“In the lull of peacetime, regulations that kept women in uniform at a safe distance from combat were lifted. We are now paying the price and being made to think that our national defense rests on the ability to deploy teenage girls and single mothers. What a disgrace.” —Kate O’Beirne.1
Christian moral teaching holds that military service is for men—not women. The Bible presents a comprehensive pattern of differentiation between men and women. Men are to protect women, even as women bear a special responsibility as nurturers—as wives and mothers. Scriptural texts indicate that war is for men, and “wives,” “little ones,” and cattle are to remain in the land while men go to war [Joshua 1:14]. Christians have understood this pattern for centuries, even if some appear confused in the present. Evangelical historian Harold O. J. Brown observed this consistent teaching within the Christian tradition: “Within both Judaism and Christianity, indeed almost universally in all human culture, the military profession has been reserved for males.2
A TIME FOR TRUTH
Why are we not hearing more about the issue of women in combat? The current war in Iraq raises this issue most urgently, because women have been deployed in front-line units from the very beginning of this effort. The famous case of Pfc. Jessica Lynch should have been sufficient to awaken Americans to the fact that women are now serving alongside men throughout the combat theatre.2
The inclusion of women in active combat roles completes the project pushed so aggressively by feminists in the 1970s and 1980s and then institutionalized by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Women now serve in a multiplicity of combat roles, and the armed services claim a goal of “interchangeability” between men and women in most units.2
According to Newsweek, women now compose about 15 percent of the Army, 13 percent of the Navy, 19 percent of the Air Force, and 6 percent of the Marines. The proportion of jobs open to women ranges from 91 percent in the Army to 99 percent in the Air Force. Even though women are not yet allowed in infantry, artillery, or armor units, women serve in other front-line combat positions, including service as fighter pilots. Women may not serve in the elite Special Forces units or on the Navy’s submarines, but they can be found throughout most of the other combat-ready units in uniform.2
The inclusion of women in the armed forces—and in especially in combat units—was demanded by feminists as a step toward full equality for women. Reversing millennia of human wisdom, feminists claimed that exclusion of women from combat service amounted to a form of unconstitutional discrimination. The decision to incorporate women in fighting units came in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, when the military was itself at a low point of morale, and when the Pentagon’s leadership was especially susceptible to political correctness. With much fanfare, women were put in uniform and in the public eye.2
Of course, the military did not publicly acknowledge that in order to incorporate women in fighting units, the services had to lower physical requirements and redefine terms of service. These “redefined” terms of service would come to public attention from time to time, such as when the presence of pregnant soldiers became a complication on the battlefield.2
Historian Walter McDougall commented that, “one of the central goals of the feminist movement is to establish a fully sexually integrated military, trained, fit, and ready to engage in combat. . . . The United States today is the only serious military power in history to contemplate thorough sexual integration of its armed forces. And thanks to an adamant feminist lobby, a conspiracy of silence in the officer corps, and the anodyne state of debate over the issue, the brave new world of female infantry, bomber pilots, submariners, and drill sergeants may lie just around the corner.” Then again, maybe that world is already here.
A 2001 article in Newsweek offered a glimpse into the world of women in military service and its impact on the family. In the article, U.S. Army M/Sgt. Kelly Tyler told of her 10-year-old son. “You know how kids are always changing what they want to be when they grow up?,” she asked. “The other night [her son] told me he wanted to be a war protester so that I wouldn’t ever have to leave him.” That comment is sadder than sad. The inclusion of women in combat military units is a challenge to the moral character of the American people. This little boy’s protest says it all.2
DUE TO LACK OF AVAILABLE MEN
“Deprived of an available man to do the job, another woman and I recently struggled to replace the 5 gallon tank on a water cooler. I am an average-sized woman (5 feet, 5 inches) and she is on the small side (5 feet, 3 inches). The tank weighs 50 pounds. In order to do the job without dousing the floor for miles around, it is necessary to lift it about 4 feet in the air and then manipulate it so that the spout points down into the cooler. Working together, we caused only minor flooding. Not really. We did fine. But it took two of us using all of our strength.”3
This states that women are somewhat forced to do tasks that are supposed to be for men. In reality, men are usually stronger than women, physically, but then they ‘need to’ do it because that is their ‘job.’ But we should accept the fact that no matter how the women struggle to do the tasks, there are tasks that even though they already exerted their effort, it is not enough. This may cause the failure of women to perform the military tasks essential to military success.
The American military has of course noticed the same thing — and then gone to great lengths to hide or disguise it. Military tasks that used to be classified as one-man jobs are now reclassified as two-man jobs to make it easier for women to succeed. Basic training was altered, giving more weight to skills like map reading and first aid, so that women would not wash out in such high numbers.3
Following the Tailhook scandal, a stung Navy rushed to put women in combat aviation. Flight trainers were encouraged to push women ahead even if their scores did not merit advancement. One of the first women to be permitted to do carrier landings, Lt. Kara Hultgreen, crashed and died. The Navy put out the word that engine trouble had caused the crash. But Donnelly discovered that this was a lie. Hultgreen had made a “glide slope” error — the same error she had made twice before in training. An instructor told Donnelly that another woman, Pilot B, was also being pushed forward by the Navy despite abysmal flying scores.3
ARE WE AMERICA’S MOTHERS? OR ARE WE AMERICA’S WARRIORS?
