Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Female Combatants, Islam and the Multicultural-Feminist Divide
Gunrunner2

Posted on 07/18/2002 12:38:14 PM PDT by Gunrunner2

Female Combatants, Islam and the Multicultural-Feminist Divide

“Faith is a thing to be respected, especially when it has no apparent supports but in the soul” G. K. Chesterton

In the fall of 1995, a F-15E “Strike Eagle” squadron deployed to Saudi Arabia to enforce no-fly zone restrictions. This deployment was the first time the United States sent a female fighter pilot to fly combat missions in a combat zone. Did you get that? A western infidel female combatant was going to defend the center of the Islamic faith. Because of possible negative Saudi Arabian reaction to this event, discussions were held in the Pentagon to determine how best to handle the situation. I took part in those discussions.

We accepted that Saudi objections would mainly be cultural and religious. You see, females are not allowed to travel unaccompanied, drive cars, or even leave the home without a male relative. And they are barred by law from serving in the military. Yet, we were introducing into the proverbial center of the Islamic faith a Western infidel female fighter pilot. This action was hardly multicultural, as multiculturalism requires all cultures be respected. But what of removing her from the deployment?

If you are a combatant you must be able to deploy anywhere, at anytime. Therefore, we couldn’t remove the female combatant from the deployment as that would impeach the whole idea of women in combatant roles—not to mention it would hardly be fair to the male combatants that would have to take her place. As you can see, this situation put us between two conflicting agendas—feminism and multiculturalism. What to do.

We came up with three courses of action; 1) deploy the female combatant (the feminist solution), 2) do not deploy the female combatant (the multicultural solution), and 3) deploy her and hope no one notices (the bureaucrat approach). Of course, the bureaucrats decided upon the bureaucratic solution—send her and hope no one notices. As it turned out, no one did notice, initially, as Southern Watch missions were back page news anyway.

However, problems did emerge. These problems ranged from various Saudi controllers refusing to speak to female pilots, to Saudi fighter pilots refusing to fly coalition missions where a female pilot would take part. In either case, hardly helpful in accomplishing the mission.

Yes, it is true that we sent thousands of women to Saudi to serve in Operation Desert Shield and Storm. And, yes, the Saudi government accepted their presence at that time. However, during the Gulf War Saudi Arabia was facing annihilation from Iraq. Therefore, because of the urgency of need, the King of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic leadership accepted the presence of Western females in combat support roles. Now, years later when the threat is gone, it is expected the Saudis would try to reestablish their cultural and religious standard and object to the presence of Western females in combatant or non-combatant roles.

And as good multiculturalists, who are we to object?

Now, fast forward to today. Fairly recent Lt Col Martha McSally, a "senior ranking" female fighter pilot, complained publicly about having to wear an abaya when in the region. According to McSally, being forced to wear an abaya is a violation of her rights. Indeed, McSally correctly points out that US State Department women in the region are not required to wear the abaya. However, it has apparently not occurred to McSally that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are not the United States and, therefore, the Bill of Rights has no relevance to the Saudi/Kuwaiti people or government. Consequently, if she is walking on Saudi/Kuwaiti soil, she should, within reason, defer to local laws and practices. This is especially true if we are to be good multiculturalists.

Finally, McSally overlooks the fact that the Department of Defense is not the State Department. State Department personnel are given protections and they do their best not to offend (usually, as most all go native). They are, after all, diplomats, and not serving in a position that violates local law or offends local culture. As a military officer, McSally’s mere presence is a violation of local laws and one would think McSally would realize her presence offends local customs and act accordingly.

McSally’s “I am woman hear me roar” snit does not reflect well on the “senior ranking female fighter pilot.” She comes off not an officer, and most certainly not as a fighter pilot. Fighter pilots are well known for their egos, but fighter pilots are also known for selfless dedication to God, country and the mission. I am a former fighter pilot, I know fighter pilots, and let me tell you, by placing her own agenda over the national security of the United States, Lt Col McSally is no fighter pilot.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: mcsally; noflyzone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 07/18/2002 12:38:14 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
You see, females are not allowed to travel unaccompanied, drive cars, or even leave the home without a male relative.

You mean, er, without permission from their owners.

2 posted on 07/18/2002 12:42:52 PM PDT by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Didn't they throw Micheal New in jail for basically the same thing?
3 posted on 07/18/2002 12:46:21 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
multiculturalism requires all cultures be respected.

Really? I thought multiculturalism just required that European cultures be excluded.

Owl_Eagle

”Unleash the Hogs of Peace!”

