Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Female Trouble : Women In War Face Worse Risks Than Men
National Review Online ^ | March 27, 2003 | Elaine Donnelly

Posted on 03/28/2003 10:21:58 PM PST by Dajjal

March 27, 2003, 7:30 a.m.
Female Trouble
Women in war face worse risks than men.

By Elaine Donnelly

Many Americans were surprised to learn of the plight of an enlisted woman captured as the first female prisoner of war in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, 30-year-old single mother of a two-year-old daughter, was seen on videotape, terrified, in the hands of Iraqi irregulars. Her captors had just killed and desecrated the bodies of several soldiers taken prisoner when their Army maintenance unit went astray on March 23.

Later came the news that Pfc. Jessica Lynch, a supply clerk, is missing from the same unit. These women and their surviving colleagues are in mortal peril, but leave it to doctrinaire feminists to celebrate their plight as a “victory” for women’s rights. Such is the tone of a New York Times opinion piece, titled “The Pinking of the Armed Forces.” This bit of feminist fatuity, published on March 24, is hereby nominated for the year’s “Most Clueless Editorial” award.

The Times hailed the capture of Specialist Johnson as an opportunity to smash the “glass ceilings” which have restricted women from being “employed” in Bruce Willis-type roles in real-life combat. And with irresponsible bravado — so typical of civilian feminists eager for other women to face the enemy — the editorial suggested that with the help of “sophisticated weaponry,” women just might “outperform” their male counterparts. You would think Billie Jean King was still battling it out on the tennis court with chauvinist Bobby Riggs.

Someone at the Times has been watching too many feminist fantasy films. Take G.I. Jane, a fictional portrayal of a shaved-head heroine (Bruce Willis’s then-wife Demi Moore) surviving the ordeal of training as a Navy SEAL. In a typical Hollywood vision, we see the comely character, shimmering wet in the shower, casually talking with her slack-jawed commanding officer. How else to explain the Times’s easy dismissal of concerns about healthy men and women being “distracted” in close combat?

Americans are now praying for the swift and safe return of our POWs, male and female. No one should be surprised, however, that Spec. Johnson and Pfc. Lynch are now at the mercy of Iraqi captors. These brave but unfortunate women are facing a misogynist culture and a ruthless regime — one unlikely to comply with the Geneva Convention requiring humane treatment for prisoners of war.

Current news brings to mind the story of Army Col. Rhonda Cornum, a flight surgeon captured during the 1991-92 Gulf War. Then-Maj. Cornum, a staunch advocate of women in combat, was subjected to “sexual indecencies” within hours of her capture. She was released eight days later, but said nothing in public about the sexual assault for more than a year.

Advocates of women in combat often talk about “sharing the risk” of war, but the truth is that women face unequal and greater risks. The vulnerabilities unique to women can and probably will be exploited by enemy captors in this and similar situations as the war on terrorism continues.

All of this is happening because rules governing the assignment of women in the military were changed dramatically during the Clinton administration. Prior to 1994, the various services had definitions of "direct combat" that included such elements as physical proximity with hostile forces, reconnoitering the enemy with an inherent risk of capture, and engaging the enemy with fire, maneuver, or shock effect in contested territory, waters, or airspace.

The exact definition of combat is important, since close combat is more than the experience of being shot at or operating in a war zone. But in 1994, then-secretary of defense Les Aspin redefined “direct ground combat,” and eliminated “inherent risk of capture” as a factor to consider in exempting women from serving in units previously defined as close combat.

To open up even more “career opportunities” for women, Secretary Aspin also eliminated the Defense Department’s “Risk Rule” — a regulation intended to exempt women in non-combat positions from being assigned close to the front lines. Because of these changes, thousands of military women will be serving at greater risk in Iraq than anyone would have expected less than a decade ago.

The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces voted against the use of women in combat for many reasons. In summary, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. The commission’s biggest concern, however, was the risk of capture and brutality uniquely cruel to women.

A majority of commissioners recognized that acceptance and encouragement of violence against women at the hands of the enemy would be not a step forward for women, but a step backward for civilization. The Clinton administration ignored the commission’s report, and Congress failed to schedule full-scale hearings on its findings and recommendations.

Now a real war is in progress, and the unwise policies ordered by Clinton and Aspin are being put to the test. The technological advances in Operation Iraqi Freedom have been truly amazing. But all the social engineering in the world cannot change the fact that there is nothing “fair” or “equal” about warfare.

Margaret Thorne Henderson, Spec. Johnson’s aunt, told Fox News that Shoshana had joined the Army to be a chef. Since soldiers must do what they are told, the young mother was “cross-trained” for a maintenance unit in support of the infantry. Mrs. Henderson, herself a 20-year veteran of the Air Force, calmly asked for and inspired prayers for her niece nationwide.

Pentagon officials and Congress could help by ignoring the doctrinaire daydreams promoted by the New York Times. Our women in uniform face unequal risks, and the American people need to think hard about what that really means.


Elaine Donnelly, a former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, is president of the Center for Military Readiness. CMR is an independent public-policy organization specializing in military personnel issues.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: combat; elainedonnelly; feminism; women; womenincombat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
CMR Concerned about Abuse of American Prisoners of War:
First Female Captive at Greater Risk

The Case Against Women in Combat:
1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces

1 posted on 03/28/2003 10:21:58 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: narses; Salvation; AAABEST; optik_b
ping
2 posted on 03/28/2003 10:23:16 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
I will admit it, WOMEN DO NOT BELONG IN COMBAT, may not be PC, but the truth is the truth
3 posted on 03/28/2003 10:27:04 PM PST by bybybill (first the public employees, next the fish and, finally, the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
People in the Forward Support Teams are AT LEAST as vulnerable to capture as those in "front-line combat." They operate in light trucks, are semi-detatched, and thus particularly vulnerable to getting lost and stumbling into situations that they cannot back out of, yet they are unequipped for serious combat.
4 posted on 03/28/2003 10:31:54 PM PST by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bybybill

5 posted on 03/28/2003 10:41:56 PM PST by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Only sissies and sheep send girls into combat.
6 posted on 03/28/2003 10:43:36 PM PST by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
"I will admit it, WOMEN DO NOT BELONG IN COMBAT, may not be PC, but the truth is the truth."

