CONSERVATIVE TRUTH: WARRIOR WOMEN

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.

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.

Ok lets say this is true even though we know its obviously not. Who suffers the greatest damage? Who will be used as a constant object? Who will get pregnant? Who could have children who learn a foreign language and culture in captivity?

1 Standards for all military positions should be raised back to the original levels. NOW.

2. A woman who meets the original mens standards for strength and endurance and wants to take the risks of combat shold be allowed to.

3. Since Arabs and many other cultures will rape male POWs just as happily as females, they are at no greater risk after being captured. So9

"Women serving in the military is one thing. But putting women in combat is immoral."

There's more to it than that:
How about the men who lost their lives trying to find and free "Miz" Lynch?
Article I read put the figures at 9 dead, 8 "missing".

Would we have made such extraordinary efforts if Pvt. Lynch had been a male?
And before you leap up to say "Of course we would," recall that the other 7 or so POW's weren't found until this past Saturday - the search for them was called-off when Jessica was found!

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you will), but your tone seems rather derogatory towards PFC Lynch (I believe you referred to her as 'Miz' Lynch, as if she herself would prefer this feminist form of address). She deserves the utmost respect that we would accord any & every person who serves in our armed services, whether they be male or female. Therefore, she should be addressed as PFC Lynch.
The limited statements issued by her & her family have been nothing but continued care & concern for the POWs (now released) from her unit. Any perceived special treatment she may have received, whether real or imagined, has been no fault of her own.
If you are implying that the MEDIA has continued to lionize her above the others, I may have to agree with you on that. As far as the lives supposedly lost in efforts to secure her rescue, I would like to know where you obtained your information. What article were you reading? I would also like to know why you believe the search for the other POWs was called off at the time of her rescue; this goes against all reports I have viewed in the media, whether the sources were considered liberal or conservative. Daily briefings stated that the rescue/recovery of ALL our missing personnel was/is a top priority.
I think we can both agree that the return of the 7 POWs on Sunday is a joyous event, just as the rescue of PFC Lynch was.

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.