Posted on 12/26/2006 9:09:21 AM PST by kingattax
The number of military service women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan has reached 70, more than the total from the Korean, Vietnam and Desert Storm wars.
"Some have argued that the women who have died are no different than the men," according to a report noting the 70 casualties from the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes women in combat. "But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general."
The reasons for the historical high casualty rate are multiple. Women now make up more than 14 percent of the volunteer force, performing a long list of military occupational specialties they did not do 50 years ago. Women in earlier wars were mostly confined to medical teams. Today, they fly combat aircraft, drive trucks to resupply fighting units, go on patrol as military police (MPs) and repair equipment.
What's more, the Afghan and Iraq conflicts are lasting longer than the relatively brief Desert Storm, which featured the first large contribution of American women in a war zone. But the real difference in Afghanistan and Iraq is the battlefield. It is virtually every road, neighborhood and rural village. Insurgents do not just attack front-line combat troops. Suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) strike at any time, meaning that women in support units can be just as vulnerable as men in ground combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
They see the females as women, not soldiers. They can't see the forest through the trees.
That statement does not compute.
Understatement award!
What's "troubling" are the number of Congressmorons and other lunatics who have a plan ala the ISG's to assure that the United States loses the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism. They would waste the lives of those who have already died and trivialize the heroic efforts of those who have lost arms and legs. The purpose of war is to win by killing the enemy as fast as possible, and that's what we should be doing now, using whatever resources it takes to finish the job.
The U.S., with a population of 300 million and the strongest economy in the world by far, has the means to win in Iraq, and to win the global war against terrorists.
Personally? I don't LIKE seeing women in combat positions, but if she has a fighter jet, or a big old M1 what's the difference? You could have a scrawny-necked Butter Bar Lieutenant straight out of ROTC in there too, but she'd be more effective right off the bat. ;)
Sorry. Personal prejudice/experience. I've had waaaaaaay too many male ROTC officers "assigned to me" as a Senior NCO. The first order out of the Commander's mouth was always, "No, Son. You just follow her around for a while until you understand what's going on and realize that SHE'S in charge, LOL!
And some people just get bent because they've never had the fun of blowin' up stuff...which is what I miss most, LOL!
My opinion doesn't negate theirs, but since most of the neigh-sayers have zero military experience, I consider the source. :)
You are not an old fogy! God made females for nurturing, and males as warriors and protectors.
I know that I will get flamed, but women have no business on the battlefield.
As a woman, I thank you!
Ever get the feeling that Scarborough is Elaine Donnelly's sister? ;-)
"Of course, I also worry that this will be used to further turn Americans against armed conflict in general."
I think you're right about that, and that was the intent of the leftist/femenists all along. They want people to see images of uniformed women saying goodbye to their crying children as they go off to war.
Now, I know a lot of military women and have even dated a few. They're mostly really good eggs and very patriotic, but anything that stays the hand of this country when it needs to commit troops to war should be eliminated.
More than that. You appear to want women to have their cake and eat it too.
How about this, require women to register for the draft with the men. If a draft is re-instituted, draft women for the jobs they now hold and in the same proportional numbers they now hold those jobs?
If that's not acceptable, get women out of the military altogether.
Well at least they don't try to say it's Bush's fault. I'm surprised to see it attributed so clearly to Clinton though. I would expect that to be concealed. Wonder what transgression Clinton was covering up when he decided to rescind the rule?
What? You actually watch Scarborough....?
I think you responded to the wrong post. I'm on your side.....
No, but then I'm a reasonable person. I wouldn't want a 5' 6" male 135 pounds trying to carry my 6' 1" 265 pounds either. But I have learned respect for female pilots who can take higher G forces than a man and operate under stress for longer periods of time. I have respect for a UAV remote female pilot who places the cross-hairs of a missile on a vehicle and blows the occupants away without a second thought. They do both those jobs as well as any man. If we were still fighting with swords and rocks I would agree with dissenters on this thread but war has evolved. The warriors have also evolved. Try determining which on-line gamer is male and female sometime based solely on their technological skill.
I don't know why you think I want women to have their cake and eat it too. I said I don't like women in combat type roles, but I respect those who are in the military. Just because I have misgivings about the role of women in the military doesn't mean I cannot appreciate their service, since after all they're fighting for me (and you).
So, go argue with someone else.
susie
I don't think you can have it both ways and be moral. Appreciating a thing you have misgivings about is a criminal response. Means you know something is wrong and you do it, or support it being done, anyway.
Not a good position to live in, in my opinion. 
You may thank Patsy Schoeder.
It might make more sense if you consider the reason behind laws against violence against women. People are not willing to see it and allow it. If people were just as willing to see women beaten as not, there wouldn't be laws against it.
But here is the willingness to place women in harms way, that is, subject to violence, by placing them in combat positions.
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.