4 posted on 07/18/2002 12:46:46 PM PDT by South Hawthorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
She should not be deployed, not in order to cater to the Arabs, but because it's just a dumb idea to have women in the military. Flame away.
5 posted on 07/18/2002 12:47:03 PM PDT by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Further evidence that the whole Persian Gulf conflict was a lot of crap in 1991 and continues to be a lot of crap today. Those evil Iraqis don't force their women to wear bags on their heads, and I'm sure their air traffic controllers have no problem talking to female pilots, either.
6 posted on 07/18/2002 12:49:34 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Roger that. Fox 8 Crusader Jet Bump. What is the latest development in the case of the Un-Fighter Pilot [check out her 12 1/2" Pencil Neck] McSally? As I intimated in an earlier thread, her loony behavior suggests that for whatever reason[s], she was on her way out of the Air Farce and decided to make a fuss as a basis for a future discrimination complaint.
7 posted on 07/18/2002 12:53:00 PM PDT by Bedford Forrest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
>>Really? I thought multiculturalism just required that European cultures be excluded.<<

You are correct.
8 posted on 07/18/2002 12:53:04 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
BTTT
9 posted on 07/18/2002 12:56:50 PM PDT by 1bigdictator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bedford Forrest
Latest is, from sources, is that she is angry--over a promotion.
She approached her commander with her objections to the abaya, but never let the chain of command handle it before she went public. She NEVER went to the IG. Never exhausted all reasonable avenues before she went to her radical friends in Congress.
Cause of it all?
Apparently she made Major early, as well as Lt Col, but not Colonel. So. . . .why not try and cause as much trouble as you can as you KNOW you can't get in trouble because you are a woman (?).
A great example of "Service before self". . .not!
BTW: Special on Discovery channel looked at the A-10 pilot that flew his jet up to Colorado and deliberatly crashed it. McSalley was interviewed. Made ya want to barf/bark.
10 posted on 07/18/2002 12:59:55 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
We came up with three courses of action; 1) deploy the female combatant (the feminist solution), 2) do not deploy the female combatant (the multicultural solution), and 3) deploy her and hope no one notices (the bureaucrat approach).

Solution 4) Roll-back to the old rule/regulation of "No Direct Combat" for women.

However, it has apparently not occurred to McSally that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are not the United States and, therefore, the Bill of Rights has no relevance to the Saudi/Kuwaiti people or government.

I don't buy she didn't know, McSally choose to ignore that fact.

I know fighter pilots, and let me tell you, by placing her own agenda over the national security of the United States, Lt Col McSally is no fighter pilot.

I Agree. And I'll bet that's more than figuratively.

11 posted on 07/18/2002 1:02:51 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Apparently she made Major early, as well as Lt Col, but not Colonel. So. . . .why not try and cause as much trouble as you can as you KNOW you can't get in trouble because you are a woman (?).

Bingo!

12 posted on 07/18/2002 1:10:27 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
The question of whether or not to deploy women as combatants is an empirical question best settled by strict testing and evaluation. It is probably true that women won't make good infantry because of the strength required. They make good controllers (backbone of the air defense network for the UK during the battle of Britain), and it is possible that they may make good fighter pilots, the confines of the cockpit being what they are.

At any rate, women (as well as old men and children) are acceptable as combatants of last resort when prime manpower is not available, as in the case of Israel or the British Home Guard in the early 1940s.

At any rate, whether to have women in its armed forces is for America to decide, not Saudi Arabia. Col. McSally ought to be able to wear her uniform in everywhere in Saudi Arabia her male colleagues are so permitted. The Kingdom, by inviting the US Armed Forces to participate in their defense, consented to the presence of uniformed servicemen. They knew, or ought to have known, from the Gulf War experience, that women are a part of US deployments. The Kingdom consented to the presence of uniformed personnel, some of whom were bound to be women.

Saudi Arabia, as a sovereign nation, could have included a clause in their Status of Forces Agreements (which are concluded prior to a deployment) requesting the nonpresence of women. But they did not. They can, at any time, ask US forces to leave, thereby ridding themselves of any offensive female presence on their soil. But they have not.

