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?
Excuse me? That is opposite the truth. Women have smaller and more delicate craniums containing less cerebral fluid then men, and begin to black out under high g force quicker than an average male under similar circumstances. Couple that with a women's lack of physcial strength to perform manual tasks under high G and you have a recipe for disaster.
Great. So if the enemy finds a Corps HQ, you've got a lot of women taken prisoner and killed. And, BTW, Ralph Peters likened the Corps HQ to an "electronic orgy" in 1987; it's very easy to find.
I think you're playing loose with the facts to support what you wish were the case. I bet if we spoke to someone in that kind of unit, they'd say that they're prepared to move very close to combat, and are in danger of coming under attack.
Case closed back at you.
"Human Beings have somehow managed to keep the female half of humanity out of the direct effects of war throughout our history.
That's not really provable, but it could be argued that societies that protected women from war out reproduced those that did not. Slight differences in reproductive success compounded over millenia can result in large differences in population sizes.
I didn't say "unable". I said unlikely.
I haven't seen anyone - *anyone* - use Jessica Lynch "to promote their theory that men and women soldiers are the same" as the article says.
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.
Back to WWII are you. I think my point should have sunk in by now. For every scenario you can name where women at corps hq get captured and brutalized, you can name 100 where the same could happen to them at front line support units. That's my point. Get it? Minimizing the risk.
But not likely able to be captured by the people we're most likely to face and most brutal to our women.
All of a sudden you're concerned for their safety?
Should be interesting because it seems she is from a family that 'calls it the way they see it'. The father, mother and brother seems to be of that personality.
We are most likely to get the 'real picture' soon.
The problem facing the 507th convoy was that they were not a combat unit, but a combat service support unit. The convoy would have consisted of mainly unarmored trucks, with the sole "armor" being the recovery vehicles which at best, would have only a .50 cal MG as armament. Add this to the fact that they would have had few M60 machineguns (at least operable ones), or M203 grenade launchers, and you can see why if they were facing a well-armed adversary, they would have been seriously outgunned...
the infowarrior
who was a MEMBER of a Headquarters Platoon of a line company of the 3rd ID 1973-1976
If they cannot do forced marches, large tires, base plates, etc., then they shouldn't be permitted to do be in those jobs.
Patriots are far to the rear and they are electronic.
In a sense, I'm not so worried about the risk to the women who want such a risk as much as to the unit. See #25
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.