The next battle for Pfc. Jessica Lynch

WND ^ | April 10, 2003 | Jane Chastain

[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?

[elfman2]

"Nope, I'm not. A Direct Support Maintenance Batallion operates BEHIND a Batallion, or even a Brigade, anywhere from 15 to 45 miles from what would be considered "the front"."

If you're certain that assets of the Maintenance Battalion are not expected to operate in the vicinity of the Battalion Tactical Operations Center, within a few miles of combat, or be divided in support of similar manner to similar units, then I'll submit to your greater knowledge and admit it's a different issue than women in combat.

But if they're expected to prepare for support of vehicles at regimental sized HQs, then that was the cutoff point for a real combat risk when I was in the service.

[Bob J]

6pm PDT/9pm EDT UNSPUN with AnnaZ!
Join Anna and Special Guest Hostess Diotima

Tonight, THUR, Apr 10th, 2003 9:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. EST / 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. PST
Aziz Al-Taee
Chairman of the Iraqi-American Council
www.IraqiAmericans.com

and the Unspun Debut of The Chamber-made Brigade's latest single
"Who's Next?"

ALSO... CRBs and Bone-Headed Lie-Beral Quotes ('cause you just can't make this stuff up...)

All this, plus your calls (and possibly more)
HERE to listen LIVE!

Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

[lawgirl]

As a highly educated, "women can do anything men can do", I have to say- keep women off the front lines. I think it just leaves women in more danger to getting abused- you can rape a woman a lot easier than a man. That's the first thing we all think when we see a woman POW, and it's bad enough without "going there." It's not a matter of brains or ability- it's the matter of they are at a lot more physical danger if they are captured than men are.

[elfman2]

" I think "women shouldn't be anywhere near there because men can't handle it" is the weakest argument there is for keeping them out. Not convincing to me. "

It's not so much that we can't "handle it". It's just that all the safeguards that we'd have to endure to manage our instinctual protection of teenage beauties in our units would make them one big pain in the rear. Sorry, we're not likely to dump chivalry and our propensity to protect the weak just so some egg headed feminist theorist can experiment with the unnatural, at least not without a fight.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Quit frankly, no one belongs in combat - but, sometimes it's necesary. Maybe I'm not enlightened, or progressive enough, but I think that it's always been the duty of Men to protect the women and children, keeping society safe so that all may prosper... maybe I'm just old fashioned that way - I don't have a problem with women in the military, but I do NOT like the idea of seeing ever-increasing numbers of women coming home in body bags... oh well. What can ya do?

[annyokie]

I was just thinking of M*A*S*H units. Other than that, filing paperwork is sufficient, IMO.

[HairOfTheDog]

You can fight all you want, but the war has already been fought. Women are in all the roles they can conceivably qualify for now. Men and women are getting used to dealing with each other in those roles, and they appear to be, overall, not failing to perform. You are fighting whether they should be put there, when they already are there. It is like arguing whether the earth should be round. It is going to take a compelling reason to take them out. Compelling is going to be more than just theorizing about chivalry and the lost roles of women of old.

[Doe Eyes]

In 1994 Secretary of Defense Les Aspin redefined Direct Ground Combat, and eliminated “inherent risk of capture” as a factor to consider in exempting women from serving in units previously defined as close combat.

Too bad our current Secrertary of Defense doesn't have the same legal authority as Clinton's. If he did, he would recind this rule.

[elfman2]

"Women are in all the roles they can conceivably qualify for now. Men and women are getting used to dealing with each other in those roles, and they appear to be, overall, not failing to perform. "

I think that's still very much open for debate. Although it's not quite politically touchable yet, there's broad concern about their net effect on ships such as AC Carriers and in other roles. Having women in MOSs (jobs) that are distributed at both combat units (regimental level and below) and at rear units deprives both of experience from one another.

From my limited experience, women as Division level intelligence analysts were slightly limited due to their lack of experience with the grunts in Battalion or Regimental level roles. But more importantly, high female to male ratios at Division levels denied training and positions to lower level analysts.

There was some animosity toward women Marines having lower PT standards than the men. Why should they not be required to be a fit as males? In generally, they had a number of disadvantages, some genetic and some cultural, that from my perspective kept them a step or two behind men. I knew of many women who more than pulled their weight, one or two very exceptional ones, but not as many as men.

What I'm saying is that unless the culture has changed radically from 1985, and the stories I read of the problems are just right wing rants that are only read here, they are failing to perform in some roles and they've been pushed a little further than they should be.

[Alberta's Child]

The only way to win this argument is to argue that women should be able to do anything that they can do equally as well or better than men.