McSally is there at the request of Saudi Arabia dressed like any other soldier, in the uniform of the United States. There is no reason why the sensibilities of some religious policeman should take precedence over the royal request or the SOFA.
13 posted on 07/18/2002 1:21:56 PM PDT by wretchard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wretchard
Old people and children are never acceptable as combatants, Not morally nor practically, but the Palis and the ChiComs have used them anyway. We do not need to use women, children and the elderly when we stop feminizing our men in this country and stop pushing pacifism as a viable alternative.
14 posted on 07/18/2002 1:25:31 PM PDT by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wretchard
>>It is probably true that women won't make good infantry because of the strength required. . .and it is possible that they may make good fighter pilots, the confines of the cockpit being what they are.<<

Actually, under 9 g's the upper-body strength required to maneuver around, look over your shoulder and such, is very significant and most women just don’t have it. Besides, being a fighter pilot is more than meanness, it is aggression, a state of mind. The best woman pilot I saw was "good," as most try to be aggressive but usually end up being rough and false in their approach to flying. Incidentally, hours prior to the news conference stating the USAF was now to have their first female fighter pilot we were all called into the main briefing room. Over 200 aircrew. We were told she is coming and that the decision was made. We were also told she was going to qualify on time, upgrade to 2-ship and 4-ship flight lead “on time,” as well as instructor pilot (no mention of required skills and ability). We were also told that we needed at least three men to be at the front gate for media interviews where they were to say they supported the decision. Nice.

And this female fighter pilot went to upgrade training and cried during training. Look, being a fighter pilot is hard work and physically and mentally demanding, and in training we make it really hard on you, where everything you do is critiqued, with no concern about “feelings.” She cried---and was graduated!? Imagine if I cried, I’d be outta there in a flash. Fair?

>>At any rate, whether to have women in its armed forces is for America to decide, not Saudi Arabia.<<

Actually, yes and no. The point being, during the Gulf War they needed us and were forced to accept our approach to women in the military. Today the situation is different, as we need them more than in the Gulf War and they have their own internal politics to contend with. besides, we have emerging in the US forces a clash of left-wing agendas that can only make us look bad.

>>Saudi Arabia, as a sovereign nation, could have included a clause in their Status of Forces Agreements<<

Actually, we really don't have a SOFA with Saudi, like you understand it.
15 posted on 07/18/2002 1:40:41 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Isn't it interesting how the left demands that all cultures be respected, except when that culture goes against what the left believes, such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.?
16 posted on 07/18/2002 1:47:22 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wretchard; goodieD
it is possible that they may make good fighter pilots

However, it is not possible that they make good prisoners of war - which is just one of many reasons that women do not belong in combat or combat support roles, in any capacity.

I'm with you, goodie - Flame away, Ivory Tower feminists and relativists, but it is entirely irrelevant what you believe, or what fits your idea of fairness: Combat situations do not grade on a curve, with extra bonus points for gender.

17 posted on 07/18/2002 1:59:06 PM PDT by LouD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LouD
During the Gulf War Major Rhonda Cornum was a flight surgeon with the 2/229 attack battalion. 101st got word of F-16 pilot was shot down, mid-day, broken leg, in the middle of the Iraqi desert behind enemy lines. Too hot to try and rescue—but not the for Army (God love ‘em).
Anyway, the 101st launches a rescue that involved two Apache helicopters and a UH-60 Blackhawk. On the Blackhawk were combat medics (you know, guys that stabilize a patient and extract him to the rear where Hawkeye and Pierce can work on him). Just prior to lift-off Major Cornum runs to the chopper, abandoning her post in a combat environment, tells the combat medics she’s a doctor and can “help this guy,” and lifts off, thereby leaving her battalion without a flight surgeon. Then the bad guys shoot her helicopter down and she is raped at the scene, and raped enroute to the Baghdad prison. She was raped in prison also. After the war she is hailed as some sort of war hero?! Why? Sure, she suffered, God knows she did, but if the doctor was a male, and if the doctor abandoned his post and ran off like she did, the doctor would have been quietly welcomed back and forgotten—but not Cornum.

She abandoned her post in a combat environment, invalidated the concept of combat medics, and left her unit without her skills and she LIED in her congressional testimony wherein she said “no” she wasn’t raped. (Later when she was negotiating book/movie deals, a witness at the scene that also survived the crash, threatened to come forward with the truth. So, Cornum, forced to tell the truth this time, admits in congressional testimony she was raped and it was no big deal, just another aspect of captivity.)
War hero alright.
18 posted on 07/18/2002 2:34:54 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
While I admire her courage (her heart was in the right place) her intellect and judgement leave a lot to be desired.

The other issue is what extraordinary measures a male in the scenario would take to save her silly ass from something that a male would not have faced in the first place.

I believe there was also a female truck driver who was captured as well. Similar treatment, as I recall.
19 posted on 07/18/2002 3:45:20 PM PDT by LouD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Men are raped and sexually tortured as POW's as well.
20 posted on 07/18/2002 5:59:32 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson