Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Collocating Coffins (Political correctness in the military did not end with the Clinton admin.)
The American Prowler ^ | 3/18/2005 | George Neumayr

Posted on 03/19/2005 2:11:42 AM PST by nickcarraway

Political correctness in the U.S. military did not end with the Clinton administration. President Bush's military is also pushing an ideology of "equality" at the expense of military effectiveness. For the sake of an absurd feminist experiment, the Bush military is willing to sap its strength, expose women to torture and death and mar the lives of children and families. The price tag of this experiment is on the body bags carrying mothers, wives, and daughters who have died in Iraq, and on the growing list of orphans produced by the war. Read the casualty reports: Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, mother of two preschoolers; Melissa J. Hobart, 22, mother of a 3 year-old; Jessica L. Cawvey, 21, single mother of a 6-year-old; Sgt. Pamela Osbourne, 38, mother of three children, ages 9-19, Katrina L. Bell-Johnson, 32, mother of a 1-year-old.

"Tens of thousands of children are struggling to cope while Mom goes to war," reports the Sacramento Bee. And if Mom does come back, she may return as an amputee. Or shell-shocked, reports the Bee: "Returning female vets are bringing back wounded minds, beset by post-traumatic stress disorder, an illness that affects women at twice the rate of men. Health care experts fear an avalanche of cases among female vets will smother the military health care system."

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness reports that the Bush military, far from reconsidering the feminization of the military under Bill Clinton, is advancing it. The Bush Pentagon has now done what Clinton didn't even do by implementing a de facto women-in-combat policy of placing women in front-line support groups alongside combat units.

"Under current federal law and military regulations, women are barred from ground combat groups," reports the Bee. (And Bush has said "no women in combat.") "There are indications, however, that the Pentagon is less steadfast than its commander-in-chief about maintaining the status quo. In February, the Army's 3rd Infantry Division acknowledged it has assigned women to units in Iraq that directly support combat troops by providing food, equipment maintenance and other services. The process, called 'collocation' -- literally to place side by side-- is at odds with an 11-year-old Army policy that bans women from serving in front-line support groups."

Elaine Donnelly tells TAS that a Pentagon attitude of "This is how women grow their careers" is driving the new collocation policy. The Pentagon has bizarrely said that these women will only serve alongside combat units when they are not in combat but should they find themselves in combat the military will "evacuate" the female troops. If that doesn't show the military's willingness to lose battles for the sake of a gender-integration experiment, what does?

What a lunatic scenario: the military is placing women with combat units on the assumption that they won't see combat but should they see combat it will dissipate battle resources to "evacuate" soldiers who shouldn't have been there in the first place all so that it can maintain a modified "collocation" policy that conforms to a careerist feminist ideology in the Pentagon.

Soldiers have told Donnelly that the new collocation rule is insane. An infantry officer described what evacuating the 24 women in these units will mean: "[Removing] 24 fully loaded soldiers [would require] two Blackhawk helicopters, six Huey helicopters, one Chinook helicopter, two 5-ton (or LMTV) trucks, 12 up-armored HMMWV's (with a full crew of three) and four to six unarmored HMMWV's to move. These are assets that cannot be spared simply to move females to the rear. In combat, helicopters are preferable but a very scarce asset. Imagine an entire brigade trying to chopper out these female contingents before combat -- it would require almost half of a division's worth of aviation assets to move them all at once."

A female officer told Donnelly: "The key question...remove females when combat begins. That is ridiculous. When does the combat begin? According to the President the war ended and we are not in a 'war zone' but in a 'Theater of Operations' now. I think it is a play on words and commanders in the field will not follow those guidelines. This is political language that we commanders are not aware of. Once soldiers are in the units they will all be placed wherever they are needed regardless of their gender."

In other words, the new collocation policy is a formula for at once losing battles and getting women killed. It is not even accurate to say that death is an equal opportunity provider on the battlefield as women will have less chance of surviving than the men.

But it is not surprising that the military is blurring the distinction between combat and noncombat field positions for women. The door blocking women in combat has been ajar since it became clear that "noncombat" jobs would mean de facto combat jobs (as evident in the fact that "noncombat" women carry weaponry and are dying in combat situations). The military's new collocation policy signifies that it is readying to kick the door wide open. In the meantime, however, female soldiers will learn the hard way what the military means by career benefits.

"You're not generally told as a female that you will be in that type of situation where you are in harm's way directly," National Guard Sergeant Brenda Monroe said to the Sacramento Bee. "I never dreamed that I would wake up every night and have to run to a bunker and take cover because we were being attacked or under direct fire."

The feminist dream that began under Clinton is producing a nightmare under Bush. How many women and mothers will have to die before a Bush military that should know better stops it?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: anotherhateusa; bushhate; collocation; militarymothers; militarywomen; womenincombat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: raybbr
Why all that to move 24 women?

I wondered about that -- maybe there's a typo and it should be "or" instead of "and."

41 posted on 03/19/2005 12:18:12 PM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

The quality of the soldiers vs what we have to day was appalling. Why? Because most were there against their will. Drugs, etc were rampant. I don't fault the soldier, I fault the notion of forcing someone to do something they have no desire to do.


42 posted on 03/19/2005 1:34:29 PM PST by Trust but Verify (Pull up a chair and watch history being made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The girls want to play soldier, let them have full, equal opportunity.


43 posted on 03/19/2005 2:27:54 PM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm

." She can be an admin REMF "

¿Can a REMF be a she?


44 posted on 03/19/2005 2:28:21 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT (Sane, and have the papers to prove it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stm
There are indeed Women Marines flying combat missions as well. Captain Vernice Armour is one of them.


Marine Capt. Vernice Armour is the Department of Defense's first black female combat pilot. She flies AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters like this one at the Camp Pendleton airstrip.
Photo:CHARLIE NEUMAN / Union-Tribune

45 posted on 03/19/2005 2:37:35 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify

I disagree. There were the problems you mention but as a percentage of the total number of military personnel it was relatively small.
From my perspective the problems were abetted by a lax command structure. Too many officers weren't willing to take the measures necessary to clean out the ranks.
Support for trouble makers by leftist politicians indeed made the problems occur more frequently than one could expect.


46 posted on 03/19/2005 5:29:57 PM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DUMBGRUNT

Yes she can. Remember Billy Jean King's sponsor, Snap on Tools?
What key strokes do you use to get the Spanish style question mark in your sentences? Private reply, O.K..


47 posted on 03/19/2005 5:37:34 PM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

ALT 168
Hold down the ALT key and 1 6 8

http://www.coloryourprofyle.com/phade/alt.html


48 posted on 03/19/2005 5:52:24 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT (Sane, and have the papers to prove it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson