PDA

View Full Version : G.I. Jane in Neverland



thedrifter
06-18-04, 07:24 AM
06-16-2004

G.I. Jane in Neverland



By Ray Starmann



This headline from the Nashville Tennessean website caught my attention late last year: “Grandmother didn't hesitate when deployed to Kuwait.”



Apparently, a 59-year-old grandmother of four had been caught in the recent Army Reserve personnel sweep. While reading the article I shook my head in disbelief. After more research, I was shocked to learn that the Army has deployed enough grandmothers to create their own platoon: “The Fighting Grandmothers.”



This country has indeed reached the zenith of insanity. We are now deploying grandmothers to combat zones. Apparently, the kindly grandmother image of Norman Rockwell’s America has been vanquished and replaced by a superwoman façade, created entirely by the feminists who have turned today’s military into a PC arena of social engineering and touchy-feely cultural Marxism.



As an Army captain back in 1993, I witnessed a site that would have given Dick Winters and his “Band of Brothers” from World War II a severe case of IBS. Standing before me were two female soldiers who were wearing 101st Airborne Division “Screaming Eagles” patches on their maternity battle dress uniforms. Both were pregnant; one was pushing a toddler in a baby stroller. I paused for a moment, stared at them and thought of places like Normandy, Hell’s Highway, Bastogne and Hamburger Hill. I wondered how they would have survived on those distant battlefields?



As I walked back to my car, I knew it was time to resign my commission from the Lean Green Machine.

The beginning of the end for today’s Army began around the time I was out-processing in 1993. The Defense Department commenced a series of sweeping social engineering changes. These included allowing women to serve in combat support and combat service support units once labeled as male-only. The Defense Department’s “Risk Rule,” established in 1988, was repealed. The key element in these changes was the elimination of the phrase “substantial risk of capture” as a factor in determining where servicewomen would be assigned. As a result, women are serving at greater risk, even in support units.”

The Marxist-Feminist never-never land is a dream world of illogical equality that is quickly decimated once the first round moves downrange toward one of America’s young female warriors. Pfc. Jessica Lynch learned this the hard way last March near Nasiriyah. A pretty girl who should have been sitting in a sorority house, Lynch today is lucky to be alive. A veil of smoke and mirrors that only the Pentagon can create hid the utter incompetence of Lynch and her fellow combat service support soldiers during the engagement.

The Washington Post on Apr. 3, 2003 portrayed Lynch as a “woman-warrior” from West Virginia who “was shot, stabbed, and captured only after she had emptied her weapon killing Iraqis.” Although the story was based on an erroneous Iraqi radio report intercepted by U.S. intelligence and later discredited, both the news media and supporters of a feminized U.S. military seized on the story as proof that women warriors could distinguish themselves in combat.

As we now know, Lynch’s weapon – along with most of the M-16s in her platoon – failed to function (obviously she hadn’t cleaned it) and she was then knocked unconscious in a vehicle collision. She later became a victim of the Iraqis who raped her and the U.S. Army that used her as a propaganda tool.



The next disastrous decision after the 1993 “Risk Rule” change occurred in 1994 when then-Secretary of the Army Togo West ordered the service to implement coed basic training. The results have become devastating for the morale and effectiveness of the army. A 2002 TRADOC report came to the following conclusions about coed basic training:


* Less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs;


* Voluntary and involuntary misconduct, due to an emotionally volatile environment for which leaders and recruits are unprepared;

* Higher physical injury and sick call rates that detract from primary training objectives;


* Diversion from essential training time due to interpersonal distractions and the need for an extra week of costly “sensitivity training”;


* Re-defined or lowered standards, gender-normed scores, and elimination of physically demanding exercises so that women will succeed;


* Additional stress on instructors who must deal with different physical abilities and psychological needs of male and female recruits.


Even with such clear facts, Army leaders continue to refuse to touch this political time bomb. Apparently, the demise of esprit de corps, the death of fighting spirit and rampant pregnancies mean nothing to many generals who are more concerned with securing their pensions and six-figure defense jobs once they retire.



In today’s Army, we often hear of the “hard-charging” female deploying to Iraq, after leaving her family back in the States. While Mrs. Sergeant Stryker battles the enemies of freedom; her domesticated husband is at home with the kids, the dog, the SUV and his favorite Betty Crocker Cookbook.



Who can blame these Sad Civilian Sacks? They’re victims of a society that is progressively neutering America’s male population. The media repeatedly bombards us with images of weak, dumb, fat, bumbling men who are constantly out-witted by strong, pretty, successful females. The Mean Girls of Abu Ghraib Prison have become the walking, talking Stepford Wives of the Army.



Congress must wake up and realize what has happened to the military as a result of this social engineering.



Since we are faced with the prospect of an indefinite war against terrorism, the Army must be transformed into an effective fighting force. That means it should remove women from positions where they might be exposed to combat. The service must begin to fill the ranks with men. If young men won’t join, it might be time to start drafting the emerging generation.



The Army’s mission is to destroy our enemies on the field of battle, to inflict so much death and destruction upon them that they never seek to fight us again. The mission of the Army is not to run a sociology lab experiment. It is not to provide daycare, handle pregnancies, and teach sensitivity training. Because the cultural Marxists and militant feminists refuse to comprehend the true mission of the Army, their arguments should be recognized as irrelevant.



The problems confronting the Army are mounting but the insanity continues. How much longer is the nation going to tolerate deployed grandmothers, raped female POW’s, pregnant soldiers running interrogations, and basic-training shenanigans?



As America’s enemies line up against us, time is running out for the Army to repair itself before a total disaster ensues.



In 1940, after delivering his first speech as Prime Minister to his countrymen, Winston Churchill stood in front of a window and stared at a blacked-out London. As his wife approached him, he muttered repeatedly in his famous Victorian style, “Pray … that we’re not too late.” His words resonate today.



“Pray … that we’re not too late.”



Ray Starmann is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at saber2bravo@earthlink.net. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.


http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=531&rnd=990.3416788717443


Ellie

MillRatUSMC
06-18-04, 07:49 AM
Thanks God the Marine Corps leadership saw no wisdom in running a sociology lab experiment.
A few years past my wife got a letter requesting that she think about enlisting because she was a nurse.
She was in her late 50's.
If she had done that , she too would be deploying.
Also she had retired because she no longer could work dued to her Parkisons.
“We Pray … that we’re not too late for the Army to right the ship.”

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

enviro
06-18-04, 08:31 AM
I found myself agreeing with the article and at the same time raising the BS flag.

First, women have their place in the military. My wife did just fine in the Marines. While she wasn't on the frontlines (computer geek), she was qualified as a Marine - and we all know what that entails. The Marine Corps got it right - separate but equal boot camp. We teach men how to be men, women how to be women, and both of them how to be Marines. You'll never convince me that a woman's place is strictly in the kitchen.

Second, the Army’s mission is to destroy our enemies on the field of battle, to inflict so much death and destruction upon them that they never seek to fight us again? Hail Caesar! Heil Hitler! WTF?

The official mission is as follows:
The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. We do this by:

• Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.

• Accomplishing missions assigned by the President, Secretary of Defense and combatant commanders, and Transforming for the future.

Third, I disagree that the former Captian should have resigned his commission. I feel the former Captian should have never joined in the first place. He is more suited for a militia in Montana.

Fourth, I feel he needs to pull his head out of his ass and wake TF up! Women in the service have every right to get pregnant. My beautiful 6 year old daughter wouldn't be here if this wasn't the case. He makes it sound like we are sending expecting soldiers to the front lines. However, getting pregnant while deployed is a major faux pau.


For every Jessica Lynch and Lyndie Egland, I can show you a male members of the military who acted the same. I can show you male members of the military who bomb their own platoons, rape teenagers in Japan and other countries, pass classified information to the enemy, fire on friendly forces, and more, and more, and more.

Check your calendars - it 2004.......

SemperFiGirl79
06-18-04, 08:39 AM
I honesty wish everyone felt as you do enviro...;) It's nice to hear a positive opinion for a change.

Thanks!
Kate

namgrunt
06-18-04, 10:17 AM
Enviro

I have to disagree with you on this one, brother.
You said it yourself

First, women have their place in the military. My wife did just fine in the Marines. While she wasn't on the frontlines (computer geek), she was qualified as a Marine - and we all know what that entails. The Marine Corps got it right - separate but equal boot camp. We teach men how to be men, women how to be women, and both of them how to be Marines. You'll never convince me that a woman's place is strictly in the kitchen.
That is the real factor. Do you want to find yourself in a fight, standing perimeter with a WM next to you? I'm not talking about an abberation, where a headquarters unit gets overrun, and all personnel are forced to function as riflemen (riflepersons?), but as part of a regular infantry unit? Will it cross you mind, wondering how well she did in the fireman's carry, in case it is you who is down and bleeding? Can she pick you up and hustle you to cover on her shoulder?

As for the Army's mission, I don't care how they run things, as long as they don't run while covering my flank on joint combat ops.

Concerning Jessica Lynch, do you believe she deserved the Bronze Star they gave her? What heroic act did she commit? She lived to be rescued! That was all. I lived through my combat tours too, including being wounded, but I don't have any doggone Bronze Star with Combat "V" on my ribbon bar.
Pvt England is in a stew of her own complicity. There is more there than immediately evident. Let the dust settle before taking her side on things.




SemperFiGirl79 (Kate)

Your comment would carry more weight if you has SERVED somewhere. I looked at your profile and you aren't a Marine. You may have prior service in another branch of the military, but it isn't evident. It would seem you are talking from the POV of a Civilian in a politically correct workplace (admin assistant).

There is NO place for civilian standards of PC, when enemy rounds start slamming through the wall you are using as cover and concealment. You may consider support voiced as "positive opinion", but that won't get wars won. You've got to be realistic about what combat entails before you can truly believe it is positive to put women into combat risk positions.

The question is not women in the military. They have been there for decades already. I was in over thirty years ago. There were WM's filling essential billets on Marine bases. Combat is not the same thing as Administration. Please, understand that.

The ability to shoot at someone IS NOT ENOUGH to qualify anyone as a warrior! To believe otherwise is to comdemn the unqualified person to death, whether male or female. War is no place for a Lady (combatant).

SemperFiGirl79
06-18-04, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by namgrunt
Enviro

I have to disagree with you on this one, brother.
You said it yourself

That is the real factor. Do you want to find yourself in a fight, standing perimeter with a WM next to you? I'm not talking about an abberation, where a headquarters unit gets overrun, and all personnel are forced to function as riflemen (riflepersons?), but as part of a regular infantry unit? Will it cross you mind, wondering how well she did in the fireman's carry, in case it is you who is down and bleeding? Can she pick you up and hustle you to cover on her shoulder?

As for the Army's mission, I don't care how they run things, as long as they don't run while covering my flank on joint combat ops.

Concerning Jessica Lynch, do you believe she deserved the Bronze Star they gave her? What heroic act did she commit? She lived to be rescued! That was all. I lived through my combat tours too, including being wounded, but I don't have any doggone Bronze Star with Combat "V" on my ribbon bar.
Pvt England is in a stew of her own complicity. There is more there than immediately evident. Let the dust settle before taking her side on things.




SemperFiGirl79 (Kate)

Your comment would carry more weight if you has SERVED somewhere. I looked at your profile and you aren't a Marine. You may have prior service in another branch of the military, but it isn't evident. It would seem you are talking from the POV of a Civilian in a politically correct workplace (admin assistant).

There is NO place for civilian standards of PC, when enemy rounds start slamming through the wall you are using as cover and concealment. You may consider support voiced as "positive opinion", but that won't get wars won. You've got to be realistic about what combat entails before you can truly believe it is positive to put women into combat risk positions.

The question is not women in the military. They have been there for decades already. I was in over thirty years ago. There were WM's filling essential billets on Marine bases. Combat is not the same thing as Administration. Please, understand that.

The ability to shoot at someone IS NOT ENOUGH to qualify anyone as a warrior! To believe otherwise is to comdemn the unqualified person to death, whether male or female. War is no place for a Lady (combatant).


:yes:

I'm going to Agree to Disagree w/ you.

enviro
06-18-04, 11:12 AM
Namgrunt,

I don't think we disagree that much. I don't feel a woman belongs in an infantry unit. Most women will agree - And I'm not talking about an abberation where you have a woman that is more of a man than will ever be (check her hormone prescription).

Now, I guess I did sound like I was taking up for Lynch and Egland. I wasn't. Lynch didn't deserve a Bronze Star and she has said as much.

I took offense to the author blaming the Army's problems on the women in the military. The Army DOES have a long way to go in getting it right (see Marine Corps way of doing business). But the answer does not lie with kicking them out and confining them to the kitchen - nor does it require them to stay in Admin either.

The frontlines have also changed. There are no more frontlines. The new enemy has taken the battle everywhere, including here. But to exclude from combat completely is assinine. There are many MOS's that will take "non-combative" MOS's to the action. The enemy is everywhere for all MOS's.

Women fly as combat pilots now and are some of the best damn pilots I've seen. Yes - when I call for fire support, I ain't checking to see if the pilot has has a penis, I just want the fire support and on target. If I need an extraction from a combat LZ, I'm not going to tell the woman pilot to go on, I'll catch the next one.

Over 3000 civilians died on September 11th due to enemy action. They brought the battle here. They are behind our lines everywhere. Where do we put our women now? In caves?

30 years ago, women did not attend the same training we as Marines of the male species did. Things have changed. I feel confident in a MARINE'S ability.

As for Kate, I feel her comments are warranted. There are many out there that would tell her that her place is in the kitchen or in an office, but NOT in the military. To them, I say check your calendar - it's 2004.

I have my line where I think women should serve. It's in 100% agreement with Marine Corps policy.

SemperFiGirl79
06-18-04, 11:23 AM
Enviro,

Thanks again! ;) There are not many men who feel as you do. Your right, times have changed. But unfortunately, many peoples views have not. Women like Lynch & England have done nothing but make it harder on women in the military.

enviro
06-18-04, 01:54 PM
Women like Lynch & England have done nothing but make it harder on women in the military.

Great Point!

Of course, Lynch will be written in history as a "hero" and England will be written as the "dominatrix/torturer" of Baghdad. Neither deserve either label as much as they are being given it.

Both of them were very young, inexperienced, soldiers that made mistakes and the media capitalized on that.

I'm sure glad no media was around when I was screwing off and doing some dumbass stuff.

greybeard
06-19-04, 10:17 PM
The best thing they can do is, next shootin war that crops up, send in the ladies-no restrictions-no exceptions!! It will prove someone's point-one way or another.

DebSantos
06-21-04, 04:52 PM
I say send the women in only while their dealing with PMS!!! or HOT FLASHES! Trust me guys when I say... NO MERCY!





JUST A JOKE (ITS OK TO LAUGH)