Why I'm so bothered about a dead female National Guard soldier?

I can't get this out of my mind.

I am for the equality of humans with regards to sex and race, and I believe that if a woman wants to be on the front lines in combat then they should be on the front lines in combat...BUT..being a man and growing up with a societal attitude that men should be the protectors of Woman, it pains me to see Women Soldiers getting killed in Iraq.

Another point: Being an ex 82nd Airborne Infantry Paratrooper, I was a highly trained soldier who would sometimes practice against the lightly trained National Guard. I've mentioned this before at DU...The National Guard has no business in Iraq especially on the front lines. They are weekend warriors..PERIOD....because they have minimal training for this type of combat duty.

So two factors here... "Women" "National Guard" Soldiers getting killed in Iraq.... It bugs the shit out of me.

they're killed, we think of the loss of life that they could have given birth to, etc.

I feel the same way.

"I believe that if a woman wants to be on the front lines in combat then they should be on the front lines in combat"

The fact that you can separate your emotions, which are completely understandable and I'm sure shared by many, both men and women, and yet be able to set that apart from your position on the issue and your principles - is what marks the distinction between the progressive and reactionary.

The world will become a better place as more people become like you.

What really pisses me off is that the Neocons fought tooth and nail against the "Equal Rights Amendment"

Anyone old enough to remember the swill about how men and women would have to use the same toilets, urinals etc. How women would have to shower with men.

I became a Feminist then and there, because of what I saw in Viet-Nam, men and women working together as equals in a very unpleasant place. There were 8 women killed in Viet-Nam 1959-1975 from all 50 states. Wisconsin alone has lost 17 killed in Iraq-Nam to date 3 of them women. So the Neocons get their war anyway, and women die without equal rights. Disgusting.

David Hackworth might agree with Trumad about the National Guard and say it doesn't belong in "real" combat, but the Witmer sisters were MP's in an MP Battalion keeping the peace in Baghdad. Their unit was responsible for the internal security of Baghdad.

Her Humvee was hit by an RPG in the city. The 82nd ABN doesn't need to police the streets of Baghdad. They should be chasing after Osama and the Taliban. They are warriors not cops. Jessica Witmer was a cop and as a cop she died.

Sorry for the rant

Every place in Iraq today is a combat zone. Every place.

Maybe I'm just being patriarchial, but I think that men have been the "warriors" in society for 6000 years for a very specific biological reason - they are bigger, faster, and stronger. (Of course this is on average. Jackie Joyner-Kersee would kick my ass). I don't think it is sexist to state facts.

So, I guess my problem is I don't understand the logic in putting woman in a combat zone. Maybe they can physically do the job that is now required. But I'm still not convinced.

I guess that my feeling is that I am for diversity and equality but not in the face of logic.

have made a sorry f***ing mess of this planet. Let's put more women in government to prevent this kind of senseless carnage.

I'm talking about the actual figthing.

Nothing about what is "average" applies to any particular soldier. Some women are stronger than many men, some men weaker than many women. Each soldier, sailor, marine should be judged and assigned based on his or her specific qualifications, not what is "average" for his/her gender.

Another factor: most jobs in the Army don't require size, speed, or physical strength. Heck, many combat jobs today don't involve exceptional physical strength. And even within the "combat zone" (esp in a place like Iraq), the tooth-to-tail ratio is extremely large. It takes a lot of support troops to keep one combat soldier fighting. And guess what--support troops get killed too. Always have, all thru history. But even more so now, because of the way battles are fought and the weapons involved.

If you cull the pool of available personnel based on an irrelevent qualification, you will only end up weeding out people who have very much needed skills and talents. An all-volunteer military cannot afford it. I'm not sure even a draft military should have to.

I can understand it may be hard emotionally to deal with the death of a female soldier. Butcha know, it SHOULD be just as hard to deal with the death of either. I have an 18yo son, who is in the KS Air National Guard. Think I would mourn any less if something were to happen to him, just because he's male?

They are ALL our sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Each life is equally precious.

1 in 3 women WILL be raped, and usually by someone she knows

A leading cause of death for women is to be MURDERED, again, by a 'loved one'

there are over 300,000 rape kits, unprocessed, sitting on police evidence shelves (no MONEY, they say)... DNA evidence that could link god knows how many serial rapists! And how many of these stupid rapists go into jail for minor violations... and are never linked to the other crimes. Just a dna database... and we would clean up the streets.

I could go on and on and on about Violence against women, and point out how many MEN do nothing in this country. How many men will be at the DC protest for pro-choice rights this week????

So, the old fashioned 'view' that men are to protect women is BULLSHIT. No offense to you. I hear what you are saying. Women in combat does not make sense to me. Seems rather unnatural. But it isn't because I think MEN are predestined or wired to 'protect' women; it's because women seem awfully well designed to give life, not take it.

/end of rant. :_) Peace!

Just like feudalism and the mafia, "protection" is often used to justify a power imbalance.

To me, women on the front lines is the natural result of feminism. Equality has to go all the way or it isn't real.

There are probably some jobs in the military where size and strength are important enough that men have an edge, but there are a lot of jobs where they aren't, and there are probably some (fighter pilot?) where women have an edge.

they die, we mustn't think of them as potential wombs...that's what we are doing here when we place a woman's life in a higher degree than that of the male soldier on the battlefield.

BOTH get to stay home, is that right? Because the 3rd one died? They shouldn't allow more than ONE child in any family to serve if they all can't fulfill their duty because our heartstrings go out to them.

How many families have 3 boy kids in iraq right now? if one boy dies, do the other two get to come back? Not likely.

And my point is... if men want to use the protection of the female side of the species angle, then why are our streets and homes so unsafe for women? Walk the walk or don't bring it up. Why aren't all these concerned men doing neighborhood walks/watches to make things safe for women?

No offense to the original poster. Warring and killing doesn't make any sense at all to me. Well, in one sense, I think it's a natural population control mechanism, but surely we can come up with a better system. Gee? birth control???? Who woulda thunk?

I think that the argument for "protecting women from the horrors of the battlefield" is so hypocritical.

I appreciate that. We just need to expand that sentiment.

Goodness, I think ALL people (male and female) should work to protect, coddle and nurture all people (male and female).

I thought the turning of the century was supposed to coincide with some great consciousness raising phenomenon. And we are as ruthless and unevolved as ever! Perhaps it's the resistance to a higher consciousness that creates the apparent devolution of man???

Ugh... we won't solve this today, I guess. Maybe tomorrow?

How many families have 3 boy kids in iraq right now? if one boy dies, do the other two get to come back? Not likely.

For the 10 billionth time in three days....

ANY SOLDIER, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, can request to leave a war zone when a family members dies. YES, if 3 brothers are over there and 1 is killed, the other 2 can request to come home.

FURTHERMORE, the 2 sisters who came home to BURY their sister HAVE NOT DECIDED whether they're going back. It's up to them.

Why are people on DU of all places determined to find pro-woman bias where none exists?? :grr:

(and thanks for the briefing on the system for returning after a family member dies - male or female. I didn't catch the explanation the first 9.9 billions times. LOL)

The reason it's an issue? It made the news .. the national news BECAUSE they were 'girls' (pretty white ones at that!) In addition, wasn't it WI's elected official who brought up the need for them to stay back -- for the sake of the family? I forget.. and I am sure you will remind me.

But the ONLY reason it became a national talking point was because they were FEMALE. No other reason than that. The news media and some unrelated person or persons made it a talking point.

that is the sexist part of this.

How many BROTHERS have accompanied their dead brothers home from Iraq? I have no idea. It didn't make the news. And that's the point.

is people (not implying you're one of them) who think they understand this issue because they've seen a fucking Tom Hanks movie. LOL.

I have also seen some posters, who I personally suspect, in my opinion, and this is not an accusation but merely a mild expression of discomfort that triggers an internal alarm that may or may not be based in fact (trying not to get this one deleted, LOL) of being freeper trolls saying things like:

If women are so equal to men, then those sisters ought to have to go back and if they die, oh well! They asked for it! They signed up, didn't they?

While I do not doubt that there are self-professed and even registered Democrats whose minds really do work that way ("IF women are so equal, then (fill in whatever they're in favor of that will hurt women)..." I do weary of having to call them on it on DU, for God's sake.

And it's not those girls' fault that their story made the news. It made the news before they were back on American soil.

If you want to really get sick to your stomach, go read the thread in LBN. I and some others who've visited the family's web site posted where freepers in their guestbook are telling the girls that they have to go back because they were greedy and joined the military "for personal gain (schooling at taxpayer's expense)" and they are yellow cowards if they don't go back.

My right fist is swollen. I punched a hole in my wall yesterday.

So yeah, I'm touchy about this one. Sigh.

Actually, there are provisions in the law to keep brothers out of the same theater of war, unless they volunteer to sign a waiver. It was passed as a result of the Sullivan brothers all dying on the same ship in WWII.

It only strikes me as odd that they are precluded from sending brothers to war, but not husbands and wives. The law needs to be changed.

Unfortunately, if it is even discussed, it will only be used by the conservatives as a reason that women should be barred from service. For the sake of "military readiness." What crap.

BUT I think the loss of women and these "weekend warriors" in combat will do much to lessen the enthusiasm for this misguided effort in Iraq. My niece told me during the run-up to this fiasco that she was for this war "as long as B***y, her husband, an ANG member, didn't have go. So I do believe these deaths will cause a loss of support for Bush's war that the loss of male "Regulars" wouldn't.

Then we should expect to take full responsibility as well.

Having said that, it pains me every time I hear about any death in Iraq and I absolutely agree with you that the National Guard has no business being over there. They are essentially temp workers for the military--another example of the neo-cons trying to run the government as a for-profit entity. I wonder who they're going to recruit to help out during flood, tornado, fire and hurricaine seasons as they rapidly approach the homeland. Hmmm...maybe outsourced tech workers?

On Edit: Women have participated in wars since the beginning of time. For the most part, they have been unarmed victims of it. I'd prefer to know how to protect myself and my family in case of war.

children are equally sacred.
men, and women soldiers to the mothers are equally sacred.
Remember, our children soldiers are dying for nothing.
dying, women and men, for
nothing.
and both are equally sacred lives to their parents.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

Because I know.


Mari,

You and yours are always in my thoughts.

it's gonna be for the families and friends of dead/maimed soldiers who are killed or injured during their 4 month extension... AFTER already having served a year in that nightmare..

She, like all the other NG personnel, have absolutely NO BUSINESS doing a tour of duty in Iraq. They are not adequately trained for that kind of duty.

And because she is a woman. Heck I am a female, professional with a Ph.D and no sexist, and it bothers me that we have women over there who are not qualified to handle that type of duty any more than the NG men are.

Thank you for helping me convey my point....

tru

". . . we suffer when we lose life."
— G. W. Bush
(Source: The Shitehouse)

component of life with a war president.

Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down
Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down

Neil Young

male, female, National Guard, regular Army, Marines . . .

BTW, thanks for your service and for your participation on DU. I enjoy your posts.

And this sad case shocks you--a young life snuffed out in an unjust war. The men's deaths are just as bad--but I'm saying this as a "Cold War War Orphan"--50 years on, I still wish my father hadn't died. We all look at reality through the lens of our own experience.

The training difference between National Guard & regular troops is another important factor; again, this is from your personal experience.

Perhaps you're also influenced by traditional societal attitudes, but don't worry about the firebreathing "feminists" who call you a minion of the Patriarchy. They certainly should have the right to enlist & fight as well. But they won't.

But I applaud that women now have more opportunities in the military, law enforcement, etc. If I was younger I probably would've considered joining the military with the opportunities women now have.

I'm sorry to see any troops in Iraq being killed and wounded, male or female, active duty, NG or Reserve.

It's not just the National Guard and Reserves who are ill-trained. They were showing on one of the network news last night that they didn't properly train truck drivers and rear-echelon troops for combat. They're now doing so, but too late for the poor suckers who are now in Iraq.

