me that a man's life is worth as much as a woman's self-esteem? Balderdash, I say."
Well I think you've stated your opinions about female soldiers very clearly.
Hmmm,
Not saying I agree or disagree with any statements here...but I am curious where you heard that the team leader was a female soldier.
I could be mistaken, but the team leader was actaully a Special Ops Officer conducting a "Black" Operation...I did not think they had any females (in spite of the GI Jane
movie).
Doesn't prove or disaprove your argument...just curious.
B.S. So men don't raise families?
I'll see if I can find the link -- I remember the story vividly.
The story was about the military intelligence team from the 4th Infantry Division that figured out the identity of the only guy who knew where Saddam was hiding. It took them many months, as they worked out complex relationships among thousands of Iraqis. Once they knew who that guy was, he was captured and interrogated.
I'm sure Special Ops folks and lots of other people also had their own roles to play in the capture, like you mention. There are probably some good books waiting to be written.
Praising women for enduring biological functions is one thing. Calling them heroic for doing so is silly.
Lest I be flamed, I am a woman who has given birth and raised children. It was my priviledge to do so and I certainly couldn't have done any of it without the help of a wonderful man. It's all about keeping things in perspective.
Very well said. Thank you.
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.