"State of The Union"--Interesting Audio clip about Women in the Military

It's only about 10 minutes (starting after a brief announcement), but it brings up an important point, namely that it wasn't fair to paint Private Jessica Lynch as the "typical" female military member, when there are many women who do their job well and have even been awarded medals for bravery in combat who don't get any attention at all. It appears that Private Lynch was probably more the exception than the rule (something I've often thought some Freepers should be reminded of). I thought it was very well balanced, given that it comes from the BBC

This is the first time I've ever posted anything :p The audio clip location is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/ram/fri2050.ram

Who suggested that Lynch did her job badly? From what I understand, she and her comrades fell into a spot of bad luck as will happen in war. Did any of them acquit themselves poorly?

I never thought or said that Pvt. Lynch did anything wrong. Like you, I thought she and her compatriots found themselves in a bad situation through no fault of their own. The speaker on the audio clip makes the point that some members of the military, male and female, are angry about Lynch being called a "hero," because they felt that entire situation resulted from a mistake (the driver getting lost). I personally think that is unfair. The point I was trying to make (and obviously failed to do) was that Jessica, small, frail, weak (as seen after her ordeal) was held up as an example of all women in the military (especially by conservatives); that is, wholely unsuited to military service. The audio clip points out several women who went above and beyond the call of their "non-combat" duty to save the lives of their fellow soldiers, winning medals in the process. If anyone was to be chosen as the "face of military women," why was it Lynch, and not Teresa Broadwell, the MP who killed "at least twenty" Iraqis when her HUMVEE came to the rescue of fellow soldiers during a convoy ambush? Liberals/feminists certainly love victims, and Lynch's story was perfect for them. Her story was also perfect for some conservatives, who never miss an opportunity to call for all or most women to be thrown out of the military, and will highlight any incident or statistic that supports that view, while ignoring anything that contradicts it. Certainly there are women who have no business being in the military, just like there are men who shouldn't be there, for many reasons. I choose to believe more of our women in uniform resemble Teresa Broadwell than Lyndey England.

First, I meant no offense; I was simply wondering if I had missed something in the telling.
Second, heroisn and courage should be used with great circumspection and should basically reserved for actions performed in physically dangerous situations. I'm getting peeved at pols talking about "hard" decisions and "political courage". Ms. Lynch did her duty as best she could and certainly has nothing to be ashamed of on that account.

If anyone was to be chosen as the "face of military women," why was it Lynch, and not Teresa Broadwell, the MP who killed "at least twenty" Iraqis when her HUMVEE came to the rescue of fellow soldiers during a convoy ambush?
Surely you jest. You don't understand why that heart-tugging story of a comely young blonde girl got so much attention from the media hyenas and the military machine anxious to push "good" stories?

With respect to the "media hyenas" I understand what you're saying. Like I said, for the liberal media, she was a walking Lifetime Movie of the Week, the plucky heroine who survived near-insurmountable odds. For the military establishment, it seems the only good aspect of the story was her dramatic rescue, and they absolutely should have highlighted that, as well as her ability to persevere. What I'm really talking about is the way some conservatives treated the story (Phyllis Schlafly and Elaine Donnelly to name two). There have been at least a few stories about women who weren't victims but victors during Operation Iraqi Freedom (for example Capt. Kim "Killer Chick" Campbell http://www.seniorwomen.com/articles/david/articlesDavidChick.html ). We should have heard more about them. Obviously, we're not going to hear as many stories about women being heroic as we will hear about men, but if they're out there, we should hear about them. Neither Jessica Lynch nor Lyndie England were the end-all-be-all of the experience of women serving during the War on Terror. By the way, I've never served in the military, though I considered it (there didn't seem to be an MOS that fit what I wanted to do in my career). I just have tremendous respect for all our men and women currently serving.

I just have tremendous respect for all our men and women currently serving.

As do I. Anyone defending this country deserves respect be it man or woman.

That being said, there's a good reason why no country in this world has an all female military, and the graves of our fallen are mostly filled with fathers, brothers, and sons.

Because of the feminist movement, and our PC military establishment, women are being put in harm's way - a situation most of them aren't biologically prepared to deal with.

While some women will be the exception to the rule, some will also return to their parents in flag draped coffins.

