The next battle for Pfc. Jessica Lynch

WND ^ | April 10, 2003 | Jane Chastain

[Tailgunner Joe]

Pfc. Jessica Lynch will be flown to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., soon. She has been isolated from media coverage of her rescue and has no idea what awaits her when she regains her health.

Private Lynch survived the ambush in Iraq of the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, but can she survive the ambush of the feminine forces of political correctness that placed her in harm's way.

These people want to use her to promote their theory that men and women soldiers are the same. This thesis is, of course, unprovable. While women may be just as smart, brave and mentally tough as men, physically they are shorter, lighter and weaker. No amount of physical training can make up for these differences. Therefore, the feminist goal of a genderless society must be achieved by manipulation, intimidation and indoctrination.

The feminists found willing accomplices in Democrat presidents Jimmy Carter – who viewed war as unnecessary – and Bill Clinton, who wasn't above hiding behind the skirts he was unable to lift.

In 1979, Carter attempted to repeal the restriction that prevents women from serving in combat units. When Congress said, "No," he had his secretary of the army, Clifford Alexander, redefine "combat." When Alexander was finished, women were shielded from only 22 percent of the jobs in the services.

In 1993, Clinton's secretary of defense, Les Aspin, also went to work on the combat definition. Aspin eliminated the "no risk" rule, which had prevented women from being assigned to units in close proximity with hostile forces, where there is a high risk of enemy gunfire or capture. As a result, the combat definition now is meaningless and unsuspecting women like Lynch have been sent into battle zones.

Congress also played a pro-active role in this debacle. In April of 1991, during debate on the 1992 defense authorization bill, Rep. Pat Schroeder, D. Colo., persuaded members of the House Armed Services Committee to strike the language in the U.S. Code that barred women from flying combat missions in the Air Force and the Navy "as a reward" for their service in Desert Storm.

This hearing was not open to the public and there was no roll-call vote. However, there were veterans on that committee who should have known better – like "B-1 Bob" Dornan, R. Calif., and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R. Calif., the first fighter ace of the Vietnam War.

When the bill went to the Senate, members hedged their bets. They passed it with the Schroeder amendment while adding another amendment calling for a presidential commission to study the issue. This was tantamount to a doctor deciding to run a test on the reflexes of a patient's knee after the leg had been removed.

The bill was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, who also knew better! The Joint Chiefs of Staff had testified that lifting the combat exclusion for female aviators ultimately would force the armed forces to assign women to all combat units.

Unfortunately, all these changes in law and regulations were made with little fanfare, little mention in the press. Also, a myth was perpetrated that once combat positions were open to women, they simply would be allowed to decide if they wished to accept these dangerous assignments.

That myth was shattered on March 23, 2003, when the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company was ambushed after being lost, resulting in the capture of Pfc. Lynch, who is one of the more fortunate members of her unit. Nine are confirmed dead, including her former roommate, Pfc. Lori Piestewa. Five others are POWs, including Spec. Shoshana Johnson.

Make no mistake, the death and capture of any soldier – male or female – is equally tragic but a policy that does not take into consideration the profound differences between women and men is not only wrong, it is immoral.

Gender norming, the lowering of physical fitness standards and the combining of male and female recruits in entry-level training in all the services – except the Marines – is an attempt to gloss over these differences. This not only reduces individual readiness, it subjects our male soldiers, sailors and airmen to greater stresses and increases their risk of capture and casualty.

The combat-exclusion rule must be reinstated and the definition of combat redrawn before we face another war and a stronger enemy.

No one doubts the bravery of the women of the 507th. Let's just hope that Pfc. Lynch is as brave in confronting the feminists, when it comes time to address these truths, as she was in standing up to the paramilitary in Iraq.

Will she become a soldier of truth – or remain a prisoner of political correctness?

[battlegearboat]

Aw Jeeze, not this **** again!

[Poohbah]

Ping, need your graphic :o)

[Support Free Republic]

We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[peeve23]

The only way to win this argument is to argue that women should be able to do anything that they can do equally as well or better than men.

