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 ...
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
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.
War is not a pretty thing, winning is and justifies the sacrifice.
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.
To see how silly this comment is, replce the word 'women' with the word 'men'.
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
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.
Feminists would like to have it both ways... Oops, did I say that out loud?
Nor from airplane, helicopter, and truck crashes - a major cause of death for our troops of any service or gender.
You're not a chauvinist. You're mucho hombre.
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.
Maybe one day people who enlist in the armed forces will understand that it is not a social club.
"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.
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.
Yeah. Must be like all those ultra-deadly female snipers we have heard about.
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.