The next battle for Pfc. Jessica Lynch

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?

"Are you saying that this woman didb't display patriotism or courage?"

No, and I'm also not saying that she doesn't drink water. But if you tell me people are taking advantage of her water drinking to further an agenda, I'd tell you that's unsupportable nonsense as well.

Sorry, this tragedy needs to be brought to light in order to help prevent its reoccurrence.

But that doesn’t need to detract from celebration of all that was salvaged. As far as we know, Jessica displayed the same patriotism and courage as the other members of the war, and displayed something more for having endured her treatment. Her story, her beauty and her sweet nature also won our hearts. And the extraordinary rescue inspires our nation. It should, is and will be celebrated!

If you don't show consistency and oppose all of this, it's reasonable to claim that you're just soft selling your side of the argument, claiming to take a higher approach. Excuse the comparison, but it sounds like Tom Daschle being "deeply concerned about the civility of the debate".

Do you go after the pro lifer's for showing live 6 week old fetuses in magazine adds

Funny (not really) that you should mention that but some of the FReepers you have been dueling with so nicely, do exactly that. Their inclination towards social issue moderation is pretty broad based. They have a place here no doubt. We used to call them Rockefeller Republicans. Now, if you are a rightist on culture war issues then you are a paleo...which is meant to smear you with the implication that you are some isolationaist kook or a racist or anti-Semetic. However, that simply does not wash. Most culture warriors here are also strong proponents of projecting American military might and have a very strong regard for Israel which oddly is supposed to make one a NeoCon. I think we'd all do best to relegate labeling to our liberal/Dem opponents.

I haven't found a label that fits me.. Paleo/Neo/pinch of Libertarian/Southerner/Staunch RKBA...etc...what I used to think was simply quite right of center Conservative.

Regarding "using her", if speed limits around a school are raised, and a child is nearly killed, will you be accusing those wanting to then lower the speed limits of exploiting the injured child? Do you go after MAD because they bring up all the people killed by drunk drivers? Do you go after the pro lifer's for showing live 6 week old fetuses in magazine adds. If you don't show consistency and oppose all of this, it's reasonable to claim that you're just soft selling your side of the argument, claiming to take a higher approach. Excuse the comparison, but it sounds like Tom Daschle being "deeply concerned about the civility of the debate".

There is no inconistency whatsoever. Citing high death rates to work against drunk driving has nothing to do with forcing a person's agenda on another so that they can capitalize on that person. It's using them plain and simple.

You have provided several examples but none on point. I will provide an example much more on point. Feminists are demanding that a certain professional golfer refrain from golfing at the Masters Tournament because the country club where it is held excludes women members. Here these feminists are attempting to latch onto this golfers fame to promote their agenda. They do no care on wit about the golfer. They only want to push their agenda.

That is what I am talking about with this soldier. Attempting to use her by either side to push their agenda is no different than the feminists attempting to use Tiger Woods.

The capture, ordeal and saving of Private Lynch does nothing to support the arguments for or against either position. It is in fact neutral. She was captured while others were killed. Both sides can claim this supports them but in fact it only states the obvious - she was unfortunate to be captured and fortunate to be saved. It is proof of nothing more. Trying to make her a poster girl for ones particular cause is nothing more than engaging in pure speculation.

The proper role for women in the military is important and deserves serious discussion. That discussion should be had without the propganda and with the facts and logic. By the way. A few years ago, a woman Navy pilot crashed her plane into the deck of an aircraft carrier. I would not put her in this category since in that case evidence surfaced that indicated she was given special treatment to qualify her. That type of information is important to the discussion. Thus far, no such information has came to light about Private Lynch.

It was a Test. The f-15 is the "Eagle"

There is the F-14A, F-14A+ Later(F14-b)Super Tomcat. F-14C, F-14D Quickstrike. and the Tomcat 21 long range air to ground variant. Attack Super Tomcat 21

They started with the Pratt and Whitney TF-30-p-412A turbofan which are the engines being replaced.

As for Females. There are a number of Male test pilots who were killed.

And you have still yet to make the case of a dual engine aircraft losing one engine. The P-38 was the first that had a stall and loss of one engine at low speeds sometimes at takeoff and it was bad enough to put forth the First test pilot of the P-38 to prove it can be flown with one engine. It is also the reason the NAVY performs the same type of test with the "Tomcat" if you fail the flame out you are out. it is also why the Engines are being replaced because the engines tend to have this problem.

The Marines have raised the bar for women as far as the PFT is concerned, and the level of training women go through in boot camp is exactly the same as their male counterparts.The Marines fought bitterly to keep a seperate but equal boot camp rather then go the co-ed route and it has served them well, where as the other armed services have had a number of problems with Co-ed recruit training.

The incidences of sexual harassment inside the Corps have fallen to better then just acceptable levels and women in the marines feel like they are part of the Marine Corps family, so what did the Marines do right.

Like racism The Corps to the issue of women in the ranks head on as only Marines can do, They raised the training standards, they raised awareness of sexual harassment, and they decided that any such B*$# S*&* towards Women Marines would not be tolerated or condoned. A hard line approach was ordered, and the marines followed that order, and because of it Women Marines are better trained and meeting the higher standards set. Does this mena that sometime in the future Women Marines will be involved in combat, yes, but not because the MOS's directly involved in combat have been opened up to them. They will be involved in combat because in the battlefields of the future in this war on terrorism no one is safe where ever they are, even in america, But they will be ready to fight back, they will have been trained to fight, and as the saying goes "Every Marine is a rifleman".

PFC. Lynch didn't choose to fight on the front lines, but it was the front lines came to her unit.

And she wasn't protected by the male soldiers in her unit either, some of the male soldiers in her unit escaped that ambush, they got away while the rest were captured...

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1741236.php

So much for the having to defend the little ladies that everyone opposing women in the military is so afraid of, and that they won't be able to hold their own in a fire fight. The facts speak for themselves.

It now becomes not a question of can they defend them selves if called upon to do so, or should they even be allowed to, but one of are they trained well enough to do so in the future, so that next time this type of incident occurs results will be better.

Raise the standards, increase the training, toughen the young women for what they may have to do, and you will do more to "protect" them from the horrors of war then telling them to sit on the sidelines, you will have given them a fighting chance at protecting themselves and their fellow soldiers.

I suppose it is also a test to Compare the torque effect of a twin engine prop fighter of the 1940's to a twin engine Jet fighter of today?

Jet blast doesn't roll a jet onto it's back when one engine is shuts down or fails. A jet engine thrusts an aircraft through the air while a propeller engine torques it's way through the air. That is simple aerodynamics.

The asymmetrical thrust problem of the failure of one engine in a twin engine jet fighter affects the yaw axis not the roll axis, and yaw is controled by the rudder pedals, your argument about male upper body strength is therefore bogus. Now if you had said that women legs are too short to move the rudder pedals or that their legs arestrong enough you would still be wrong. The rudder pedals adjust to fit the pilot, and since the rudders are moved by hydraulics, leg strength is not a factor either.

I hope that in the time between your last two posts on this thread you didn't waste it all learning everything you could about the F-14, you might have taken the time to do some research into The WASP's, because if you did you would know that testing freshly built combat aircraft wasn't the only dangerous missions they undertook. They also flew back to the states war weary and battle scarred aircraft barely held together by field repairs and towed targets for would be gunners to shoot at.

My knowledge of military aviation is vast and it comes from my time spent in The United States Marine Corps as well as my love for warbirds in general, In testing me you'll find I'm the teacher and you are the student.

" So much for the having to defend the little ladies that everyone opposing women in the military is so afraid of, and that they won't be able to hold their own in a fire fight. The facts speak for themselves."

