Women don't belong in combat

New York Daily News | 4/04/03 | Karen Hunter

[kattracks]

The E-mail came back marked "undeliverable." Tracy Thorne tried to send the message to her cousin Shoshana Johnson four more times. Each time it came back "undeliverable."

"I thought there was a problem either with my system or on the receiving end," said Thorne. "I decided I would try again the next day."

But the next day Thorne found out that her cousin was one of five soldiers from the Army's 507th Maintenance Co. who had been taken prisoner by the Iraqis.

The capture of Johnson and Jessica Lynch - who was rescued Tuesday - raises the question of whether women should be anywhere near the battlefield. (Another woman, Lori Piestewa, is missing in action.)

The quest for equal treatment for women, I believe, should end at the doorstep of war. Yes, I know there are women who can fight as hard as men. But that doesn't mean they should be doing so, that they should go to war.

Iraq has a history of disrespecting women - even using rape as a tactic against its enemies. Why even allow for the possibility of women being captured by them?

Johnson, 30, is a single mother of a little girl, Janelle, who will be 3 in May. She joined the Army as a step toward becoming a chef. She grew up in a military family; her father, Claude, was a nuclear, biological and chemical specialist in the Army. Her family says Johnson was always ready to serve her country in any way she was asked. When called to Kuwait, she did not hesitate to go. It was her duty.

But it must be the duty of this civilization to protect its women.

There are 200,000 women in the U.S. military. The Clinton administration lifted the so-called risk rule in 1994, giving them the opportunity to serve in many positions once held only by men. Now they do everything from flying combat missions to serving on combat vessels. The only restriction is that they cannot serve in infantry, armor and artillery units.

But as we see, despite those restrictions, women who are cooks, nurses, logistics specialists, etc., can fall into enemy hands as well as men.

It is a danger that this country must reconsider. It is a danger that women who have fought for equality in the military must especially reconsider.

"We expected Shana to be cooking for the troops, not captured by the enemy," said Thorne, a budget director in Brooklyn. "Why was she even in harm's way?"

Because it's war. And anything can happen in war.

The rescue of 19-year-old Lynch has brought hope to Shoshana Johnson's family. They believe she will be brought home as well.

Lynch was rescued from an Iraqi hospital. She reportedly had been stabbed and shot, and both her legs and an arm were broken. She was treated the way any man might be treated in war.

But she's not a man. Neither is Johnson or any of the 200,000 other women in the military. It's time to acknowledge that truth and what it means.

Originally published on April 4, 2003

[Non-Sequitur]

Women died in the military in World War II, in Korea, and in Viet Nam without the Clinton policy being in place. In fact, more women died during Desert Shield than during Iraqi Freedom and that was pre-Clinton policy too. In time of war there is no safe place while serving in the military. Is Ms. Hunter suggesting that women be barred from the military altogether? That's the only way to prevent any of them from dying in the service.

[Catspaw]

From what I've observed, the Iraqis are equal opportunity torturers and indiscriminately kill whomever gets in their way.

And although the focus is on the three women POW/MIAs, has the author considered that the men being held as POW/MIAs might be fathers? It seems to diminish their role as parents, as if only a mother could love a child.

[North Coast Conservative]

The only thing I have to say is:

If she can pick me, or any other member of my squad up and carry the disabled Marine back to safety, then I have no problem. If she, or he, cannot pull their weight in a combat situation then they ought not be placed in harm's way. This not only protects them, it protects me and the other members of my team.

Enough said.

Get US Out of the United Nations

In God We Trust…..Semper Fi

[trebb]

I spent 24 years in the military and worked alongside many capable women, but I still remain torn when considering women in combat situations. The rational side of me says that many can do the job and should be treated accordingly. The Instinctual side says that we need to preserve our women. I guess it is part of the survival-of-the-species instinct, where it made sense to put men in harms way and keep the women safe. After all, a single man can impregnate a lot of women and thereby continue the species, whereas a lot of men and a few women would lead to extinction. It's obvious we don't have to worry about that today, but the instinct remains until God removes it.

