Our brave women

TownHall.com ^ | Friday, April 4, 2003 | by Mona Charen

[JohnHuang2]

Pfc. Jessica Lynch has won the hearts and the gratitude of a whole nation. If initial reports are accurate, she showed enormous courage when the Iraqis ambushed her maintenance unit. Though she'd been shot, stabbed and sustained at least two broken bones (though it is not yet clear in what sequence), she reportedly fired her weapon until she was out of ammunition.

As one official told The Washington Post, she was "fighting to the death ... she did not want to be taken alive." They're talking about a Medal of Honor for her. This 5 foot, 4 inch 19-year-old gal from West Virginia sure did us proud. God bless her and her family.

But she should never have been anywhere near the battlefield. Women do not belong in combat.

It isn't that one doesn't respect women -- some of my best friends are women, and oh yes, I am one myself -- and I've no doubt that women are as courageous and as cool under fire as men. But far from representing a new frontier in the struggle for women's rights, putting women in combat represents the victory of a few zealots over common sense and right reason.

How did we get here?

Under current regulations, women are not permitted in direct combat units. But they're allowed to get very close. Until 1994, women were forbidden even in units that were "at risk" for contact with the enemy or capture. Under pressure from feminists who seek to erase all sexual discrimination from the military, President Clinton's secretary of defense, Les Aspin, eliminated "inherent risk of capture" from the risk assessments of non-combat units. Accordingly, women now staff many positions that are close to the front lines, and at least three women have been captured in the first two weeks of fighting.

Have you seen the face of Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson? An army cook who likes to make jerk chicken and curry rice for her dad, she, like Lynch, was captured following an ambush. Her terrified face has since been broadcast around the world. The Iraqis reportedly put her on camera just after they had killed some of her companions. At this writing, her status is unknown. She is the single mother of a toddler. The other missing woman is Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a 23-year-old mother of two preschoolers.

Yes, these women are all volunteers, but the question is not whether they are willing but whether we should ask them to take these risks.

Pentagon studies have consistently found that only about 10 percent of the women in the military services would choose combat if they could. Studies at the military academies have found that women are far less likely to be interested in war fighting courses like strategy and tactics than their male counterparts. And more surveys than you can name have shown that women lag behind men in upper body strength, size and weight. Many women are not strong enough to carry a fallen comrade over her shoulder. Some cannot throw a grenade far enough to be safe from its explosion. Many become pregnant while in the service, eroding readiness.

But the deepest reasons for objecting to women in combat come down to women's inherent delicacy -- a quality we should not lightly dismiss. Captured women are virtually certain to be sexually abused or even tortured. And men will go to extra lengths to protect the women around them -- sometimes at the sacrifice of their own safety, which is why women should be kept well back from the fighting. Feminists say men should stop worrying about us, that we're fully capable of handling ourselves. But most of us don't really want a world in which men stifle all chivalrous feelings for women.

Finally, there is the matter of motherhood. The two remaining women captives are mothers of small children. One is a single parent. The military has traditionally preferred single men to married men, the childless to those with children. Now we are sending not just young fathers but also young mothers into harm's way. This is so unnecessary, and such a terrible price to ask our children to pay. Anne Applebaum declared in The Washington Post that the argument over women in combat is over. Let's hope not.

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, April 4, 2003

Quote of the Day by PogySailor

[David Isaac]

If the CMH is awarded her, I'm not sure all those who have earned them will feel like keeping them. So far, nothing has proved sacred to those who worship at the altar of gender equity.

Ms. Charon is absolutely correct in her stand on women in the military and their being in harms way. I have no daughters but I have two young granddaughters and the thought of them in the hands of people like the iraqis makes me very queasy.

[ChiefKujo]

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.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

She has certainly earned some sort of medal (above and beyond purple heart), but CMH is pretty dubious.

