"Every child is our child." - Motto of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
Posted on 05/29/2003 4:52:37 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
An engagement that took place in Nasiriyah, Iraq, on March 23 may reveal whether the Republican Party is now ready to engage in serious cultural combat here on the home front.
The policy question raised at Nasiriyah is profound: Will a Republican government retain or reverse a revolutionary women-in-combat regime put in place by the Clinton administration?
In January 1994, as reported then by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin eliminated the so-called "risk rule" that barred women from military ground support units whose members faced a "substantial risk of capture."
The consequences of this change struck home at Nasiriyah. Three young American women, all members of the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Co., became casualties. Pfc. Lori Piestewa was killed, while Spec. Shoshana Johnson and Pfc. Jessica Lynch were wounded, captured and later recovered by U.S. forces. Piestewa and Johnson were single mothers. Lynch was only 19 years old.
In all, nine Americans died as a result of the action, and six, including Johnson and Lynch, were taken prisoner.
The details of the engagement remain sketchy. Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times reported last week that the Army is investigating the incident under orders from Brig. Gen. Howard Bromberg, who heads the 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command of which the 507th was a part. The "goal" of the investigation, Col. Joe Curtin, a Defense Department spokesman, told the Times, "is lessons learned. Corrective action."
But if the Defense Department wants to correct the underlying problem highlighted at Nasiriyah, it should start by reinstating the "risk rule" eliminated by the Clinton administration. Then it should re-examine all policies that have moved women into combat and near-combat roles. It ought to do this regardless of what the investigation reveals about the details of combat on March 23.
If the question of putting women in harm's way pivoted merely on practical considerations, the issue raised would be a cold-blooded one: Did the women at Nasiriyah help or hinder their unit's chances?
Yet, as significant as that question is -- and it cannot be ducked by those responsible for ordering men and women into combat together -- there is a still bigger question: Does sending young women into harm's way represent an advance or a retreat for American civilization?
This question can be answered with another, which has been posed by syndicated columnist R. Cort Kirkwood: What kind of father, fearing an intruder had entered his basement in the night, would send his teenage daughter down to investigate?
What kind of mother would encourage her husband to do so in the name of gender equality? Would the family's neighbors admire the family's liberal-mindedness if they discovered Mom and Dad had given their daughter this potentially dangerous assignment?
I have no doubt the same American fathers who work and save to send their daughters to colleges, law schools, medical schools and business schools, and encourage them to be all that they can be in their chosen walks of life, would not feel right sending their daughters down to intercept burglars in the basement.
I doubt even the most committed feminist would tell her husband to sit back, relax and watch Leno on the couch, while sending their 19-year-old daughter downstairs to see what had gone bump in the night.
But, as a nation, we sent Johnson, Lynch and Piestewa into Nasiriyah. They are indisputably and forever American heroines for the sacrifices they made there. But it will not be heroic politics if the Republican Party leaves in place the Clinton-era rule that put them there.
On May 8, The Washington Times asked President Bush about reversing the Clinton-era rule change on women in combat. "I will take guidance from the United States military," Bush said. "Our commanders will make those decisions." A week later, Human Events Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked the Pentagon if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was considering reversing the Clinton rule change. "There are no plans to change the rules," said Maj. Sandra Burr, a department spokeswoman for personnel matters.
If Bush and Rumsfeld won't order it, the Republican Congress must legislate it. Or is the entire Republican leadership in Washington willing to send American servicewomen halfway around the world to run risks they wouldn't let their own daughters run at home?
GET THE WOMEN OUT OF COMBAT!
What does a bunch of femi-nazis in the upper ranks of the various military branches care about women being subjected to front line duty/pow status?
Unless and untill Patsy Schroeder, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Jane Fonda, Hillary Clinton, et al have rifles thrust in their hands and put in front of the military, do any of these women dare to suggest that women "belong" in combat.
Women in combat hinder the mission in numerous ways. War is not the stage upon which to "offer equal opportunities." It is a stage on which we need to kill the enemy before they kill us.
Yes, that. But also Lynch is still in pretty poor condition. We don't need to satisfy our curiosity at her expense.
We do need to decide whether we think this is an acceptable risk for young American women - really too young to decide for themselves. And, yes, I also think that the young men who enlist are too young to decide if they're taking an unacceptable risk. But we decided that centuries ago. We need them to fight. We used to expect women to keep the homes going and to care for children.
Who do we think should care for the children now?
No, I am not saying keep them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. What I AM saying is that by their very presence, they distract from the mission. I read an article titled 'Will the Military Celebrate Mother's Day?' a while back and was incensed by its content. The author was whining about the women that were killed or captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom while serving, and how the military sends young mothers into harm's way. I wrote to her and expressed my displeasure. All I will say is that I feel no pity for them, they got what they wanted ... equal opportunity. Now they are finding out that they can die, or become a POW just like a man can ... and they don't like it! Well .... too f*cking bad .... they asked for it ... they pushed for it .... now they got it. So to those who are whining about going into harm's way I say ... SUCK IT UP, AND DO YOUR DUTY. But then we must remember, women are not bred for combat the way men have been nurtured for it for centuries.
I am all in favor of rescinding the Clintonian pandering to women's rights groups by way of assigning women to combat roles. It is wrong, and there are plenty of other jobs women can do in the military besides trying to prove how brave they are, or how equal to men that they are. I have never seen any of the hags that pushed for these "rights" to serve in combat stepping up to the plate to serve their country. No ... let some other young sucker do it. When it comes to combat, women are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of their league, and should realize it.
A short anecdote ... my last deployment on board an LHD out of San Diego, we had 40 ... count 'em, FORTY ... women leave the ship in the month prior to deployment by claiming pregnancy. Now this means that they become unplanned losses to the crew, and there are NO ... count 'em, ZERO ... replacements to the ship's compliment. So consequently some poor male sailor has to shoulder their workload, as well as his own. AND I KNOW for a fact that more than a few of these females weren't married, so that tells me that they didn't want to deploy! But the men sure as hell have to! Also you take 40 personnel away from a 250 personnel crew, that is quite a large gap. So your assertion about the Republicans backing away from this issue is totally flawed, for you know not from whence you speak, and you probably are not qualified to talk about it in the first place.
Yes, it would be. It would be even more interesting to take a poll of the women who were taken prisoner.
Women can serve in many places in the military. But there are some risks we shouldn't ask them to take. Nor should we mislead them into thinking that their risks are no worse than the ones men take.
I hear this used as an argument all the time. Fact of the matter is, in Gulf War I, 100% of female POW's were raped, while 0% of male POW's were. You don't make policy based on remote possibilities, you make them on statistical realities.
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.