That doesn't explain why women compete separately even in cerebral competitive events like billiards and chess.

[KeyLargo]

This is a no win battle!

More and more people will continue to die because of the women that are in a man's job.

Just look at the police, fire, and paramedics. All of the physical requirements have been lowered to accommodate women, which has caused agencies to now lower all physical requirements so as not to discriminate against males and those that don't fit into either category.

Yes, there are definitely exceptional women who are just as physically fit and as strong or stronger than their male counterparts. Then I say bring them on! If they can do the job then let them in.

But when you now have munchkin cops, firefighters and paramedics then who exactly is going to do the heavy lifting?

Maybe you would like to be the soldier, sailor, airman, marine or citizen lying on the ground and injured or wounded and see one of those munchkins appear? You better hope that you are a munchkin too, because you are just going to lie there until they get enough munchkins to carry your ass out - hopefully still breathing!

[usmcobra]

If anything the marines have tighten The PFT standard women are held to.

http://www.ocs.usmc.mil/FPFT.htm

http://www.ocs.usmc.mil/MPFT.htm

Back when I was in, Women didn't have to run but a mile and a half or do as many sit ups.

Any one that thinks the flexed arm hang is a piece of cake should try it, it ain't as easy as you think, and you aren't allowed to rest your chin on the bar.

(just a note the graphes linked are from OCS website however all Marines are required to meet the same standards)

[PLMerite]

"It is also proven that women handle G-Forces better than men in fighters."

What I remember hearing is that a short thick neck (a predominantly male trait) was better for high-g tolerances.

I'm not challenging you personally to provide a cite because I can't do for mine, but if anyone *can* I'd really appreciate it.

[PLMerite]

"We have women in supply clerk positions because men aren't enlisting in sufficient numbers to ensure that there aren't any women in supply clerk positions."

I dunno about that. I've heard that the services actually *reserve* a certain percentage of slots for women.

If my memory is faulty (and that's entirely possible), can someone point it out? An active-duty recruiter should be able to set the record straight.

[The Westerner]

"...but placing women in combat is the height of cowardice and is an indication of the feminization of our society. We should be ashamed of the fact that we ever allowed our women folks to be placed in harms way. Real men would never allow for it."

You are like a voice from another century, another time and place. I believe we are too far gone to recapture the romanticism of those days.

[demosthenes the elder]

in partial answer: I wouldn't want ANY of my kin to have to serve as a line animal.
on the other hand: I wouldn't care to try to nay-say them if they chose to serve as a line animal.
in terms of the male/female argument: If I was a line animal in a firefight, I'd rather have my mother or my sister with me than either of my brothers - those two broads are SCARY

[Spirited]

Thank you for a truthful, succinct and apt analysis of the subject and this incident.

I am not in favor of women in combat but I can understand that poor females who need an opportunity beyond what they could normally earn, view this as a way out.

To use the issue to force the role of women in service is an indication of the sub-basement character of the feminists, but then that is what their leadership has always been.

Incidentally in the Revolution there were women on the battlefield in support of their men in addition to the now famous Molly Pitcher.

It is also a matter of history that the hardened, world conquering Roman legions, met their match time and again in the Celts of Britain. To the Romans, the most fearsome sight, it is said, was of the Celtic women in battle beside their men, blonde hair streaming and blue eyes blazing, as capable with swords and horse as their males and in accordance with Celtic cultural practice, just as naked.

[JudyB1938]

Gender doesn't always identify strength and courage. When I was young, I was tough. I could overpower many a guy. No, I am not "masculine". I just grew up as a tomboy, which I think Jessica did, too.

HOWEVER ...

I felt then as I do now ... women do not belong in combat!

(And, yes, RAPE is one of the main issues for me.)

Thank goodness, most of our young girls have the sense not to enlist. But I really do believe that few of them who did ever thought they'd actually go to war. Just like many of the male enlistees, they were often merely after an education to improve their earning power.

Well, they are getting an "extra-curricular" education, you might say. The experience will tighten their spirits and resolve. Most of them will make excellent employees and business owners some day who know the true meaning of SACRIFICE and LOVE FOR AMERICA.

May God bless all of them and bring them home safe! Amen.

[Ciexyz]

Re: Post 16 - A good analysis of the problem concerning the capture of Jessica's unit. Yes, the main issue should be, why was her support unit unescorted. How could this be prevented in the future? Let's wait and see what the investigation shows.

[infowarrior]

But if they're expected to prepare for support at regimental sized HQs...

Tells me how long ago you were in then, elfman. Haven't been regimental HQs in the Army for a long time. Like I said, I was part of the 3rd ID in the early 1970's and there weren't any regimental HQs then....

the infowarrior