Family of slain soldier pleads for sisters

[usmc4669]

NEW BERLIN, Wisconsin (AP) -- With three daughters serving in Iraq, John and Lori Witmer had a family Web site with photos from Baghdad, notes to home and messages of encouragement.

"Keep praying! They're almost home!" a recent entry says.
But the top notice, dated Sunday, carried grim news: "We regret to inform you that Michelle Witmer was killed in action April 9th. ..."
The 20-year-old private died when her Humvee was ambushed in Baghdad, making her the first woman in the Wisconsin National Guard to die in combat.
Her family is asking the military to stop her sisters from being sent back to Iraq after this week's funeral.
"I can't live another year like I've lived this one," John Witmer told The Associated Press. "The sacrifice that this family's made can never be understood by someone who hasn't gone through it... It's a burden I can't bear. My family can't bear it."
Michelle's 24-year-old sister, Rachel, served in the same unit, the 32nd Military Police Company, which was expected to leave Iraq shortly but just had its duty extended 120 days.
Charity Witmer, Michelle's twin, was sent to Iraq late last year as a medic with Company B of the Wisconsin Guard's 118th Medical Battalion.
The surviving sisters were expected home Monday, two days before Michelle's funeral. The Witmers also have two sons.
The family said state National Guard leaders agreed to take their appeal to the Pentagon on Monday. Relatives also were seeking help from Sen. Russ Feingold, and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
John Witmer acknowledged the final decision of whether to return will be up to his daughters. But he said they would have to understand "how terribly we need to know they're not going back."
Witmer said he worried about his daughters joining the military but felt at the time that duty with the National Guard would be relatively safe, especially with a military police unit.
"My daughters wanted the freedom of being able to call their shots with their education," he said. "They were using that to go to school."
Jan Pretzel, the sisters' grandmother, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that by February, Michelle had an inkling her unit might soon ship out of Iraq because members were told to tell their families to stop shipping packages.

"This is a REALLY GOOD SIGN!!" she wrote in an e-mail. "The redeployment process (though it may be long) is finally beginning! There is finally a light at the end of the tunnel!"

The Witmer family shares a hug on December 7. Michelle, right, was killed Friday in Iraq.

[namgrunt]

It is sad to hear of any loss on our side. Iraq is also a precedent setting combat theater because it is the first time women are allowed near active combat as a matter of unit assignment. It is more traumatic on our society when servicewomen are killed and maimed in war. Perhaps this comes from the fact that women are seen as nurturers in the public's eye.

The loss for the family is huge. One of three daughters is killed, while serving in Iraq. But then, the loss to ANY family will be huge, even if it only one member killed. Ask any of the 58,000 families whose loved ones' names grace the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Every American death, since the Revolutionary War, has been a tragedy and loss for someone.

Why were the three sisters all there at one time? What of men who are there with brothers, or fathers and sons? Should these people be considered for rotation out of the combat zone? Should the Sullivan Act be modified for gender? Daughters don't carry on the family name, as sons do. If an only surviving son is killed, then that branch of his family name disappears from the earth. If the same happens to a daughter, the branch is broken, but the family name might survive in her brother or cousin. It is a hard call.

If we make exceptions for one family then we must apply the same rule for all families with loved ones in harm's way. This means our forces would be depleted to include only one serviceman from any one family unit in our nation, and not to include only sons or daughters. Our armed forces would become a shadow of what they are now.

We may as well call this whole action off and withdraw without further participation in any wars, without exception. Perhaps this is the idea behind hearing the tearful appeals from grieving family members on national TV morning talk shows. We are being flailed into submission with tangible heartbreak by families who are in the depths of loss.

If we lose our resolve, then this would all have been for nothing, and we will have failed the sacrifice of our honored dead.

[d c taveapont]

this WAR is unjust for all familys and they will be torn apart and they will ask WHY. and what will be our answer. Iraqi freedom. we don't even know about their culture and yet we are fighting for their freedom. then they the "iraqis" damn will better pick up a gun and help....what sets me off is: lets go kick some azz. its the LETS who are doing all the talking. i don't see any of the LETS over there nor do they see ME there. we have done our time in the service and some missed the war and some like you and i didn't.. oh i'll support this war. in my own way. by not yelling for war i will let those who are there do the fighting for us all.....

[USMC-FO]

My understanding is that is up to the two surviving women to "request" not to rejoin their units in Iraq. I am sure they are under tremendous pressure right now. It is a resonable question to ask how all three got their in the first place--easy. Activated National Guard/Reserve unit that was called up. Should something have been said then--perhaps but obviously was not and I suspect for the same reasons the surviving sisters are under pressure today.

The other question there is of course why did we head off to Iraq with so few troops?? Well again..easy I think: We don't have ENOUGH troops serving right now ANYWHERE. We're in an active and hot war with an insufficient number of shooters or even truck drivers. That is question that must be addressed and soon in my view.

Personnally I think the "Sullivan" rule ought to prevail here. I feel this family has paid enough. Just as any family who has lost a son or daughter has, in my view, paid for their commitmment many times over.

Unrelated but all over the news here today is the local man--only child--young father who was also killed last week in a similar attack. Pain and loss is always unevenly applied in war.

[arnoldyG/2/5]

Let's not forget that in today's military every service member makes the choice to serve of their own free will. The risk of being thrust into "harm's way" is a very real possibility and although loss of a love one is horrific for any family, special treatment should not be afforded those who have multiple family members serving in combat.

[namgrunt]

It has just been announced on radio (1420 hrs EST), that the surviving Army NG sisters will not have to return to the combat zone. It is now a moot point.

I wouldn't want to be the PIO's at bases across the nation, as families of servicemen petition to have their loved ones removed from combat for various reasons. It won't have to be many such requests for it to make the news talking heads programs.

I'm going to re-clean my piece, and make sure I have ammo. The committed radical terrorists will read such exemptions as the beginning of our dissolution. They will be emboldened and plot for another BIG attack in our land. I hope we don't find out the missing WMD's are in IEDs planted throughout our major cities.

[usmc4669]

It seems as if some join the Military (including the Guards and Reserves) for difference reasons, some for the education opportunities some for the travel to difference countries, and some to serve and die if they have to for their country. Now we come to three sisters in the same unit, what's wrong with that? I would think that when they deployed only one of them would have been sent into a hostile area not all three. Then we have the only son, sent to fight and he is killed, no one to carry on his family name, Like namgrunt said
If we make exceptions for one family then we must apply the same rule for all families with loved ones in harm's way. This means our forces would be depleted to include only one serviceman from any one family unit in our nation, and not to include only sons or daughters. Our armed forces would become a shadow of what they are now. and my very good friend d c taveapont
this WAR is unjust for all familys and they will be torn apart and they will ask WHY. and what will be our answer. Iraqi freedom. we don't even know about their culture and yet we are fighting for their freedom. then they the "iraqis" damn will better pick up a gun and help....what sets me off is: lets go kick some azz. its the LETS who are doing all the talking. i don't see any of the LETS over there nor do they see ME there. we have done our time in the service and some missed the war and some like you and i didn't.. oh i'll support this war. in my own way. by not yelling for war i will let those who are there do the fighting for us all.....now dc tell what wars are really just that we have been in the past 62 years, the only one than I can think would be World War II, if I remember right and I was old enough to remember, the Japanese's attacked us. I don't remember the Koreans or the Vietnamese's attacking the United States. One should ask themselves before joining any branch of the Services, am I willing to put my life on the line to be part of this military unit?

[vision836]

It seems to me that maybe there should be two different contacts you can enlist by. One saying I'm only signing so I can go to college with a no combat clause and the other being I'm joining to protect the freedoms and rights of this country with the possibility of dying. I hope I' not taken seriously on this there is sarcasim being typed here.

[namgrunt]

Vision836:

It would be sarcasm, if there were not persons and organizations willing to carry this sort of argument to our courts. Think of all the lawyers who suddenly jumped on the "Second Hand Smoke" bandwagon, and files class action suits, then started looking for people to be clients.

A "freedom from harm's way" lawsuit would toss a legal monkeywrench into the works, and might trigger dozens of similar actions across the land. It might even get to the Supreme Court if the legal beagles are creative enough. It sounds far fetched, but so was attack on the Second Amendment, once upon a time. Today, that attack is an accepted position in many cities and agencies.

If people want to join an organization to help rebuild while earning college credits or scholarships, let them form something along the lines of John Kennedy's Peace Corps. The military has been and must always be seen as an instument of war, since that will be the function it provides from time to time. To believe it is anything less is to decieve ourselves, and set up the country for a hard fall.

That is how I see it.
Semper Fi!