[Wildalaska]

This is
LONDON
08/04/03 - Opinion section

The madness of saving Jessica
By Brian Sewell, Evening Standard

To puke was the only proper reaction to the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch, of the US Army's 50th Maintenance Company, as April Fools' Day dawned in Iraq last week. "To puke" has just the right abrupt, dismissive note to it - "to vomit" and "to regurgitate" both have too much Latin gravity at their roots, "to heave" and "to retch" the false gentility of euphemism, but plain puke, good enough for Shakespeare, is onomatopoeic to perfection. Say "puke" and relish the sound.

It is not that I have any ill-will towards the girl - I have none for any young soldier, of any race or religion, engaged in any cause - it is just that I believe women to have no business to be anywhere near the front line in any campaign, other than, perhaps, as doctors and nurses. I am certain that no such effort would have been made to rescue a young man of her age and inexperience.

Jessica Lynch is 19, blonde, 5ft 4in, and weighs rather less than the equipment carried by a British paratrooper on the yomp. Driving across the desert with other US servicemen unable to read a compass or take direction from the sun, she was separated from a convoy, ambushed, injured, captured by Iraqis and taken to a hospital in Nasiriyah, on the Euphrates, nearer Basra than Baghdad.

There she lay, both legs and one arm fractured, attended by the few members of staff who had not fled, a pharmacist the only man of any qualification.

How these injuries occurred we do not know, but General Tommy Franks, commander of the allied forces, knew of them and knew where she was, knowledge attributed to " intelligence" until the truth was revealed - that a sympathetic Iraqi had trudged for miles across the desert until he found a US officer to tell.

General Franks it was who ordered Jessica's rescue, perhaps sharing her family's anxiety over the possibility of rape, perhaps recognising what a propaganda coup could be made of it. To effect the rescue, US marines staged diversionary attacks in Nasiriyah, on a bridge, a telecommunications relay station and the local headquarters of the Ba'ath party; and with these under way, two transport helicopters landed in the hospital grounds, with the protection of four attack helicopters hovering overhead and two patrolling tankbuster aircraft - all this by dead of night, in pitch darkness and with the appalling safety record of US forces.

How many soldiers were involved and at serious risk in this escapade? Six helicopter crews, two aeroplane crews, medics, stretcher-bearers and all the men engaged in the decoy attacks on the other side of the town.

Would so many men and so much expensive machinery have been risked for the rescue of a jar-head marine of 19, a black boy of 19, a homosexual boy of 19 or a poor white boy of 19 from the same incestuous hills of West Virginia among which Jessica was born?

I doubt it. This girl was rescued not because she was a heroine, not because she was brilliantly qualified and not because she was in possession of information and skills that must on no account be betrayed to the enemy.

She was rescued for no other reason than that she is a girl, and the all-American blonde to boot. The rescue of Jessica Lynch was portrayed even in our most sober and sensible broadsheets as an exploit of extraordinary derring-do, of heroism, valour, audacity, chivalry and chutzpah.

Sane men, however, able to assess the risks involved on such a moonless night, must count this rescue a work of sheer insanity, unless those ordering it put into the equation the publicity inevitable with success. Was it done to hearten the male troops?

Again I doubt it, for these, weary, cold by night, sweating by day, now long unshaven and unshowered, stinking with the stale odours of the body, know perfectly well that no attempt would be made to rescue them were they in the same predicament as Private Lynch and through the same incompetence.

"America doesn't leave its heroes behind, it never has, it never will," were the weasel words of a US army spokesman - and to such nonsense the only possible response is "Tell that to the marines." The objective of this cynical exercise was to fortify the folks at home, and there can be no doubt, so deep is the naivety of the provincial American, that the ruse worked.

In West Virginia, Jessica's rescue is attributed not only to the army, but to God in equal measure, God invoked by the power of prayer. It has occurred to none of them that if God had anything to do with it, he would have stayed the hands of Bush and Blair and sent no one into battle.

The point that everyone has overlooked is that Jessica Lynch should not have been sent to Iraq until active hostilities are over.

I don't care a damn what feminists say, the front line is no place for women. It is where men are ripped apart by shells and bullets, where they are incinerated in tanks, the burnt meats of sacrifice, so, to speak, where men lay down their lives for noble sentiments and causes - forgive me, but what bollocks the euphemisms are.

If a soldier's mind is not wholly engaged in battle, he is a risk to himself and his immediate mates - the last thing a soldier needs is a corporal of poetic mind or a philosopher for a sergeant, the one reciting Horace, the other musing on the nobility of man; he needs, instead, mates driven by adrenaline and the unintellectual antidotes to fear that we call courage and exalt as heroism. But the last thing a soldier needs in battle is a woman by his side, her mere presence a diversion from the matter in hand, a tug at his primeval sense of chivalry.

As, from the safety of Central Command, US Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said of Jessica's rescue, "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen." And so they did, but they should not have been required to do so.

If women feel compelled, in their absurd pursuit of equality, to join the armed forces and cannot, will not, see that in the front line they pose a menace to all men, then the forces must draw the line for them, no matter how great a political incorrectitude it may seem to outsiders.

Women should be the army's clerks, cooks and bottlewashers, its doctors and nurses, its counters of beans and buttons, but never - even though I can imagine nothing more terrifying than a battalion of bearded lesbians - bearers of arms, never frontline soldiers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/opinion/articles/4245683?version=1
©2003 Associated New Media

Makes a few points yes? Bottom line...maybe Jessica and Lori should not have been there...probably all academic until she speaks....

[Pendragon]

This guy is a waste of skin.

Would so many men and so much expensive machinery have been risked for the rescue of a jar-head marine of 19, a black boy of 19, a homosexual boy of 19 or a poor white boy of 19 from the same incestuous hills of West Virginia among which Jessica was born?

I happen to think we would rescue any soldier we could if we had the info. That it was a girl and it was good PR - I am not cynical enough to think that was the only reason.

Of course this guy thinks women should be doctors and nurses - which I am guessing would be unarmed, but holy crap, driving a water truck - thats WAY too dangerous.

It has occurred to none of them that if God had anything to do with it, he would have stayed the hands of Bush and Blair and sent no one into battle.

Yeah - we all know that God is always opposed to war - not that this guy has a shred of religious sincerity to actually read about him or even ask him. :rolleyes:

Ok, I can't think of any more words that are appropriate for this forum.



:cuss: :fire:

[Schuey2002]

His last name is Sewell. It should be ... Sewer!!

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :fire: :fire: :banghead: :banghead:

[3 gun]

The guy doesn't know his history very well. Missions to free POWs have been launched in the past and will continue to be. I agree that women don't belong on front line positions. She wasn't. Bad luck and timing put her in harms way. It sounds like she handled it better than many men would have in her place(this puke for sure). She did herself, her unit and her country proud. I'm glad she's coming home. I look forward to the day they all can.

[Tamara]

I am certain that no such effort would have been made to rescue a young man of her age and inexperience.

I am certain you are wrong. The U.S. military is rather well known for going out on a limb to rescue its own. Look at the convoy in Somalia that was held up past dawn in the streets of Mogadishu just to pull the body of an American serviceman from a helicopter wreck.

How these injuries occurred we do not know, but General Tommy Franks, commander of the allied forces, knew of them and knew where she was, knowledge attributed to " intelligence" until the truth was revealed - that a sympathetic Iraqi had trudged for miles across the desert until he found a US officer to tell.

Just where the hell do you think "intelligence" comes from, you idiot? Crystal balls?

- all this by dead of night, in pitch darkness and with the appalling safety record of US forces.

"Appalling safety record"?!? Oh, Kee-rist, that's rich! Look here, Mister Nader, in case nobody's brought it to your attention, war is an inherently unsafe endeavour. People run around with the safeties off on their rifles, tear a$$ around the countryside in trucks without airbags or seat belts, fly real low in the dark, ride around in helicopters with their legs dangling out, all sorts of things that would make your sainted mother cringe if she knew about it. This probably seems shocking to someone whose most dangerous career moment was nodding off during an Andrew Lloyd Webber production, but I digress...

How many soldiers were involved and at serious risk in this escapade? Six helicopter crews, two aeroplane crews, medics, stretcher-bearers and all the men engaged in the decoy attacks on the other side of the town.

Don't forget the sweaty, manly commandoes who actually cleared the building. They also risked their heroic, manly lives for this silly little girl that "weighed rather less than the equipment carried by a British paratrooper on the yomp."

Would so many men and so much expensive machinery have been risked for the rescue of a jar-head marine of 19, a black boy of 19, a homosexual boy of 19 or a poor white boy of 19 from the same incestuous hills of West Virginia among which Jessica was born?

Ah, interesting bit of bias sneaking in there; unsurprising from a vaguely fussy, nattily-attired, grey haired old woman-hating art critic who probably spends a fair amount of time thinking about those sweaty British paratroopers on the yomp. ;)

What?

Well, gosh, I figured since you were stereotyping left and right, Mr. Sewell, I'd just join in the fun; sauce for the goose, and all...

Again I doubt it, for these, weary, cold by night, sweating by day, now long unshaven and unshowered, stinking with the stale odours of the body,

What did I tell you? ;)

[Khornet]

remind me never to get in a p**sing contest with you.

I agree with this man about women in combat, as I have made clear before. But this was a revolting screed, full of contempt and bile for just about everyone involved, almost nasty enough to make me change sides. A pox on him! Not even I, who hates the idea of women in battle, would deny the honor due to all the actors in this little drama. Guy needs to be EMBEDDED.

[whoami]

Women should be the army's clerks, cooks and bottlewashers, its doctors and nurses, its counters of beans and buttons, but never - even though I can imagine nothing more terrifying than a battalion of bearded lesbians - bearers of arms, never frontline soldiers.

Perhaps someone needs to remind the author that the Army's 50th Maintenance Company isn't a frontline combat unit. Perhaps someone should also remind the author that, at least as far as the US is concerned, even the lowliest clerk or bottle washer in our armed forces is considered and trained as a combat soldier.

I would, however, LOVE to see this 'writer' profess this opinion to the many 19 yeard old 5'4" blonde girls who 'weighs rather less than the equipment carried by a British paratrooper on the yomp' that are in our armed forces. He's probably well aware they'd wipe the floor with him, AND be nice enough to hand him his hat when it was over.

[BogBabe]

"To puke" has just the right abrupt, dismissive note to it.

[buzz_knox]

Words literally fail me as far as this piece of trash is concerned.

Anyone got an e-mail address for the newspaper?

[Don Gwinn]

It really IS interesting how he managed to turn an essay on a military rescue operation into allusions to sweaty, incestuous gay sex. :confused:

Bottom line: rescuing personnel is a good thing. We rescued the pilot of that A-10 yesterday, and he was a man.

[Sean Smith]

Well, it is obvious that the author never read Black Hawk Down. Much of the Battle of Mogadishu was one big improvised rescue operation for a couple of helicopter crews. See the Medal of Honor citations for details. Last I checked, Michael Durant wasn't a chick, though the author of this peice might conisder him a "hottie." :neener:

[DeltaElite]

This Sewell has to have French ancestory. :D

[BigG]

This fellow is a fit turd to float in the cesspool that is the UK. Apologies to Tony Blair, but he's a rare exception to the norm.

[jmbg29]

It really IS interesting how he managed to turn an essay on a military rescue operation into allusions to sweaty, incestuous gay sex.He's a Brit ponce, he can't help himself.

Nearly all of the good Brits are overseas. "Kicking *** and taking hyphenated names" as Dennis Miller was saying on the "Tonight Show" the other night. :evil: :evil: :evil:

[spacemanspiff]

and how many thousands of miles away from the action is this 'reporter' or whatever he claims to be?
they should send him to north korea to get a head start on the action there.

[4v50 Gary]

While I tend to be conservative, I'm man enough to admit that there are women who can outrun, out-shoot me. There are women who can fly whereas I can only be a passenger. There are women who know more about littoral warfare and I'm still locked into the 20th century battleship. Heck, if they're qualified, let them go.

[Ed Brunner]

Tamara you said:
"Ah, interesting bit of bias sneaking in there; unsurprising from a vaguely fussy, nattily-attired, grey haired old woman-hating art critic who probably spends a fair amount of time thinking about those sweaty British paratroopers on the yomp. "

What? Do you suspect that he wanted to yomp one or what?

[RON in PA]

Nothing like an effeate, limp-wristed British snob. Ef-em.

[Don Gwinn]

I thought The Yomp was on the arcade in London, but I could be wrong. :D

Let's not let this turn into a French-bashing thread or a string of gay jokes, OK? I shouldn't have posted what I did, but if it makes anyone feel better, I did it because it seemed the sort of thing that would irritate this blouse-wearin' poodle walker, not to insult any of my gay friends. Comparing this man to our gay members is as unfair as comparing lawyers to sharks.

[agricola]

brian sewell is one of those people who somehow have found themselves in a life of idleness based on other peoples hard work. if any of you have ever read the superb magazine Viz you may be aware of a cartoon strip called The Critics in which both characters were based on him.

the weird bit about this is he is employed by the Mail group of newspapers, which is the most rightwing of all the British press, and they (obviously) tolerate this nonsense. he also considers human civilization to stretch from kensington to hoxton (west to east) and from tottenham court road to vauxhall (north to south) -ie the rich bits of London. he has become the parody of the art critic made flesh.

saesneg twp as one says at home

[charlie d]

Brian Sewell is puke!

[Ryder]

I dunno, anybody that can "take direction from the sun" in the middle of the night must know what he is talking about. :uhoh:

[BigG]

Comparing this man to our gay members is as unfair as comparing lawyers to sharks.

Um, Gwinny, I take it you want to be complimentary, but... I am not qualified to judge on the first half of the above comparison but I certainly think you could choose a better example than comparing lawyers to sharks which is dead on accurate, imho. Yes, there MAY BE one or two good ones but the vast majority - :uhoh: :fire: :barf:

[Justin]

the weird bit about this is he is employed by the Mail group of newspapers, which is the most rightwing of all the British press, and they (obviously) tolerate this nonsense. Maybe he's their version of Geraldo Rivera. Someone so obviously clueless and left-wing that they are really nothing more than a living charicature of what the right sees in the left.

[BowStreetRunner]

..didnt consider the idea that maybe Tommy Franks thought our other POWs were in the same hospital and that the mission was no to rescue just PFC Lynch but others as well (Even though i would say that the mission would be totally justified to rescue one female, male, private or general, definitely worth it to save even one of our brave soldiers)
And this guy didnt consider that by all accounts Jessica fought bravely before she was captured.....there are instances of men doing much less than that....I would much rather be backed up by her than this egotist
BSR

[braindead0]

She wasn't. Bad luck and timing put her in harms way.

Stupidity, with all the wonderul navigation technology that I'm sure they had...they got lost... Perhaps they were actually trying to defect to Iraq?

We'll never know...

[rennaissancemann]

There are some people you just can't reach...

[Joe Demko]

Do not compare lawyers to sharks. Sharks are a necessary part of the marine ecosystem. They are wonderfully evolved predators.
If you must compare lawyers to something in nature, one of the parasitic worm species might be more apt. Leeches, tapeworms, ascaris, any of these more closely parallel how lawyers batten off of living hosts.

[Preacherman]

I have a suggestion. Let's raise the money (here on THR is fine - I suspect we'd be oversubscribed!) to buy this idiot :fire: an air ticket to West Virginia. He would be met at the airport by all of Ms. Lynch's relatives, complete with tar, feathers, and any other exotic West Virginian pleasantries that I may not know about. They would then be given 30 minutes uninterrupted access to him to debate the merits of his article, after which all that is left of him could catch the plane back to London.

Any takers?

[Ol' Badger]

What a ******!
The slam against GOD doesn't sit will with me either. He needs a *** kick'n.

[moa]

That rescue mission also accomplished the retrieval of the remains of seven of Lynch's comrades. They are no longer MIAs which is some little consolation for their families.

Doesn't this twit Sewell know that the US military has entire units whose sole purpose is search and rescue. In fact, one of the S&R team members that was shot down in 1991 Gulf War was a woman doctor.

Listening to the Liddy radio program this afternoon. He mentioned briefly that retired Col. David Hackworth has sources who said that when Private Lynch was captured, she was hung by her feet and beaten. Apparently, that is how she ended up with some many broken bones.

Gen. Franks may very well might have known that too. Liddy's big fear is that the Government will try and keep this information hushed up, if it turns out to be true.

[moa]

By the way, the latest information I heard about Lynch and the ambush is that they did not make a wrong turn. They where ambushed at a bridge they had to cross.

[Viking Warrior]

A little present for saddam.
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/picturejokes/9442.jpg

[Navy joe]

Stupidity, with all the wonderul navigation technology that I'm sure they had...they got lost... Perhaps they were actually trying to defect to Iraq?

So, Braindead..., you've never gotten lost while out driving where maps were readily available, the streets were well marked, and you spoke the local language? Everyone has gotten lost. I'm sure getting shot at makes it a little harder to remember the left turn one should normally take. In fact the convoys in Somalia took a number of wrong turns trying to get to the crash sites, lemme guess, Delta and the Rangers wanted to defect to Aidid.

Before you put forth something that ludicrous, considering what members of the 507th did and didn't survive, maybe you ought to have a little something known as proof.

[Don Gwinn]

I was trying to be nicer to the sharks, not the lawyers. ;)

[cool45auto]

Sewell, your mama isn't good enough to wear army boots! That's right, Sewell, I said ARMY BOOTs, like a WOMAN wears in the army. Like a WOMAN kicks *** with in the army!

[Sir Galahad]

Let that POS "writer" come up here and tell the Hopi Tribe that Lori Piestewa is not a hero and that her good friend shouldn't have been rescued. :fire:

[George Dickel]

I doubt if things have changed much since I retired from the Army in 1986 but support troops get very little practical training in basic soldier skills like map reading, marksmanship, etc once they complete initial training. Their job in the military is to provide the necessities a unit needs to be operational.

When combat types are in garrison the only thing they have to do is train when not picking up trash on post, guard duty and other mundane tasks. When in garrison the support people are ordering the replacement parts, turning in broken equipment for repair, cooking the meals, repairing the vehicles and doing preventive maintenance, and on and on. This is a full time and more job.

To be proficient at basic soldier skills you have to practice them, over and over. When the unit goes to the field the support people are doing what they do in garrison, fix the broken equipment, cook the meals, etc. They don't get the opportunity to practice these tasks like the infantry types do.

There usually is only enough money in the units budget for weapons qualifications once a year for non-infantry units. No practice range sessions, shoot a few rounds before qualification and that's it.

Before you criticize them so severely try doing what they do and lets see how well you perform.

[voilsb]

I'm not goig to read too many responses here, because I don't feel like getting my temper fired up tonight.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about in the least. No one get's left behind.

[ahadams]

The left in the west, especially in the US and the UK is in near hysterical panic - not only did the antiwar demos (both pre and post start of festivities) end up fizzling, but all of their gloom and doom predictions were w-r-o-n-g and those who stood against the war are now laughingstocks.

Even most of the "mainstream" media have deserted them. Not only that, but the UN demanded that the US and the UK ask *them* what to do next and when the relevant parties ignored them the UN tried to organize a group action with France, Germany and assorted others - remember two days ago it was announced that kohfi what's his name was going to go to France, Germany, and some place else and negotiate with their governments about how *they* were going to take over post-war Iraq and then yesterday late there was an announcement by a UN spokeshack that the meetings had been called off? Any bets on what sort of message the Bush&Blair summit sent to them via backchannels suggesting they knock it off? hmm???

In other words the left, which during the years of billy jeff felt that they owned the world, have suddenly realized they don't, and that no one in power, in fact almost no one outside of their little elitist groups, even cares about what they think.

In the fall of baghdad, all the globalist ideals of the left were proven wrong, and as with all one trick ponies, they don't have a clue what to do next.

Now with all of that in mind, go back and look at how truly pathetic that poor brit leftwinger really sounds.

[Zander]

"She was rescued for no other reason than that she is a girl, and the all-American blonde to boot."It is our established protocol that POWs will be "retrieved"...sometimes at great cost to those tasked for the rescue. Ask Jimmy "I never met a dictator I didn't like" Carter.

Jessica Lynch is 19, blonde, 5ft 4in, and weighs rather less than the equipment carried by a British paratrooper on the yomp.Quite true; and also demonstrably true that her participation in this war is a direct result of the the intentional weakening of standards from basic training forward for all US services personnel.

Such PC-driven guidelines are at best despicable, as they represent a threat to our services' effectiveness and morale.

"General Franks it was who ordered Jessica's rescue,..."Bull-manure!

"How many soldiers were involved and at serious risk in this escapade?"As many as were necessary.

She was rescued for no other reason than that she is a girl, and the all-American blonde to boot.She was rescued because she wears the uniform of our services...and for no other reason. Whether or not she should have been in uniform in combat is another discussion entirely. But for the record, IMO, she should not have been.

"I don't care a damn what feminists say, the front line is no place for women."I couldn't agree more. The inherent physical inferiority of the female sex represents an unacceptable threat to their male counterparts in combat situations.

[Tamara]

The inherent physical inferiority of the female sex represents an unacceptable threat to their male counterparts in combat situations.

I love hearing this from folks I'd have a fair chance against in an armwrestling contest. ;)

I don't think 5'4", 100lb people need to be in combat arms no matter whether they're pointers or setters. What always amused me, however, when working in gunshops, was hearing some annoying droning accountant in the corner nattering on and on about "Men have 42% more upper body strength than women..." when I could have snapped his 5'2" self over my knee like a stale Mister Salty. Funny, though: Every single one of those guys had a drivers license that said they were 5'10" or 6' tall... :rolleyes: ;)

Let me modify this: In a perfect world, anybody who meets the physical requirements should be able to perform the job, but no slack should be cut for sex, age, infirmities or whatever. If you want Job A, then you need to be able to run three miles in X minutes, do Y pull-ups, and lift Z pounds, whether you're a 19 year-old female or a 56 year-old male.

In the world we currently inhabit, I don't think our society is ready for female combatants, no matter if they're in better shape than Flo Jo and have an attitude that makes Vasquez from Aliens look like a Girl Scout.

[Zander]

I love hearing this from folks I'd have a fair chance against in an armwrestling contest. Once again, you've missed or intentionally ignored the point.

It is a matter of fact that standards, from PT qualifications onward, were relaxed so that women could qualify for duty of any type. I had, and have, absolutely no problem with females meeting the formerly existing standards for service...whether they were/are arm-wrestling champions or not.

But that isn't the real criterion these days, is it? ;)

[ahadams]

Tamara - this may surprise you but I think a significant number of female combatants are already out there in what are known as Combat support units - a la the maintenance unit that was ambushed leading to the whole Jessica what's her name thing. That was true even a quarter of a century ago. I know because I knew one of them who was assigned to a tactical CEWI (that's Combat Electronic Warfare and Intelligence - and that acronym alone will probably raise this board's level of interest to the Watchers, but so what?) unit. She was also the only person other than a couple of body builder mechanic guys I've ever met who could change a tire (80 pounds counting the two piece rim) on a deuce and a half by herself.

They're out there, they just generally stay low key, or they used to, anyway.

[Tamara]

Perhaps you should read my whole post again.

Once again, you've missed or intentionally ignored the point.

"Once again" you make me doubt the belief that manners were universally taught south of the Mason-Dixon line. ;)

[Sir Galahad]

Get 'em Tamara!:D

I was in a maintenance unit. I was a small arms repairman. There were several female soldiers, one of whom was a truck mech. She had no problem dropping drivelines on deuce-and-a-halfs. They had no problem keeping up with the PT (or runs were 3 and 4 miles, not the standard 2 of some units.) They did their job admirably and I have nothing but respect for them. In AIT, there were a number of female soldiers learning small arms repair and--guess what? Most of them were better at it than the males! I never saw a female do less than her share of the work. They were soldiers. That's the bottom line.

Here's more food for thought. PFC Lynch withstood severe injuries with very little medical attention. At any point, she could have just gave up and died. People who give up the will to live have died of lesser injuries. I'd also like to call attention to the female Soviet snipers of WW2, some of whom had confirmed kils of 100+, including one with 200+ kills. Women can't withstand pain or hard labor? When the first man passes a basketball out of his fourth point of contact, then we'll see. :D

[Zander]

In a perfect world, anybody who meets the physical requirements should be able to perform the job, but no slack should be cut for sex, age, infirmities or whatever.Precisely. The requirements were changed [i.e., standards were lessened]; IOW, the proverbial "no-slack" criteria were mitigated so that female recruits would be able to meet the minimum qualifying standards.

Is this clear? I know it is...

"Once again" you make me doubt the belief that manners were universally taught south of the Mason-Dixon line. I do beg your pardon, ma'am. But let me put it in the blunt terms of someone like yourself who has experience other than in the South of my birth:

I prefer fact to your sophistry. Further:

In the interest of fairness, please dispute the established history of the lessening of the most basic standards so that females might "qualify" for service in our armed forces. Please be specific, as your own standards, feigned or otherwise, would require.

Your most humble servant...

[rock jock]

Let me modify this: In a perfect world, anybody who meets the physical requirements should be able to perform the job, but no slack should be cut for sex, age, infirmities or whatever. If you want Job A, then you need to be able to run three miles in X minutes, do Y pull-ups, and lift Z pounds, whether you're a 19 year-old female or a 56 year-old male.
In support units, I agree. But I have to say that the author has a point regarding the distraction that women could represent in the heat of actual combat.

[Wildalaska]

Women can't withstand pain or hard labor? When the first man passes a basketball out of his fourth point of contact, then we'll see.

See that one all the time...guy walks in with wife, and maybe six kids...

"Hi, Id like to buy a 243 for my wife, shes not tough enough to stand the pain of a 30-06"

:banghead:

[Blackhawk]

It has occurred to none of them that if God had anything to do with it, he would have stayed the hands of Bush and Blair and sent no one into battle.That's certainly what Saddam, ChIraq, BS, and a bevy of others wanted. Are they this guy's god? :rolleyes: :fire:

[Schuey2002]

I don't think 5'4", 100lb people need to be in combat arms no matter whether they're pointers or setters.
Skunk, do you hear this? Do you still want to join the Air Force?:p

:D

[Tamara]

Precisely. The requirements were changed [i.e., standards were lessened]; IOW, the proverbial "no-slack" criteria were mitigated so that female recruits would be able to meet the minimum qualifying standards.

Show me where I said they weren't.

Is this clear? I know it is...

Funny, you're so polite in person and in private communiques... Does the public acting-out represent a need for something?

I prefer fact to your sophistry.

Sophistry?

Did you even read my post, or did you just rifle off a response to what you thought I would say? Where did I advocate a lessening of standards? Where did I indicate that such lessening had not already occured?

Most sincerely baffled,

[p35]

Anybody see the latest Newsweek? Had pictures of the 8 troops whose bodies they recovered during the rescue. Black, white, Hispanic, Indian, male, female- God only knows about sexual orientation. No question they would have mounted the same effort for any of them. This columnist is a total idiot- see my sigline.

Apparently they had a secondary mission to catch "Chemical Ali", who had an office in the building- missed him that time but didn't a couple days later.

[BigG]

The left in the west, especially in the US and the UK is in near hysterical panic Yee Haw!!!:D :D :D :cool: :cool: :cool:

[agricola]

fyi Sewell is right-wing

[OF]

the latest information I heard about Lynch and the ambush is that they did not make a wrong turn.I heard this too. I heard second hand that there was a member of the 507th on TV and he stated that when they were ambushed, they were exactly where they were supposed to be.fyi Sewell is right-wingI guess that depends where you put the balance point on the see-saw. He may be right of you, ag.

- Gabe

[Navy joe]

pointers or setters ROTFLMAO great descriptive difference.

I'd hate to get in the middle of this pointing and setting contest, since the same things are being said. Yes standards for physical fitness are too low for both men and women in the military. Yes they are different, always have been lower. For example, as a 28 year old male I would have to do a minimum of 29 push-ups, 45 sit-ups and run 1.5 miles in 13:30 to be judged sat. Obviously easy to do more, to my everlasting shame, I as a former high school 5k CC runner, failed the run some time back, used to be I could not run for six months and show up and run in the low 11s. No more, gotta exercise. A female of the same age would have to crank out 11 grueling push-ups, 35 sit-ups and run in 14:45.

I fully support women in any combat arms job they can physically do. The standards need to be tougher and gender neutral. They also need to be job specific, as in if you want an all female crew on a 155 battery they better be able to toss 90lb shells around all day long.A female Marine had better be able to carry the same combat load as a qualified male counterpart, just as far, just as fast. I have worked with, for, and had work for me some excellent females, and I know some amazons that can physically handle most any tasks long after the guys wanna quit. As far as being disallowed from combat arms because the anguish their dismemberment would cause their male counterparts? Get real, it is pretty un-American to bar someone from a job because of someone elses pre-concieved chauvanistic notions. Further, the battlefield no longer has defined front lines, pretty dumb to think you can keep non-combatants safe.

[Zander]

I guess that depends where you put the balance point on the see-saw. He may be right of you, ag. -- GabeLOL!

In the world we currently inhabit, I don't think our society is ready for female combatants, no matter if they're in better shape than Flo Jo and have an attitude that makes Vasquez from Aliens look like a Girl Scout. -- TamaraBut what do you believe should be the policy? You've managed to say quite a bit without ever really expressing your opinion.

Did you even read my post, or did you just rifle off a response to what you thought I would say?See above...

Funny, you're so polite in person and in private communiques...Pretend that I'm using those little smilies like you do when saying something particularly pithy.

Does the public acting-out represent a need for something?Those basic psychology courses only get you so far, Tam.

[moa]

In the early days of the Israeli Defense Force they apparently had a significant number of women serving in the combat arms.

The IDFs experience was that it was not a good idea to have women in front line combat outfits. The Israeli male soldiers where distracted by being too protective of their female counterparts.

Also it was the IDF's conclusion that the Arab troops they where fighting fought even harder knowing they were fighting women.

During WWII the Soviet Union used extensive amounts of women as fighter pilots, snipers, anti-aircraft artillery crews and MPs.

After the war was over the Soviets did not continue with large numbers of women in their military.

If I remember correctly, in the opening stages of the battle of Stalingrad the city was defended by a female anti-aircraft artillery battalion of about 800 women and 38 guns. They were overrun and destroyed by the Waffen SS. The AAA battalion had no anti-tank ammo although I would think high velocity AAA ammo would damage the then fairly lightly armored German tanks.

[Tamara]

But what do you believe should be the policy? You've managed to say quite a bit without ever really expressing your opinion.

It's right there, in my post of 2333 hours last evening:

In a perfect world, anybody who meets the physical requirements should be able to perform the job, but no slack should be cut for sex, age, infirmities or whatever. If you want Job A, then you need to be able to run three miles in X minutes, do Y pull-ups, and lift Z pounds, whether you're a 19 year-old female or a 56 year-old male.

The part in bold is fairly self explanatory and contains no words with more than two syllables.

You know, it's times like this that I'm glad THR has carried over the "ignore list" feature from TFL...

[BigG]

He may be right of you, ag. SNORT GUFFAW ROTF! :D :evil: :neener:

[kidao35]

Jessica Lynch is 19, blonde, 5ft 4in, and weighs rather less than the equipment carried by a British paratrooper on the yomp.

Yep, and she looks like a cute little cheerleader, too.

It's my hope that the stories of her shooting until her ammo ran out are true. I hope she brought death to as many of her assailants as possible.

Of all Americans in combat, her type would have commended the least amount of respect from the Iraqis. Let them think now, "SH*T! If the little blonde girl put up that kind of a fight, how tough are the rest of the Americans?!!!" :what:

[triggertime]

"In the world we currently inhabit, I don't think our society is ready for female combatants, no matter if they're in better shape than Flo Jo and have an attitude that makes Vasquez from Aliens look like a Girl Scout."

I wouldn't have used Florence Griffith-Joyner as an example, Tamara. She died at the young age of 38 from an apparent heart seizure. So much for her physical condition, eh?

Vasquez from Aliens? I'm surprised you didn't reference Sarah Connor from 'Terminator 2'. At least she knew how to use a 1911 and field strip and AR. :neener:

[Intune]

Wow! Who painted the target on Tam's back? She doesn't need me to defend her but just like a front-line male OR female trooper that is receiving fire, I'm laying down some cover. :p I must be seeing her pov the way she wrote it which makes sense.

[Navy joe]

I don't think 5'4", 100lb people need to be in combat arms no matter whether they're pointers or setters.

If we outlawed them, who would carry the GPMG in the squad?

[JeanC]

Quote:

------------------------------------------------
You know, it's times like this that I'm glad THR has carried over the "ignore list" feature from TFL...
-------------------------------------------------

Kewl feature :D

[zorba]

It's shameful that someone can take such a callous position on Jessica Lynch's rescue. I don't care what the reasons that led to her capture were, once the US military knew where she was they executed a flawless rescue that was done because she was an american soldier in enemy captivity. If she becomes wealthy off of movie and book deals, she deserves every penny!

[10-Ring]

The mission was based on what turned out to be VERY good intel. Those 19+ year old soldiers who went on that mission would have done the same for ANY other comrade.

It's that Euro's way of thinking that truly shows how courageous Tony Blairs decision to be part of the coalition to free Iraq really was!

[rennaissancemann]

Why the double standard where women are concerned? You defend their right to Keep and Bear Arms, and their other rights under the Constitution, why don’t you support their obligation as citizens to defend their country? I’m with Tamara and Navy Joe on this one. If a woman can meet the standards for a given job then I see no impediment to assigning her to it.

Personally, I’m not the least bit concerned about women in military service, just the opposite, I’m all for it. What ticks me off is how the DoD goes about setting standards. This has nothing to do with the women in the service and everything to do with politics inside the beltway. Denigrating the idea of women in uniform is to say that they are not citizens in the same sense as their male counterparts. At best, this attitude is misplaced chivalry, at worst, it’s bigotry.

The notion that women can serve in the military, but not in a combat role is pure folly. To serve in the military is to assume a soldier’s risk regardless of the your AFSC, MOS, etc. Case in point, Pfc Lynch was assigned to a maintenance company rather than a combat arms unit, and like thousands of cooks, clerks, and maintenance personnel in wars past, she found herself in combat. If the reports are true, Pfc Lynch responded to being ambushed as a soldier should, by standing her ground and returning fire. Her actions reflect great credit upon herself, her unit, and the United States Army.

I am proud to serve with her.

[Zander]

Why the double standard where women are concerned? -- RMThere is none on my part. A very distinct double standard does exist, though.

You defend their right to Keep and Bear Arms, and their other rights under the Constitution, why don’t you support their obligation as citizens to defend their country? But these are two distinctly different issues, sir. The military isn't a democracy; there is no "right" to serve...it is a privilege.

I’m with Tamara and Navy Joe on this one. If a woman can meet the standards for a given job then I see no impediment to assigning her to it. *** What ticks me off is how the DoD goes about setting standards.Therein lies the problem and the inherent contradiction of your position.

I agree with you on the latter; the standards have been lowered so that women can serve in ground combat areas, much as they have been lowered so that females can "qualify" for service in domestic police and fire departments. I find that unacceptable.

Denigrating the idea of women in uniform is to say that they are not citizens in the same sense as their male counterparts. Well, once again you are confusing the issues. I support the idea of women in the military. I do not support the idea that women should serve in any and all areas, especially if that gate is opened through the lessening of standards.

The notion that women can serve in the military, but not in a combat role is pure folly.I disagree. It is an entirely rational decision and is based on fielding the most effective force possible. Women in ground combat units are inherently dangerous to their male counterparts and are an unacceptable risk.

[PFC Lynch's] actions reflect great credit upon her, her unit, and the United States Army.I agree...and that is without knowing the exact specifics of the firefight and how she comported herself.

I am proud to serve with her.As well you should be. She is an exceptional soldier. As I said before, her story is going to make a heck of movie; I only hope that someone in the Hollyweird crowd will make it and portray it accurately.

At best, this attitude is misplaced chivalry, at worst, it’s bigotry.I'm responding to this point last because it is perhaps the most important one in this discussion. Women, because of their inherent physical-strength limitations, shouldn't be in most, if any, ground combat situations. Should we return to the pre-PC criteria for their inclusion, I'd have no problem. But there is another issue that would be involved. PFC Lynch's treatment is a legitimate departure point for that discussion. Perhaps we can address that in another thread.

In the meantime, there exists a real bigotry, more pervasive I would suggest, in the federal mandate that males, and only males, celebrating their 18th birthday must, under rather severe sanctions [real and threatened under the fed.gov bureaucrats' "authority"], register for the draft. That the draft is, and has been, an anachronism for decades doesn't seem to deter the heavy-handed treatment of males "of age". If we want to address true bigotry, why don't we insist that females be required to register?

Doesn't the current policy give lie to the notion that we are "diversifying" our armed forces for the betterment of all?

[ahadams]

If I remember correctly, in the opening stages of the battle of Stalingrad the city was defended by a female anti-aircraft artillery battalion

Moa: there is a Russian unit, never entirely identified, but reported by a number of German POWs debriefed by the Western Allies after the war that had the rather unusual methodology of taking several female Red Army soldiers along with them on patrol. When they neared a German position, the female soldiers would pretend to be unaware of their surroundings and partially disrobe, as though to change into clothes from their packs. While they were doing this, the rest of the patrol would flank the German position on both sides and open fire. Almost inevitably the Germans were caught with, well with their pants down, so to speak.

[rennaissancemann]

I would like for you to clarify two points in your last post.

Question
What do you perceive as the inherent contradiction of my position vis-a-vis women in the military?

Reference
I’m with Tamara and Navy Joe on this one. If a woman can meet the standards for a given job then I see no impediment to assigning her to it. *** What ticks me off is how the DoD goes about setting standards.

Therein lies the problem and the inherent contradiction of your position.


Question
You seem to be saying that women in combat roles are pose an inherent hazard to their male counterparts, yet if the physical standards for assignment to a combat arms assignment were applied to both male and female applicants as an objective standard to be met with no gender bias, you would support women in combat roles. Is this an accurate statement?

Reference
Women in ground combat units are inherently dangerous to their male counterparts and are an unacceptable risk.

Women, because of their inherent physical-strength limitations, shouldn't be in most, if any, ground combat situations. Should we return to the pre-PC criteria for their inclusion, I'd have no problem.


Respectfully

[rennaissancemann]

A Correction...

The question I posed to you was:
why don’t you support their (women's) obligation as citizens to defend their country?

You replied:
The military isn't a democracy; there is no "right" to serve...it is a privilege.


It is my belief that each citizen has an obligation to defend their country, my frame of reference being the United States. While you are correct in stating that the military is not a democracy, the country it serves, is. IN this context, military service is neither a "right" nor a "priviledge." It is an obligation, a duty if you will, that a citizen owes to his or her country.


Respectfully

[Wildalaska]

Hmm some more on the subject...this time from WND...by the way neither the opening article nor this one necesaarily represent my views, which are of course only mine.

Turning women into cannon fodder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 11, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Robert Knight



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

You couldn't help but be elated upon hearing that Pfc. Jessica Lynch was rescued. But it was a little like the relief that parents experience before the anger sets in after junior has done a death-defying stunt and lived to tell about it.

Many brave men risked their lives to save Pfc. Lynch following an Iraqi man's report that a woman soldier was being tortured at a hospital. We still don't know what the Iraqis did to her. The two broken legs and spinal injury indicate torture. No word on whether she was sexually assaulted as well. Her comrades, most of them men, did not fare as well, with nearly a dozen bodies found.

Instead of shaking off our '60s feminist hangover and vowing to end the lunacy of sending young women like Miss Lynch into harm's way, you'd think her brutalization was actually a good thing.

Gen. Wilma Vaught, the harridan who wants to draft our daughters and put them into combat, gushed that Miss Lynch reportedly took out some Iraqis on the way to being captured, so this proves women ought to be in the front lines.

Liberals like the terminally grimacing Patricia Schroeder echoed the call, saying it is time to end all combat exemptions for women, since, in our enlightened way, we are not supposed to care that wives and daughters are turned into hamburger by enemy troops.

Liberalism has a remarkable record for worsening any situation. Are welfare programs destroying black families and creating poverty and crime in the nation's cities? Throw more money at them to snag even more people into a failed system! Does gun control exacerbate crime by disarming innocent citizens? Press for tighter controls!

On the military front, the armed forces have been in full retreat from liberal feminists. If the Navy's Tailhook sex scandal during the '90s proved anything, it is that men and women mixed tightly together will create spontaneous combustion. Instead of admitting this simple truth, feminists used Tailhook to "out" recalcitrant traditionalists who opposed putting women closer to combat. Naval officers who could fearlessly face down enemy fire cowered before the, uh, ladies.

The same folly was at work recently at the Air Force Academy, where several female cadets reported sexual assaults by male cadets. The Academy's response? They took down the big letters over a stone arch that read: "Bring Me Men." That's right, men. Real men. The kind that don't assault women and who think that protecting women from harm is one of the duties that God assigned them. Let's opt for androgyny instead.

The more that we buy into the fiction that women are indistinguishable from men, the more we sleepwalk into an unfolding disaster.

Forget about Miss Lynch for a moment. How about Pfc. Lori Ann Peistewa, the first U.S. servicewomen killed in Iraq? She left behind two preschool kids, aged 3 and 4. Her body was found at the site where Miss Lynch was rescued. Or how about Shoshana Johnson, a single mother of a 2-year-old? We have not heard anything about her since the Iraqis released a haunting photo of her frightened face, along with those of some male comrades.

"Jessica was a clerk, essentially a secretary, doing yeoman's work, I might add," said Martha Kleder, a Culture and Family Institute policy analyst who served with the Air Force in Alaska. "Shoshana Johnson joined the Army to be a cook. Today, no woman is safe in the military. There are no more rear-support jobs. All women should expect to be made cannon fodder. Thanks, Pat Schroeder, thanks for your utter glee that these women who only wanted to serve their country in rear-support jobs are now facing hostile enemy fire."

Political correctness at the Pentagon hangs in the air like Napalm smoke. At the press conference announcing Miss Lynch's rescue, the spokesman lauded her as a "brave woman," and then turned to give credit to her rescuers. "We have to remember" – and then he paused ever so slightly – "the brave souls" who risked their lives to save Miss Lynch. Had he used the term "brave men," it would have clarified the absurdity of putting Miss Lynch near the front lines in the first place.

Americans are probably largely unaware that women are prohibited from being on the front lines, a policy increasingly being broken by our gender-neutral military.

The practice of turning women into cannon fodder got a huge boost when the Clinton administration largely dispensed with the "risk rule," which exempts women from jobs in which they are likely to face enemy fire. Although women are still not technically in combat, it sure looks like they are.

Take 2nd Lt. Sarah Ewing Skinner, for instance. With her "finger on the trigger of her M-16, [she] gives the order to move forward as troops under her command prepared to storm 20 derelict buildings where die-hard Iraqi defenders may have taken refuge," the Associated Press reports in an article headlined "Not for men only." Now isn't that special? Women are supposed to be exempted from combat, and yet they are going house to house just like the grizzled Vic Morrow and his squad in the old "Combat" TV show.

The loophole is that they are serving as military police, and those squads have been ordered to do dangerous cleanup work that looks a lot like combat. In fact, it is combat.

"In Iraq, this stuff includes escorting supply convoys through ambush-prone areas, sweeping villages for weapons, arresting Iraqis hostile to U.S. forces and handling prisoners of war," AP said. Pvt. Kristi Grant, a military policewoman, told AP, "I guess the only thing is that I can't lift some of the same things males do, but I try." How would you like to be her comrade, wounded and in need of being dragged to safety? A good try wouldn't cut it.

There are some other key physical differences between the sexes, but you would never know it from the AP report. Sex means nothing: "She quickly got over her initial anxiety about being squeezed into a tent with male soldiers and discovered 'we were much like one family.'" Nothing about the jealousy, broken marriages and fights that erupted during the Gulf War when men and women were billeted together. Do any parents really want their 20-year-old daughter sleeping in a tent with a bunch of men?

"Women are treated like trash, they're objects in the service," said former Marine Cpl. Carmelo Torres. "They may talk PC, but it's a different story behind closed doors. Women are treated like dirt."

Torres recalls being stationed at the Quantico Marine base in Virginia and seeing staff sergeants picking out attractive young women and declaring them off-limits to other men. "In the women's barracks, the women were being sexually harassed by the lesbians when they weren't being hit on by the men," he said. "Two of the lesbians got new recruits drunk so they could gang-rape them in the women's barracks."

This is not about military women's willingness to serve their country, which is commendable, or their bravery. America owes much to its women service members.

But they shouldn't be in combat. First, they are the bearers of life and the heart of family life, an utterly indispensable role. When America sends young women off to war, watching them kiss their toddlers goodbye, we are making a moral choice that children are just not important anymore. It is much more important to drive a military truck. This callousness is an outgrowth of the abortion culture in which human life itself is cheapened. Any job those women do could be done by a man, but nobody else can be a mother to her children. It is bad enough for children to lose their father, but it is utterly unnecessary for them to lose their mother. Raising children is the most important job in society, and yet it takes a back seat to feminist ambitions to pursue sameness in the name of equality.

Second, women lack the upper-body strength, endurance and speed of men, which, despite all the talk of "push-button wars," can be crucial in battle. As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness has said, "Women don't have an equal ability to survive on the battlefield."

Third, although some feminists claim that they have a right to serve if they want to, military service is a privilege and a duty – not a right. The armed forces bar numerous classes of people, regardless of individual ability, because they could have a negative impact. Homosexuals are a case in point. Putting women into combat endangers all of our daughters because in the 1986 case Rostker v. Goldberg, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women could not be drafted because they did not serve in combat, and that Congress had the power only to raise armies to fight wars. A few feminists in the front lines could destroy that exemption.

Fourth, women have a profound effect on men. In 1948, the Israelis put women soldiers into the front lines, but had to pull them after a few weeks. Discipline broke down, morale plummeted and men ignored orders, rushing instead to protect the women. Some men lost their sanity when they saw women being blown apart. These men must have been chauvinist pigs.

The Israelis quickly grasped that women have no business being in combat, and that is their policy to this day. They train women for emergency situations, removing them if combat begins. But we have brushed aside that lesson. We are actually training men to ignore their noble impulse of being protectors. The Navy introduced a program a few years ago in which men were conditioned to endure the cries of women being tortured. The other services have adopted these programs as well. This is progress?

Imagine what these men will be like when the war is over and they return to civilian life. Do we really want thousands of men among us who are indifferent to women's cries of pain? That's a recipe for domestic violence and rape. The floodtide of pornography only makes it worse. But liberals like porn. It's religion they despise. As C.S. Lewis said, the social goal of liberals is to make religion private and pornography public.

It is barbaric to allow pornography to permeate our entire culture, and it is barbaric to put women in combat, even if they are fool enough to want to go.

We're glad that Miss Lynch made it to safety, but we would like to see the larger question addressed. What was she doing there in the first place?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Knight, who authored a study on women in combat for the Heritage Foundation, is director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

[LoneStranger]

Having worked under, as in they were my supervisors, a number of women at times, and having worked in Heavy Industry with various women as both co-workers and supervisors I have to side with Tamara and friends.

IF there are objective standards then those who meet them should be allowed the job. The problem comes from the definition of "Objective Standard".

To foolishly think that the standards from "Before ?" were actually objective is to display a bit of naivety(sic). A large number of standards were actually written to narrowly limit those who could qualify for particular jobs and when examined were found to be based on concepts that have nothing to do with a particular job.
It has happened often enough that any "Before ?" standard should be held in extreme doubt until proven beyond all question.

In Industry we had a need for people of various physical types to do the work necessary. The concept that "Only" those of certain limited physical ability should be allowed in was quickly put to rout the first time you see the hulking 6' 6" fellow carry the tools and parts to the little bitty hole where the little bitty female was crammed in so that the job could be done. Seems he couldn't handle the job but she could.

By the same token, when working heavy things, unless the female had been trained properly, the female could not handle the job.

As for the information of females in other militaries at other times I would like to compare with my observations from Industry. First and most important is the number of males and females who cannot make the distinction between the job that they are doing and their urge to breed cause a lot of the problems. When people put more in to "sniffing" around the opposite sex instead of working you will have problems.

If you sit and look at what is said a number of these posts about the problems caused by sex/gender it really looks like most are related to "Need to Breed" and knee jerk reactions to that particular activity.

Foolishness is not recognizing and addressing that point.

[Drjones]

Should we REALLY expect anything else from the english?

What a vile, pathetic excuse for a human being.