I have no problem saluting a woman who has killed my enemies, but I have a big problem promoting a PC agenda that will decimate our daughters, wives, and mothers.

The vast majority of persons returning to us in flag draped coffins are men. Did they fall because they were "weak" or because, for whatever reason, their time was up?

There is no way that a PC agenda can "decimate" our wives, mothers, and daughters. Any woman that joins the military is an adult, and capable of choosing her path, and the consequences that come with it. The number of women who join the military, and subsequently find themselves in a dangerous role (unlike a clerk or cook, or something) is incredibly small compared to the U.S. population of child-bearing-aged women. The audio clip stated that thus far, 25 women have been killed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. What is that compared to the women who are killed every year in car accidents, by their husbands or by their boyfriends? I guess my biggest issue with your argument is that it's uncomfortably close (IMO) to that of many leftists who claim to support the troops: that our troops aren't grown ups who serve out of love of country, fully understanding the cost, but instead are poor, ignorant pawns of the wealthy who didn't really have a choice. Female members in this case aren't just grown women who value freedom and the American way of life so strongly that they are willing to risk their own lives for it, but are instead puppets on a string for a PC Feminazi agenda. Are there PC Feminazis in the military? Yes, sadly (Brig. Gen. Karpinski, and Gen. Claudia Kennedy may be two examples), but are they all? I don't think so.

There is no way that a PC agenda can "decimate" our wives, mothers, and daughters

Of course it can. I never said it would wipe out our women soldiers, I merely said it would "decimate" them . Taking WW 2 as an example an entire generation of men were "decimated" through either death, dismemberment, or disease. If you think that can't happen to women who are encourged to enlist, or who may be drafted by a PC military, you're not thinking it through.

What is that compared to the women who are killed every year in car accidents, by their husbands or by their boyfriends?

Your feminist bias is showing. If you want to be objective you should include those women who kill their husbands, boyfriends, and children. But, we'll skip over this part, and move on.

I guess my biggest issue with your argument is that it's uncomfortably close (IMO) to that of many leftists who claim to support the troops:

I've been a lifelong Conservative who has always supported our troops even when it wasn't fashionable. To compare my arguement against women in the military to the leftist's PC agenda feels like you're grabbing at straws. Let's stick to the facts of the arguement.

...that our troops aren't grown ups who serve out of love of country, fully understanding the cost,

Of course women don't understand the "cost" of their military decisions. How can they if they're treated differently than men? Do you really think the average woman can go hand-to-hand with an enemy soldier? Do you think a woman has the same upper body strength as a man? Biology is reality, but our military has seen fit to "dumb down" training so that women's scores are equal to men's scores. That's why you'll never see an all female army, but you WILL see women who have been taught to act like men without knowing the full cost they will have to pay.

Now, I'll agree with you that there aren't many women in the military, and for that I'm grateful. Grateful because I believe that women are too precious to waste on a battlefield. If you want to talk about women in "safe" support areas of combat such as in the sky or on water that's a different subject.

Right here is a good time to ask: How many women knew they'd be going into combat when they signed up for the college perks? How many signed up because they wanted to be gung-ho warriors defending the flag? How many would NOT sign up if they knew they'd be shipped overseas far away from their families?

Are there PC Feminazis in the military? Yes, sadly ...

We both agree on this point at least. The military has always been a political institution, and where you find politics you'll find women - even if they have to put on a uniform. However, as the case of BG Karpinski shows women do not readily "fall on their swords" as much as men do. There is a double standard that raises its head when fault is to be found at a woman's headquarters.

In short women aren't men, and to pretend they are puts their lives in danger as well as the lives of the men serving with them. To those few women who can actually "cut the mustard" I've nothing but deep respect and gratitude.

Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the womem in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raiderand the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.

It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.

This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. That is not the case now as most pesonnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today's military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.

One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place. What would happen if we faced the sort of enemy that was able to afflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? Then the United States are he was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program has technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry men to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality.

Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG's and .50 cal HMG's, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted "dual physical training standards" was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.

Nazi armaments minister Albert Speer said that a significant factor in Germany's defeat was the failure to mobilize German women in the same manner as the allies did in WWII. In situations of full mobilization, they are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.

Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and accept them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military's mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.