The next battle for Pfc. Jessica Lynch

WND ^ | April 10, 2003 | Jane Chastain

[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.