Women in Combat - Incomplete Media Discussion

Accuracy In Media ^ | 05/01/2003 | William R Alford

[walford]

Since the three female American soldiers initially fell into enemy hands in Iraq, the media have worked hard to quell any backlash against women being deployed in combat. Consequently, a full exploration of the implications involved has been scrupulously avoided.

[walford]

Any natural attributes that distinguish men from women [like childbearing] are portrayed as artificial contstrictions imposed by a patriarchal society. [This is especially true amongst a certain class of corpulent hirsute females who wear sensible shoes.] National security and military readiness take a back seat to social engineering.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[arkfreepdom]

I have a friend whose daughter is a Vandy grad and helps launch navy cruise missles. I have no problem with that. But I don't think they should be involved in land battles...IMHO

[presidio9]

It is unfortunate to have to articulate this, but women are inherently different than men.

Yes, very unfortunate. I am deeply saddened.

[wardaddy]

Good Post.

[thatsnotnice]

Syndicated columnist Mona Charen has referred to a woman’s “inherent delicacy” in being subject to sexual abuse if captured.

In answer, the media have latched on to former Desert Storm POW Army Maj. [now Colonel] Rhonda Cornum. Soon after her 1992 release, she told Newsweek that given that such victimization does not prevent escape, threaten life and limb and is not “excruciating… then it isn’t important.”

Interesting. For a couple of reasons.

A week or so after Jessica Lynch was rescued, a local radio talk show host commented on reporters at a press conference that kept asking how she had been treated. The officials at the press conference kept saying that it was still under investigation and that they had no information.

A man called in that claimed to be a retired Army officer. He said his son was currently an officer in the Army and had told him that the Army knew exactly what treatment she’d experienced. He said that literally within 48 hours they had information from medical examinations, her statements, and corroborating statements from other people (?) that had witnessed various things. He claimed the Army knows exactly what happened and that information regarding her treatment has been classified. He claimed that the military will not be commenting on it and neither will she.

Anyway, I have no way of knowing it is true but if it is it’s interesting. For instance, I had a relative that was briefly captured in Burma in WWII. My mom had a scrapbook full of articles clipped from local papers that talked all about his capture, treatment, escape, and AFAIK none of that was ever classified.

It’s probably a stupid comparison, and maybe they routinely classify everything today, but whatever happened is evidently important enough that they don’t want everybody knowing what it was. I haven’t recently read anything about it at any rate.

[walford]

I would be grateful for a link to that press conference. Treatement as POW is classified?!

[NFOShekky]

I'm fence sitting on this issue but it cost a fortune to refit navy ships for female crewmembers. There are some REALLY competent and capable women out there but I don't know if they should be forward deployed.

[TheCrusader]

Are you ready for the revisionist history books? "Jessica Lynch, a slight, attractive female Army Airborne Ranger, who once punched the daylights out of her Black Belt drill sergeant after being insulted by him during hand to hand combat training, single-handedly took on a company of Iraqi Special Republican Guards. All alone after the men in her company got her lost in the desert and ran to save themselves, Jessica dug in and got ready for battle. As only a mother can ever really know, Jessica's courage tripled her usual strength, and after killing over 100 savage Iraqi fighers she was finally captured. American Special Forces, with all their high tech gear, were unable to locate Jessica until she used her great female survival instincts and sent up smoke signals from her torture chamber. When the Army Green Berets arrived to rescue her they found her sitting on top of a 300 pound Iraqi man, pounding the crap out of him. It took all 16 Green Berets to pull her off the man and take her to the hospital, where she operated on herself for 14 hours and recovered fully. ;o)

[arkfreepdom]

You have a very good point.

[walford]

I stand by my assertion that women are capable of combat, but should only do so at home against domestic threats. In that case, the 'lioness defending the cubs' phenomenon should be fully encouraged.

I would consider a specially trained platoon of female troops that are trained and equipped strictly to deal with war criminals who target civilians [al la Kosovo]. They would parachute in, annihilate the perps, and get out.

[thatsnotnice]

I would be grateful for a link to that press conference.

I don’t know exactly what press conference it was. The host was taking shots at the reporters because they had asked at a press conference how she’d been treated. He was basically saying that she’s been through enough and that the reporters should leave her alone and quit being nosy.

[I know I heard questions a few times (right after the rescue) about her at a press conference and the official did say that they didn’t have information on her condition and that they were in the process of investigating things.]

It was about 10 minutes after the host made his comments that the retired guy called in and claimed his active-duty son had told him that the Army knew everything and that it was classified. IOW, they didn’t say that at a press conference, it was a caller that made that claim.

I just thought it was weird because in the meantime I’ve read about them getting lost and captured, then getting rescued, but nothing in between. But it’s probably best to take radio show callers with a grain of salt. It’d explain things if true though, and I probably don’t need all the grisly details, but it did sound strange.

[Ippolita]

Finally somebody trying to get an intelligent message across. This is where the focus should be:


"Preparing women for combat can be appropriate, but only for Homeland Defense. In this Age of Terrorism, police officers of both sexes should receive robust training and be properly equipped for major urban warfare. The State National Guard units should also be similarly prepared. It is most appropriate that the Coast Guard has females amongst their crews. If a large-scale conflict erupts, the men deployed abroad could take comfort in knowing that the women left behind are capable of defending hearth and home rather than sitting there helpless. "

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[NMFXSTC]

Saddened that women are different than men? Whoooooaaaaaa! I LIKE that difference! Damn....ya need to compare Filed and Stream to Hustler....that difference is waaaaaaaay nice!

[BenR2]

I have a friend whose daughter is a Vandy grad and helps launch navy cruise missles. I have no problem with that. But I don't think they should be involved in land battles...IMHO
////

No problem with mixed crews in close quarters on ships that deploy for months at a time?

Where is your logic.

I remember a good 15 years ago (while still in the AF) sitting next to an enlisted sea-going Navy man on a plane. Talk turned to the presence of women on board ships. He said that the (enlisted) sailors were "doing it" all over the ship. (There are many places to hide on a ship -- or so I've heard it said.)

[Cowboy Bob]

A civilized society does not send its daughters off to fight, and perhaps die, in combat.

[walford]

The following are reader's comments and my replies from the Accuracy In Media website:

---

Art B -
It takes a great deal of courage to articulate arguments for an idea whose time has come but which lacks agreement.

I am uncomfortable having women fight. It's a visceral thing for which I have no explanation and which I cannot defend intellectually. Maybe it's nothing more complicated than a throwback to my traditional 50's upbringing. Men protect the village. Women nurture the family. Thank you for having added some clarity to a muddied and very difficult subject.

- My reply:
To take a position based upon a ‘gut feeling’ is valid to a point, but Ayn Rand pointed out long ago that if a person has a consistent, objective and rational value system, there should be no conflict between so-called instinct and reasoned thought. Basing a position upon unquestioned feelings is more akin to the Leftist mentality.

That being said, the fact that we feel uncomfortable with the idea of sending women into combat also has a firm basis in terms of tribal survival. If a major portion of a population’s males are killed off, the society could conceivably recover its numbers within a generation or two. A similar loss of females would be so devastating as to threaten that nation’s very existence. This is why, in our dark past, effective pogroms of genocide specifically targeted women. We can thusly not afford to throw masses of child-bearing aged women onto the battlefield as cannon-fodder.

---

kingelf -
In your AIM article you for got to say she was beaten with sticks held
upside down by her feet tied with ropes!!!!!!

- My reply:
Well, I have been given strict space limitations, so there’s only room for so much. Thanks for providing that additional vital info.

---

Joseph N -
Just finished reading your article about women in combat on the AIM website. Having been a Marine Lieutenant and having an opinion, I just wanted to add to the mix concerning women in combat.

First off, the women in the military have a physical fitness test different from the men. Last I recall as far as the Corps is concerned, while the men run 3 miles in their fitness test, the women run 1.5 miles --- half that distance. Whereas the men must perform pull-ups, the women must pull up
once then hand from the bar for a period of time. For all of the talk about women having equal opportunity in the military, one would think that women should have to reach above the minimum standards as men in the military.
There will be those who will say that unless the women's physical fitness standard is "modified", that is, reduced in its severity, there will not be many women who will make it into the military let alone into combat roles.

The argument against that thinking is that there are women who can exceed performance levels of many of the men. However, there is the clear matter of choosing to join the military whether one has the ability to cut it or not.

More to my point, I have always felt that women could prove themselves as combat capable in performing two of what I have considered to be the tougher roles in combat. Those being 81mm mortars and combat engineering as entails mine clearing.

If women have the true desire to prove themselves capable of combat readiness, then let them perform the men's physical fitness test, train to perform as any all male 81mm mortar platoon and clear mines from your typical mine field or roadway.

Once women can perform these missions, then I will be convinced that women deserve to be sitting in combat aircraft cockpits and doing all of the "cool" jobs that they demand to become a part.

All the same, you make a very good point in stating how losing a mother or future mother creates a greater loss than losing a father. Having women perform homeland security details, defending hearth and home is right on target.

Just for your further enrichment, take a look at Thailand's history over two hundred years ago. There was a time when too many of the men had been killed in a conflict with the Burmese, it took the women putting together a force to counter their enemy so as to prevail.

Thank you for indulging my opinion.

- My reply:
Women are not as strong and fast as men. This can have a significant effect upon battlefield effectiveness. Concerns about lack of strength can be easily alleviated by not lowering the physical standards for certain duties. If, for example, a person can demonstrate the ability to carry a 75-lb. pack or lift an average-weight soldier for a sufficient amount of time/distance, that aspect of eligibility is met. The ratio of women to men who could demonstrate such capabilities would be, of course, very small. This would likely be characterized as evidence of discrimination.

Even if the differences in physical abilities are left out of the equation, there is still the issue of pregnancy as a result of rape or fraternization among friendlies in a combat environment.

Family, friends and others who care for a woman also suffer when she is sexually assaulted. The men in particular - fathers, brothers, husbands or boyfriends - experience a peculiar form of anguish at the mere thought that the woman they love would be violated in such a way. Rape, as a demonstration of dominance, is also done to humiliate those who would naturally feel responsible for a woman’s safety and well-being. All of this is too much to ask of a soldier, especially when it is a near certainty if captured.

---

ABUTOM@aol.com
Molly paints a pretty Pitcher on my web site. Personally I feel that women do
not have to prove anything. However I prefer they stay off the front line. It
is no place for a Lady. But not because they can't ride and shoot. I will take an American gal in a firefight as opposed to a demoncrat anyday. Don't ask me about co ed education and sleeping in Dorms. Unless you want to start a war.

Abutom
The Ayatollah the Truth
The American fundamentalist
Rasuli of Kabir Tuffah
Keeper of the Royal Flame. Mrs.Flame
http://www.spiritofamericaparty2.com

- My reply:
Well shucks ABUTOM, you’ve gone ahead and embarrassed me by articulating my main points to a degree of eloquence far beyond my capacity.

[walford]

I wrote this nearly 10 years ago and it still applies.