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

Skip to comments.

Female soldiers: Prisoners of PC: Jane Chastain blasts Congress for putting women in harm's way
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, April 4, 2003 | Jane Chastain

Posted on 04/04/2003 2:15:35 AM PST by JohnHuang2

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."

That, of course, is rubbish!

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 507th; army; injuries; jessica; lynch; pfclynch; pow; womenincombat; wva
Friday, April 4, 2003

Quote of the Day by PogySailor

1 posted on 04/04/2003 2:15:35 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Absolutely shameful that this young girl was put in harm's way!
2 posted on 04/04/2003 2:40:36 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Who is this woman?

She starts with typical "tear jerking". She then moves to "we can't let our poor girls suffer like this" (but it's quite okay for the guys!).

She then de-militarizes PFC Lynch by calling her Jessica ( I really hate the media for this!)

Then the hammer "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. "

Let's just bring back the draft and assign all those able bodied MEN to the front! Of course, we neglect to mention that PFC Lynch was assigned to a MAINTENANCE Company, not exactly your normal assault force - but we can't let facts bother us in our ranting.

She does acurately reflect the mindset of the femi-nazis!

Later she talks of the ONLY basis for excluding women from certain roles in the military, ie ABILITY! It is indeed wrong to "equalize" a role which really does require more physical strength.

Then another "fact": "Soldiers cannot pick and choose their assignments." This is total BS. Soldiers are given the opportunity to choose, they just may not always get what they want. PFC Lynch was NOT assigned to a ground combat unit - but, any military unit COULD come under attack, which is why all soldiers learn how to shoot.

As much as I would like to accuse Clinton of all the evils in this world, facts sometimes get in the way. Women have been assigned to Combat Support Roles [ones in which the soldier was VERY close to the front lines!] since at least 1982. As a Field Artillery Target Aquistion Specialist in 1982 - 83 assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea, I personally witnessed this!

This woman is, by her words, disgraceing the brave actions of PFC Lynch and all the women who have served proudly in our Armed Forces. She should be ashamed!

3 posted on 04/04/2003 2:50:32 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Guys, do you hide under the covers and send you wives downstairs if you suspect a burglar is in your home?

I have two words for this twit... "F^*% You!!" Who the hell do you think put women where they are!?!?!? Your damn Feminist movement!!!!!

4 posted on 04/04/2003 2:52:38 AM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Sam Donaldson yesterday on his radio program was recommending she be considered for the Medal of Honor.

Until the facts are known (notice the multiple gunshot and stab wounds are not there) about her actions (if they even come close to what the Washington Post has intimated) I think this kind of talk is premature.

5 posted on 04/04/2003 3:17:37 AM PST by ChiefKujo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
”...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.

Bill Clinton, and his secretary of defense, Les Aspin were merely responding to pressure from Hillary and her feminist base/supporters. Pat Ireland and the NOW nags were demanding women share in all things masculine; those women should have been put on the front line to test the waters; the Clintons had/have no respect for the military be it schools or actual combat; they lowered the bar once again to prove – what? The congressmen bowed to the congress women and political correctness won the day.

6 posted on 04/04/2003 3:29:40 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Um Jane Chastain is not a feminist. She's an ultra-Conservative anti-feminist Republican. You are correct that shes a twit, however.
7 posted on 04/07/2003 2:34:21 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I don't see anything illogical about the article. She is not attacking PFC Lynch, but was attacking the laws that put her in harm's way. If people don't agree, let them try to keep it to logical arguments please.
8 posted on 04/07/2003 2:49:30 PM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
I was not responding to the article itself but to a poster who seemed to be confused about the author's political persuasion.
9 posted on 04/07/2003 3:40:21 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
bttt
10 posted on 04/13/2003 3:56:10 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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