Military women slaughtered by Congress? Jane Chastain skewers spineless bureaucrats

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, May 1, 2003 | Jane Chastain

[JohnHuang2]

"This is a woman who died for her country doing what she was supposed to be doing," Eric Ehst, spokesman, Phoenix-Scottsdale National Organization for Women, on Lori Piestewa

Squaw Peak, in Phoenix, Ariz., has been renamed Piestewa Peak in honor of one of the state's fallen heroes, a 23-year-old, Native-American, single mother of two.

It is a fitting tribute to Pfc. Lori Piestewa, the only female U.S. solder killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, her death is not only a tragedy, it is a national disgrace and Piestewa Peak should serve as a painful reminder of a military policy run amuck.

Lori Piestewa has been called a warrior, but she was not a combat soldier and, despite what the National Organization of Women would have us believe, she was not doing "what she was supposed to be doing."

Piestewa, a mechanic, was assigned to the Army's 507th Maintenance Unit, which got lost and was ambushed. Two other women, Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Spec. Shoshana Johnson were captured, but managed to survive their ordeals.

The important thing to remember is this: These women never should have been assigned to a war zone. They were there because of the timidity of the men who have served in the last eight United States Congresses, men who failed their responsibility to provide proper oversight of the military. These men were willing to sacrifice enlisted women like Piestewa rather than stand up to a small number of radical feminists among their colleagues.

By all accounts, Lori Piestewa was an exceptional young woman. She was hard working, extremely patriotic, good natured and a joy to be around. She was a softball standout at Tuba City High School and commander of the Junior ROTC.

When she was divorced two years ago, Piestewa joined the Army – not to be a warrior as some have suggested – but for security. Like a lot of young mothers of modest means, Piestewa looked forward to the training and educational opportunities the military would provide. It would give her the opportunity to provide a better life for her children.

When Piestewa joined the Army, she had no reason to suspect that she would see combat. There are rules that prevent women from being assigned to ground combat units. Her job was listed as "combat support." When war broke out, she didn't complain, or try to shirk her responsibility to serve.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the last eight Congresses that were AWOL when Presidents Carter and Clinton had their surrogates throwing out the "risk rule" and re-classifying units like the 507th Maintenance Company that operate in war zones so that women would be assigned to them.

That is why Lori Piestewa's children will grow up without their mother.

Lori Piestewa, followed in the footsteps of her father and grandfather by proudly serving in the United States military, but her male family members were taller, heavier and, more importantly, possessed more upper-body strength.

Make no mistake: We need women in the services! Women outperform men in many jobs, but not jobs that rely on brute strength. No amount of physical training and conditioning can make up for difference in the way our bodies are designed. No amount of gender norming – where the emphasis is on equal effort, not equal ability – can give women an equal chance to survive. It not only is unfair, it is unwise.

With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, a funny thing has happened. Pro-family groups have grown strangely silent on this issue.

Instead of pointing out the folly of sending women into combat zones and pressing those in charge to rewrite the regulations to prevent this from ever happening again, they are tip-toeing around the edges, calling for a commission to study the effects of mothers in military service, more specifically the effects of mothers' absence on children.

While this is important, there is ample research to show that young children effectively abandoned by their mothers for lengthy periods do suffer, so what are they trying to prove?

Sadly, it appears they are trying to prove they still are relevant, while covering for a Congress and a White House that do not want to go anywhere near this issue.

Could it be that President George W. Bush, who was not afraid to take on Saddam Hussein, is afraid to stand up to a few radical feminists? May it never be!

Must we wait until we are in a war with a formidable foe – when the pink body bags equal the blue body bags – before we are willing to do something about it? How many more Lori Piestewas will have to die before we right this horrible wrong?

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, May 1, 2003

Quote of the Day by legman

[quietolong]

bump

[wardaddy]

Reality Bites Bump.

[usmcobra]

Spineless as in afraid to see American women die after 911 or spineless as in afraid to toughen the standards and training women receive?

The last time I checked the war zone in the war on terror included the continental US, This was evidenced but those women that were killed in New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania and in Pakistan.

Just where on this planet does Jane Chastain intend to hide our women in uniform to protect them from the bad guys, and why isn't she screaming for the same safety for the rest of America's women?

[Hacksaw]

Just where on this planet does Jane Chastain intend to hide our women in uniform to protect them from the bad guys, and why isn't she screaming for the same safety for the rest of America's women?

For starters, we can repeal the Clinton-era rules which relaxed combat restrictions for women. Would you be opposed to this as well?

[usmcobra]

I'm opposed to rolling back something that should never have happened in the first place. My reasoning is that once the door was opened going back to what once was is political suicide for conservatives.