If they can do the buttons on a Patriot Missile as well, then they should be permitted to.

[muir_redwoods]

I've got an argument that the leftist feminists can't beat. Women don't belong in combat because;

"Human Beings have somehow managed to keep the female half of humanity out of the direct effects of war throughout our history. All efforts should be directed toward getting the male half out of combat instead of getting the female half in."

I've tried this argument and they absolutely cannot respond. It's fun

[honeygrl]

Yeah I'm tired of this debate as well.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Get used to it buddy.

[annyokie]

This one?

[Poohbah]

That's the one! :o)

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I think everybody misses the point. The point, it seems to me, of putting women in combat roles is to make everyone queasy about ever putting the military into combat. Of course necessity overcomes naivete every time.

[mom-7]

I do hope that this young woman has the good sense to tell the press and everyone else to get lost, cause they will use and abuse her. It's not worth it.

[429CJ]

I'm with you Tailgunner, women on or near the front line is a sign of a sick nation.

[elfman2]

"Aw Jeeze, not this **** again!"

I'm curious. Is this something that you two are in favor of (women in combat) and don't want to see it discussed?

I've been here several years and haven't seen too many threads on it. The first time I discussed it was a week ago on a thread regarding torture of prisoners, and a woman responded to my one anti women in combat post by accusing me of "hijacking" the thread. Being that half the threads on FR had greater divergences somewhere in them from the original topic, her reaction looked out of proportion, indicating a concern that her values might come under attack here.

From my experience, your opposition to this being discussed seems out of proportion as well. Is that the case with you two? Are you very much in favor of women being thoroughly integrated into the services?

[daddypatriot]

I was in the military when the only women were WACS assigned to clerical duties. They were wonderful and far better than men to deal with typing, file keeping, record keeping, etc., etc. My son was in the military 30 years later when women were assigned to the same duties as men. He told me they were forever falling out on marches with 40 pound packs. There is something wrong here.

[usmcobra]

Can someone explain to me just how the ambush of the 507th is directly related to the dangers of women in Combat?

By all accounts, this unit was unescorted by any infantry support.

By all accounts, this incident should never have happened.

By all accounts instead of crying in fear and hiding helplessly behind their male counterparts, The female soldiers in this fire fight fought back as well as any other soldier there.

What we have here is a rear echelon unit thrown unexpectantly thrown into a vicious ambush, poorly armed and unsupported by even a squad of grunts, fighting back valiantly, and only being captured after every bit of ammo they had on hand had been expended. If anything this incident has nothing to do with women in combat but everything to do with the protection of support units in a convoy.

The fact that there were women attached to this unit has nothing to do with the way all the soldiers in this ambush fought back, they would have fought back even if it had been an all male unit and given the weapons and ammo they had on hand the results would have been the same, if anything it might have been worse.

[elfman2]

Please see #14

[annyokie]

Women, other than doctors and nurses do not belong in combat. I have been flamed enough about my position on this to be in the burn unit.

[Blue Screen of Death]

Rosie O'Donnal on the battlefield could provide cover for half a platoon.

[honeygrl]

"I'm curious. Is this something that you two are in favor of (women in combat) and don't want to see it discussed?"

I'm sortof on the fence about it. I don't think double standards are fair (women getting into positions meeting easier requirements) but I don't like seeing all the generalizations like "no woman can do blah blah" or "all women are blah blah." The reason the debate has grown old to me is that it usually gets too heated and rational thought flies out the window.

[Tailgunner Joe]

They never should have been in the combat zone in the first place.

In 1994 Secretary of Defense Les Aspin redefined Direct Ground Combat, and eliminated “inherent risk of capture” as a factor to consider in exempting women from serving in units previously defined as close combat. To open up even more “career opportunities” for women, Aspin also eliminated the Defense Department’s (DoD) Risk Rule—a regulation intended to exempt women in non-combat positions from being assigned close to the front lines.