[randita]

There have been dozens of heroes in this campaign. Jessica Lynch is just one of them. I wish she weren't singled out as MORE heroic than all the rest just because she's a woman. All the heroes should be lauded.

[Poohbah]

Considering 9/11...

Should we throw all women out of the military, then lock up all women in deep underground bunkers?

I mean, there IS no real front line any more.

[David Isaac]

Are you, by any chance of the belief, that women actually belong in careers like frontline police work, firefighting, heavy construction, etc.. I actually believed a line I heard about "teams", that a team is only as strong as its weakest member.

I could argue this point for a long, long time.

I do not recall even implying that women should be locked away. Only that we should use a little common sense instead of P.C.. Perhaps it is the intrinsic value of diversity that is the question.

I could be persuaded that women belong in such positions by any logical argument. I eagerly await such enlightenment.

[Poohbah]

Are you, by any chance of the belief, that women actually belong in careers like frontline police work, firefighting, heavy construction, etc.. I actually believed a line I heard about "teams", that a team is only as strong as its weakest member.

Apparently PFC Lynch is a great deal stronger than you are, seeing as how she's out there and you're not.

Kindly note that PFC Lynch was not on the "front line" in the classic military sense. Kindly note that battlefieds are tending to get more and more afrontal.

I could argue this point for a long, long time.

Indeed.

I do not recall even implying that women should be locked away. Only that we should use a little common sense instead of P.C.. Perhaps it is the intrinsic value of diversity that is the question.

And I'm asking--how much risk is acceptable to you? Is it greater than zero? If the acceptable risk IS zero, then how far are you willing to go to eliminate the risk?

[David Isaac]

It is not merely the risk to the women involved, it is the risk to all those around her. She simply is not going to be able to carry somebodies daddy out of harm's way if the need should arise. Whom is risking what in this case? The same is true in a burning building or in a free-for-all involving police officers.

What are the plusses for introducing women into these situations. Do they outweigh the risk to her and to her comrad(s). Again, what are the plusses?

[wardaddy]

BTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I should have known the King would post this one. I just got back from the McDonald's playroom with my 2 year old son and I read this in the editorial of the Tennessean while he played. Rare for me to pick up that birdcage rag.

Great essay from Mona.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

The other missing woman is Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a 23-year-old mother of two preschoolers.

She has now been listed as dead.

[cyborg]

Two-inch crowd circling like sharks ALERT

[Gamecock]

Sounds like a Silver or Bronze Star. No way a CMH.

She was doing what any soldier should do. The rule of thumb for a CMH: such bravery that had you not performed as you did, no one would second guess you. Had she not emptyed her clip(s) she would not have carried out her duty.

She did good, but not that good.

[LPStar]

She simply is not going to be able to carry somebodies daddy out of harm's way if the need should arise. I've posted this before on another thread, so forgive me. I've already stated I oppose women in combat because they might be captured and impregnated and tortured by the enemy with the pregnancy. (Men can have the same happen, except they can't get pregnant. I suppose if a woman was unable to get pregnant, I wouldn't have this objection to her serving in combat.) I do have to wonder about this "strength" issue, though. My brother, who was 5'6 and 120 pounds and not exactly a tower of strength, was accepted into the Navy and has been very successful there. I know another man who was in the Navy who is 5'4. If these men get in, many women could easily be just as fit or more. I'll also add this: the recruiter practically snapped up my brother the moment he showed up. Why? Because of his IQ scores. The Armed Forces are much more interested in your IQ than your strength.

[David Isaac]

I will cede the I. Q. part, it only makes sense. I dobt that the services risk their "brains" on a regular basis.

That being said, the military now has a vested interest in having women in the military, for purely political reasons. I doubt that since this was begun that the military would or could keep up any sort of entrance physical specifications for men. It would be unworkable, because there are few men who could not argue that they are as strong as the weakest woman being accepted.

Besides diversity and "feel good" politics, I have still to hear a good logical point for accepting women into the military for combat roles or near-combat roles.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt