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 ...
Whatever.
susie
You finger the exact reason a woman's death is more important than a man's. When a man dies, just that man dies. When a woman dies, all her babies die with her.
What is the Catholic view on this?
"Of course, I also worry that this will be used to further turn Americans against armed conflict in general."
ding ding ding. We have a winner. Imagine a mob of Islamo nuts getting their paws on a female soldier or two followed by videotaped sexual assaults and culminating with their execution. The public's reaction would be very strong to say the least. Get those women out of there.
Good point. The upper-body strength tends to revolve around the twin unsupported assumptions that all men in the Armed Forces are He-Men and all women are pale slips of daintiness who meet only the minimum standards set by their services. And also that any time a soldier is wounded and non-ambulatory, the only other soldier available to evacuate them will be that waif. It's an appeal to probability, but I think it has more to do with gender roles than actual probability.
The "hand-to-hand combat" argument has me scratching my head, too. I'm sure it happens from time-to-time, but aren't most soldiers issued firearms?
There are other arguments against women in the military and naval services, and some of them are a bit more pragmatic. But I don't think the strength one, as usually argued here, is a very good one.
Only if they are in her uterus at the time of death. Unfertilized gametes don't count. (If they do, then my butchery easily exceeds the Holocaust.)
Sorry if I upset you Susie. I really wasn't arguing with you but rather I was using your posts as a straw man (woman).
You're conflicted and so is society. On this issue, I'm not. Either integrate women in every facet of the military (including draft registration) or get them the hell out of the military. I'll accept it either way, but where we are now is only hurting our capability to defeat our enemies.
Nothing like a sweeping generalization!
Men and women join the military for a variety of reasons-patriotism, to gain skills, to use skills, to do something really cool like fly jets or spacecraft, because they don't know what to do after high school, because they don't know what to do after college, because bad guys attacked their country and they're hopping mad, etc., etc., etc. There are as many reasons for being in the military and staying in the military as there are people in the military.
To say that men want to win while women just want to be there is ridiculous.
Women don't volunteer to leave their homes and families, go live in uncomfortable conditions, work ungodly hours at extremely stressful jobs with little or no margin for error for substandard wages and have the added bonus of risking their lives doing it just to be able to say, "I was there."
The rejection of motherhood, puts women in the same posture as a man...
You're welcome!
My opposition to women in combat has always been very simple: When our daughters and wives to off to war with us, what's left to fight for at home?
In the interest of full disclosure, I've been out of the military for almost ten years now. Mrs. Doohickey is an Aeromedical tech in the USAF Reserve. She's really good at what she does, though she does struggle with lifting 70 lbs. over her head (a requirement for flight qualification). :)
That is an excellent point - what is left ot fight for when we ask our women to fight?
Okay, now we're talkin'.
Nothing more than political correctness run amok. The chickens have come home to roost thanks to the nags,lib. MSM,and spineles gutless political hacks.
A good question to point out the importance is this. Which group has a better chance of survival, 100 men and one woman or 100 women and one man?
Watch "Full Metal Jacket". Is that atmosphere conducive to women?
Of course now the recruits have "stress cards" and the DI's have to pledge not to cuss in front of them.
The idea of women in combat is just another manifestation of the degeneration of our Society and our Country.
Troubling??? What??? These PC ass holes are the ones who wanted women in combat in the first place. Them and the stupid women's movement. Shut the F up and take 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.