None of this would have ever happened if not for Bill Clinton.

[Jeff Gordon]

Will she become a soldier of truth – or remain a prisoner of political correctness?

Opportunitists of all kinds will try to make her into something that that supports their agenda. The one fact that remains above all is that Jessica Lynch is a Private First Class in the Army of the United States of America.

[Poohbah]

With the increasingly cellular nature of the modern battlefield, you'd have to pretty much yank all women to CONUS...and then hope that terrorists don't attack them.

The question is: are the folks who are making the most noise about PFC Lynch willing to enlist and do her job in her stead?

[oyez]

feminist goal of a genderless society

G_d help us. The only thing worse than a communist society would be a gender free society. I'd rather be dead.

[elfman2]

"The reason the debate has grown old to me is that it usually gets too heated and rational thought flies out the window."

Fair enough.

I'd like to suggest that some of the emotionalism that come from the no women in combat crowd is a symptom of their justification - that most men become irrationally hot headed when they see a pretty little teenage girl get gang raped to death (or almost to death as I assume was the case with Jessica). I think it's something ingrained into their nature and I don't think they're prepared to work to get rid of it. Therefore, it's risk on the battlefield, and a burden to try to minimize.

[elfman2]

"With the increasingly cellular nature of the modern battlefield, you'd have to pretty much yank all women to CONUS...and then hope that terrorists don't attack them. "

I don't think that I'd agree. Do you know how rare it would be to take prisoner from a US Division or Corps HQ Btn? I don't, but it must be very small.

[ChemistCat]

That is the most brilliant thing I've read on this or related topics in ages, and if anybody flames you, they're going to have to flame through me first.

[Poohbah]

I don't think that I'd agree. Do you know how rare it would be to take prisoner from a US Division or Corps HQ Btn? I don't, but it must be very small.

You're thinking of good old-fashioned mass army slugfests from 1943, not the irregular battlefied of 2003. This wouldn't have happened in 1943.

Corps and Division HQs would be prime targets--take one of them down, and you pretty much reduce its formation to a loose collection of brigades without long-haul comms, theater and national intel access, et cetera.

[k2blader]

Good post.

[Michael121]

According to 3 of the soldiers FOX's O'Rielly had on his show last night they were not LOST. They were where they were supposed to be they were just ambushed. These 3 were in another truck and they had gone about 3 miles in retreat before one realized he was even "hit"

They were just on a path that was not covered every inch by friendly forces. It happens. They had no armor so the attackers saw their opportunity.

As for women in combat I am against and for; Against - because it is the whole male protects female argument. That is how we was raised honest. For - if they can handle the physical parts, they can shoot just as well, remember Russia's female snipers one second only to Vasily in confirmed kills. And we men all know this women can be wholly more cruel that men on some levels. It is also proven that women handle G-Forces better than men in fighters. But it still goes back to do you want your mother, daughter, wife, or sister in a line unit? Jessica did what she had been trained to do, it amazes people that a soldier when all hell is breaking loose never really thinks of their training, it somehow very quickly becomes instinct.

if the standards are not lowered they should be allowed, the problem has been that PC allows the standards to be lowered to fill a spot. I seem to remeber an F-14 pilot who was killed. Can't recall her name, but Patsy Schroeder was a big reason this pilot got "in" she failed an emergancy landing 3 times that is an intentional "flame out" where you lose an engine. 2 times for a male and he is history. She never did pass but was pushed thru anyway again PC popped it ugly head in. Her death was a result of a real "flame out" which for a while F-14's were prone to do, that is why they recieved new engines. Her RIO ejected and she never recovered the plane and went into the sea.

A few years ago a male pilot over a city had a flame out in an F-14 there was a witness to it all. The pilot could have ejected, he chose to stay with the plane and it hit 3 houses. It just missed an office building, the guy who watched it said the plane was headed for the office like 20 stories, and it looked like the pilot fought it and it rolled away and nose dived into a suburb.

The point being is that the male pilot had the upper body strength to fight the plane, the female did not. I give her credit because she tried to save the plane. She had no reason and could have ejected into the sea like her RIO. The male pilot did the honorable thing, cause less destruction by self sacrifice. Two different instances but the one difference is the male took it in, the female went in with it.

[elfman2]

"Can someone explain to me just how the ambush of the 507th is directly related to the dangers of women in Combat? "

I thought that is was a tank maintenance unit. Therefore, its assets (Jessica) would be expected to travel into dangerous areas to service equipment. I think that puts it at significant combat risk and on some level, "a combat unit".

[gcruse]

Jane, you ignorant slut...

[semaj]

"If they can do the buttons on a Patriot Missile as well, then they should be permitted to."

How about hand-to-hand or close-in combat? I've been on forced marches of 20+ miles with full combat load and their are some men that can barely handle it, let alone women. How about changing the tire on a 5ton truck? Humping the base plate for an 81mm mortar, or tearing apart and putting together a Mk19 and placing rounds on target? I have nothing against women, in fact I love mine to death and would gladly die for them, but placing women in combat is the height of cowardice and is an indication of the feminization of our society. We should be ashamed of the fact that we ever allowed our women folks to be placed in harms way. Real men would never allow for it.

[Euro-American Scum]

Women, other than doctors and nurses do not belong in combat. I have been flamed enough about my position on this to be in the burn unit.

Yeah, Anny, me too. And I would argue that even doctors and nurses are too valuable a military asset to be in the direct line of fire. Beyond that, I have nothing more to add.

[elfman2]

"You're thinking of good old-fashioned mass army slugfests from 1943"

I'm not sure of your position. Are you saying that in today's battlefield, with enemies that we're most likely to face, Corps level personnel are as likely to be captured as those in units closer to the front? No.

Maybe killed if we face an enemy like China,… maybe. But any force that could do that's much more likely to actually honor the Geneva Convention prisoner of war rules and not gang rape our women. We don't fight civilized nations. (Now you're thinking of WWII) We're at real risk of fighting barbaric POSs like Iraq, Iran, Syria or NK, and they won't likely be capturing people at the Cops HQ level.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The question is: are the folks who are making the most noise about PFC Lynch willing to enlist and do her job in her stead?

Actually, this question is a completely irrelevant ad hominem.

[Poohbah]

I'm not sure of your position. Are you saying that in today's battlefield, with enemies that we're most likely to face, Corps level personnel are as likely to be captured as those in units closer to the front?

As the term "front line" becomes increasingly irrelevant, yes.

That maintenance company WAS a corps asset, by the way.

Maybe killed if we face an enemy like China

Actually, that's the war least likely to be danger

But any force that could do that's much more likely to actually honor the Geneva Convention prisoner of war rules and not gang rape our women.

Our Corps-level units do not have invisibility shields, or mystical talismans that make the enemy unable to capture them.

They are flesh and blood. And the enemy is not likely to "play fair" to get their opportunity to capture Americans. They are likely to use ruses, wait around in civilians clothes until the frontline troops go past, et cetera.

We don't fight civilized nations. (Now you're thinking of WWII)

The good folk murdered by Kampfgruppe Peiper at Malmedy would disagree with your assessment of the WW2 Germans being of a civilized nation.

And, BTW, they were mostly divisional and corps-level personnel, not frontline grunts.

We're at real risk of fighting barbaric POSs like Iraq, Iran, Syria or NK, and they won't likely be capturing people at the Cops HQ level.

They've already done just that, thank you very much.

[Poohbah]

Actually, this question is a completely irrelevant ad hominem.

No, it isn't.

It's painfully relevant.

We have women in supply clerk positions because men aren't enlisting in sufficient numbers to ensure that there aren't any women in supply clerk positions.

I don't see a mass movement to solve this problem, either.

