Skip to comments.CONSERVATIVE TRUTH: WARRIOR WOMEN
Posted on 04/14/2003 5:54:57 AM PDT by YoungKentuckyConservative
CONSERVATIVE TRUTH 04/14/03
By Tom Barrett
Yesterday Coalition forces held over 7,000 Iraqi POW's (not counting the thousands who surrendered and were released after giving up their weapons). The Iraqis held seven American POW's. Today they hold none. Even as we rejoice over the rescue of these seven, the fact that three women (one of whom was murdered while in captivity) have been among the prisoners of war held by brutal Iraqi troops has re-ignited the debate over the role of women in armed combat.
Should women be in combat? There was a time in this nation when that question would have brought a laugh. That couldn't be a serious question, because everyone knew the answer: NO WAY! Today, thanks to radical feminism, a good portion of America doesn't see anything wrong with women risking (and losing) their lives in combat.
"Well, what's the problem, Tom? Aren't women equal? Shouldn't they accept equal risk?" Well, if it were true that men and women were equal in every way, the concept of equal risk in combat situations might be valid. But, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out earlier this week, the risk women face on the front lines is far greater than the risk men face. We'll get back to that.
Right now, let's look at whether men and women are really equal. I wholeheartedly agree that women should have equal opportunity in every walk of life. Gender should not be an excuse to hold women back from achieving their potential. But both the Bible and nature clearly teach us that women and men are not equal in certain areas.
Let's start with nature. In general, men are stronger than women. Yes, I'm sure you can point to certain women that are as strong as most men, and a few who are stronger. So can I. But in general, women do not have the physical strength necessary to carry an injured male warrior to safety. Research at West Point has proven this conclusively. This not a reflection on the courage of women. All of us were proud of Private First Class Jessica Lynch as she emptied her weapon into advancing Iraqis before she was captured. But Jessica appears to weigh about 110 pounds. Any of her male comrades could have picked her up if she were shot and carried her to a safe place. She could have done the same for very few of them.
If you don't think that's a serious concern, talk to any of our servicemen when the PC police aren't around. When I served in the Marine Corps, the greatest fear my fellow warriors expressed was not getting shot. They knew that was a strong possibility, but they also knew that the Navy corpsmen attached to the Marines were the best in the world. No, the fear that kept some up at night was that of being left behind. Today's warriors are no different. If anything, the fear may be magnified because early reports indicate that the Iraqis treat POW's even more brutally than did the Viet Cong of my era.
The United States has found a simple solution to the problem of strength differences between men and women. Our military academies and services have simply lowered the physical requirements (as have police and fire departments nationwide) to allow women to serve as "equals" in dangerous situations. Canada, to its credit, continues to require the same qualifications of both sexes. Between 1991 and 1992, 102 Canadian women enlisted for infantry training. Only one graduated.
What does the Bible have to say on this subject? Without quoting dozens of verses, let me simply summarize the teaching of the Word. Men are supposed to protect heir families, including their wives. Wives are not supposed to protect their husbands. Yet today we see women going off to combat while their husbands stay home to care for their small children. Some of the children are so young they are still nursing. Politically correct? Indeed. Dumb? You bet.
In the Bible when God sent His people out to fight evil, the word "warrior" always meant men only. The Bible says that God never changes - He is the same "yesterday, today and forever." I suspect that He has not changed His view on this subject just because society has changed its views.
The feminists (I love Rush's term: Femi-Nazis) want equality for women. They say that includes equal risk. Rush is usually pretty funny, but this week he pointed out a very serious INequality as far as women POW's are concerned. Women actually face far
MORE risk than men if captured, especially in brutal Arab nations. Does anyone doubt that Jessica Lynch was sexually abused while she was POW? The Pentagon refuses to talk about it. Jessica refuses to talk about it, as does her family.
I respect her right to privacy, but let's be honest. Cowards like the Iraqi "soldiers" who use their own women and children as shields, who degrade women as a matter of course, wouldn't hesitate five seconds to rape any female "infidel" that came under their control. Even if her injuries protected her from such treatment (which is doubtful, considering the way everyone refuses to even discuss the issue), you can be sure that most women in such circumstances will suffer far worse than men. I read one feminist writer's article on this subject in which she claimed that Iraqi soldiers would be just as likely to sodomize male POW's as they would to sexually assault young female POW's. This woman obviously doesn't have a clue about Arab culture.
