Prisoners of political correctness

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: April 3, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Thank God Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch has been rescued from an Iraqi hospital where she was being held as a prisoner of war!

Jessica was part of the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Co. that fell into an Iraqi ambush, which led to the deaths of some of her fellow soldiers and the capture of a least five others, including Spc. Shoshana Johnson. The fate of Pfc. Lori Piestewa and several others still is unknown.

If your heart wasn't in your throat when you saw the pictures of Jessica on a stretcher, or a wounded Shoshana being interviewed by her captors, then it's time for a reality check.

Something is terribly wrong when the most powerful country on earth is assigning women service members to units where they are subject to capture, rape, torture and death, while able-bodied men are stationed out of harm's way or, worse still, at home in the comfort of their living rooms.

Guys, do you hide under the covers and send you wives downstairs if you suspect a burglar is in your home?

We look down our noses in disgust at Saddam Hussein's disregard for human life – and his brutal treatment of women – but we are deliberately sending our young women into combat zones so that they can be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Time for a reality check!

The feminists celebrated the news that Johnson had been taken prisoner and put on public display. Alas, another trophy on their road to prove that men and women are interchangeable fungibles!

"The capture of this woman," they croon, "proves women are just as brave, capable and well-trained as men and have just as much chance to survive."

It may not be fair that a man is, on average, six inches taller, 30 pounds heavier and – more importantly – has 42 percent more upper body strength, but it is reality. The dirty little secret in the service academies and our boot camps is that women are passed right along with the men because of "gender norming" – where the emphasis is on "equal effort," not equal results.

While the numbers are fudged to make everything come out equal in these controlled environments, these same women will not have an equal chance to survive on the battlefield. That is why women are not supposed to be assigned to ground combat units.

So, how is it that Lynch and Johnson – who were trained as a file clerk and cook, respectively – were assigned to a unit that was ordered into the heart of Iraq?

A lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of our serial philandering former president, Bill Clinton, and his secretary of defense, Les Aspin. In 1994, Aspin redefined direct ground combat by eliminating "inherent risk of capture" as a factor in deciding whether a unit was judged to be "close combat" or merely "combat support" in order to open up more "career opportunities" for women.

This was a cold, calculated political decision. Enlisted women like Lynch, Johnson and Piestewa were considered expendable in order to serve the needs of women officers, who would use their deaths and capture as stepping stones on their way to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The important thing to remember is this: There was no shortage of opportunities for women to serve in the military then – and there is no shortage of men who can serve in battle zones today. This is not about giving Army women the choice of whether they want to be assigned to units in battle zones. Soldiers cannot pick and choose their assignments. If women can be assigned to these units, they must be assigned to these units.

However, it is Congress that makes the laws governing our military. Therefore, the blame must be laid squarely at the feet of these lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, who find it a lot easier to sacrifice enlisted women than undo the damage and have to face the ire of a handful of radical feminist lawmakers they see every day on Capitol Hill.

It is time our lawmakers forget about political correctness and face the realities of keeping the men – who must do the heavy lifting in these units – alive, and keep the women, who are providing invaluable support services, out of harm's way to the greatest degree possible. To do anything less is mere cowardice.

I met some Royal Marines when I was working in Norfolk VA a few years ago and they had a female Corpsman. Do they go into battle with females Corpsmen? These Marines that I am speaking of protected her fiercly from the American Marines. No doubt they wouldn't risk their own lives to protect her in battle.
As a side note, remember how jubulent Feminist were when Shannon Faulkner was admitted and removed from the Citadel? It is all symbolism to them-no substance!

Female Corpsmen can be assigned to Marine support units (usually where the female Marines are, since female Marines cannot serve in combat roles). They have to go through the same Field Medicine School as do male corpsmen assigned to Marine combat units. All Navy Corpsmen attached to Marine units have to meet Marine weapons qualification standards and physical standards. Basically, if there's a female Corpsman attached to Marines, she'll be attached to a support unit, as a female Marine would be. It's not that there would be a lone female Corpsman out with a Marine infantry unit, but there could be one with a supply or logistics unit.

I have a (male) friend who is a Navy corpsman assigned to the Marines. He says that in the support units, the female Corpsmen are as well-respected as a male Corpsman would be. He agrees with me that a female Corpsman in an all-male combat unit would NOT be a good idea, and says most of his female colleagues agree with his view.

Just as for any woman in a support unit, just because you're not in a combat unit doesn't mean you won't be endangered or come under fire.