[infowarrior]

The 507th Maintenance Batallion is Direct Maintenance Support for the entire 3rd ID. It's usual location would be where all the brigades within the division would be able to utilize it, and to the rear of even division headquarters. They were on the move, to a new position, as dictated by the advance of the entire division. They were ambushed by a column of enemy that had until then been undetected. End of story...

the infowarrior

[elfman2]

"That maintenance company WAS a corps asset, by the way. "

Notice that I didn't propose keeping women at the corps level. I specifically said at the Corps HQ btn level.

That maintenance asset, as I understand it, was forward deployed, like lots of units at risk of combat hanging under Corps administration. HQ btn level assets stay at the Corps HQ (more or less). Any exceptions would be an exception both ways.

[semaj]

"It is also proven that women handle G-Forces better than men in fighters."

Excuse me? That is opposite the truth. Women have smaller and more delicate craniums containing less cerebral fluid then men, and begin to black out under high g force quicker than an average male under similar circumstances. Couple that with a women's lack of physcial strength to perform manual tasks under high G and you have a recipe for disaster.

[Poohbah]

Notice that I didn't propose keeping women at the corps level. I specifically said at the Corps HQ btn level.

Great. So if the enemy finds a Corps HQ, you've got a lot of women taken prisoner and killed. And, BTW, Ralph Peters likened the Corps HQ to an "electronic orgy" in 1987; it's very easy to find.

[elfman2]

"It's usual location would be where all the brigades within the division would be able to utilize it, and to the rear of even division headquarters… End of story..."

I think you're playing loose with the facts to support what you wish were the case. I bet if we spoke to someone in that kind of unit, they'd say that they're prepared to move very close to combat, and are in danger of coming under attack.

Case closed back at you.

[Paleo Conservative]

I've got an argument that the leftist feminists can't beat. Women don't belong in combat because;

"Human Beings have somehow managed to keep the female half of humanity out of the direct effects of war throughout our history.

That's not really provable, but it could be argued that societies that protected women from war out reproduced those that did not. Slight differences in reproductive success compounded over millenia can result in large differences in population sizes.

[elfman2]

"Our Corps-level units do not have invisibility shields, or mystical talismans that make the enemy unable to capture them. "

I didn't say "unable". I said unlikely.

[usmcobra]

Do you know anything about modern flight controls because I do?

There isn't a man alive that can control a Modern fighter aircraft or helicopter that has lost a total lost of flight controls so the whole argument about upper body strength is mute.

The fight controls on modern military aircraft activate control valves for Hydraulic servos or in the case of Fly by wire flight controls electronic sensors that are used to activate those servos electronically.

The first female F-14 pilot suffered from political correctness at it's worst, she was poorly trained and ill equipped mentally for the job given her. In the effort to ensure her success The Navy under pressure from the very top of the chain of command overlooked her performance as a pilot until it took her life. Had she been treated as any other pilot she would have been grounded for her poor skills. It happens all the time to men with similiar abilities.

[HairOfTheDog]

I agree with you...

I haven't seen anyone - *anyone* - use Jessica Lynch "to promote their theory that men and women soldiers are the same" as the article says.

Jessica is being used, but not by anyone pushing for women in all combat roles... She is being used by those against women serving at all in the military, in some kind of "Oh my God we can't let this girl be considered a hero or we are all sunk" kind of pre-emptive attack. It's unseemly.

[elfman2]

"The good folk murdered by Kampfgruppe Peiper at Malmedy would disagree with your assessment of the WW2 Germans being of a civilized nation. "

Back to WWII are you. I think my point should have sunk in by now. For every scenario you can name where women at corps hq get captured and brutalized, you can name 100 where the same could happen to them at front line support units. That's my point. Get it? Minimizing the risk.

[elfman2]

"And, BTW, Ralph Peters likened the Corps HQ to an "electronic orgy" in 1987; it's very easy to find."

But not likely able to be captured by the people we're most likely to face and most brutal to our women.

[Tailgunner Joe]

So if the enemy finds a Corps HQ, you've got a lot of women taken prisoner and killed.

All of a sudden you're concerned for their safety?