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.