CONSERVATIVE TRUTH: WARRIOR WOMEN

ConservativeTruth.org ^ | 4/14/03 | Tom Barrett

[KeyLargo]

"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.

[Support Free Republic]

LOOK! Another Freeper Just Gave To The Cause! WAY TO GO!
	We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one! Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[goldstategop]

We don't need women in combat. We already got the likes of Belly Girl doing all the fighting we need for us at right here at home!!!

[DC native]

When I was young and arrogant, a deceived product of the collapse of society in the 60s and 70s, a constant stream of Feminist Speak oozed from my lips. Men and women are exactly the same...blah blah yada yada. Then I had children. The first time I took them to the beach, 3 babies under the age of 5, I instinctively looked for the biggest, strongest male lifeguard and parked them there under his watchful eyes. Things were never the same after that revelation.

[anniegetyourgun]

Women serving in the military is one thing. But putting women in combat is immoral.

[joesnuffy]

Any women in an infantry platoon would cause the deaths of the entire platoon
and compromise the mission...
To have had a woman along in my unit in Vietnam would have been insane..
The only mission that would have been accomplished would have been human sacrafice to the gods of femanism

[Tax-chick]

Women serving in the military is one thing. But putting women in combat is immoral.

Really! All those men sitting in desks jobs in the States, while teenage girls and single mothers (whole 'nother can of worms ...) are in combat.

I see my "female" role in national defense as raising boys and teaching them to love their country and to SHOOT. And voting Republican, for what it's worth!

[Illbay]

Should women be in combat?

No. And I'll go even further than that.

Women should not be training with men in the military. There should be a return to the separation of the sexes. There should be a "Women's Army Corps," "Women's Air Force," etc. A return to WACs, WAVEs, WAFs and the like.

Extremely politically incorrect.

Extremely correct for the adequate defense of our nation, which is, after all, a defense of our fundamental values, NOT of the right of McDonald's to sell "Big Macs" throughout the world.

[apackof2]

well said, agree 100%

[apackof2]

Women should not be training with men in the military. There should be a return to the separation of the sexes.

Excellent point, would love to see this, although there would be an enormous outcry ( and battle) from femi-nazis and miltary lesbians

[Illbay]

femi-nazis and miltary lesbians

In other words:

DACOWITS

[katana]

Yep, we're different and designed to be completely complementary. Ain't it great?

I have known women who I would trust in a tight spot much more than some men I've known, so genetics and biologic tendencies will only take you so far. But to take the radical feminist left position that the differences are non-existent or irrelevant is sheer insanity.

[429CJ]

"Should women be in combat?"

NOPE!

[ninenot]

"Women in combat is immoral."

Yeah--but guys like it.

Did you ever stop to think that THIS issue and the abortion issue have a similar underlying proposition: that men can evade responsibility by foisting it on women???

[429CJ]

I went to that DACOWITS (s/b NITWITS) website.

One of the topics discussed was:

"Family Planning briefings from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard should include:
type of training and how it is imparted
information concerning breastfeeding
prenatal, natal and postnatal training."

Really contributes to making warriors that our enemies will fear.

[ninenot]

I see my "female" role in national defense as raising boys and teaching them to love their country and to SHOOT. And voting Republican, for what it's worth!

Sometimes voting Republican ain't worth much...

And as an American daddy, I teach my girls to love their country, think and act conservatively, and to SHOOT!!

They're pretty good at that, too.

[Illbay]

If you really get into their position papers, you find horrifying stuff, like calls for ALL combat positions to be open to women, and further, for there to be "affirmative action" processes to make sure that women are put in those positions.

People here wonder where the "dumbing down" of standards for combat soldiers came from

DACOWITS is the answer.

[Illbay]

Oh, and understand: DACOWITS is NOT some "non-partisan think tank." It is an official committee OF THE U.S. MILITARY. Ignoring their recommendations can, if you have a Clinton administration in power, for example, spell the end of your military career.