As far as I can tell, there are no "facts" regarding this combat that would lead to such a conclusion.

I'd like to believe the favorable description of gender relations in the USMC, but there are other sides to that story. Some complains here regarding women marine performance in the first gulf war. Another story here regarding different size obstacles and rope for WMs. I found a more general set of women in the military articles exists here: WOMEN ARE JUST A CAPABLE AS MEN IN THE MILITARY (?)

It's good to see that WM training has made great strides toward equaling that of males. But failing to address the implications of different PT test requirements isn't going to make them go away.

"There is no inconistency whatsoever. Citing high death rates to work against drunk driving has nothing to do with forcing a person's agenda on another so that they can capitalize on that person. It's using them plain and simple."

MAD doesn't just "cite death rates", they show birthday and graduation videos of victims on PSAs, and then at the end mention that she were killed by a drunk driver. And as far as I know, the people who argue for restricting women to rear areas have done nothing close to as emotionally manipulative as that. They've done nothing as emotionally charged as the right to life example I gave either.

The example you gave of the feminist hounding the golfers at the Masters is way over the top. Until you see anti-women in combat people pressuring Jessica for public statements to support their position, there's not a hint of a comparison.

Its really more in line with the accident in front of the school analogy that I mentioned, using the accident as evidence of a problem. So unless you see that as using the poor student to advance a political agenda, your claim that the anti-women in combat people are behaving disgracefully looks like crocodile tears. (Unless of course that you know of some behavior that I'm not aware of.)

Very true ---she's a hero either way ---whether or not women should be in combat areas. All the arguments for women being in a volunteer army in combat zones would have to hold if there is ever a need for the draft. Should women be drafted equally to men and sent to combat zones then too? And doesn't pregnancy make them unequal if pregnancy can get them spared from the draft?

Should women be drafted equally to men and sent to combat zones then too?

No. But if a woman volunteers and is physically cabable, she should be utilized to the limit of her capabilities. My personal feeling is that in most cases women should be used in support roles rather than combat. I think the militray has an obligation to evaluate every soldier and place him or her in a position he or she will be most effective. And doesn't pregnancy make them unequal if pregnancy can get them spared from the draft?

Pregnancy would not make them anymore unequal than a male who is spared because of a medical condition.

There's a problem with your "pushbutton" analogy. Let's use the Patriot Missile battery example. How much do you think all of that equipment weighs? How hard do you think it is to service those radar vehicles? What about all of that camouflage net? How do you think that gets put up?

What about onboard ship? Welllll, what happens if the ship gets hit? Who hauls all of those heavy fire hoses around? What about the P250 damage control pump?

Even in an era of "pushbutton" warfare, there is still plenty of need for brute physical strength.

"Please direct me to the post where I made that claim. [that anti-women in combat people are behaving disgracefully ]"

"…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…." -#47

I suppose that could have been more of a warning than an accusation. But there's something of an implication of "contemptible" behavior there. I'm a little on guard for this accusation. Two weeks ago a woman accused me of "hijacking" a thread on the torture of prisoners after I made a single angry post after seeing a photo of Jessica for the first time, saying that she had no business being anywhere near combat. It's that freeper's curious inconsistency in thread purity that has motivated me to hang with the topic here and see where proponents will take this issue.

They were interviewing some Fort Bliss women soldiers on television ---about to be deployed over a week ago (after Jessica Lynch was rescued). There were a couple career soldiers who looked every bit as capable as men soldiers and were gung-ho about going to Iraq but others looked like they wished they weren't going. I have more problem with sending mothers of young children off to combat, the woman soldier from Arizona was a single-mom and now has left two orphans. I admire the military women who are deployed ---I know we've seen stories of many getting pregnant to get out of service when they're called. I guess some are equal to men but some aren't ---and yes I realize there are men who would get pregnant also if it got them out of having to go ----but physically they can't. I think treating women equally with the draft would really open a can of worms.

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.