Posted on 04/10/2003 3:19:09 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Pfc. Jessica Lynch will be flown to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., soon. She has been isolated from media coverage of her rescue and has no idea what awaits her when she regains her health.
Private Lynch survived the ambush in Iraq of the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, but can she survive the ambush of the feminine forces of political correctness that placed her in harm's way.
These people want to use her to promote their theory that men and women soldiers are the same. This thesis is, of course, unprovable. While women may be just as smart, brave and mentally tough as men, physically they are shorter, lighter and weaker. No amount of physical training can make up for these differences. Therefore, the feminist goal of a genderless society must be achieved by manipulation, intimidation and indoctrination.
The feminists found willing accomplices in Democrat presidents Jimmy Carter – who viewed war as unnecessary – and Bill Clinton, who wasn't above hiding behind the skirts he was unable to lift.
In 1979, Carter attempted to repeal the restriction that prevents women from serving in combat units. When Congress said, "No," he had his secretary of the army, Clifford Alexander, redefine "combat." When Alexander was finished, women were shielded from only 22 percent of the jobs in the services.
In 1993, Clinton's secretary of defense, Les Aspin, also went to work on the combat definition. Aspin eliminated the "no risk" rule, which had prevented women from being assigned to units in close proximity with hostile forces, where there is a high risk of enemy gunfire or capture. As a result, the combat definition now is meaningless and unsuspecting women like Lynch have been sent into battle zones.
Congress also played a pro-active role in this debacle. In April of 1991, during debate on the 1992 defense authorization bill, Rep. Pat Schroeder, D. Colo., persuaded members of the House Armed Services Committee to strike the language in the U.S. Code that barred women from flying combat missions in the Air Force and the Navy "as a reward" for their service in Desert Storm.
This hearing was not open to the public and there was no roll-call vote. However, there were veterans on that committee who should have known better – like "B-1 Bob" Dornan, R. Calif., and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R. Calif., the first fighter ace of the Vietnam War.
When the bill went to the Senate, members hedged their bets. They passed it with the Schroeder amendment while adding another amendment calling for a presidential commission to study the issue. This was tantamount to a doctor deciding to run a test on the reflexes of a patient's knee after the leg had been removed.
The bill was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, who also knew better! The Joint Chiefs of Staff had testified that lifting the combat exclusion for female aviators ultimately would force the armed forces to assign women to all combat units.
Unfortunately, all these changes in law and regulations were made with little fanfare, little mention in the press. Also, a myth was perpetrated that once combat positions were open to women, they simply would be allowed to decide if they wished to accept these dangerous assignments.
That myth was shattered on March 23, 2003, when the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company was ambushed after being lost, resulting in the capture of Pfc. Lynch, who is one of the more fortunate members of her unit. Nine are confirmed dead, including her former roommate, Pfc. Lori Piestewa. Five others are POWs, including Spec. Shoshana Johnson.
Make no mistake, the death and capture of any soldier – male or female – is equally tragic but a policy that does not take into consideration the profound differences between women and men is not only wrong, it is immoral.
Gender norming, the lowering of physical fitness standards and the combining of male and female recruits in entry-level training in all the services – except the Marines – is an attempt to gloss over these differences. This not only reduces individual readiness, it subjects our male soldiers, sailors and airmen to greater stresses and increases their risk of capture and casualty.
The combat-exclusion rule must be reinstated and the definition of combat redrawn before we face another war and a stronger enemy.
No one doubts the bravery of the women of the 507th. Let's just hope that Pfc. Lynch is as brave in confronting the feminists, when it comes time to address these truths, as she was in standing up to the paramilitary in Iraq.
Will she become a soldier of truth – or remain a prisoner of political correctness?
I'd rather you think it through yourself. Pick the top 3 wars that seem most likely in the next 20 years. What's the nature of those "civilizations". Imagine how we will engage the enemy. Weigh the odds of a elements in those battles regimental size unit verses a cops size units being captured.
Jessica is being used, but not by anyone pushing for women in all combat roles... She is being used by those against women serving at all in the military, in some kind of "Oh my God we can't let this girl be considered a hero or we are all sunk" kind of pre-emptive attack. It's unseemly.
It is likely that both sides will endeavor to use Jessica to advance their agenda. However, it's been my observation that the folks who are against women in the military have been the most vocal to date.
Of course, either side using this woman's courage and patriotism to advance their political agenda is contemptible. As the father of a woman in the military, I find some of the condescending gratuitous remarks about women in the military especially offensive.
Of course, no person, man or woman should be placed in a position they are incapable of handling. To do so would be placing an unnecessary risk to the soldier and his or her fellow service people. I believe there is little evidence to support the claim that are military has unnecessarily placed at risk the lives of our service people.
