The next battle for Pfc. Jessica Lynch

WND ^ | April 10, 2003 | Jane Chastain

[peeve23]

Read it again. It says anything that a woman can do as well or better than a man. That is the principle. A hypothetical example is the patriot battery.

There is a difference between the operator of the missile and the maintenance tech who keeps it up. A big wheel mechanic would keep the vehicle going.

I've watched camo nets being handled by enough females to know that it works. And quickly.

However, the example isn't the issue. The principle is the issue.

[IGOTMINE]

What happens when your principle meets PC reality? Set uniform standards...the women must perform the same physical standards as the men. Not enough women meet the standard. The standard is attacked as being "not realistic". The standard is lower. Suddenly a ten man damage control party is actually 7, because three are women.

We are one liberal democrat admnistration away from the total combat integration of women. It'll probably happen in my life time (I'm 40.)

[peeve23]

I spent a career in the army. I have a pretty good idea of what women can and can't do as well as men. (I'm speaking for the Army.)

They can't run as fast, jump as high, lift as much, or stay unpregnated nearly as well.

When I first came in we had the WACs. That was great and should have stayed that way. No one doubted the contribution of nurses, admin assistants, etc.

What about the other specialties. There's combat, combat support, and combat service support. I generally have no problem with females being throughout combat service support provided they can do their own lifting for any specific job that gets mention.

[IGOTMINE]

I spent ten years in the Marine Corps...six in the infantry and four in intelligence. Bottom line is that I would like to see the women's role in the military minimized, but Poohbah has it right...not enough guys are enlisting.

I belive that Lynch's case is set to be politicized beyond what the poor woman knows at this point.

[usmcobra]

And one note to put the final nail in the coffin of the "Women don't have the upper body strength to fly combat aircraft" argument...

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5592254.htm

Unlike the F-14, The A-10 Warthog has a dual flight control system, the backup system being control rods, cables, and bellcranks more like on a WWII fighter. This Brave Young female Pilot flew her A-10 back to a safe landing after the hydraulics had been shot away. Now she could have easily have punched out and allowed her aircraft to make a large A-10 sized smoking hole in Iraq, and as a matter of one of her male compadres did just the other day on TV, but instead she did what many say is impossible. She flew it back operating the flight controls with human(female type) power.

http://www.geocities.com/lkoch_1999/a-10.html?1049842535953

Just in case you want to see the damaged bird.

[usmcobra]

And how long has it been since the first Gulf War? I'm sure that the "complaints" have been noted logged and acted on by HQMC. The Marine Corps always is introspective and proactive when it comes to any problems that arise.

Women Marines are required to do just as many sit-ups and run as far on the PFT, so the basis of any argument over a tiny bit of inequality in the PFT boils down to the Flexed arm hang(female) vs pull ups(male).

Ever see a bunch of male marines after a PFT? The way most throw themselves at the pull up bar leaves bruises across their chests, and most women we will agree aren't built to do that sort of damage to their upper bodies, so The Marine Corps in it's infinate wisdom devised an equally strenuous and devious test that would allow it to test the Women Marines without battering their breasts against the pull up bar.

As for the obstacle course, you do realise that those course have not changed since the early sixties, and that the "Female" sections are a source of motivation for male recruits.

~~puts on best drill instructor voice~~

AWWWWWWW RECRUIT SMITH CAN'T MAKE IT UP MY MARINE CORPS WALL...
GET BACK TO THE END OF THE LINE RECRUIT SMITH AND THIS TIME RUN THE OBSTACLE USING THE LADIES' WALL...

It never fails to motivate recruits to try harder....

[peeve23]

I have no doubt that they're gonna try to turn Lynch into GI Jane. Anyone who knows anything knows that no woman could really pass Seal training....or Ranger training for that matter. (The world's best female marathoner would kick male ass on HER event. But ask her to do the heavy lifting part and she's doomed.)

However, we need to remember LYNCH was a SUPPLY CLERK. That means she basically shuffled papers and stored things on shelves. Every troop, though, needs to know how to use their M-16. To her credit when the chips were down, apparently she shot at the bad guys. I'd hope my wife would do the same to protect her life.

We need to trumpet that she protected herself with a WEAPON and that makes it a gun issue proving NRAs position. Maybe they'll back off.

She took a beating, too, and survived. She gets my respect for that. It's just possible she's one of those gutsy girls that you wish your son would bring home.

[elfman2]

Might bruise their breasts huh? LOL! No, I never saw men pull themselves up that high.

I don't even think that I've seen anyone work harder to sell one side of a story that you have, no offence intended. You'd do well in public relations. Best of luck.

[usmcobra]

It wasn't hard at all.

I base my opinions on my own personal experiances in the Marine Corps.

You see, once upon a time I was one of those that felt that women have no place in the military, so I know every argument better then anyone here. But after working with Women Marines and training them to higher standards (in fact as a founding member of the Two Inch club I made their lives a living hell) I had an epithany towards women in uniform.

I came to realize that if they are held to a higher standard they will reach that higher standard.

[KeyLargo]

"The controversial rule changes were billed as career enhancers, even though military women have been promoted for decades at rates equal to or faster than men. In trying to please feminists who want other women to pay the price, Aspin ignored the advice of experienced combat leaders.

