First Girl Lost in War

The Sun ^ | 24 March 2003 | Will Barker

[Plainsman]

A PRETTY 19-year-old country girl who joined the US Army to escape unemployment was feared to be the first woman soldier to die yesterday.

Blonde Jessica Lynch was among 12 soldiers in a US supply convoy ambushed by Iraqi troops. Her parents were left weeping like others in America and Britain as more Coalition victims of the war were identified.

Supply clerk Jessica was feared dead after five survivors from the ambush were paraded before Iraqi TV cameras in sickening footage beamed around the world on Sunday.

Also shown were the bodies of the other seven members of the 507th Maintenance Co convoy, but Jessica’s parents could not identify her among them.

Her father Greg Lynch said: “The only thing they can tell us is she’s missing.

“I just want them to bring her back safely — her and all the rest of the kids.”

Private Jessica — known as Jessie — only joined up because she could not find a job in her farming community home town of Palestine, West Virginia.

Lorene Cumbridge, a 62-year-old cousin, said: “She’s just a West Virginia country girl. Warm-hearted. Outgoing. I really thought growing up she would become an elementary school teacher.

Missing ... supply clerk Jessica

But for West Virginia children in some of the more rural areas, the military is the one good chance of getting an education and making something of themselves.”

Lack of jobs and the military service of her older brother, Gregory Lynch Jr., led Jessica into the Army, her father said.

She signed up before graduating from Wirt County High School in Elizabeth, where she played basketball and softball.

Greg said: “The Army offered a good deal.” Jessica’s brother is stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

Locals have been supporting Greg, Jessica’s mother Deidre, and her 17-year-old sister, Brandi Renee.

A yellow ribbon was tied to a tree near the family’s mailbox and two others were attached to posts on the front porch.

[ladtx]

Women have absolutely no place in the military as now configured. If the WACS was reinstated, possibly. They cause more problems than they cure. The only way a woman should be allowed in front line combat units is if the country is threatened and about to be defeated on our own soil. I have yet to hear one good reason why they should be allowed in. Spare me the equality bs, it doesn't wash.

[cinFLA]

Did she give the name of the officer in charge of POWs? Sounds like there is some unfinished business that needs taking care of.

I didn't hear the whole interview. I do know that several Gulf War POW's have a lawsuit against Iraq but do not know if she is one of them.

[William Terrell]

Oh Please. That is so archaic. Why concern yourself with other womens choices. If they are qualified to be there and they choose to be there why are you so worried about it?

Archaic? Maybe the law of gravity is "archaic". Why don't you have Congress pass legislation, or the president an executive order, exempting those who jump off cliffs from hitting the ground.

Any population depends on women, and so does any nation. Women are the only way another member of the nation gets there. When you kill a man, you just kill that man. When you kill a woman you kill all her babies.

None but a very few women are suited to violent, armed and physical confrontation. All but a very few men are.

When you allow those few women to participate, you destroy the moral and rational base for not allowing any that may think they want it, but are not qualified. Those who aren't qualified put a potentially deadly burden on on the rest, who have to defer to her lack of qualities and increases their danger.

Essentially, the true question is why? Why search the watermelon field for the rare and volunteer strawberry? Why not stay with the strawberry patch?

[Age of Reason]

The most kills achieved my a female sniper was by Lyudmila M. Pavlichenko, a Russian sniper in WWII. She is credited with killing 309 enemy soldiers.

And where, today, is the political system that so celebrated sending its women to battle?

[First_Salute]

You'll find out from Oprah herself.

[farmfriend]

If you think that the 5 or 10 freaks of nature to be found who could actually compete physically with men head to head justifies building separate facilities for women, then you truly are a liberal.

I don't believe in separate facilities either but that is a whole different thread. I don't believe there would be 5 or 10 freaks.

You are 18, aren't you?

I'm 40. And female.

BTW, I never said that I wanted women to serve in the military. You are twisting what I said. What I said was that by not having women, who are willing and able, serve we are being unfair to our men. This has never been about the women. It has always been about the men.

[farmfriend]

ping

[FourPeas]

Go ahead and flame me, but, this kind of cheap sentimentality is the reason that GIRLS should not be in the Service.

Where are the fawning pictures of our dead boys? WTFO?