I agree that upper class feminists who argue women can be equally good soldiers as men are full of horsemanure.

But women have always been in the support services--read your history: (not all "camp followers" were hookers: Most cooked and cleaned and sewed and cared for the sick and wounded).

And when things got rough, these women could take up the sword and fight. I was astonished to read that Cortez's army in Mexico had a couple of women, and one was such a good swordsman that she frightened their attackers when cornered.

It's interesting to read ancient history and find these women in the footnotes of wars. So things haven't changed as much as you think.

As for women warriors: Women are rare in combat because armies that have had women in these positions find a high pregnancy rate. Ten percent of Russian women fighting on the lines in WWII were pregnant when captured. (about the same pregnancy rate as women in the US services in the Gulf war). Women with a gun are equal to a man; women with a big belly are less mobile.

Except for Queen Isabella of Spain, who had nine kids and ran a war against the Mores when seven months pregnant...

Women free men to concentrate on combat tasks. We couldn't do without them since it would take away badly needed manpower from the battlefield. In any event women have the same POW protections regardless of whether they're assigned arms or not provided they wear a military uniform and serve in units near or at the front.

She is has a fighters no doubt about it..when you are scared to death you got two choices paralysis or fight...but she got that from her family not the US Army

A grunt has to hump 100+ lbs of gear days on end...no showers little sleep inadequate food and then fight and often do it all over again..A grunt has to count on his buddies and be counted on by them..He cannot afford to fret over them or try to establish a male female relationship with them and compete with his fellows for her..and concentrate on the war at the same time..

The femanists care not one whit for the mission the cohesion of the unit or their survival they only care about their agenda and cooking data to accomplish this..of course their more covert agenda is to destroy the military whose male traditions they loathe as they do the traditions of their own fathers and their nation imo

I believe Jessica Lynch served as a support specialist, not as a front-line soldier.

... secretary of defense, Les Aspin. In 1994, Aspin redefined direct ground combat by eliminating "inherent risk of capture" as a factor in deciding whether a unit was judged to be "close combat" or merely "combat support" in order to open up more "career opportunities" for women.

Goldstate, do think this point contradicts your assumption(s), or are you contesting how the Aspin mandate has been implemented and the effects thereof?

I don't like the idea of women in combat, but right now probably isn't the time to argue this issue.

The military women that I have met are determined, motivated, patriotic soldiers and nothing ought to be said which might demean the fact that these young women are risking their lives for their country because they want to and they believe in America.

When the shooting's over, though, it might be a good time to re-examine this policy of putting women in harm's way. Let's have a forum where they put Pat Schroeder, who was the author of all this, on TV with the parents of these brutalized women soldiers.

THIS is the reason I don't want to see women on the battlefield.

How can you minimize the strength that is necessary to serve as a brother-in-arms? I would not want my son, my brother, my father to have to rely upon a woman to physically save them in such a scenario.

I hope I don't need a flamesuit.

God Bless Our Troops.

secretary of defense, Les Aspin. In 1994, Aspin redefined direct ground combat by eliminating "inherent risk of capture" as a factor in deciding whether a unit was judged to be "close combat" or merely "combat support" in order to open up more "career opportunities" for women.

Aspin proved his lack of military knowledge when he refused to provide the us army tanks in Mogidishu.

However, even in the 1980's it was recognized that cold war tactics (at that time it was against the Russians) would mean quickly moving lines of battle and behind the lines attacks by irregulars.

Heck, my friends who were nurses in Nam (when they still had WACs and WAVES) told me that the first thing they learned on hitting Nam was how to shoot, and that they needed to be willing to kill in self defense.

In the modern army, there is no such thing as a "non combat" position: even 100 miles behind the lines you were in danger.

Theoretically, clerks like Jessica are support personnel. She was not supposed to be in danger.

But luckily she knew how to shoot.

It says a lot that the highly praised Iraqi army (according to leftists) had a lot of trouble overcoming ordinarly clerks with minimal combat training and no combat experience...

THIS is the reason I don't want to see women on the battlefield.

Back eons ago in basic training we were required to carry a fellow soldier 100 yds. I was about 6 ft 2 in at the time and weighed about 155 lbs. I got paired with Junior Samples. He must have outweighed me by 75 or 80 lbs, I thought I was gonna die before the finish line. Would hate to have my 185 lb 19 yr old son have to rely on a 100 lb female soldier to get him out of harms way.

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.