If women want to serve make their standards higher and their training tougher so that those that do serve are ready for whatever may come their way. Harder training and tougher standards will eliminate those that can't perform to those standards, and less women will want to serve, but those that do will be able to do so.

[iranger]

"My reasoning is that once the door was opened going back to what once was is political suicide for conservatives."

Or, as Ronald Reagan once said: 'right is right, unless its political suicide, then you look the other way.'

[Lorianne]

Lori Piestewa, followed in the footsteps of her father and grandfather by proudly serving in the United States military, but her male family members were taller, heavier and, more importantly, possessed more upper-body strength.

As usual for Chastain, she conflates issues which make no logical sense in support of the point she's trying make. Taller, heavier and more upper body strength did not keep some men in the wayward Maintenance Division alive or from being taken prisoner. It also didn't keep millions of men from dying in other wars. In war people die.

[ChuckHam]

If it's your time to die then it's your time. I agree, unless you're superman a bullet to the head will most likely kill you. I hope this is your point. If you are saying physical standards aren't required for combat positions regardless of gender then you're wrong. Of all the women I've seen in all branches of the military I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of that pool would have the physical abilities of the average infantryman. I'm not going to get into the unit cohesion argument of having physically capable women in infantry units, that's a whole other ball of wax.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[Cyber Liberty]

I got this far...

Squaw Peak, in Phoenix, Ariz., has been renamed Piestewa Peak in honor of one of the state's fallen heroes, a 23-year-old, Native-American, single mother of two.

It is a fitting tribute to Pfc. Lori Piestewa, the only female U.S. solder killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

...and realized that this author may be well-meaning, but totally ignorant about what happened with that name-change. It was *not* "fitting" to break the law to bestow the honor.

[Lorianne]

I agree physical standards are important in combat. And I don't advocate women in combat simply to have them there.

But the woman in the sacked Maintenance Unit who died did not die because she wasn't as tall, wieghed less or wasn't as strong as the men. This is implied because 8 men died as well in the same incident. Likewise both men and a women were injured, and captured.

Jane Chastain has a way of conflating issues which don't make any sense to the point she's trying to make (this actually a trademark of hers). If she wants to say women shouldn't be NEAR combat, then I think she has to make a different argument than one based on height, weight and upper body strength. After all we've had women in dangerous war zones for decades (such as nurses).

[usmcobra]

Look the whole women in combat concept is a brilliantly laid booby trap for conservatives, and there is really only one way out of it. Toughen the training and raise the standards for women serving in the military.

Any other approach to it will kill the all volunteer military and force a return to the draft,something liberals dearly want because the draft causes hatred against military service and the military in general.

[iranger]

"Look the whole women in combat concept is a brilliantly laid booby trap..."

Well you are half right anyway.

Glaciers move slowly, but if you look closely, it has already began. In the end, there is no argument against truth and societies eventually move to embrace them. This discussion is merely one part of the larger battle against "political correctness." Those who stand in support of it are fighting a unwinnable war.

[DMZFrank]

We don't need to toughen women's training or raise the physical standards. We simply must require the women to meet the same standards as the men do now. But you are ignoring the reason that gender-normed standards were adopted in the first place. Appropriate gender neutral standards would mean that perhaps 40-60% of the women now in the service would have to be discharged due to the inability to meet physical training requirements, with the concomitant wailing from the mostly feminist PC bunch about "unfairness to women". During my military service I was dismayed by how much men had to take up the heavy lifting slack caused by the lack of women's upper body strength. This is not to say that women do not have a place in the military, or that they can't perform valuable services, as they already do. The issue is whether or not the deployment of women as presently constituted enhances the ability of the military to fight. If it does, than it is OK. If not than it should be discontinued.
The problem with Iraq Wars I&II is that it does not require the testing of that proposition. The true test will come when you have to plug in large numbers of replacement troops into positions for which they were not trained, as in WWII when the men who had been groomed for the highly technical ASTP program were combed out and sent to infantry units to replace the unexpectedly high number of grunt casualties in the NW Europe battles. I hope and pray that this never happens again for other reason than the loss of precious life. If 15% of the service is non-deployable in certain positions, than what does that portend for a tough sustained fight against a resolute and capable adversary? I fear that that is when we will see the foolishness of the present policy expressed in unnecessary loss of life.

[Psycho_Bunny]

We are at war, Jane; the enemy is Islam and the earth is the battlefield.

I hate to see women killed in combat but if they join with their eyes open and want to do their duty, they're heros and no matter how Jane phrases it, she's spitting on their service.

[usmcobra]

and what happens to a male that doesn't meet the physical requirements of the military?

Don't they get kicked out as well, of course only after they've been through a number of reconditioning programs to bring them up to the standard.

I say do it, raise women up to an equal standard and toughen their training and watch the real feminists cringe, twitch, and steam over actually having to compete at a "male" level.