Just my own observation - point/counterpoint welcome.

[MACVSOG68]

This will continue to be a very divisive issue, but anyone truly interested in the "women in the military" issue, and those changes made during the clinton administration should read "The Kinder Gentler Military, by Stephanie Gutman, Scribner Press.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I understand that there are issues with having women in combat. That being said.. they are there now and this article is dis-respectful.

[ResistorSister]

You stated the "bottom line."

[Under the Radar]

I think the issue here is that it is more detrimental to society to lose a female of reproductive age than it is to lose a male. Yes, men can be raped and tortured, and ultimately end up infertile. However, a female who is raped and tortured at best comes back pregnant with the enemy's bastard. At worst her fertility is destroyed. Losing the reproductive capacity of a female is more devastating to a population than losing that of a male's.

However, I doubt this argument holds much water, considering how infertile our society already is. What we don't kill with abortion, we prevent to promote women's careers. When I recently announced at work that I was pregnant, one woman congratulated me and said, "You are the first pregnant woman here since I had my son!" I asked her how old her son was, to which she replied that he was 18. I doubt this is an unusual situation.

[Hila]

Women must not be sent to the battle front.

[BibChr]

Yes, I know there are women who can fight as hard as men. But that doesn't mean they should be doing so, that they should go to war.

Here the author travels a step beyond the definition of liberal thought today. I can put it very simply:

LIBERAL STANCE:
"ABILITY" = "PERMISSIBILITY"
"CAN" = "SHOULD"

There you have it.

Dan
Biblical Christianity message board

[BibChr]

"We expected Shana to be cooking for the troops, not captured by the enemy," said Thorne, a budget director in Brooklyn. "Why was she even in harm's way?"

Let me make a guess:

Becase you voted for Bill Clinton?

Just a guess.

Dan

[The Great RJ]

Military forces have one purpose--to fight wars. Anyone, regardless of sex, who is part of a military force is thus subject to all war entails--including death or capture. There are no military non-combatants in a war.

[joesnuffy]

Women do not belong in Combat Arms specialities or on the battlefield period imo
For everyone of those girls captured raped tortured and killed..

There was a thousand guys no a hundred thousand guys sitting back wishing they could have been there to save them..or willingly have taken their places

There was NO reason to have any women in this war in the zone..every job they are assigned could be better served by a man who was not allowed to due to affirmative action political considerations..

Not that they couldnt do the job...but they shouldnt have to...as long as equally or better qualified men are available and want to go fight...

Keep the females in the rear areas out of the combat zones...
imo
& I am a combat vet

[Catspaw]

However, I doubt this argument holds much water, considering how infertile our society already is. What we don't kill with abortion, we prevent to promote women's careers. When I recently announced at work that I was pregnant, one woman congratulated me and said, "You are the first pregnant woman here since I had my son!" I asked her how old her son was, to which she replied that he was 18. I doubt this is an unusual situation.

Agreed...but this article diminishes women down to the role of breeding stock and diminishes men down to indiscriminate sperm implanters.

[kenzie]

2 billion years of sexual evolutiuon and still some people can't figure it out. The farthest non-sexual evolution has evolved is rock slime, but then again isn't that the character of those that want to put women into combat?

It's bad enough that every couple of generations half the world's population rises up to slaughter itself, do we have to involve everyone?

Finally, to have the sex that is capable of creating life, charged with the task of taking life is repugnant. Any man that doesn't understand this, is just 'slime'.

[Protagoras]

Any man that doesn't understand this agree with me, is just 'slime'.

Edited for clarity.

[Protagoras]

Should they have the vote?

[Nick Danger]

I can tolerate these pieces when they are written by chivalrous men, but coming from someone named "Karen" it just sounds like self-serving "I'm too important to be hurt -- it's up to you men to go and die" BS.

It's just fine with her if men are shot, captured, tortured, raped -- yes, they rape men in that culture -- that's what men are for. I don't mind men volunteering for it, but that crap coming out of the mouth of a woman is just plain offensive.