Why are we sending Teenage Girls into the Battle Zone?

AP (Yahoo News) ^

[optik_b]

Jessica Lynch is known for her smile, her laugh and for loving children so much that she wants to be a teacher. "That smile is all you ever see," Glenda Nelson, a close family friend, said Monday. "No matter what, she always had a smile on her face."

Lynch, who aspires to become a teacher, joined the Army to get an education and because it was one of the few opportunities available in a farming community with an unemployment rate of 15 percent — one of the highest in West Virginia.

Once she entered the service, Jesse, as she is known to family and friends, would often write letters, send e-mail and call home.
The young woman is "every mother's dream of a teenager daughter," said Lorene Cumbridge, a cousin.

[Michael81Dus]

Thank you so much. I had English in school for 9 years. Now, FR helps me to train my skills.

In Wiesbaden, there´re no US facilities as far as I remember.

[KC Burke]

Like many conservatives, custom and convention play a big role in your initial reaction. That couples with a respect and appreciation for important roles and responsibilities men, women, husbands and wives, children and young persons have within the patrimony of our heritage.

This is counter-balanced in conservatism by the realization that Equality under the Law is the only form of equality that is real and achievable. Government service of all types is certainly a matter of law, and as such deserves a full measure of that equality to all citizens. The most Whiggish of principles.

The mediating force in conservatism between these two is what R. Kirk called the respect for reform and useful change. In his own words:

"Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.... The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression.... He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old."

The ability to serve in our military, with all the dangers inherent, is a change that is tempered by a respect for the inherent different risks and challenges that womens' service in combat and capture risk areas presents for the military as an institution.

Only careful consideration of events and history will allow us to slowly try and use or abandon all such reforms based upon sensible measurement of the overall experience.

[homeschool mama]

Good!

[Michael81Dus]

Same here. Chancellor Schröder was the first Chancellor to refuse saying "so help me God" after saying his oath. [The oathes of the federal government, President and judges are different of course. ]

[MineralMan]

Here, nobody is required to swear any oath using the name of a deity. One may simply affirm one's oath, whether it is to be the President of the United States or a military person. That is our law, and it is based on our concept that religion and government are separate. No religious test may be required to hold any official government position. That is guaranteed in the body of our Constitution.

[jrawk]

[this girl quite frankly doesn't look to me like someone who could drag a critically wounded soldier to safety if needed]

This is another point, an interesting one...

Lets rif on this a little:

3 soldiers are in a battle 2 men, one woman. The enemy pops up with his AK firing wildy, hits two of them. The 3rd soldier shoots him, but is still taking fire.

Scenario 1:

The female and male are hit in the calf.

Evacuation is needed.

What happens? I think the remaining man, driven by some unconsious mitochondrial DNA programming 99 times out of 100, grabs the women soldier. Drags her to safety. Heads back for the man.

Another question is that who is going to heal and be back in the battle quicker?

How does his thinking differ if it is 3 men?

Scenario 2:

Both men are hit, leaving the women. Can she drag her fellow soldiers to safety?

Who does she help first?

What if it is 3 women?

Just thoughts. Curious to hear counter points.

-- lates

[Michael81Dus]

Thanks for the explanation. The PoA changed during the times, I can conclude from your words.

You were referring to Hitler: from 1920-1934 the military oath was sworn to the Republic (so it is today again). On the day, the last democratic elected President died (1934), Hitler changed the oath, and enforced all servicemen to swear unconditional obedience to him.

I have the oath, the soldiers of the GDR had to speak. It´s a long text and ends with "if I violated this solemn oath, I want to be punished by the severity of the laws of the workers- and farmers republic and the contempt of the working people." LOL "the contempt of the working people"

[Semper Vigilantis]

When I enlisted it was with the full knowledge that I may be called upon to fight and die for my country. ("...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic....") Contrary to what the patch said peace was not our profession. No one hid it from me and I doubt that it was hidden from her. The military exists to deter or defeat anyone that threatens the security of this nation - it is not the place to get a free education.
Do I agree with women being in a combat zone? No. But that's my opinion. The laws say otherwise.

[Hildy]

They knew this when they signed up. They can thank the NOW gang.

[Michael81Dus]

Same here. But isn´t it a contradiction that all kids have to speak the PoA? Even those who believe in no religion and foreigners?

[MineralMan]

"The PoA changed during the times, I can conclude from your words.
"

It did. Until the 1950's, there was nothing about God in the Pledge of Allegience. Since nobody in the United States is required to say the PoA at all, many leave those words out, reverting to the earlier version.

The matter is still to be decided by our courts, but the courts have already decided that nobody can be compelled to say the Pledge. Nobody. Most, however, say it proudly, whether they include "under God" or not.

[Mark17]

In Wiesbaden, there´re no US facilities as far as I remember.

There are no US facilities in Wiesbaden now, but when I was there, in the 1980s, there were about 18,000 US Army troops, and about 2,000 Air Force. Actually, I worked at Mainz-Kastel.

[Azarona Joel]

I'm a long time lurker and just have to chime in. This is a brave woman of our armed forces. The one thing nobody is considering is that She was not shown as one of the dead, and was not one of the pow's. I hate to say this , but I hope She is dead, because the other option would be too horrible for any woman I know. And if She is being held elsewhere, I hope She is rescued this hour!!!!!!!

[MineralMan]

"But isn´t it a contradiction that all kids have to speak the PoA? Even those who believe in no religion and foreigners?"

Nobody is required to say the PoA. The Supreme court decided that in, I believe, 1949, when one religious group brought suit, since their religion prohibits such pledges. That was the Jehovah's Witnesses.

One may also leave out the "under God" words if one chooses.

[PLMerite]

I work with military people of all services (less Coasties).
The rules allow for girls who are small enough for me to pick up with one hand. These are not soldiers. I do not question their patriotism or their desire. I only point out that in a fight they are going to lose, and losing is not what wins wars. They make all MOSs go through basic like they may end up in combat, which in this age of "asymetrical warfare" is apparently true. If there is a standard for soldiering it should apply regardless of sex. Reality does not lighten the mortar baseplate or the 155mm artillery round. Or the 6'4" WIA who needs to be carried to the aid station.

Getting brutalized as a P.O.W. and thus enraging the troops is not what soldiers are for.

Soldiers don't all need to be supermen; but it's my opinion that whatever uniqueness women might bring to the services, it doesn't make up for the allowances that have to be made for them.

I sincerely hope this young lady comes home without too many scars or any emotional trauma. Other people will have to decide if proving a point was worth it.

[jrawk]

you have a valid point on being realistic here.

I was arguing on idealistic principles.

It complicates things a lot when you have an enemy willing to attack medical stations, take nurses captive like soldiers, or fire from behind women and children like they were sandbags.

-- lates

[AnalogReigns]

Here, nobody is required to swear any oath using the name of a deity

If you look carefully at the US Constitution, no one is required (there at least) to "swear" any "Oath" at all. The phrase used is "swear (OR affirm)."

The reason for this minor bit of language is certain religious groups (the Quakers come to mind, as especially influential at our founding) taking a literal interpretation of the Bible, forbid the taking of any oath. (Jesus said, "let your yes be yes, and your no, no, ....") Therefore the words "or affirm" were stuck in.

It really is a great country.

[Ga Rob]

Because Bill Clinton in his loathing of the military decieded to turn it into a social experiment. But hey at least Jessica is "NOW" equal.

[MineralMan]

"It really is a great country."

That bears repeating. The atheist can be equally as patriotic as the Christian in this wonderful nation. I hope we never forget that.

[A. Patriot]

Why are we sending Teenage Girls into the Battle Zone?

So that they can be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

How else can our enimies from within demoralize the nation by having pretty young girls suffer the raveges of war.