PFC Jessica Lynch: Combat soldier or perpetual victim?

Great Debates
1

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/15/lynch/index.html

Do women belong in combat? Are women assets or liabilities under fire? Some say that women soldiers caught in combat all too easily become “victims” – especially if they are killed, wounded, maimed, or made POWs and subjected to such heinousness as rape, etc. On the other hand, male soldiers facing enemy fire and capture – and all the standard viciousness that goes along with that – invariably emerge as either cowards or heros, but never as victims. Why is that? Is it because women in uniform serving in combat- or combat-related jobs in the military serve a creative social fiction being dished out by the feminists, albeit at the expense of the working-class and underprivileged women that don the uniform in search of opportunities, such as former U.S. Army PFC Jessica Lynch?

Specifically, I think the idea of women in combat serves the needs of the feminist agenda and the feminist power elite, as is currently represented by the likes of Patricia Schroeder, Patricia Ireland, Gloria Steinem, et al. I think the feminists have no compunction about lobbying for putting women – especially uneducated and economically disenfranchised women – into harms way in order to prove their point: “Anything a man can do, I can do better!”

But proving such a point at the expense of the women who actually have to prove it, puts a whole new twist on ‘grrrl power’, and ‘female solidarity’ – the ostensible staples of modern feminist idealogy – doesn’t it?

The above article featured in this week’s salon.com , which details the media’s ad nauseum sensationalism of the eternally pathetic Jessica Lynch and her embarrassing fiasco in the desert, raises some interesting issues – especially with regards to the above-referenced quote – about the overall suitability of women in uniform serving in combat, or more specifically, women working in MOS’s (military occupational specialties) where they could encounter combat situations (as Lynch – an Army truckdriver – did).

From personal experience, I feel a woman can do any job in the U.S. Army or the U.S. military that a man can do on a one for one basis – as long as that job is in an office.

However, give a woman a combat support or combat service support job in the field, and the woman soldier is an instant liability. In combat- and combat-related situations in the field, a woman just does not match up to a man in terms of stamina, ability, aggressiveness, strategic and tactical thinking skills, and other basic soldiering skills that save lives on the battlefield.

In any office environment, women have it in spades. In an office, women invariably have the upper hand over men in such areas as playing office politics, nail filing, flirting, eye-batting, back-stabbing, seducing the boss, gossiping and other feline activities – regardless of whether that office be military or civilian.

But given the fact that the physicality and sheer brutality of today’s battlefield has progressed little from the days when men fought each other with sticks and spears, women, for all their evolving, still bring little, if any real value into the fray.

That being said, I feel nauseous whenever I see Jessica Lynch’s dopey face being featured prominently all over the Internet and the U.S. media like she’s some type of hero. (As if she deserved the Bronze Star for what she did, which was basically cower in the back of her HUMMVEE while all her buddies were getting shot to hell.)

Admittedly, Jessica Lynch has tried to spurn the publicity that has been thrust upon her. Nevertheless, she seems to be unable to cast off the title of “world-class victim”, specifically, in terms of being a victim of the feminists that lobbied ceaselessly during the Clinton years to throw more women like her into combat-related jobs she was pathetically unprepared for, a victim of the Iraqis who physically and sexually assualted her, a victim of the Pentagon’s blatant lies and jingoistic propaganda machine, a victim of the media’s sensationalism and the shameless spectacle they created about her, a victim of the antiwar movement who is trying to use her story to support their agenda, a victim of her own working-class and impoverished Appalachian background that made her vulnerable to multimillion dollar book and miniseries deals, and, finally, a victim of her own naivete for failing to protect her own privacy with a good media lawyer and a PR firm to run interference for her.

Have you ever seen anyone so victimized before?

2

And yet, they pass basic, including meeting the standards required for all of the above criteria. Hmm.

For the record, I also hear that the Air Force is quite pleased with its female combat pilots, and even recall hearing something about them rating slightly better than many male pilots.

If they can pass all the requirements, let 'em serve. That some women do not fit the above requirements is no more relevant than the fact that some men don’t, either.

Do you really think idiocy such as the above is really going to help your cause? No, it’s going to make people who are capable of something called rational thought think that you’re acting like a sexist asshole.

Nice usage of emotionally charged words, but also complete BS. She had compound fractures in both her left leg and right arm, severe blunt trauma to the rest of her body, was trapped in the crashed HMMWV, and had a weapon that misfired. I’d like to see you do any better when you’ve got chunks of your femur sticking out of your thigh and a gun that won’t work.

3

Disregarding the blatant sexism and silliness of the OP, there is in fact an interesting debate here.

Basically, does the treatment of PFC Lynch indicate a problem with putting women in combat situations?

I’m not going to argue the ability of women - other than sheer strength, women are just as capable as men. This should go without saying, but sadly with people like kmg365 still kicking around, this has to be repeated. Female pilots ARE just as good as men. In WWII, women weren’t allowed to fly in combat in the U.S., so many volunteered as ferry pilots, moving aircraft across the Atlantic in all kinds of bad weather - a job more dangerous than combat flying in many theaters. The Russians had female combat pilots, and one squadron of all-female pilots achieved a fantastic record in WWII.

Anyway, the issue is not whether women are qualified, but whether our society and military is ready to have them in such circumstances. Look at the circus going on around PFC Lynch - thousands have been wounded, but only the pretty blonde has been splattered all over television and newspapers. Why was she rescued? How many other rescue missions have been launched to retrieve American males who were in Iraqi hospitals?

My big worry with women in combat isn’t that women are inferior, but that it will cause behavioural changes among the men. If a woman is injured in battle, will men leave their post to help her when they wouldn’t leave it for another man? If a man starts up a romance with a woman, how will he behave when an officer orders the woman into a dangerous situation? That sort of thing.

Then there’s sex. Put a bunch of young men and women together into a highly charged environment like the military, and you’d guess that they’d be going at it like crazed weasels. Apparently, there are pictures of Lynch cavorting around topless with a bunch of male soldiers - I wonder what that does to the finely crafted social structure in the military? Apparently, a not-insignificant number of female crewmembers on ships come home pregnant - that’s got to be a drain on the military. In peacetime, no big deal - you just rotate the person out and replace them. But what if you’re on a one-year combat tour? How does it hurt effectiveness to have a key position on ship being manned by someone who is 8 months pregnant? How do people feel when there are several babies on board, and the Navy orders the ship to stay on station for another six months?

4

**

Really? I was under the impression that the physical requirements for females in basic wasn’t the same as the males. Can someone tell us whether that’s true or not?

Marc

5

Sure they meet the requirements… on the FEMALE standard. The military knows they cannot meet the standards of a male soldier. That’s why they lower those standards.
Also, sure they make great pilots. But the plane is a machine doing the work. They also make great truck drivers, tractor drivers and computer operators.

6

She would have been able to function just fine with all those multiple compound fractures if it hadn’t been for her uterus roaming freely around her body. And the cooties, of course.

Jessica Lynch the person is, I’m pretty confident, a former soldier who got into a bad way in a combat situation; others came out of it more unlucky, others luckier.

Jessica Lynch the name is a sort of script or shorthand, that various people with ideological and/or propaganda axes to grind have found handy to use as a kind of dramatic scrim to project their own sound bytes on. It’s difficult for me to think charitably of many of these people.

7

Um…sure…whatever. But men have a distinct advantage in the weekly football pool, Thursday happy hours and so on.

From my observation:
-Men form informal bonds with other men more easily than women do with each other. In the office, this male-bonding can exclude women (or dorky guys for that matter).
-Women are judged by appearance where as men are judged by acomplishments (your classic rich guy/trophy wife)
-Women managers often lead by taking on a maternal role where as men lead by the authority of their position.
-Young pretty women are generally viewed as “little girls” or “hot chicks” in the office - not taken seriously, oggled at by the men
-Women get hit by “baby fever” or “marriage madness”. Basically, even the most professional, competant woman considers little else once either the bady is due or the special date is set.

Well isn’t that kind of the point? A rifle is also a machine. So is a tank. My understanding is that it is a womans smaller size, strength and stamina (sorry ladies) that makes them liabilies to combat units - can’t carry as much ammo and supplies, can’t march as fast or as far, can;t reload heavy shells as quickly etc. If the machine (ie the fighter plane, anti-aircraft battery or the warship) is doing the work, then the only criteria should be the ability to operate it.
From what I’ve seen, it’s the media and the American public that seems to have issue with women in combat. The media seems determined to portray PFC Lynch as a little girl rescued from the clutches of evil monsters and not as a soldier captured in combat.

8

Is it sexist to point at that women are simply better at some things than men are and vice versa? For example, as a man, I know absolutely nothing about nail filing. I simply don’t have any proclivity or proficiency in this type of task.

However, 100% of all my female co-workers can carry out this task with little or no afterthought.

The same goes with clearing a jammed machinegun or weapon, which apparently got poor Jessica into a lot of trouble.

As a former 11 Bravo in the U.S. Army (infantryman), by the time I graduated from basic training and infantry school at Ft. Benning, it had become second nature for me on how to clear a jammed M-16A2, M-60, M-249, M-240, etc.

However, the average REMF (rear echelen mofo), like Jessica was, receives only one-third the of the basic rifle marksmanship training and other weapons training that an infantryman receives in the U.S. Army.

Also, BearNenno is correct is saying that women soldiers have different physical standards than the men in the U.S. Army.

Specifically, the Army’s benchmark APFT – Army Physical Fitness Test – is a gender- and age-normed evaluation of a soldier’s ability to do pushups, situps and a two-mile run. Women’s standards are currently and have always been easier than men’s standards – even in the same age category.

And while women have never been held to the same standards as men, they are thrown into a lot of the same jobs that men are in the Army that do not discriminate on the basis of their gender. The end result, even in REMF positions, is that the men in the unit after to carry the slack caused by the women.

I’m not going to argue the issue of women as combat pilots, being their is little difference between ‘flying’ a desk and flying an air superiority fighter. However, in the trenches it’s a little different. In a foxhole – which is a misnomer, b/c I have never seen a “fox” standing to in such places – it’s a diry, gritty and grimy business, decidely different from operating in an antiseptic environment like a cockpit.

9

Well that was definitely my point, anyway. I just don’t see how the task of flying a plane compares with humping a 150 pound rucksack through the forest for a couple months performing combat patrols. I’m not sure how good the average female could perform on a tank team. I don’t know how long they stay in the field at a time, or the physical requirements for repairing the tank when it breaks… but sure, I don’t see why else they couldn’t kick ass in a tank.
Also, and seriously, can a woman stay sanitary in the field for 3-4 months at a time? I mean, I don’t know since I’m a dude. But that would surely be a task all it’s own, wouldn’t it? Remember, one can’t just throw trash away either. So that’s more crap to hump in, and hump OUT.
I’ll stop here since I think I’m getting off the subject of Lynch specifically.

10

Ummm…what do you think women in undeveloped countries or from undeveloped time periods do? They certainly don’t die of having periods. Women arn’t just big walking masses of potential disease. Evolution built them to survive in nature just like men do. The human species wouldn’t be around if it’s females suffered horrible consequences just from having to hang around in the wild a bit. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence that yeast infections are usually the result of too much sanitation- soaps and scrubbing can upset the balance of bacteria. Women and men are both suseptible to bladder infections…so what exactly are you talking about?

And this is modern times. There are birth control methods that can stop periods completely for months at a time (which incidently would get rid of the chance of them getting pregnant, as well). There are things like the Keeper, that are reusable and require only a quick wash a couple times a day- no more ardourous than defecation and other acts that soilders manage to do just fine.

I’m amazed at the fundamental ignorance displayed here at how women’ actually work. Do you guys have girlfriends and mothers and stuff? For example, women often beat men when it comes to endurance- that is why women win marathons so often. Likewise, women can form friendships. Honestly, I’ve seen it. We’re not all catty backstabbers looking to steal each other’s boyfriends and scratch each other with our well groomed nails (I’ve never filed my nails in my life, nor do I remember my mom, grandmothers or female friends filing theirs) while desperatly looking to get pregnant.

Did I mention that men can be raped, too? And that considering the variety of tortures that POWs face, adding rape to the list doesn’t really make any of it more or less atrocious? And that if your soilders are abandoning their posts and disobeying orders because they see someone with a vagina that means you have some extremely poorly trained soilders?

All I can say is “wow”. There are some legit concerns regarding women in the military, but those are based on things like reality, not random chauvanistic stereotypes of women as strange creatures prone to wierd social interactions and strange diseases.

11

The debate about women in the military often focuses on what women want from the military, in terms of job training, promotion opportunities, etc. The thing is that the military is a unique institution where what an individual wants just doesn’t matter. The military exists to perform one mission–killing the enemy, whoever it is and wherever it is–and everything the military does is intended solely to advance that mission. Anything else it might happen to do is secondary to that mission. As a soldier, your leaders can order you to do something that will probably get you killed (“seize that hill! knock out that machine gun nest! drop a bomb on that anti-aircraft missile installation.”) This is a far cry from vocational training.

I don’t really know whether women belong in combat or not. Modern combat is more likely to require marksmanship and endurance than brute strength, and women can certainly demonstrate those qualities. But the debate has to be over what advances the success of the military mission, not over what women think would be good for their careers.

There are also political questions to consider. I think it is fair to ask what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. when they see young women, even young mothers, getting killed on foreign battlefields when most American men, certainly most men under 50, have never spent a day in military service. Is this supposed to show the world that America values equality and opportunity more than other countries? Or could folks in some countries, particularly conservative Muslims, conclude that American men are so weak and cowardly that they would rather send young women to their deaths than risk their own lives?

12

Women freaking climb K2, do triathlons, trek across Antarctica - of course there are ladies who can handle the job of soldiering just fine. The candidate pool is smaller than that of the men, but so friggin’ what ? That does not subtract from the abilities of those who actually can handle the job. I’d bet good money that the best 20% of the female recruits are considerably better than the worst 20% of the male recruits, so why prefer the latter over the former ?

If we’re going to go with our Jessica Lynch sample of one, she was not and apparently had no desire to be a frontline soldier. As vital as supply troops are, their primary job is that of driving their truck to the right spot. If the column hadn’t gotten lost (what sex was the CO ?) - or if there’d been just an armoured escort vehicle with the column - the entire situation could’ve been avoided. She was a victim of bad judgement of her superiors and the uncertainties of war - her gender was completely incidental.

Bear Nenno

Even if “the average female” wouldn’t do well in a tank (incidentally, I believe the average male would suck pretty badly, too), there’s no reason to keep those out who have risen above average to the point where they can take on the job. (Incidentally, Danish all-female tank crews dished it out quite well in the Balkans.)

kmg365

Unless your weapons instructor broke your legs before the drill and then shot at you with live ammo, the comparison seems just a tad unfair.

I think you’ve located a more probable root cause than the plumbing issue.

13

You think you are being cleverly provocative, but you’re just repeating a gratuitious, condescending, insulting put-down that makes people immediately conclude your point is not worth considering. Can it, or replace it with a real honest example of a difference in critical skils performance between males and females, and maybe you’ll get someone to debate the issue.

Like Spiny Norman said, you probably were closer to reality in that comment about REMFs not being quite prepared for facing direct fire. Heck, I was a REMF and I just know that indeed if caught in an ambush I’d at most put up a desperation defense and pray hard there was some real infantry somewhere nearby. But you know what? The Army was OK with that. They knew that in my specialty I would not be able to concentrate on being the most effective killing machine, but that was the tradeoff. I suppose I should have been sent to nail-filing school :rolleyes:

14

I think I’ll add to this one too. I am in the United States Air Force, as is my wife. She does a great job and is very well suited as a soldier, however there are a few good points made. Women aren’t exactly best suited for direct combat, but that doesn’t exclude them from service in a war zone. War is an ugly business, and women can be the ugliest of them all. Trust me. I’m married. But firing handcannons isn’t exactly a woman’s strong suit. Women are better equipped for intelligence jobs, and survailance. They make excellent pilots and great mechanics. They can do most jobs that men can do, and the strength differences are only there because of chauvanistic ideals, they were bred throughout history to be protected and weaker so now they actually are.
As for Jessica Lynch, she wasn’t exactly in the infantry. A Female Aafes employee in Iraq could easily befall the same fate. Wrong place, wrong time. What’s important isn’t that she’s female, or that she was raped or what have you, what’s important is making the place safe so that the Iraqi people can civilize and maybe forget the barbaric ways of their past under a totalitarianistic rule.
And the media is only doing what the media does. It’s trying to make money with a sob story. If you don’t chastize them for their spin on the new Star Wars flick, then why chastize them for anything else. They don’t know much but how to make a buck.

15

Military male bonding?

You want military male bonding, adopt the Spartan model. Now THAT is military male bonding without peer!

16

My best friend is a Marine who just got home from 6 months in Iraq. If I give you his address will you promise to say that to his face? The notion that war fighting is not still about endurance and strength is ridiculous.

That aside, Pvt. Lynch was badly wounded and had a jammed weapon. Anyone who expects a support troop (of either gender) with limited combat training to be useful under those circumstances is foolish.

The root of the problem here is with the bullshit double standards. Women should be allowed into any MOS/AFSC they qualify for… as long as the qualifications are set by what the job requires. EVERYONE should have to meet the same requirements, not this ignorant system whereas a man and a woman in the same MOS have two different physical standards they are held to. I don’t know why women stand for it. If male test scores were set lower for jobs because “men are not as smart” I’d be jumping down throats from here to Washington.

Oh, and as for this:

Are you kidding me? I spent last winter at an air base in Kyrgyzstan supporting OEF. These guys work their asses off. Equating what they do to sitting behind a desk shows how little you know about what you’re talking about. You probably don’t have the physical strength to just keep yourself conscious during ONE evasive maneuver, much less all the other stuff they go
through.

17

It is sexest (and ignorant) to assume that women have or do not have inherent knowledge of tasks like firing a rifle, filing nails or driving a tank. These are skills that are TAUGHT. I’m sure if someone gave you a nail file, you would have those cuticles “high and tight” in short order.

It is not sexist to point out legitimate diferences between men and women. The most obvious is that men are generally larger and stronger than women and they have diferent biological needs. There are less obvious psychological diferences in the way men and women interact socially or process information. The fact is that women are not merely small, pretty men.

Muslims don’t seem to have a problem with it. There are numerous incidents of female suicide bombers. They might conculde that we are weak because we chosse to fight from armored tanks and helicopters instead of with giant curved swords. That’s hardly the point.

18

Agreed. But currently females are not required to rise to that level. The standards are brought down to them. If they want to drive the tank, they should be required to do everything the males do. In no way am I saying they can’t do it. I think they could, but they should be graded equally.

I don’t think the problem is so much my ignorance of how a woman workds, but more so your ignorance of how a combat patrol works. I’m sure the women of third world countries get more than 10 minutes a day for personal hygeine! Yes, 10 minutes.
You don’t understand what a task it is just to stop a patrol for more than a minute. You can’t just stop and take 10 minutes every eight hours or so to take care of your business. It just is not feasible. Woman die of TSS and suffer UTIs and various other problems just in garrison! Take away fresh water and any personal time, it just wouldn’t be pretty. Like I said, I am not saying it can’t be done. But it would definitely be an issue!
Also, there are many factors someone just does not consider unless they’ve been there. A man can piss on the move! A female would need to stop a movement just to piss. I’m not being silly or sexist, that is a serious issue. Stopping a movement is a huge security risk.

19

even seven, not to be stickler or anything. But I think you should refrain from the personal attacks on people. It’s generally not cool.

20

Just like to add that I hardly think Pvt Lynch is a good example of what happens to women or anyone in combat.

Her unit got lost… they got shot up in an ambush. She got stuck in the car and fainted from blood loss. Where was her sex relevant in all that ? (Maybe the driver was a male and didn’t want to ask for directions ?)

I do think Women in the Military is debatable and can go either way… but Jessica’s case is hardly one to be made as an example against or for. Except that the death of other women with her was taken quite well by the public.

Personally I am all for women in the military if they can do their jobs. If they get shot up and killed its part of the job description. Especially in a professional army like the US army so short of quality recruits sometimes… why leave half the population out of your recruitment possibilities ?