Tailhook ’91 was a signal event for opening the doors to women in our nation’s combat arms. In spite of a Presidential Commission Report advising against lifting the female exclusion, President Clinton ordered it lifted in 1993 and the services rushed to comply in 1994 — especially the U.S. Navy. How is this social engineering experiment progressing? What has it accomplished in improving our military’s combat readiness? What internal friction has it caused? How has it affected morale in our nation’s armed forces? What has its affect been on imbuing young men with a ‘warrior spirit’ required to fight and win our nation’s wars?
Several months of intensive research have uncovered the fantasy and revealed the truth about our military’s preposterous attempt to place our mothers, our wives, our daughters, our sisters, and other female family members at risk in Iraq in order to serve an agenda of egalitarianism in an environment where it simply does not exist. These weak-kneed ‘perfumed princes’ serve the radical feminist agenda and its political supporters in the Congress and the Executive Branch to the point that they have forgotten who the enemy is.4
The essay entitled ‘Lies, Lies, and More Damned Lies,’ exposes the calumny of our nation’s mass media in presenting the case that women are actually in combat in Iraq. They lie about the casualty count. They lie about the roles females play in combating the ‘insurgency’ there. They lie about the relative danger women face there compared to the ‘real’ combat troops — the fighters. They lie to create the impression that military women operate constantly ‘outside the wire’ (outside the confines of the barricades of the forward operating bases) when in reality most of them are FOBBITs. Those who live in air-conditioned comfort ‘inside the wire’ and have all of the ‘luxuries’ of home — including access to BEAUTY PRODUCTS. And finally, in conclusion, this latter essay describes the life and character of a ‘real’ warrior who engages in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy on his terrain, using his tactics, and actually takes the fight to the enemy and wins — he kills them with dispatch. He knows who the real enemy is. The radical feminists believe the enemy is us — American men!
As we shall discover in the essay ‘Jessica Lynch: The Icon of America’s ‘Happy Place,”this concept of finding a ‘Happy Place’ took hold of Jessica’s parents as they faced the fact that she had been raped and tortured, then the mass media when they chose to subtly down-play the fact that Jessica had been so brutalized by her Iraqi captors, and finally by the American public as we chose to blot from our minds the consequences of women-in-combat, as exemplified by the Jessica Lynch story. This concept bodes ill for the future of our nation and its people.4
The Jessica Lynch story, the real story, is the revelation of a failed experiment with women in combat. It is an illustration of how far our military has been ‘socialized’ and turned into a jobs corps for women and minorities — especially in its ‘support tail.’ The Lynch story epitomizes, in miniature, what would have befallen our ‘tip of the spear’ fighting forces if the Clinton administration, the shrill sisters in Congress, and weak-kneed military brass had succeeded in ‘feminizing’ the entire force as it purged the ‘warriors’ and the ‘warrior ethos’ from those parts of the military that succumbed to their politically inspired move to promote ‘equality’ instead of military readiness. Had they fully succeeded in this endeavor?
Indeed, the occupation force would be one that is the Clintons’ military, not President Bush’s military — one that has been weakened by reduced standards, affirmative action, and mixed-sex basic training. The ‘occupation force’ required to carry this out over an extended period of time could result in 50,000 terrorist ‘targets,’ at least fifteen percent of which will be America’s sisters, daughters, wives, and mothers. Wake up America! 4
‘FEMINIZATION’ OF COMBAT ARMS
The book “Black Hawk Down” will also let you understand why women-in-combat is a concept based in fantasy, completely devoid of realistic truth about the nature of combat, and allowed by an American populace with absolutely no comprehension that social engineering (job opportunity and career enhancement) is destroying our nation’s conventional armed forces.5 The courage, bravery, and unit cohesion of our elite military units (Delta Force, Special Forces, and Rangers) who fought and died in Mogadishu in October 1993 are portrayed from the viewpoint of those who fought there.6
Gen. Peter Schoomaker answered a questioner who rightly praised the courage of female soldiers but expressed concern about the unprecedented number of women maimed or killed in Iraq (33, to date) and Afghanistan.
Gen. Schoomaker’s rambling answer confirmed a supposedly “unofficial” plan for placing women in combat, being put into effect in the 3rd Infantry Division despite frequent denials anything has changed.7
The fact that we have allowed radical feminists and their servant politicians to ‘feminize’ the latter forces — Navy, Air Force, and Army — has placed America in a position of potential vulnerability in the future.5
1. ;Women in Combat
2. ;Women in Combat—A Time for Truth by Albert Mohler
3. ;Will Bush Do The Right Thing On Women In Combat? by Mona Charen
5. ;Bowden, M. (1999). Black Hawk Down. Atlantic Monthly Press
6. ;Snead, E. (January 2002). The Special Operation of Black Hawk Down. The Washington Post
7. ; May 2005 The Washington Times