If you doubt that nineteen-year-old Jessica Lynch feared sexual assault at the hands of her captors, listen to how the Army PIO (Public Information Officer) described the way she tried to avoid capture. "She was fighting to the death. She didn't want to be taken alive." Didn't want to be taken alive? Does that sound like someone who thought she would be treated the same as a male POW?
And what about the women who don't want all this equality? Do you realize that the Femi-Nazis have engineered things so that if the draft is re-established young women will be forced into combat roles? The 1948 Combat Exclusion Act barred women from serving in roles that would involve them in combat. In 1981 the US Supreme Court ruled that a prohibition on drafting women was Constitutional "...since the purpose of draft registration is to develop a pool of potential combat troops." Since Bill Clinton and his Democrat cronies in Congress were able to sneak through legislation that effectively repealed the 1948 Act, the rationale the Supremes used in excluding women from the draft no longer exists. Since they can now be placed in combat roles, they can also be drafted.
Young ladies, this means that you can, and probably will be, drafted. At some point the Democrats will re-institute the draft (Democrat Charles Rangel is already calling for it). And guess what? You won't get to choose where you serve. They won't ask you whether you want to serve where you might be killed, any more than they ask male soldiers whether they want to share shower facilities with homosexuals. When you're in the service, you do as you're told, or you end up in jail.
Israel has more experience with women in actual combat situations than does any other nation. Today many women serve in the military, but contrary to popular myth, they are not allowed to serve in combat roles. During the 1948 War of Liberation tens of
thousands of young Jewish women served beside males. In 1950 the Israeli Knessett ruled that women could no longer serve in combat roles. The reason? In addition to the morale problems caused by sexual relations between the troops, a major problem was observed that caused the generals to forever ban women from combat. They found that "...men tended to protect the women in their units rather than carrying out their mission."
There's a thought. Men should protect women. Only let's do it the right way. Let the women stay home, and let the men be men.
For decades men and women of honor voted time and again in Congress to resist any attempt to overturn the Combat Exclusion Act. During his first term, "Spineless Bill" Clinton, pandering to the feminist and lesbian vote, sneaked through a provision allowing to serve in armed combat roles by attaching it to an appropriations bill. There was no national debate on the issue. It was politics as usual: If you know the American people won't approve of a measure, slip it in when no one is looking.
It's not too late to overturn this travesty. Tell your senators and congressmen to locate their spines, stiffen them up, and take us back to a time of honor, when men protected women instead of hiding behind them.
THE BEST OF THE BEST: For great conservative commentary, visit our website to see what outstanding conservative authors (many of whom write only for this site) have to say about what is happening in our world. Below are previews of the new articles that are posted every Monday morning. To read the entire articles, visit our website, www.ConservativeTruth.org.
Really! All those men sitting in desks jobs in the States, while teenage girls and single mothers (whole 'nother can of worms ...) are in combat.
I see my "female" role in national defense as raising boys and teaching them to love their country and to SHOOT. And voting Republican, for what it's worth!
No. And I'll go even further than that.
Women should not be training with men in the military. There should be a return to the separation of the sexes. There should be a "Women's Army Corps," "Women's Air Force," etc. A return to WACs, WAVEs, WAFs and the like.
Extremely politically incorrect.
Extremely correct for the adequate defense of our nation, which is, after all, a defense of our fundamental values, NOT of the right of McDonald's to sell "Big Macs" throughout the world.
Excellent point, would love to see this, although there would be an enormous outcry ( and battle) from femi-nazis and miltary lesbians
In other words:
I have known women who I would trust in a tight spot much more than some men I've known, so genetics and biologic tendencies will only take you so far. But to take the radical feminist left position that the differences are non-existent or irrelevant is sheer insanity.
Sometimes voting Republican ain't worth much...
And as an American daddy, I teach my girls to love their country, think and act conservatively, and to SHOOT!!
They're pretty good at that, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.