Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 27, 2014, 12:07:53 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81968 Posts in 2244 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  DBMA Martial Arts Forum
| |-+  Martial Arts Topics
| | |-+  An Army of 1 --and 1 in the oven
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: An Army of 1 --and 1 in the oven  (Read 6546 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30955


« on: September 16, 2003, 07:44:14 PM »

WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE
An Army of 1 ? and 1
in the oven
Spokesman asked about level of pregnancies among U.S soldiers in Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 16, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Les Kinsolving
? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

At today's White House news briefing, WND asked presidential press secretary Scott McClellan about columnist David Hackworth reporting on the level of pregnancies among American service personnel in Iraq, and followed it up with a query about Pfc. Jessica Lynch.


WND: The Department of the Army spokesman at the Pentagon said yesterday that retired Col. David Hackworth is a heavily dedicated combat leader who is not regarded as undependable. And they have also seen his column where he reports, "Apparently more than half of the women deployed to Iraq are now pregnant." And my question: While Army spokesmen from the Pentagon and Baghdad would neither confirm nor deny this pregnancy rate, surely the commander in chief will not try to evade this very serious problem, will he, Scott?
McCLELLAN: Les, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but it sounds like it's a matter to address to the Pentagon. (Laughter.)

WND: I want to know how does the commander in chief ? is he concerned that all these women are getting pregnant?

McCLELLAN: Les, I haven't heard anything about this.

WND: Col. Hackworth also reports thousands of angry e-mails from veterans protesting the awarding of the Bronze Star to Pfc. Jessica Lynch after propagandists conned the Washington Post into reporting that she was shot and stabbed, but continued to kill Iraqis, which never happened. And I wonder, how does the commander in chief react to thousands of veterans' complaints?

McCLELLAN: Les, I think that the president knows that we have a lot of heroes, including Jessica Lynch. They should all be commended for the service and sacrifices that they make.
Logged
bearblade
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2003, 02:59:01 AM »

I can confirm that many women out here are on birth control.  One friend of mine (in the British Royal Signals) was waiting on his wife's pregnancy test (also in Royal Signals).
And about the Bronze Star.  I personally haven't done anything to deserve it, but neither has she.  I feel there are many Marines who deserve it more.  The Marine Corps ran this war.  We ran the Comm structure, we  took the cities, and we didn't have any POWs.
Logged
guest
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2003, 06:08:48 AM »

so the marines did it all....blah blah blah.......same old story!!! by the way how did you get there? air force transport or navy ship?                                  ex-u.s. navy
Logged
bearblade
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2003, 05:12:46 AM »

The navy did their job too.  half of the chaplains were navy and all the docs I dealt with were navy.  But to answer your question, I rode an air force plane, and the navy carried our gear.
Logged
guest
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2003, 05:57:30 AM »

bearblade, you speak as a fierce warrior, what is your job in the corp? to speak of the jessica lynch rescue......i seem to recall it was a joint military effort and there was some mention of navy seals being involved...though from my past experience with them they tend to duck the limelite and quietly go about their job. by the way what does it say on your paycheck? dept. of the navy i think? smiley
Logged
bearblade
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2003, 06:12:42 AM »

Guest, I don't want to start a flame war on this board (I'd rather not get kicked off).  But, I will answer your questions.  1) I do Naval messaging, I talk to ships.  2) From what I heard, the Jessica Lynch thing was mostly Seals.  3) As I said, I haven't done anything to deserve much more than a NAM (Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal).  4) My paychecks are electronically deposited, but the deposits come from DFAS and my LES says USMC.

I think I got everything, if I missed any questions, let me know.  I would like to point out that I didn't say we did the war by ourself, just that we ran it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30955


« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2003, 06:32:44 AM »

Woof Guest, Bearblade et al:

  Thank you both for what you do for all of us.

  Getting back to the starting point of this thread, can you or anyone else  shed any light on what I understand to be inference here-- i.e. that some women are getting pregant in order to get out of dangerous duty?  How accurate is Hackworth's number? or is he speaking more hyperbolically?

  I read that in the Kosovo "war" some 5% of the women got pregnant and got sent home and that inferential data supported the notion that a high percentage of these pregnancies were then aborted.  And before that, in the Gulf War the same dynamic was present as well.  On one navy ship, the USS Arcadia, the rate rose to 22%.

Here the duty to be served is much longer and, it would seem much, more dangerous-- hence it seems reasonable to suspect that the same dynamic be present in greater degree.

Does it affect the combat readiness of a ship and/or its morale when that many members of the team have an option to abandon ship?  And what about those on the ground?

Again, we thank you for your service.

Woof,
Crafty Dog
Logged
marine bob
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2003, 07:15:03 PM »

when you smoke out a mango tree, it produces more flowers, thus bearing more fruits.  it's a survival mechanism in nature, which also applies with people.  when you put life in harms way, it's response is to secure the next generation.

weeks after the twin towers fell, there was a huge influx of married, single, and semi-single women who frequented bars, consciously seeking physical comfort from men.  subconsciously, there purpose was to reproduce, to secure the next generation.

the military is not exempt in this phenomena.  female soldiers, sailors, zoomies, and WMs are in the end just women, and fall victim to their own natural insecurities. they are not to blame, but this very fact is reason enough why women shouldn't participate in war--because logistically, it is not feasible.
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2003, 11:29:51 AM »

Hmm. Question: so what motivated all the married, single, and semi-single men who frequented the bars after 9/11?
Logged
marine bob
Guest
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2003, 06:57:51 PM »

sex, lynda.

but the difference is that men don't get pregnant.  meaning there's no logistical problem in the military.
Logged
bearblade
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2003, 12:18:54 AM »

Although, I'm sure the STD factor probably plays a role in operational readiness.  We have a little joke in our shop about a point system with driving (you get so many points for each person you hit).  We joked that female marines (WM is considered sexist) are worth one point per STD per Marine they've given it to (2 points for officers).  As I said, this is just a joke, and it doesn't go near females or higher ups, but it is kind of a representation of the view of female marines.
I personally avoid dating females in the military.  It is just bad policy.  I've seen too many horror stories (and only 1 good story) about military/military relationships.
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2003, 01:31:05 PM »

MB, I was irked with your previous post's language that seemed to imply that only women had insecurities (which I view as universal)and that regardless of personal drive or training, these insecurities disqualified them from war.  You later explained that "insecurities"=pregancy.  So, I guess I misunderstood your first post.

"[all military women] are in the end just women, and fall victim to their own natural insecurities. they are not to blame, but this very fact is reason enough why women shouldn't participate in war--because logistically, it is not feasible."

Quote from: marine bob
sex, lynda.

but the difference is that men don't get pregnant.  meaning there's no logistical problem in the military.


To be fair, let's mention all the men who find other ways to avoid dangerous duty.  In college, I knew several people who had joined up.  The only woman of that group had no problem shipping over for Desert Shield.  One man, however, decided he was a conscientous objector, and the another actually 'found God'.  I don't see how getting pregnant is the easiest or most prevalent option of the three for getting out.

On another level...could female soldiers get abortions from military hospitals? (Is this something the Pentagon would be willing to touch with a barge pole?) Or is returning to the US the only option female soldiers have for a 'safe' procedure?

I just don't buy your argument that because women can get pregant (hey, isn't birth control the responsibility of all parties? ;>) , they are not fit to serve in the military.  I question the actual magnitude of the problem, and your solution (Ban Them All!).
Logged
marine bob
Guest
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2003, 03:51:35 PM »

cause and effect: those insecurities lead to pregnancy during times of hardships.

i don't agree with women in the regular military, but i do agree utilizing their inherent abilities for intelligence work. women were made for intel, CIA, NSA, etc etc.

but, when you put women in a ratio of 50 men to 1 women, and then put her in a stressful situation, then she will become pregnant (or atleast many will).

the statistics say it all.

p.s.--i'm not a chauvanist, i'm just the type to utilize and exploit skills accordingly, and sending women en masse, as we've read in the reports, is just not proper utilizing of assets.
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2003, 04:06:34 PM »

This is really interesting.  Hey, can everyone here who's quoted statistics please post their source (primary if possible)?  Not being facetious at all...genuinely interested in checking this out for myself.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30955


« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2003, 05:10:26 PM »

Hi Lynda:

Quite right.

"I read that in the Kosovo "war" some 5% of the women got pregnant and got sent home and that inferential data supported the notion that a high percentage of these pregnancies were then aborted. And before that, in the Gulf War the same dynamic was present as well. On one navy ship, the USS Arcadia, the rate rose to 22%."

The 22% I got from xxxx Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power".  Farrell, a man, used to sit on the board of NOW, but ahem, "saw the light" and wrote this book.  In the book he is actually rather scrupulous about citing/footnoting sources of his data and I have seen this one about the Arcadia elsewhere-- it was even known as "The Love Boat".  My sense of it is that it is a pretty hard number, whereas with Col. Hackworth, the hearsay of whom was quoted at the beginning of this thread, I would, ahem again, look for verification.  

The 5% number I may have gotten from the same chapter of Farrell (again, he would have footnoted his source) or I may have gotten it from an AP type story in the LA Times.

Marc/Crafty

PS: I am not endorsing the Farrell book-- he's kind of a kitty and there are several areas with which I have distinct disagreement.  That said, he does raise points which caused me to re-examine my thinking.
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2003, 06:05:14 PM »

Thanks.  I'll check it out.  Just for grins, because I like to play with stats...

(Based on info found @ www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/battlegroup/women.html)

Hypothetical carrier crew of 5000 people
Men = 4755
Women = 245

22% of 245 = 54
5% of 245= 12

(Effectiveness of contraceptive pill from Orthotricyclen literature = 99%, but due to the occasional missed pill real terms are = 97%.  The 5% makes sense if the partners were depending solely on the pill.)

The range appears to be 54-12 women.  I'd like to know the % of male crew that need to be shipped home for other medical reasons, to provide some context.


Reading further on the website, I liked some the womens' comments, and I think it address some of MB's post as well.

NOVA: Do you think there are different ways that men and women handle the same kind of situation?

DAGUE: Yes, I think that's true. When I was back at the Academy, we participated in a leadership challenge in the summer when we first got there. We had to figure out as a team all the different challenges we had on the obstacle course. Sometimes it would be sheer strength. And of course the biggest guy was pretty much the one leading the way there and helping out. And then there might be something where it took a small person to crawl through a small hole to get over to attach a rope, or something like that. So every situation is going to call for something different, and I think that men and women do tend to think differently. When you bring in a diversity of thought or maybe a new approach to a problem, you are going to introduce new solutions you didn't see before.
Logged
bearblade
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2003, 03:48:00 AM »

I think part of the problem is that not everyone expected to be out here.  There is too much free time.  I know a number of guys who came out here in October, and were told they would be home by Christmas (of 2002).  So, they've been out here 9 months longer already, and still going.  A lot of people get "bored" or don't have anything better to do.  They find some bootleg moonshine (Kuwait is a dry country) and decide to party like there is no tomorrow.  After that, they realize that tomorrow is here, and they didn't have any condoms.
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2003, 02:33:53 PM »

Checked out the Farrell book.  He bring up interesting ideas and approaches the gender-based empowerment, but pumpkins himself with logical fallacies and or spurious 'statements of fact'.  Really, he needs to take Logic 101.  Despite his hypothesizing on male and female psychology, his Ph'd is in American government and constitutional law.

Examples taken from:

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/stocker.html
http://www.achillesheel.freeuk.com/br17_4.html

Reasonable theory to prove or disprove:
"Neither sex was screwed or screwing, both were doing what technology and survival allowed them to do. "

But then, what's up with 'facts' such as this:

During an interview: "What I say in The Myth of Male Power is there are zero men at home with the children while their wife is satisfied to produce the income. If he is at home unemployed, there is usually dissatisfaction from the women. "

"Men learn to pay for sex in different ways, so if a woman touches him on his rear, he says thank you, but if a man touches a woman on her rear she says sue you. The reason for the difference is he is getting something for free he usually has to pay for, and she is getting something taken from her she usually gets paid for. So she feels taken advantage of. "


Fun with numbers (pages 261-269):

"It was the GM plant in Flint, Michigan. Rape, murder, spouse abuse, and suicides all increased. [fact] Rape and domestic violence are momentary acts of power designed to compensate for the powerlessness of the person doing it [legitimate theory to prove or refute].

"Studies of domestic violence show women are more likely to hit men, but less likely to hurt them. So 85% of the time women use a weapon, and so the more severe levels of violence, with weapon, is from women to men. Yet, police reports of violence, as feminists say, show females as the victim 85% of the time. If a man is subjected to violence, 99% of the time, he doesn't report it or he reports it as an accident. "

Statistics are nothing without context.  For the unconvinced, let's say the Tastes Greats win against the Less Fillings in the annual company softball game.  The headline could read, "Heartbreaker: The previously undefeated Tastes Greats suffered their first and only loss of the season to the Less Fillings last Saturday."

A few questions that spring immediately to mind are:

1. Which studies?  Are they all based on Flint, MI? How many incidents are we talking about?  10? 100? 5000?  (assuming the def. of violence was identical in all studes, we also need to define what it is--a slap? visible wounds/bruises? hospital visits? verbal abuse?--what qualifies?)  Are they current?  Also, were surveys, if used, share identical language in questioning?  

2. How many aggregate people participated in the studies, and were they representative of the demographic being discussed (which also needs to be specified)?

3. Details such who was the initial aggressor?  Did the women pick up a weapon to initiate or respond to an assault?  How many men report when they are a victim of violence?  If 99% of the time they don't report it, how do we find them, much less count them?

My misgivings re: his dodgy use of statistics seem to be borne out here:
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell3.htm

Some of Farrell's arguments are interesting, but he did a really lousy job supporting them.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30955


« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2003, 05:37:42 PM »

Hi Lynda:

  I am in Switzerland right now getting ready fpr bed before doing a seminar right now.  It would be great fun to go off into the Venutian range of questions you raise, but forgive my Martian self for asking that we stay with the subject matter at hand for the moment.  ie pregnancy rates in combat situations and whether this is good or bad for military morale and discipline.

Now that you have had a chance to look up what his quoted sources were with regard to the data I gave, would you share with us what they were?

Marc-Crafty
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2003, 07:48:54 PM »

Hi back.

For the moment:

It honestly sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me right now, with the information provided in this thread.

I disagree with one of the posts advocated excluding women from combat situations (i.e. deployed, doesn't matter if it's clerking or front lines fighting) for the following reasons:

Scale
1. Really, how often does it happen? I'm not convinced pregnancy occurs much more than other unisex debilitating illnesses--hey, men probably have a much higher rate of STDs than women, esp. if they ship to a Muslim country.  I don't have good stats for how many people actually have to return due to medical reasons, so I guess it's my opinion against others.

2. Is it epidemic enough to outweigh the merits of having women in the military?  Based on the current info, my answer is, Nope.

As to whether or not pregnancy bad for military morale or discipline, I ask

1. Exactly how much does it affect morale?  Are men demoralized when a pregancy occurs?  Or do you mean the women?  

2. Are they demoralized because a woman whom they may or may not know on the ship gets pregnant, or because of a wide variety of other factors from lousy food to lack of sleep to plain old hating their jobs?  Are they more demoralized when their fellow soldiers declare themselves conscientous objectors?

3. On discipline, I interpret that to mean that military men and women are complete lemmings who cannot control their sexual behavior.  If it were truly a problem, and the Management was serious about addressing it, the 'Duh' solution would be mandatory contraceptive shots, providing condoms and even safe abortion facilities.  That'd cut down on women shipping home due to pregnancies for sure.


The following excerpt from a study (www.rmc.ca/academic/conference/iuscanada/papers/Davis%20McKee%20-%20warrior%20frameworks.doc) puts it more succintly than I have been able to, and reports the "Love Boat's" pregnancy rate was 10%:

'How will bearing and raising children affect a woman?s readiness to deploy on short notice, as is frequently required of military units??

Within the US Army, almost 14% of personnel are non-deployable and only 0.79% are pregnant at any given time.  While this rate can reach as high as 10% in some units, this is still somewhat below the average US non-deployable level (Field & Nagl, 2001: 7).  

In some instances, fairly high rates of pregnancy have been recorded among mixed gender units which has led some to argue against the inclusion of women in the forces.  In August 1996, 70 American military personnel were sent back to Germany from Bosnia when they became pregnant.  This represented 4.6% of women stationed in that country (Casey, 1997).  During the Gulf War, the USS Arcadia lost 36 of its 360 women sailors to pregnancy and was dubbed the ?Love Boat? (Gerber, B. 1998).  Indeed, some would contend that some women become pregnant to avoid going into combat.   Again, regardless of the cause, young women of childbearing age will become pregnant in any occupation.  However, given the critical nature of some military roles, it has been suggested that an easy way around such problems is to have a birth control requirement applied to women wishing to serve in combat units if it was felt that disruptions could occur (Field & Nagl, 2001:7).  While this is one potential solution, it has also been noted that pregnancy is simply one of many social issues and medical conditions that may require the repatriation of a soldier.  It has not been established that rates of pregnancy in mixed operational environments is greater than the rate of pregnancy witnessed among the female population as a whole.  

In a 1977 study of propensity to join the Canadian Forces, women were twice as likely as men to cite family and/or children as their most important reason for having no interest in joining the military.  However, women who choose to join make the same choice, relative to family obligations, that men make.


Crafty, I wonder why you think my previous post was Venusian?  I thought it was plain old reasonable, in a Pluto kinda way.
Logged
Matt Larsen
Guest
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2003, 09:40:14 PM »

I think the discussion about pregnancy misses the real point about whether or not women should be in combat. Which is not surprising because most discussions about it are wade down by political correctness. (please don?t read that as an indictment)  The most important issues are IMO:

1.   Why men fight- Militaries around the world and through the ages have understood how to get men to face death. You have to ask yourself why, for instance, they kept walking neatly in ranks toward almost certain death on a thousand battlefields throughout history. The answer, at least in part, is because in a group of men no one wants to be the coward. Therefore peer pressure keeps them going. The threat of public humiliation is a stronger motivator for most men than even the fear of death. How does this play when you unit is made up of women, many of whom may have been drafted and do not want to be there in the first place, which brings up the other issue.
2.   Do we want to draft our mothers and daughters? Lets face reality. In a major war the draft will be re-instituted. When a man is drafted, he has absolutely no say in what he will be doing for the Army. It?s here is your ruck and your rifle, get on the truck. Why will or should it be any different for a woman. It seems the debate is always framed as ?women should be able to do anything that men can do? as if for women it is a question of their rights. When the next big war starts and nobody is volunteering, it will become a question of duty.  Do the women of America want the possibility of being drafted into the grunts?
Logged
choochy mclure
Guest
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2003, 11:10:40 PM »

women are bearers of life and civility.  war and combat are tools we use to weed out weaker or needless elements within the human race.  men, in combat and war, become implements of death.  this reality and role sets them apart from women.  

it was only recently, when feminists came forth, confusing the issues of gender and power, that the whole women in combat argument began.  

the majority of women, by nature, would rather not participate in the idiocy of combat.  this is man's sphere of stupidity.  but, because the western feminists have completely misinterpreted what is power and strength, they have mistakenly concluded that to equal man in strength, they must also act as they do.  amongst other things, this means going to war with men.

feminists rhetoric have seeped through in the media and literature (i.e. "g.i. jane", etc) which produced a new breed of women confused in their roles in life.  they join the military, to experience strength and power as taught by lesbian feminists. when reality sets, they do what they were meant to do--which is to create life, amidst death.

this is why women do not belong in combat or war, because it is not their role, it is only a role molded by western lesbian feminists who have utterly confused what is power and strength.  war is not for women.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30955


« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2003, 02:20:20 PM »

This article addresses some aspects of this:

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

Israeli women won't see combat
Study finds females can't lift as much, march as far as males

Posted: October 20, 2003
2:55 p.m. Eastern
? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A military study conducted by the Israeli army has concluded women are a weaker sex, which means they will continue to be barred from most combat duties.

According to the study's findings reported in the Washington Times, women safely can carry 40 percent of their body weight compared with 55 percent for men. Because military-age women weigh 33 pounds less than men on average, the total weight-lifting disparity between the sexes amounts to 44 pounds on average.

In terms of endurance, the study found while men could handle 55-mile marches, any trek longer than 32 miles was found to be too arduous for women. Researchers attributed this to the fact that the amount of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in women's blood was more than 10 percent lower than in men's blood.

The Times reports Israeli army doctors assessing these limitations recommend women not serve in front-line infantry positions, artillery units or tank crews.

This comes as the Israeli government has called up 10 battalions of reserve soldiers to handle the escalating violence in the region.
The army study mirrors the earlier findings of Israeli scholar Martin van Creveld, a specialist in international conflict and author of the book "Men, Women and War," who found that women lacked the physical strength needed for fighting at close quarters and that their relative weakness could, in some cases, put themselves and their comrades in unjustifiable danger.

Van Creveld concluded sending women into frontline combat units would reduce efficiency, increase costs and could prove "criminal." His opinion largely swayed British officials in their 2001 decision not to lift the ban on women in combat.

The Israeli army study also fuels the long-simmering debate over the role of female servicewomen in the U.S. military. Proponents of women in combat historically point to the experience of Israeli servicewomen who fought alongside men in the 1948 independence war as an example to be emulated.

Retired Navy Capt. Lory Manning, director of the Center for Women in Uniform for the Women's Research and Education Institute, argues some women are strong enough and physically capable of serving in infantry and Special Forces and that, given training, those who aren't can make up for their weaknesses.

Manning cites British studies in which women were called upon to run six miles carrying 55 pounds on their back. After approximately three months of special conditioning, they could do it.

"The only difference between men and women is that you have to invest more time and training for women," Manning told WorldNetDaily.
Citing anecdotal evidence, van Creveld calls the lore of female "Amazon" soldiers myths.

"There is no more reason to believe they ever existed any more than Barbarella or Wonderwoman," he told the London Sunday Telegraph.
Van Creveld, who has studied the historical experiences of women in the military dating back to the Roman era, works to "explode the myth" about Israeli women in combat serving as ably as men. During the 1948 independence war, for example, women only served a brief couple of weeks on the frontlines before a group was ambushed and the desecration of their bodies prompted officials to sideline women warriors.
Israel is the only country in the world to have compulsory military service for women. While men must serve three years in the Israel Defense Forces, all women are required to serve 21 months.
Despite a 1995 Israeli court ruling that struck down the "men-only" rule for combat units, women have not served in combat since 1948, and integration into combat-support platoons has been slow. According to IDF statistics, 84 percent of female soldiers still serve in administrative roles with only 1 percent training for combat roles, and 82 percent of female soldiers have had no weapons training.

Israeli servicewomen point to their sisters-in-arms in America to push for further integration in Israeli forces. Since the elimination in 1994 of the United States Department of Defense "Risk Rule," which held that women could not be placed in combat-support units that had "significant risk of capture," American servicewomen have been serving among combat-engineer companies on the ground, populating combatant ships and sitting in the cockpits of jets, bombers and Apache attack helicopters.
"In the U.S. Army, you see the girls going everywhere and doing all things," a 20-year-old Israeli trooper told the Austin American-Statesman. "I know it sounds bad, but one day I hope they'll transfer us to the hot places, too. I want to have a chance to prove myself and show everyone what I've learned."

"We are a nation that has to take war seriously," van Creveld testified in 1992 for a U.S. presidential commission studying the ramifications of allowing women in combat. "We are proud of the fact that we have not had women serve in combat [since 1948] even in the most desperate of times."

Military advocates opposed to women serving in combat in the U.S. welcome the Israeli army study as additional ammunition for their fight.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public-policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues, and a member of WND's Speakers Bureau, said the disparity in physical strength between men and women matters. She pointed to the Army's fielding of a new rucksack for soldiers estimated to weigh 120 pounds when loaded to full capacity.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was the first combat test for the new Modular Lightweight Load-bearing Equipment, or MOLLE. The Army Times reported the excessive weight of the rucksack hampered a 101st Airborne Division air assault in May as "infantrymen staggered under the load."

"If women can't carry their own backpacks, then men must carry them, which adds to their burden. The physical limitations are practical realities," Donnelly told WorldNetDaily.

Donnelly recently launched a petition drive calling on President George W. Bush to roll back Clinton-era "social-engineering policies" she says undermine readiness, discipline and morale.

The "Americans for the Military" petition, which has gained approximately 15,000 signatures, asks Bush to direct Pentagon officials to "objectively review and revise social policies" such as:

?Assignments of female soldiers in or near land combat units with a high risk of capture;

?Admittedly inefficient co-ed basic training;

?Prolonged family separations and pregnancy policies that detract from readiness;

?Gender-based recruiting "goals" and quotas that hurt morale and increase costs.

Donnelly hopes to present the petition in a personal meeting with Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. While she has met with White House officials, no meeting is yet scheduled.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30955


« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2003, 06:31:21 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM
Jessica Lynch: I was raped
POW shares brutal details of experience in biography

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 6, 2003
4:19 p.m. Eastern


By Diana Lynne
? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Advance press of former POW Jessica Lynch's biography includes the shocking revelation the 19-year-old Army supply clerk was raped and sodomized by her Iraqi captors.

In "I Am a Soldier, Too," the authorized biography written by best-selling author Rick Bragg, Lynch offers for the first time brutal details of her treatment as a prisoner of war following the ambush of her 507th Maintenance Company convoy in Nasiriyah on March 23 and before the heroic Special Ops rescue operation that swept her out of harm's way in the middle of the night a week later.


Jessica Lynch

"Jessi lost three hours," Bragg wrote, according to the New York Daily News, who obtained a copy of the book. "She lost them in the snapping bones, in the crash of the Humvee, in the torment her enemies inflicted on her after she was pulled from it."

According to Bragg, Lynch's medical records indicate she was anally raped.

"The records do not tell whether her captors assaulted her almost lifeless, broken body after she was lifted from the wreckage, or if they assaulted her and then broke her bones into splinters until she was almost dead," the Daily News quotes from the book.

Lynch and her parents also shared the grim details of her ordeal in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, which will air on a special edition of "Primetime" Tuesday. The parents say they rejected any notion of being selective about revealing the details because they want the book to accurately reflect what happened.

WorldNetDaily reported Lynch's father, Greg Lynch alluded to a gag order apparently placed on the family during a press conference outside their Palestine, W.Va., home.

"We're really not supposed to talk about that subject. It's still under investigation," he said when asked what Jessica had relayed to them about her POW experience.

Lynch's 207-page book, published by Knopf, is scheduled to be released Tuesday, which is Veteran's Day.

Pulitzer Prize winning Bragg has written several books, including the memoir "All Over but the Shoutin'." He resigned from the New York Times in May following his suspension over a story that carried his byline but was reported largely by a freelance writer.

News of the assault disturbs military advocate Elaine Donnelly, who has pressed the Pentagon for such details to no avail.

"I'm kind of surprised that the news of rape is coming out so late. We should have learned about this sooner," Donnelly told WorldNetDaily, adding she suspected Lynch was brutalized after hearing reports that her dogtags were found on the nightstand of one of Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen fighters.

"I'm so sorry about what happened to Jessica Lynch and my heart goes out to her. I don't like to be right on these things, but I feared this happened," Donnelly said.

Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public-policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues, and is a member of WND's Speakers Bureau, blames Lynch's tragic experience on what she calls "social engineering" policies instituted in the military over the last decade by "Pentagon feminists" seeking to advance the careers of servicewomen at the cost, she says, of military morale, efficiency and readiness.

Donnelly has called on Commander in Chief Bush to give direction to the Pentagon to roll back Clinton-era policies such as females serving in combat roles, gender quotas, co-ed basic training, the deployment of single mothers and pregnant servicewomen and "overly generous pregnancy policies that subsidize and therefore increase single parenthood."

Donnelly's CMR launched a petition drive to gather electronic signatures of like-minded supporters. More than 15,000 people have signed so far. Donnelly hopes to present the petition in a personal meeting with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. No meeting is yet scheduled.

Meanwhile, Army spokesperson Martha Rudd scoffs at the idea the American public should have been told about the rape.

"It's her business. If you were raped, would you want us to put out a press release?" asked Rudd, after noting Lynch was "free to talk about her experience."

"We're very careful here about protecting soldiers who have been injured," Rudd continued, explaining officials only release information if the injured soldier has given consent. Rudd could not say whether Lynch had specifically declined consent to the release of the rape details by military officials or whether she had consented to the release of other information about her medical condition that surfaced shortly after her rescue.

WorldNetDaily has reported the Washington Post, citing an unnamed Pentagon official, erroneously reported Lynch "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and also was stabbed while she "fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers ... firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition." The paper quoted this official as describing her "fighting to the death."

Nearly two weeks after its initial report, the Post essentially retracted this story, this time quoting a physician at the Iraqi hospital in Nasiriyah as saying Lynch had sustained a head injury and arm and leg fractures, but "there were no bullets or shrapnel or anything like that."

In her book, Lynch sets the record straight, saying she never fired a shot because her M-16 jammed.

"I didn't kill nobody," she said.

At the time of the false report, Donnelly suspected military officials were spinning the Jessica Lynch story to head off criticism for placing Lynch in a combat-support position in which she became a POW.

Donnelly argues that once Lynch was captured, she became a public figure plastered all over television sets around the world. She maintains that the issue of whether war crimes have been committed carries policy implications.

"If the Pentagon puts a happy face on the situation and describes her injuries as only being broken bones, they're not being honest with the American public and with women recruits."

Col. Denise Dailey, spokesperson for DACOWITS, the advisory committee on women in the military for the Department of Defense, was not available for comment on Lynch's revelation and associated policy implications.

This is not the first time the assault of a female POW in the Iraqi theater of war was kept under wraps. Flight surgeon Rhonda Cornum was sexually assaulted after being taken prisoner in the Persian Gulf War, but didn't admit it until a year later, despite giving repeated interviews and testifying before a congressional panel. During the time of her silence, the role of women in combat was being debated. By the time she confessed the depths of her torture, the Department of Defense had eliminated the "Risk Rule," which held that women could not be placed in combat-support units that had "significant risk of capture."


Rhonda Cornum (Courtesy: Stars and Stripes)

For Cornum's part, she accepts the added element of risk facing women in combat as "just another bad thing that can happen to you."

In an interview with the women's news network, WeNews, Cornum downplays her rape.

"While I was subjected to an unpleasant episode of sexual abuse during my captivity," she said, "it did not represent a threat to life, limb or chance of being released, and therefore occupied a much lower level of concern than it might have under other circumstances."

Cornum offers pre-deployment advice for female soldiers, recommending birth-control methods such as the IUD or implants and suggests they be commenced before deployment "to avoid problems for monogamous women whose spouses might not understand the risk issue."

Donnelly and other military advocates question the nonchalance afforded to the sexual assault of female soldiers.

"This is an opportunity to search our souls as a nation and determine whether we want this to continue," she said.

Related articles:

Israeli women won't see combat

Just say 'no' to pregnant soldiers?

Real Jessica story coming out?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30955


« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2003, 07:37:17 PM »

Woof All:

The other day in the nearby thread "Profound Howl of Respect" one of our fighting men (TXAbrn) commented the following:

BEGIN
As a paratrooper deployed currently in Iraq I can say that myself and all of my comrades with whom I have discussed this find the whole Jessica L$ynch situation obscene. She behaved in a cowardly manner during the fight and was captured. What happened to her was unfortunate and I empathize with her. However after her very publicized rescue and following book and movie deals as well as bronze star and medical discharge she expressed anger at the filming of her rescue. We find this hypocritical as she is more than willing to reap the benefits of that publicity. Were it not for the filiming of her rescue she would be just another soldier with a POW medal.
END


Coincidentally enough, I happened to be reading a bit of Carl Jung's "Man and his Symbols" (1959?) today (a section titled "Beauty and the Beast) and ran across the following passage which struck me as perhaps relevant:

Woof,
Crafty Dog
----------------------------
BEGIN
"Beauty and the Beast" from "Man and his Symbols" by Carl Jung (1959?)

Girls in our society share in the masculine hero myths because, like boys, they must also develop a reliable ego-identity and acquire an education.  But there is an older layer of the mind that seems to come to the surface in their feelings, with the aim of making them into women, not into imitation men.  When this ancient content of the psyche begins to make its appearance, the modern young woman may repress it because it threatens to cut off her from the emancipated quality of friendship and opportunity to compete with men that have become her modern privileges.

  This repression may be so successful that for a time she will maintain an indentification with the masculine intellectuual goals she learned at school or college.  Even when she marries, whe will preserve some illusion of freedom, despite her ostenisible act of sumission to the archetype of marriage-- with its implicit injuction to become a mother.  And so there may occur, as we very frequently see today, that conflict which the in the end forces the woman to rediscover her buried womanhood in a painful (but ulitmately rewarding) manner.
END
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!