I agree. So would any rational human being.

PC doesn't matter here. FReepers, by definition, should be the last to bow to that.

Even so, I've read a few posts of late that attack that position as stone-age. Tough. That IS the truth. No nation on earth that wants to win conflicts are going to give service equality in ranks to men and women. PCism and/or equality has nothing to do with it - biology does, and we ain't talkin' flyers outside the norm.
7 posted on 03/28/2003 10:46:00 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
And SF face worse risks then cooks, Rangers face worse risks than DIs, pilots face worse risks than recruiters. But ya know what? They're all volunteers. A person has to want to be a soldier before becoming a soldier (or sailor, etc.), and that means accepting the risks. Why are so many civilian commentators convinced that women are not capable of assessing and accepting risk? The subtle sexism of lowered expectations, I suppose.
8 posted on 03/28/2003 10:46:34 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
The vulnerabilities unique to women can and probably will be exploited by enemy captors in this and similar situations as the war on terrorism continues.

I doubt seriously that men handle being raped and sodomized better than women. (And it happens, though it's seldom if ever mentioned.) There are better reasons not to have women in combat than this.

9 posted on 03/28/2003 10:56:39 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
But ya know what? They're all volunteers. A person has to want to be a soldier before becoming a soldier (or sailor, etc.), and that means accepting the risks.

So why should the risk of the unit be raised just because a less qualified person wants to volunteer? You see that is where we say thanks for volunteering but you would be an added liability to your unit.

Anyone who looks at the pictures of shoshana and lynch has to be insane to think they belonged in that kind of danger. I'm sure they are both good capable women but there are more appropriate places for them. Now they will be an absolutely defeating liability to their fellow POW's. I'm sure most people with an once of common sense can understand how that would be...

10 posted on 03/28/2003 10:58:22 PM PST by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
Oooooo, I am just sooooooooo thankful to my feminist sisters for liberating us poor, oppressed women enough to go get brutalized in war. I never knew what I missed! And I can't wait for my daughtert to have this golden opportunity, too!
11 posted on 03/28/2003 11:02:33 PM PST by Scothia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa
I doubt seriously that men handle being raped and sodomized better than women. (And it happens, though it's seldom if ever mentioned.) There are better reasons not to have women in combat than this.

Well then you are seriously wrong. But what men cant handle is the torture of the woman regardless of whether it is rape or not. Rape would of course make it worse. They will simply break down as a unit.

12 posted on 03/28/2003 11:03:12 PM PST by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
Their personal risk level is not the issue. What they create or cannot deliver to the unit is the problem. On top of that, you fail to make the most fundamental case for inclusion - size, strength, aggression.
13 posted on 03/28/2003 11:18:38 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
Just about every study done on sex related combat readiness, including ones done by the National Organization for Women, consistently show that female units are basically 4 four times worse in every measure. They are 4 times slower to deployment, take 4 times as much leave of absence, are 4 times more likely to get captured or killed in the first place, require 4 times the logistical support effort, and on and on. Until those numbers change, and I don't care why they are what they are, I'm totally opposed to females in combat roles. The military is a killing machine with a grave and sobering mission, one that is predicated on ruthless efficiency. It simply doesn't have the leisure of placating people's social objectives, or appealing to the civil rights of anyone. It's mission is crucial to the very survival of our Republic. Hence, it is simply foolish to support any person being put in that role with the 'combat readiness' numbers we see for females. This is why the military has medical qualifications for entry and job assignments: combat readiness. It's just common sense.
14 posted on 03/28/2003 11:18:41 PM PST by boltCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: bybybill
I agree. It puts our men in danger, looking out for the well being of the women. They drop their guard, if only for seconds, but it could be deadly. It is just the nature of American males to be protective. Let the women pilots protect the US, and other women soldiers on the ground, keep them out of the hot zone... Not for any other reason except common sense and survival.
16 posted on 03/28/2003 11:25:09 PM PST by Terridan (God, help us deliver these Islamic savage animals BACK into hell where they belong...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JMack
In addition to that, the unit morale is compromised through the inevitable male/female pairing that WILL occur. Protection and jealousy emotions and behaviors enter into the mix in ways that totally undermine the focus of what needs to be paramount. I remember reading something about a report on women on ships being removed for leave almost exclusively for reasons of pregnancy. The sexual factor alone is reason to drop this stupidity. And stupidity it is.
17 posted on 03/28/2003 11:27:27 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
It has nothing to do with accepting risk. It has to do with accepting how we were raised in this country, and how much our women mean to it. There are better ways to utilize these brave women, have them flying the skies of the US, etc. NO HOT ZONES...
18 posted on 03/28/2003 11:27:42 PM PST by Terridan (God, help us deliver these Islamic savage animals BACK into hell where they belong...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PuNcH
Excellent! That is what I have been trying to say...
signed,
A woman with a son who cares about women...
19 posted on 03/28/2003 11:29:39 PM PST by Terridan (God, help us deliver these Islamic savage animals BACK into hell where they belong...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JMack
ping
20 posted on 03/28/2003 11:39:30 PM PST by ILBBACH (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson