Parker: 'What the Hell Was Jessica Lynch Doing in the Army?'

NewsMax.com ^ | 11/19/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

Writing in the Orlando Sentinel, Kathleen Parker explained that Jessica Lynch joined the Army to get the college tuition she needed to become a kindergarten teacher.

Lynch wasn't looking for an assignment the Army never told her might put her into the combat situation that nearly cost her life, and left her shattered and crippled.

And Lynch was put into that situation because the Pentagon has caved in to feminist pressure.

Many veterans and observers have protested Lynch's "hero" status, and Parker feels Jessica Lynch's book is far from the story of a regular soldier, but rather "... the hijacked fairy tale of a scared, ‘prissy’ little girl who wanted to be taken care of."

So what was Lynch doing in the Army?

Parker says that Lynch's story offers Americans, and especially women, "a cautionary tale: A 5-foot-4-inch, 100-pound woman has no place in a war zone nor, arguably, in the military."

Parker goes further: "The feminist argument that women can do anything men can do is so absurd that it seems unworthy of debate. That some women are as able as some men in some circumstances hardly constitutes a defense for "girling" down our military - and putting men at greater risk - so that the Jessica Lynches can become kindergarten teachers."

Noting that Lynch was brutally raped while in captivity, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, writes in the November 14 edition of National Review Online: "Experts in the field have noted that female captives, unlike their male counterparts, are almost always violated sexually."

That, she says, is a risk against which the Army does not warn women recruits. "We need brave women in the military, but no one's daughter should have to suffer an ordeal comparable to that experienced by Pfc. Jessica Lynch," Donnelly, wrote. "Not in the name of other women's careers, military necessity, or anything else."

Like Parker, Donnelly writes that many Americans also may wonder how Lynch got to the frontlines to begin with, and goes on to explain that "Under rules issued by the Clinton administration, female soldiers in support units are now being forced into areas involving a 'substantial risk of capture.'"

This policy, she notes, "is inconsistent with privacy rules that deny information about what happens to women who are captured. "

A petition now being circulated by Americans for the Military ( www.americansforthemilitary.com) asks President Bush to reverse the Clinton rules.

It also requests that Bush take action "to end admittedly inefficient Army co-ed basic training, gender-based recruiting quotas, and overly generous pregnancy policies that subsidize and increase single parenthood in the military. All of these problematic policies were enacted during the Clinton years. They can be revised in the same way — long before the next deployment begins."

Parker quotes New York Times arts columnist Frank Rich as noting that Lynch is not so much "a symbol of Bush administration propaganda," as she is a victim of the PC military career myth sold to young women through feminist propaganda.

Parker writes that it’s a pity a girl like Lynch had to be ‘broken’ to remind Americans that the Army is not an arbitrary career choice. As one Army officer told Parker: "Our job is to take human life on behalf of the nation."

[tx_eggman]

I am continually amazed at how many people in this country continue to align themselves with the Democrats

A democracy . . . can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.” -- Alexander Fraser Tytler

Follow the money. When 50%+ of the voters are paying less than 1% of the taxes it's time to ask

"What's this basket we're in ... and where are we going?"

[Blood of Tyrants]

He's been a bit busy of late. Reversing the policy now is sort of shutting the barn door after the horses have left.

1. It only takes a phone call to have someone type up the general order and a minute to sign it.

2. It is never too late to reverse bad policy.

[Think free or die]

" The fact that a woman can lift the 40 pound load required of her nominal position does not mean she will be able to lift the 200 pounds that may be required in a disaster."

I'm about the same size as Jessica Lynch, and reasonably fit. However, it would be a struggle for me to drag/carry my skinny ten year old son more than a few yards, let alone rescue a grown man or woman. While I'm a great proponent of equal opportunity for women, I don't see how any woman (or perhaps man) of this size belongs in a place of potential combat. There are times when physical size and strength are of critical importance, and to pretend otherwise puts soldiers needlessly at greater risk.

[RinaseaofDs]

I would agree, but there are people that need to be called, buy in that needs to be had, and other stuff.

In a vacuum, your right, evey law is but a stroke of a pen.

[bannie]

I guess that they figured it out too...

[Blood of Tyrants]

No change in law needed. Just the Commander In Chief issuing an order to his troops.

[vanmorrison]

You may have explained the basic reason for Democrat popularity. But that still doesn't mean that the majority of the American people aren't asses for supporting them.

[milemark]

He's been busy of late, but he had nearly 2 years to do something about it before 9/11. He did nothing.

[teldon30]

Here's a question for you: What do you do with a pregnant sailor?

[RinaseaofDs]

By my calendar, the time between November 2000 (when he was elected) and September 2001 is about a year, but then you have to remember that he wasn't inaugurated until January 2001.

January to September is about 9 months, right?

9 months does not equal two years, not even almost.

The C in C does not issue orders to troops. He calls in his Joint Chiefs and consults them, he gets options from them, and he chooses one.

The time to reverse major policies in the military is NOT in the middle of a major conflict.

I'd cut GWB some slack here.

[AnAmericanMother]

I have always been very active physically, and inherited a very solid build and unusual strength from my dad (who is a small man but a fireplug, as am I and my son.) I'm fitter and stronger than most women, who are uniformly amazed by my "feats of strength" which unfortunately are really no big deal (lifting 50 pound bags of concrete onto a loading dock seems to be something most women can't do.)

But it's plain to me from working in construction and on a cattle ranch that I'm still not as strong as the average man. I sometimes get myself in a jam doing things like moving railroad ties and have to whistle for my husband, who is a moose (6'6" and 240). I've done a good deal of backpacking but I keep my pack at 30 pounds max, no way could I carry full pack (and the radio - my poor husband always wound up carrying the (*&^&(%$) radio) on a 10 or 20 mile forced march.

It's unfair (and dangerous) to everybody to put women into situations where they can't do the job.

[ZULU]

"Parker says that Lynch's story offers Americans, and especially women, "a cautionary tale: A 5-foot-4-inch, 100-pound woman has no place in a war zone nor, arguably, in the military."

That says it all. Regardless of the sophistication of modern weaponry, it all comes down to the soldier in the field - the grunt with the gun and the bayonette and fist who will have to slug it out face to face with an equally armed and determined opponent. And all other things being equal, no woman can match a man in physical combat.

Don't blame Jessica Lynch - blame the feminist lesbian harlots who instigated this policy and the pandering, testicleless politicians who implemented it.

[TexKat]

Don't they have kitchens in the army?

It was reported back in March in the midst of the POWs being captured that Shoshana is/was a cook in the army.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

In truth, I think we are going to have to lose a major Naval Vessel before that happens.

USS Acadia (AD-42), was pulled off the line during Gulf War I because its crew could not man the ship. Too many women sailors aboard had become pregnant during the cruise.

[No Blue States]

"Don't blame Jessica Lynch - blame the feminist lesbian harlots who instigated this policy and the pandering, testicleless politicians who implemented it."

Q of the D.

[LaraCroft]

What do you do with a sailor with a broken leg? A ruptured appendix? A mental breakdown?

[teldon30]

That's what i thought...you have no answer....i remember the USS Yellowstone (Loveboat) back in 1991....more than a third of the crew got pregnant on the way to the gulf...the boat was not ready for duty and sent back to port.

[teldon30]

oh yeah...i almost forgot about the prostitution that was going on on the ship....and yes it goes on...the media doesn't have the guts to report those stories.

[colorado tanker]

Lynch was in a unit that would normally be so far to the rear the only combat soldier she's likely to see is one being transported to a hospital.

The problem is the nature of modern war and especially assymetrical warfare. Often, there is no "front line" or rear area. To keep women safer we need to go back to the WAC concept and get them out of units operating anywhere near the front. Still, there is no ironclad solution. Brave women were captured on Bataan and Corregidor and became POW's under terrible circumstances.

[LaraCroft]

No, the ban against women in combat was lifted in.. I dunno.. 1995?

While 84% of women in the Israel military serve in admistrative duty, very few are in combat duty, and only 18% get weapons training.

Denmark, Canada.. and.. hmm.. another European country have women in combat roles.