Posted on 05/04/2005 4:50:17 AM PDT by Cornpone
KARMAH, Iraq — Lance Cpl. Erin Libby doesn’t want to be treated the same as her male Marine Corps counterparts. But she does want to be treated as an equal — even in combat.
In a way, she got her chance last weekend when Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment led a raid into the city of Karmah in search of high-value targets and hidden weapons.
“We’re out here, and we’re rocking on the front line,” said Libby, a 21-year-old from Niceville, Fla., who pinned on the rank of lance corporal during a break in the mission.
In all, 14 women from Combat Logistics Battalion 8 were called away from their usual jobs of supplying ammunition, food, water, fuel and mail for the three-day offensive that kicked off in the pre-dawn hours Saturday about 15 miles northeast of Fallujah.
Cultural sensitivities precluded male Marines from searching women, so the female Marines were meant to deflate fears of Iraqi men and women, said the battalion executive officer, Maj. Larry Miller. It was a first in Iraq to have female Marines embedded at the lowest levels of infantry companies and working alongside their male counterparts, said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jill St. John, 39, an embark officer with CLB-8.
“This is history. This is huge for us,” St. John said. “I’ve been in the Marine Corps for 18 years, and this is my first opportunity to be out with an infantry company. Even five years ago, the Marine Corps wouldn’t be doing this. This is a major change in how we think women can be used in the military.”
While female Marines were used in similar fashion during missions in Afghanistan, they were not fully integrated with line companies, St. John said.
“It wasn’t quite as dynamic as this. They’d wait at a camp in the rear and were called in when needed, often called in for resupply,” such as bringing in food and water.
“I’m so sick of hearing females can’t do this and females can’t do that. Blah, blah, blah,” said Cpl. Rachel Bergstrong, 20, of Cumming, Ga. “We’re in it as much as the grunts, and we love it.”
The battalion’s Lima and India companies absorbed the women into their ranks, giving them the primary mission to search women and children suspected of hiding anything. But the female Marines’ presence was not intended to show a softer side of the Marine Corps, said Capt. Mark Liston, commander of India Company.
“They’re still a fighting force for us,” he said. “With them, we can grab a wife [of a suspected insurgent], for example, put the screws to her, and find out where the husband might be hiding. And while it hasn’t been used here, [the insurgency has] been known to use female suicide bombers,” Liston said.
But there were times in which the softer side appeared in both the male and female Marines. When they weren’t raiding homes and businesses, the Marines were on humanitarian missions, handing out food, water and toys, especially to the hordes of children who flocked to the streets when the Humvees rolled in.
“Whenever I read about these humanitarian missions, I always thought it was so cheesy,” Libby said after tossing out handfuls of stuffed animals. “Now I’m the one sounding cheesy, but I like this. It makes you feel good inside.”
They’re often referred to as the WMs, or women Marines. They hate it, and the crass distortions of the acronym some say they’ve heard.
“We’re Marines, bottom line,” said Cpl. Dawn Lansberry, 31.
“I’m out here to prove a point,” Libby said. “A lot of males think females are weak. It’s time to shine, and I’m going to leave here golden.”
Someone needs to discuss some basic physiology with her. Women are physically weaker than men, and Marine infantry-style combat is a physically demanding work of the highest order. A Marine unit fights as a unit, and forging weak links into that chain weakens the entire chain, and places the lives of all in greater danger.
Social experimenters will protest that even an all-male unit has its weakest male member. And they might even try to argue that there are some women who are stronger than some weak men. Although they would be right in both cases in a narrow and limited sense, they would be dangerously wrong in a larger sense. The exceptions do not disprove the general rule, and they do not form a persuasive reason for changing the policy that keeps women out of front-line combat.
A more insidious effect of allowing women to serve in front-line combat is that it serves further to dilute traditional gender roles thereby further weakens the traditional family (we have diluted those roles so much already that I am confident that my even raising the point in warning will generate sneer of derision from some conservatives, not just liberals). When women are viewed simply as smaller men, we have a disaster in the making vis a vis the families of America.
It would really piss off our troops, and the terrorists had better watch out. I'm not too sure about this assumption of rape anyway, as the women captured in the initial war, and in the Gulf War, were treated well -- better than the men. That is part of their religion.
Most soldiers wouldn't be able to do that. However, I knew a woman soldier who could.
Maybe an old timer. That used to be FL's abbreviatation back in the day before they shortened all states to just 2 letter abbreviations. But you're right it's long out of date.
Hillary is a great person to look at for an examination of strength and weaknesses and she would have to admit that she has more weaknesses.....and then she should take into account that without Bubba, she would likely be a nobody at this point in time. Heard she still hates to be called Mrs. Clinton....but that is who she is.
You know one woman who could do this? This is your justification for changing the policy that keeps women out of comabt?
One can prove many an inane theory by cherry-picking one exceptional case to buttress his argument. Implementing inane theories in a combat setting has disastrous consequences.
Baloney!
Baloney!
Did you see the spoof MadTV did on women on submarines called "Crimson Tide"? It was hilarious and clearly showed why........
I better stop.
Tell that to an old girlfriend of mine who was an Army sergeant. She looked fairly normal physique-wise, but she could run any man in her company into the ground, and most likely could have easily kicked my ass. Glad I never pissed her off. There was a female in another company who was built like a tank, and was the best deuce-and-a-half driver I've ever seen (if you've driven them, you know the upper body strength it takes). She was also our M-60 gunner.
Granted, such women are the exception rather than the rule. But in an military where you're supposed to excel, why hold these exceptional women back? Let them prove themselves. Let them take the male PT test, let them hump it with the rest. If they can hack it during exercises then let them fight, if not, well, buh-bye!
Thank you for a very well thought-out reply that logically refutes every point I made. I must concede in the face of such eloquently reasoned discourse.
I thought the article was referring to BAM, but I don't know any alternate meaning to WM ...
In all fairness to the author, FLA was the official postal abbreviation for Florida, in years past. I don't remember exactly when they made the switch over to the 2 letter abbreviations, but I think that form of abbreviation is more of a reflection of the author's age.
When you say 80's music, are you referring to Van Halen or Flock of Seagulls?
It seems that they are doing everything they can to avoid involving them in a firefight or an assault - no instance of a firing their weapon is even mentioned in the article. They are called forward once females or children are detained for one purpose:
“With them, we can grab a wife [of a suspected insurgent], for example, put the screws to her, and find out where the husband might be hiding."
Have our guys roughing up Arab women in front of a village of locals would create more problems. The female Marines are employed for searches and interrogations in the field. Of course there are risks of ambushes or counter attacks that would see these women engaged in combat, but I am sure the risks have been weighed appropriately by brass in the field.
It's not a theory. If there are those that can hack it according to the male standards with no privilege or special treatment, then let them (no female PT test, please). To keep them back means 1) they aren't living to their full potential and 2) we just lost an effective fighting soldier.
Well, I see that you're a fool. Why don't you shut up?
I have known many other women (and worked for some) who had similar qualities of mental and moral toughness. Without exception I can say that these women did not and do not believe women should serve in front-line combat units. It is because these women possess superior judgment and mental toughness that they clearly see the terrible downside to allowing women to fight in front-line combat. They don't allow selfish sentiment and willful ignorance to muddle their thinking.
We need more such women, and fewer metrosexual males and effete liberals, in leadership positions. That's one reason why I'm excited about the potential addition of Justice Janice Brown to the United States Supreme Court.
Both :-) and various heavy metal hairbands
Dang, sorry i missed it.
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.