Replies

"Are military contractors veterans?"

That is the point made many who see this as pandering.

These WASPS who ferried planes in the USA were not veterans. They were contractors as well. They operated at the direction of the Army, in much the same way Halliburton operated at the direction of the military in the Gulf War.

Are people who worked as cooks or other people who set up facilities in Iraq or Afghanistan eligible to be buried in Arlington? (I don't believe they are) It is fair to say, with the environment of IED threats, etc. that those Halliburton employees were in as much or comparable danger than a woman ferrying a B-24 from Willow Run to California.

As for the 38 fatalities suffered by WASPS during the war, I would ask why they should be treated as veterans? According to government sources, more than 75,000 Americans died or became permanently and totally disabled in industry during the war.

My rhetorical question is, why would WASPS be treated differently in this respect than a shipyard worker, and how is his death when he falls 100 feet to his death in a drydock any different than a woman whose plane crashed on takeoff after getting 100 feet off the ground.

Shouldn't he be granted veteran status too?

Is it because they flew war-like planes, and had parachutes on their backs? Why would they be any different than the Civil Air Patrol, whose members were probably in as much or more danger, flying planes that might have been antiquated, poorly maintained, looking for subs, and enemy activity on the coasts, or looking for crash survivors from military or ferried planes?

My father served on a destroyer in WWII, albeit during active war for only a month or so before the Japanese capitulation (which as the crew members of the USS Indianapolis know, sailing the Pacific in the late summer of 1945 was no guarantee of safety). Granted,he also served on a front line destroyer in Korea as well, but I am not sure he heard the sound of gunfire, apart from their own guns performing shore bombardment. As a 30 year veteran, he is buried at Arlington...should he be allowed to be buried there? (the rules that have been in place for decades say yes)

I admit that I see this move as pandering to women.

There were over 400,000 combatant and non-combatant military deaths in WWII, of which 400 were women. And then when one enters Arlington National Cemetery, the largest and most visible structure you see is not the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, but the "Women in Military Service for America Memorial". That seems quite disproportionate to me, and more of an indication of political lobbying by active and vocal organizations than actual impact. But that is my personal opinion.

And I don't regard references to them as "heroes" with any seriousness any more than an NFL football player, a rock star, or a man who is crushed in a piece of industrial machinery manufacturing artillery shells should be referred to as a "hero". My dad was a hero to me, but not in the sense of the word as I see it used. I have heroes, but on a more personal level to me. (I fully recognize that many women view them as heroes, but that is also their personal opinion as well)

This has no level of disrespect to women, but is more towards the relative level of respect we should have for those who served and died in combat or in military service to their country.

I sincerely hope those of you who read this will not take this as a personal attack on you an institutional attack on women (though I suspect there may be some who will accuse me of both) but rather, the questions we should (or should have in the past before granting these women status as veterans) asked before taking action to declare them as such. I do believe it is a subject worthy of serious discussion.