My service dates are in my bio (click on my name). As far as I know, the USMC still fields tasks force composed of regimental sized units. A Marine Amphibious (now Expeditionary) Brigade's was composed of a Regimental Landing Team, as well as similar sized air and logistics components. I just heard news of 3/5 (Third battalion 5th Marines). I presume the 5th Marine Regimental HQ is fielded, but maybe things have changed since 85.
Of course, either side using this woman's courage and patriotism to advance their political agenda is contemptible. As the father of a woman in the military, I find some of the condescending gratuitous remarks about women in the military especially offensive.
I fully agree with your post and couldn't say it better!
That may be, but that makes him no less correct.
I wasn't claiming that men could fight their way out. I was claiming that this was an instance of women being assigned to units that prepare to support troops in an active combat zone. Infowarrior says that Jessica's Direct Support Maintenance Battalion functions only at the corps level, but I'm not clear if he knows if its assets exclusively operate there or if they are expected to support battalion or brigade HQs.
Re the PT tests. Why should women have lower PT targets than men if they are expected to do the same job? I don't want to come across as some kind of right wing ideologue freak, but it seems that the two are incompatible. There are of course greater inconsistencies that Marines (and civilians) put up with, but unless someone has a better explanation than I can come up with, that's always going to be a thorn in the side.
I'm not even against women in the military. I dated a good one for several month (just after she got out on a hardship discharge for being a single mom). I'm just against pretending they're something that they're not (equal to men in combat support performance) and then treating them with all the special care that ladies should have. I say pick one, any one.
I think that if we're going to let little teenage cuties drive into combat zones among barbarians, we need to make it very clear to them the horrors that they risk, that they're going to be judged by male standards, that their privacy and dignity as a ladies will not be guaranteed. And to some degree, they need to train under those conditions, not just pull out of support roles when most needed. I'm sure there are some women who'd thrive in those conditions. And I suspect Jessica would choose another path.
So for women like Jessica, if we want to take advantage of the benefits they can bring to our military, there are needs in division and higher level units that could very much use their skills and service. I believe that those positions should be specialist positions, being an exception to the Marine's policy that everyone is a rifleman first, so that standards can be adjusted to their nature.
Having a two option service path should satisfy the radicals who truly just want equal opportunity as people who recognize our differences. And having different standards for each should eliminate the contradictions currently in our integration.
I think that it just looks that way because this is an instance that supports that side of the argument. A case could be made that the other side of the debate was using her to promote their goals by inappropriately putting her there in the first place. Not many of them are going to raise their heads very high or be very aggressive in promoting their position at this time.
But your claim that some here are "using this woman's courage and patriotism to advance their political agenda" is unsupportable nonsense. If anything, they're using the horrors of her tragedy to advance a "agenda". Of course they would label the other side's goals as an "agenda".
Translation: gosh, I don't have a frickin' clue as to what I'm talking about, so I will demand that the other guy do my work for me.
Pick the top 3 wars that seem most likely in the next 20 years.
Korea, Venezuela or Brazil, and either Iran or Syria.
What's the nature of those "civilizations".
None are particularly known for being polite to captives.
Imagine how we will engage the enemy.
In any such war, if we're deploying a corps headquarters, it means that we're putting boots on the ground as opposed to engaging the enemy solely by means of precision strike.
Second, the enemy can be assumed to have figured out the blindingly obvious: namely, that directly engaging American frontline combat units is a rather messy way of committing suicide. Therefore, the enemy is likely to avoid direct contact as much as possible, and to focus on engaging logistics and combat support elements.
Third, the enemy is unlikely to use uniformed forces, preferring to use irregulars who play at being friendly until they see an opportunity.
Weigh the odds of a elements in those battles regimental size unit verses a cops size units being captured.
A frontline regiment versus a rear headquarters? The HQ is by far a more likely target--fewer real shooters, far more "noncombatant" types.
Son, any one of those dirtball militaries have a better chance of capturing civilian women on our Texas border than in a division HQ during wartime. Go play with your toy solders and don't address me again.
Obviously both sides have an agenda. Using this soldier to advance their political agenda is unseemly for either side. Latching on to other people's fortunes or misfortunes to advance their own political cause has long been a tactic of the left. Conservatives should avoid it as it is always the weak sister to logical argument and is usually less than honest.
It would be nice if people could put their agendas aside, for once, and just celebrate that this soldier was fortunate enough, with the help of fellow soldiers, to have survived this ordeal and will be returning home to her family.
Oh, you mean that they'd all play by strict Geneva Convention rules so they would lose more quickly?
Get real. The world saw, once again, that to go toe-to-toe with a Marine 0311 or a US Army 11B is to court swift death.
They'll target the cooks, clerks, bakers, and candle-stick makers.
Go play with your toy solders and don't address me again.
Son, you probably know about as much about real battle as those bilious bastards at the Saturday Evening Post know about fornicating.
I love Patton too.
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.