God bless her family and I thank her for her service.

No flame here. You are exactly right.

[William Terrell]

. . .who are willing and able. . .

Sorry, that doesn't get it. If you allow any women in combat you lose justification for keeping out any others who may think they want to go, and, in this politically correct age, set yourself up for charges of inequality based on sexism.

[Under the Radar]

You seem to have fallen for the folly of rabid egalitarianism. It isn't unfair to men that they be used in the capacity in which they are made. It *is* unfair to ask that women, who are naturally designed to be mothers and nuturers, be warriors instead. Sometimes it takes a supreme act of will to see the obvious.

[farmfriend]

Sorry, that doesn't get it. If you allow any women in combat you lose justification for keeping out any others who may think they want to go, and, in this politically correct age, set yourself up for charges of inequality based on sexism.

No so. That is like saying that allowing Yao to play basketball opens the door for all chinese who want to play. They must meet the requirements of the game. As for setting myself up for charges of inequality based on sexism. That is what I am suggesting we have when we only send men into combat. Inequality based on sexism.

[seams2me]

There are several things wrong with this.

First, she was no GIRL, she was a WOMAN. She was also a SOLDIER, by her own choice.

It seems at first somehow MORE tragic to lose a female soldier. Why is that?

Why don't we talk about the haircolor and personality of the MEN we have lost?

It is a tragic thing to lose any military personnel, a terrible thing for their family to endure. This young lady's family isn't taking the usual "our son/daughter died a hero" tack that you typically see in military families. I guess they think the evil military stole away their precious daughter.

She was an adult, she made choices, she served her country honorably and paid the ultimate price. She is a War Hero.

[countrydummy]

Thank you so damn much! My daughter joined the Army on Friday and I am very proud of her! She joined to protect her country and it's freedom! Nice that there are other benefits for joining! She will become a soldier---man---or--woman. A soldier may be dead or being tortured.....we should br grieving and praying for her family, not using this thread to debate policies or politics! Anybody don't like that, well you know what you can do!

[XBob]

Excellent points made well in #127.

To put it very simply, this thread is exactly why we shouldn't have women in combat.

[Under the Radar]

Indeed, the irony is thick here.

[farmfriend]

I read your link. What a bunch of crap. You certainly have me pegged wrong.

[William Terrell]

They must meet the requirements of the game.

But, it's well known that physical requirements for female trainees are relaxed and reduced.

That is what I am suggesting we have when we only send men into combat. Inequality based on sexism.

You're a victim of social engineering, my friend. Social engineers think that the parameters of physical reality are created by one's beliefs. Well, maybe they are, but certainly at a level unreachable by those same engineers.

[Trueblackman]

Call me old fashion and I will more than likely take my fair share of heat from our female freepers but I am going to post how I feel. Jessica had no business in combat as it is not a woman's place to be in combat. With all these lazy ass men who are laying up in prison doing nothing but draining billions in taxdollars away from American, why not make their time time in service and we would have no need for women in combat. I have no problem with women in the military, I do have a problem with women in combat zones.

[MamaLucci]

Gee, maybe all of the $$$ Senator Bobby Byrd (KKK-West Virginia) is having spent to make his new office look like his old Senate Pro Tem digs, (not to mention all of the self aggrandizing $pork$ that he has diverted to W Virginia over the years) could have been better spent helping the "poor country" people from his state to find work.

[wku man]

"...and undoubtedly knew how to use her M-16 or M-9."

Well, she supposedly knew how to handle her weapon, but what passes for marksmanship training in the Army is sadly lacking. I have seen soldiers, men and women, who couldn't hit a 150 meter pop-up 5 times out of 10. The Marines do a much better job of training their troops to shoot at longer ranges, from more positions, and under more duress than the Army does.

I hesitate to mention this, because others have been flamed in recent days for doing the same, but there's also the definite possibility that no one in the lost convoy fired even a single shot in their defense. After all, think back to our three Cav Scouts who got captured by Serb villagers back in 1999. They all had -16s and -9s, as well as a .50-cal atop their HMMWV, and not a single round was fired. They just surrendered, and they were combat arms guys (my old MOS, in fact), soldiers you'd think had plenty of fight in them. It's not pleasant to think about, but it's a definite possibility.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!