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?

And how long has it been since the first Gulf War? I'm sure that the "complaints" have been noted logged and acted on by HQMC. The Marine Corps always is introspective and proactive when it comes to any problems that arise.

Women Marines are required to do just as many sit-ups and run as far on the PFT, so the basis of any argument over a tiny bit of inequality in the PFT boils down to the Flexed arm hang(female) vs pull ups(male).

Ever see a bunch of male marines after a PFT? The way most throw themselves at the pull up bar leaves bruises across their chests, and most women we will agree aren't built to do that sort of damage to their upper bodies, so The Marine Corps in it's infinate wisdom devised an equally strenuous and devious test that would allow it to test the Women Marines without battering their breasts against the pull up bar.

As for the obstacle course, you do realise that those course have not changed since the early sixties, and that the "Female" sections are a source of motivation for male recruits.

~~puts on best drill instructor voice~~

AWWWWWWW RECRUIT SMITH CAN'T MAKE IT UP MY MARINE CORPS WALL...
GET BACK TO THE END OF THE LINE RECRUIT SMITH AND THIS TIME RUN THE OBSTACLE USING THE LADIES' WALL...

It never fails to motivate recruits to try harder....

I have no doubt that they're gonna try to turn Lynch into GI Jane. Anyone who knows anything knows that no woman could really pass Seal training....or Ranger training for that matter. (The world's best female marathoner would kick male ass on HER event. But ask her to do the heavy lifting part and she's doomed.)

However, we need to remember LYNCH was a SUPPLY CLERK. That means she basically shuffled papers and stored things on shelves. Every troop, though, needs to know how to use their M-16. To her credit when the chips were down, apparently she shot at the bad guys. I'd hope my wife would do the same to protect her life.

We need to trumpet that she protected herself with a WEAPON and that makes it a gun issue proving NRAs position. Maybe they'll back off.

She took a beating, too, and survived. She gets my respect for that. It's just possible she's one of those gutsy girls that you wish your son would bring home.

"The controversial rule changes were billed as career enhancers, even though military women have been promoted for decades at rates equal to or faster than men. In trying to please feminists who want other women to pay the price, Aspin ignored the advice of experienced combat leaders.

The commission compiled a huge body of credible evidence that in close combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. It is easy to talk about "sharing the risk" of war, but few women have the strength to cope with physical burdens, including high-tech equipment, that exceed weights carried by Julius Caesar's Roman legionnaires."
And this is the opinion of a woman that was assigned to a Presidential commission during the Clinton years!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0304130445apr13,1,1012816.story

First female captives held at greater risk

By Elaine Donnelly. Elaine Donnelly, a former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, is president of the Center for Military Readiness

April 13, 2003

It is impossible not to be moved by the dramatic stories of three female soldiers and their male colleagues captured from an ambushed maintenance unit in Iraq. First we saw the frightened face of POW Army Spec. Shoshana Johnson, the single mother of a 2-year-old, and the grisly sight of fellow soldiers killed nearby.

Then we saw Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, a courageous and severely injured 19-year-old soldier, who was rescued in a mission rarely executed successfully in the past 50 years. Special Forces soldiers and Marines had to dig with their bare hands to retrieve from shallow graves the bodies of eight more soldiers from the same unit. Among the dead was Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a Hopi Indian and single mother of two children.

These stories inspire a wide range of emotions, including pride in the brave women who are serving their country. Military policies regarding women in combat cannot be based on singular stories, however. The views of enlisted women, who outnumber female officers by more than five to one, differ from those who aspire to flag rank. A 1998 General Accounting Office report, quoting a Rand study, found that only 10 percent of female privates and corporals agreed that "Women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men."

Many people, including the surprised and dismayed family of Spec. Johnson, thought that women could serve their country without undue exposure to close combat. But in 1994, then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin quietly abolished the Defense Department's "Risk Rule," which spared women in support units from assignments close to the front line. Aspin also eliminated "substantial risk of capture" as a factor that exempted women from involuntary assignment in or near hundreds of previously all-male positions. Exceptions include the infantry, armor, multiple launch field artillery, Special Operations Forces and helicopters, Navy SEALS, and submarines.

The controversial rule changes were billed as career enhancers, even though military women have been promoted for decades at rates equal to or faster than men. In trying to please feminists who want other women to pay the price, Aspin ignored the advice of experienced combat leaders.

The commission compiled a huge body of credible evidence that in close combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. It is easy to talk about "sharing the risk" of war, but few women have the strength to cope with physical burdens, including high-tech equipment, that exceed weights carried by Julius Caesar's Roman legionnaires.

A recent survey of military personnel conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that only 36 percent of both sexes agreed that women would pull their fair share of the load in combat or hazardous situations.

The International Red Cross and other experts on prisoners of war have also reported inequalities in the treatment of male and female prisoners. Brutality that is uniquely cruel to women, including sexual assault and rape, frequently has been used as a weapon of war against women, but rarely men.

A majority of presidential commissioners recognized that official endorsement of gender-neutral violence in combat would not be a step forward for women, but a step backward for civilization. At times the nation has had no choice but to send men to defend America. We do have a choice about sending young women, including single mothers, to fight our wars. If women in support roles are to be subjected to combat violence and "substantial risk of capture" on an equal basis, the American people need to think hard about what that really means.

Children in highschool are explained all the risks of military service? Including the possibilities of rape,torture, and death?

If they don't understand this, they'll probably either fail the ASVAB, or they will get a "failure to adapt" discharge from boot camp.

You have to be really stupid to (a) not be able to figure out, unassisted, that wars can be hazardous to your health, and that (b) you may be expected to fight in one if you're wearing the uniform.

Or are they only given the "rosy" picture of benefits and 'discount' education so they sign into the military before they are legally allowed to sign contract? As a 17 year old, my "thoughts" re the military were simple ... "education and an opportunity to see the world"

I really hate to say this about a FReeper, but at 17, if ignorance is bliss, you were in frickin' Nirvana.

Why did I understand from Day One that this was a possibility? Am I that much more intelligent than most folks?

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.