Death toll of female troops 'troubling'

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 26, 2006 | Rowan Scarborough

[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.

[brytlea]

I said I was an old fogey. It bothers me still. However, I respect what they do. Sort of a quandry, I admit. BTW I am the daughter of an airforce vet (pilot) and the DIL of a marine fighter pilot. I don't think I'm a crackpot. Just from an apparently bygone era.
susie

[SteveMcKing]

"But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general."

Incredible non sequitur. Additionally, both the premise and conclusion are loaded and false, which would be a remarkable achievement were such a blindingly asinine statement constructed purposely (and not by one's personal lack of brains, as is the case here).

Examples of human stupidity aside, women wanted equality... they got it.

[Little Bill]

One of the things that people, Rat Voters, don't realize is that most Troops don't die from gun shot wounds, John Wayne type of stuff, but from accidents and having chunks of flesh blown from their bodies by IED's.

War is not a pretty thing, winning is and justifies the sacrifice.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"Women still cannot be assigned to combat units but do serve in combat support units. And since the war against the insurgents is a 360 degree war, no one is safe from IED's."

Precisely. I was in a Support Battalion for many years. Our "job" was to supply the front lines. We moved the "bullets, beans and gasoline." Being a woman didn't negate my end mission.

There is NO 100% safe position in the military. These women VOLUNTEERED for these jobs, as did I and hundreds of thousands of other women throughout history. There hasn't been a time in our history when women didn't take up arms or do what needed to be done to defend their families and country. :)That's Molly Pitcher, in case anyone doesn't know.

[Lazamataz]

"But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general."

To see how silly this comment is, replce the word 'women' with the word 'men'.

[brytlea]

Perhaps, altho if war came to our shores, I would fight if I needed to (I'd probably get killed right away, but I would protect my home and family).
susie

[Gritty]

was one of the first instructors to take women pilots entering Air Force pilot training. They were really good sticks.

Maybe you're impressed. I'm not. I spent many years in flying units working right alongside female aircrew members. Many could do the job but the other baggage they brought along often didn't seem worth the price.

[SteveMcKing]

Did someone say....... "troubling"???

[metesky]

Feminists would like to have it both ways... Oops, did I say that out loud?

[HaveHadEnough]

Call me a chauvinist if you like, but I see no reason why my wife or daughters should (conceivably) be called away to fight for me. The very idea is is offensive. I am supposed to fight for them.

They would not just be fighting for you, they would be fighting for their way of life. I see nothing wrong with that.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

Let me see if I got this right.... Back in the 90's women were screaming to be let into combat units and for a broader role in military units.... now that they are in harms way (which is what they wanted back then) NOW THEY WANT SEGRIGATION? NOW THEY WANT TO BE REMF'S? Now the womens libers are crying foul?

Sorry you fem-nazi's demanded it, now you got it! Tough S**T!
Suck it up and learn to live with it!

I have served with enlisted women and like enlisted men there are good and bad.... some you would march into hell with side by side, and others you want out of your unit so bad you want to scream. So no I really don't object to women being in harms way if they volunteered for it and are willing to go do their duty. What I strongly object to is the Fem-Nazi "We want our cake and we want to eat it too" attitude. It one way or the other Ladies you can't have it both ways.

GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS! BOTH MEN AND WOMEN FOR THE JOBS THAT THEY DO!

[Tax-chick]

no one is safe from IED's.

Nor from airplane, helicopter, and truck crashes - a major cause of death for our troops of any service or gender.

[DustyMoment]

Stupid article of the month.

Says it all for me!!

[353FMG]

You're not a chauvinist. You're mucho hombre.

[Vermont Lt]

Women dying in comabt is the "ultimate" in equal rights. If they want to do it, and they can physically, then more power to them. They have the right to love, fight, and die for this country as does any man.

Going one step further--if and when the draft is reinstated, it should be for everyone between the stated ages. Few exceptions. Few exclusions. Men, women, in college, working, etc.

One of the problems with this WOT is that there are very few people affected by it. Lets start acting like there is a war on, and I can assure you it will be over faster.

[usslsm51]

Maybe one day people who enlist in the armed forces will understand that it is not a social club.

[peggybac]

The ERA types will never be satisfied. Now that women are in combat they complain about the amount of deaths. Hello, you stupid men hating women - this is WAR! Oy, they make my blood boil. I am 100 percent against women in combat. The natural inclination of men is to help when they see a woman distressed - that can be deadly in war. And, women are the primary caretakers of their children (emotionally). How can they leave their babies? I just don't get it. OK, flame away

[Wuli]

"We have been forced to accept soldiers who are not the best for the sake of political correctness."

"Forced to accept..?????" and "soldiers who are not the best..???"...implies two premises that are not true. The second premise is that the military trainers, requirements and the commanders permit the placement of a woman in a job specialty and unit assignment that she is not qualified for. Does not happen. And the first premise is that everyone is "forced" to accept the second, which, is a non-sequitor since the second does not happen. The third unstated premise is: if the women who have volunteered to serve were not doing the jobs that they are doing,there is some vast resevoir of men who were going to step in and replace the 14% of our uniformed troops that women now represent; and the facts that thatr is not going to happen either; while we do make our enlistment goals, we do so just barely, we do so with the inclusion of the women who join and in the present war-time scenario we force the extension of the terms of many troops due to the quotas we need in certain specialities, which cannot be met by simply giving an existing soldier a job they have never had.

Someone had a slow day at the news room and had to fill some columns that would have otherwise remained empty, so they wrote a story that is a non-story. We have women in the military. We are war. People in the military get killed in war. Get over it, or vote for national and global isolation with appeasement forever.

[Non-Sequitur]

The ERA types will never be satisfied

The people being quoted seem to be from the Center for Military Readiness, which is certainly not a den of "ERA types". They're a conservative organization which seem to be pretty much against women in the military at all.

[rlmorel]

Yeah. Must be like all those ultra-deadly female snipers we have heard about.