The commission compiled a huge body of credible evidence that in close combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. It is easy to talk about "sharing the risk" of war, but few women have the strength to cope with physical burdens, including high-tech equipment, that exceed weights carried by Julius Caesar's Roman legionnaires."
And this is the opinion of a woman that was assigned to a Presidential commission during the Clinton years!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0304130445apr13,1,1012816.story

First female captives held at greater risk


By Elaine Donnelly. Elaine Donnelly, a former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, is president of the Center for Military Readiness

April 13, 2003

It is impossible not to be moved by the dramatic stories of three female soldiers and their male colleagues captured from an ambushed maintenance unit in Iraq. First we saw the frightened face of POW Army Spec. Shoshana Johnson, the single mother of a 2-year-old, and the grisly sight of fellow soldiers killed nearby.

Then we saw Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, a courageous and severely injured 19-year-old soldier, who was rescued in a mission rarely executed successfully in the past 50 years. Special Forces soldiers and Marines had to dig with their bare hands to retrieve from shallow graves the bodies of eight more soldiers from the same unit. Among the dead was Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a Hopi Indian and single mother of two children.

These stories inspire a wide range of emotions, including pride in the brave women who are serving their country. Military policies regarding women in combat cannot be based on singular stories, however. The views of enlisted women, who outnumber female officers by more than five to one, differ from those who aspire to flag rank. A 1998 General Accounting Office report, quoting a Rand study, found that only 10 percent of female privates and corporals agreed that "Women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men."

Many people, including the surprised and dismayed family of Spec. Johnson, thought that women could serve their country without undue exposure to close combat. But in 1994, then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin quietly abolished the Defense Department's "Risk Rule," which spared women in support units from assignments close to the front line. Aspin also eliminated "substantial risk of capture" as a factor that exempted women from involuntary assignment in or near hundreds of previously all-male positions. Exceptions include the infantry, armor, multiple launch field artillery, Special Operations Forces and helicopters, Navy SEALS, and submarines.

The controversial rule changes were billed as career enhancers, even though military women have been promoted for decades at rates equal to or faster than men. In trying to please feminists who want other women to pay the price, Aspin ignored the advice of experienced combat leaders.

The commission compiled a huge body of credible evidence that in close combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. It is easy to talk about "sharing the risk" of war, but few women have the strength to cope with physical burdens, including high-tech equipment, that exceed weights carried by Julius Caesar's Roman legionnaires.

A recent survey of military personnel conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that only 36 percent of both sexes agreed that women would pull their fair share of the load in combat or hazardous situations.

The International Red Cross and other experts on prisoners of war have also reported inequalities in the treatment of male and female prisoners. Brutality that is uniquely cruel to women, including sexual assault and rape, frequently has been used as a weapon of war against women, but rarely men.

A majority of presidential commissioners recognized that official endorsement of gender-neutral violence in combat would not be a step forward for women, but a step backward for civilization. At times the nation has had no choice but to send men to defend America. We do have a choice about sending young women, including single mothers, to fight our wars. If women in support roles are to be subjected to combat violence and "substantial risk of capture" on an equal basis, the American people need to think hard about what that really means.

[Poohbah]

I will be the first one to sign up, but I would be leaving 2 children behind that would never be able to understand why Mommy would leave them..."What was more important to Mommy than me?"

You don't think that kids ask the same questions regarding their fathers when they go off to war?

Like I said, when the menfolk lying abed in America (and loudly carping about "women in the military" whilst lying abed) enlist in sufficient numbers to make women unnecessary, I'll take the argument a wee bit more seriously.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

If you're in a combat zone your secondary MOS is rifleman. Just ask the men that were trapped in the Battle of the Bulge. We'll have to wait and see what happend to the women of the 507th. We know from Gulf War that POWs were more than tortured. We know that Jessica did not break those bones unassing the truck she in which she was riding. I believe the female A-10 pilot made the extra effort to get her plane home because she knew that the alternative was going to be real bad.

I'm not big on women that close to the noise. But this old fart is interested in hearing how well they've performed and will probably have to give grudging respect to the women who have been in Iraq. The armed forces have done a good job of integrating the women into the units. I was watching a segment on the policing going on in Afghanistan and the female MP was taking no crap and the Afghans were jumping.

[HairOfTheDog]

If any kid signs up for the military without anyone, either military or family, mentioning the obvious risks of war, then yes, I pity them. Does the purpose and function of the military need explaining? Do kids really not know that prisoners are taken and sometimes mistreated in war? - I think not.

[Poohbah]

Children in highschool are explained all the risks of military service? Including the possibilities of rape,torture, and death?

If they don't understand this, they'll probably either fail the ASVAB, or they will get a "failure to adapt" discharge from boot camp.

You have to be really stupid to (a) not be able to figure out, unassisted, that wars can be hazardous to your health, and that (b) you may be expected to fight in one if you're wearing the uniform.

Or are they only given the "rosy" picture of benefits and 'discount' education so they sign into the military before they are legally allowed to sign contract? As a 17 year old, my "thoughts" re the military were simple ... "education and an opportunity to see the world"

I really hate to say this about a FReeper, but at 17, if ignorance is bliss, you were in frickin' Nirvana.

Why did I understand from Day One that this was a possibility? Am I that much more intelligent than most folks?