Posted on 03/26/2002 7:42:36 AM PST by bkwells
Insight Magazine
April 15, 2002
The Last Word U.S. Military Has A New Strategy In The Battle Of The Sexes
By Woody West
The long retreat of the U.S. military from the armored brigades of radical feminism might be halting. There appears to be a mustering of will to dig in and confront the feminization of the armed forces that has been ascendant for more than two decades. Both civilian and military leaders since the mid-1970s have, until now, been reluctant to oppose this relentless radical assault lest they receive the politically scarring label of being "antiwomen."
There at last are certified males at command posts in the Pentagon who have taken courage from the support of the White House. Thus, one of the feminists' most entrenched outposts — the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, or DACOWITS in the lumpy acronym — is being counterattacked. Better late than, well, you know.
There was scuttlebutt that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld might abolish DACOWITS. That would have been dandy, but it would not have been politically adroit: It inevitably would have spawned a political dustup that would not be useful in the midst of a real war. Rumsfeld was cannier. He in effect fired the 22 current Clinton-appointed panelists and ordered his Pentagon E-Ring adjutants to rewrite the advisory group's charter.
First, lets clear away ideological underbrush. Women are and will continue to be vital and valued in the armed forces. There indeed are chores in the complex military structure that women have a superior capacity to perform — but not as envisioned by the panelists of the advisory appendage.
The concerted effort of recent DACOWITS members has been to open to women ground- and close-combat assignments, including special operations, which is extremely dangerous and demanding military duty. This effort pleases rhetoricians of military equal opportunity despite the fact that the vast majority of servicewomen repeatedly express not only no interest in charging enemy machine-gun nests but reject the idea. (Not long ago, a now-retired two-star general whined of sexual harassment because a highly decorated peer had — wait for it! — put his arm around her. Somehow it's hard to see Gen. Claudia leading an infantry assault against, say, an al-Qaeda bunker.)
There doubtless are some women equal to the burdens of such combat, even as there are some men not equal to it. The wider point morally and culturally is whether females should go into the furnace of battle.
Nevertheless, the civilian membership of DACOWITS has not abandoned its sanguinary agenda. It is noteworthy that, of the 34 individuals who constituted the board before Rumsfeld dropped the hammer, only its two male panelists and two of the women ever wore the uniform. That conspicuous lack of experience should have moderated the zeal of the DACOWITSeans. But with 10 academics, eight lawyers and two clinical psychologists among the panel membership, any such concession to the grittiness of the real world would have been astounding.
The eminent secretary of state (and former top U.S. general of World War II) George C. Marshall created DACOWITS in 1951 to monitor and ensure that women in the military were treated with dignity and respect. As late as 1968, the advisory-group's recommendations included such modest and sensible changes as that color guards be composed of both males and females and that women discharged for pregnancy be given severance pay.
But with the rapidly rising distemper of the feminist movement, the panel's recommendations increasingly concerned career opportunities for women, whether or not these might trump national-security concerns. And because combat duty commonly is a criterion for promotion to upper officer ranks, women have fretted that the proscription penalized their chances of grabbing the military's brass ring. The Pentagon advisory group then was, of course, loudly supported by feminists and antimilitarists in Congress. The intellectually incontinent Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) cackled happily when the traditions of soldiering were being assailed that she could hear "a subculture cracking."
Coed basic training (with "gender norming" of physical standards) was one of the advisory group's early victories when the armed forces (except the Marine Corps) acceded to that plank in the DACOWITS sexual manifesto. When President Bill Clinton in 1994 decided to put women on most combat ships and aircraft, DACOWITS loudly began thumping its drum to eliminate other limitations — this despite congressional disapproval of women in direct combat roles.
Most recently, the panel aggressively has urged the Navy to assign women to the submarine service and, indeed, design the new Virginia-class boats to accommodate females. The Navy, so far, has resisted.
The revised charter for DACOWITS, once President George W. Bush's appointees are in place, will be to concentrate on retention and recruitment of highly qualified women, to maintain their well-being and to assist military families — an ever-more critical obligation of the armed forces with its astounding rate of married servicemembers and single-family households.
Only in aiming DACOWITS away from "social engineering," said Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum, can such an advisory group accomplish "what servicewomen need most."
Stand by for furious reaction from the National Organization for Women and the rest of the usual suspects including, of course, the congressional women's chorus and their gelded male colleagues. The reformation of DACOWITS is at best a beginning to restore the appropriate masculine component of soldiering as U.S. troopers battle the al-Qaeda fanatics in the Afghani mountains.
Woody West is an associate editor for Insight.
They're still to many Clintonistas in government.
The only lost Navy female pilot I remember, was 3-4 years ago. The investigation showed that she had been pushed well beyond her capacity, just to keep a "trophy female" in a pilot's seat. As the evidence started to develop, the whole issue dissapeared.
Has there been any other Navy Female Pilots lost at sea or what's going on here.
Anybody remember the earlier accident??
I can't even imagine any woman wanting to serve on a submarine packed in with a bunch of sweaty guys. The Navy should keep resisting.
I do know a couple of young women in the armed forces. One, the daughter of a female Palestinian immigrant and an American father, is serving on a ship in the Persian Gulf now. She's a smart girl and does a good job -- NOT on the front lines. But she complains of harrassment by male sailors -- she's very good looking so that may contribute to her problems. She's going to reinlist nevertheless. There are plenty of jobs in the service that can easily be done by women without lowering the standards. But NOW is crazy to push for women to be allowed the same status as men doing actual fighting. If certain jobs were designated as women's jobs, I would not mind having women serve their country.
Fill me in on whats been going on.
When I was in basic I was aware that there were females on the base but that was about it...
There's your problem. Until some kind of sea change remedies that, the next dem administration will "undo" Rummy's fixes - and then some - in the first week of office.
I just think the zoomies are the ones who have been the most corrupted by all of this foolishness and no one in command seems particularly concerned about it.
Watched JAG this week and the story line wandered around a female Navy pilot who had lost and engine. She was able to hold the fighter upright long enough for her backseater to eject. Once he was safely out, the plane inverted and she went in with it, losing her life. .
.
.
Anybody remember the earlier accident??
I think both the episode of "JAG" was loosely based on the actual event which concerned an F14-A piloted by Lt. Kara Hultgreen on October 24, 1994 during carrier qualification operation onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) off the coast of San Diego, California.
Listed below are three links about the accident, report, cover-up, and women-in-combat in general:
Mishap Investigation Report on line# 465
The "McNamara-ization" of the U.S. Navy
Women-in-Combat after the Terrorist Attack on America
Bottom line: Average pilot who was good in the A-6, overloaded in F-14A. Pilot error conclusion from MIR:
"MP lost situational awareness, failed to scan AOA, allowed pitch attitude to slowly increase and exceeded maximum controllable AOA of 20 units. At approximately flight deck level, MA stalled, departed controlled flight, and rolled rapidly left."
Most people I talk to would rather remember her as the super pilot hero portayed in the "JAG" episode. I was not aware of the details released in the leaked investigation report but it was about what I thought at the time.
It's a fine line between paranoia and perception.
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.