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 like that.
Seriously though, good article.
...and I agree with it 100 percent.
That makes two of us.
Yes!
I can't agree. Our female soldiers have done some uniquely valuable things.
There was a fascinating story awhile back about the team who tracked down Saddam. The team leader was a female 1LT. Do any of you want to tell her she shouldn't have been deployed to Iraq? Can Mr. Engelhard say he's done more for our military efforts than this female officer?
More importantly, we need female soldiers to search female civilians, and to guard them when necessary.
Mostly, I'm glad we have female soldiers to set a civilized example in the barbarian countries where we operate. I'm glad that Afghan girls and women can see United State soldiers -- some of them female -- who do a good job, and deserve the respect and thanks of all American citizens.
As a guy and a soldier I know there are difficulties with women in the military. I just think the benefits outweigh the problems. And if it gets the terrorists ticked off, so much the better.
How do you set a civilized example with a barbaric practice?
I don't know what you're trying to say -- infantry, armor and artillery units are basically all male today, just as they were on D-day. So if we had today's military policies back then I imagine the Normandy invasion would have looked about the same -- maybe with a few female medics, jeep drivers, clerks, etc in the mix. And the outcome would have been the same.
I have no idea what you mean about the Tet Offensive -- in fact we had females in the U. S. military in 1968, mostly in medical units.
I recognize some challenges of women in the military. But I also recognize they've made some heroic sacrifices. The author of this article should be a little more thankful, and a little less snide.
If this thread is just going to be a lot of bashing of women in uniform, I'm not going to stay and argue. The author if this piece should be a little more thankful for all the people who serve in uniform overseas -- male and female. I suspect a lot of our female soldiers have made more of a military contribution to this country than anything he's done.
This prison incident is not a license to start bashing big groups of people in uniform -- whether it's the active duty folks who slam on reservists, or male soldiers who slam on females. It's not right. Let's leave that behavior to our friends on the left.
Women don't belong anywhere near the battlefield for reasons of morals, morale, efficiency, cost, physical ability, etc. Women mixed up with men who are facing death will always be a formidable lure to those men and will be the occasion of resentments and less than optimum morale. It is feminist to say that the male beasts just have to act better but you are fighting nature with that demand. Yes when the men misbehave they must be punished but that, too is bad on morale because only a few are caught and many many commit the acts. Sexual misbehaviour is covered up and uncaught more than any other military sin and its ramifications have a more direct bearing on morale than any other because it is so amenable to getting females out of harsher duties which the men have then to perform. The solution is to remove the women no matter whose fault it is. If you remove the men you have no army, no matter how many women there are to replace them. If you remove the women efficiency goes up; morale improves; everything improves, except, of course the sensibilities of the feminists. It may not be fair but it is not the business of the military to be fair. It is the business of the military to kill people and break things efficiently when that is required.</p>
The author seems upset with 'gasms. So was the government in the novel 1984. But his basic point is correct; intermingling between the sexes in combat or near-combat positions in the military can only lead to disaster.
>> Women are heroic for just being women.
I like that. <<
By that logic female cows, dogs, cats, ducks, elephants, and those of any species would be courageous by nature.
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.
>> More importantly, we need female soldiers to search female civilians, and to guard them when necessary. <<
Who did that in the World War I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War? Or weren't civilian women searched and guarded then?
Are you asserting she was the only person in all of creation who could have found Saddam?
hey, skylark,
You've been there.
If you think there is a place for women in the military, then I'll back you on spec.
( and THANK YOU for your service! )
The team leader was a female 1LT. Do any of you want to tell her she shouldn't have been deployed to Iraq?
Why not? In the meritocracy that the military was befor the feminization, the guy looking for Saddam would have been better qualified for the job. Might have found him sooner! The truth is that that 1LT was probably promoted and assigned AHEAD of better qualified men BECAUSE she was a woman
We look at what she did in finding Saddam but we DON'T look at how many men have died because the woman around them, when the shite hit the fan, were ineffectual. Nor do we examine how many woman CAN'T ACTUALLY DO THE JOB THEY ARE ASSIGNED. Yep, odd as that sounds it's true--you could go look it up. Try www.cmr.org
Well said - by both the author and you.
BTTT
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.