One factor I understand is that now MP's are ending up in dangerous situations. I saw a reference that MP's were referred to by some in the military as "chick infantry" since many women are MP's. Well now they are in front-line combat.

Women can carry their own in combat. Ask the Russians, ask the VC. And unfortunately for a very long time women and children have suffered horrible death and injury as civilians. Bombs, artillery, etc., sure can't distinguish between genders or between combatants and civilians.

We here in the U.S. have been fortunate. Since the Civil War except for Pearl Harbor and a couple of terrorist incidents we haven't suffered the horrendous death and carnage on our own shores other continents have suffered.

and what I'm about to say is a mixture of how I understand some of the science I've heard about relating to this issue, and my personal beliefs. All of you please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to learn something if I can.

Here's what I've heard:

Young men (such as myself, I'm 17) have underdeveloped frontal lobes in their brains, which is the part that controls reasoning and our interactions with others. This part of the brain is more fully developed in young women, and in older individuals of both sexes (26 years and over). This is one reason that young men are predisposed to violence. I saw this test on TV where they showed pictures of people displaying various emotions to test subjects. The photos showed people who were happy, sad, angry, nervous, afraid etc. Everyone did about the same on the test, except for the young men, who were almost incapable of finding anyone showing "fear". Then young men and boys mostly confused "fear" with "anger". The conclusion that the inability of young men to tell when people are afraid and not angry may be at the root of some of our more violent tendencies. I think that one reason young men have been the warriors throughout history is not necessarily because we are stronger or smarter than women, but because we can kill without mercy more easily than women or older men.

Here are my personal views on the issue. I don't think men are supposed to "take care" of women; I think that men and women are supposed to take care of each other. If I get married someday, I feel that my wife and I will both have responsibilities to each other. I don't expect my wife to take care of me the way my mom did when I was little, nor do I expect to take care of her the way her dad did. I think that we will just look after each other.

I think this all applies to the military issue in a couple ways. First of all, I think that when it comes down to open combat, face to face and hand to hand, men should do that job not because they are stronger, but because they are more suited to killing people mentally. However, this predisposition to violence becomes a liability during peacekeeping opera ions, and I think that women have an edge over men when it comes to negotiation, compromising etc. For example, if there's a peaceful demonstration in Iraq tomorrow, it would probably be better to have women keeping the peace, because they'll be less likely to do something stupid like fire on the crowd.

More emotionally though, I don't like the idea that women may be called upon to kill someone. I say this with complete respect to women, because when the situation gets so bad that people start killing each other, then something has already gone terribly wrong. I experience my own feelings of anger and violence. I know that when I feel slighted or angry, I sometimes feel like just kicking someone's ass. My mom didn't understand that, so she called my uncle (who is 60) and asked if he ever felt the same way. He replied that he feels the same emotion frequently, especially when he hears about someone hurting a child on the news. Although I have arrived at the conclusion, after much thought, that I would be able to kill someone if I ever had to, I still think that killing is a very low thing. I guess I like thinking that women can be counted on to be smarter and kinder than that. When I say women are too good to kill people, I mean that as a compliment.

When given the opportunity and training, women have demonstrated that they are equally willing and capable of killing as men. Others have given the examples of Vietnamese and Soviet women fighting for their countries. During World War II, Soviet women served in the infantry, as snipers, and as pilots. I doubt that they were any more conflicted about ending life than their male counterparts. I have even read about a case where a Soviet female soldier tortured a captive German soldier for information.

I think that the biggest mistake we can make is to make generalizations about people based on a biological trait. We would not assume that all African Americans are great basketball players, so why would we assume that women are naturally peaceful?

it will be even worse when/if the draft is back. What the Iraq war has shown, again, is that its one thing to win a war and another thing to run an occupied country. There is no country in the world that could stand against the US in a war, but neither can the US easily run an occupied territory...

V

have we ever used the national guard in foreign conflicts???

I know we used the NG in the First World War, and a few thousand were sent to Vietnam. I'm a WWII buff, but I must admit that I don't know if we sent any National Guard troops to that conflict. My offhand guess would be no, because anyone dedicated enough to be in the Guard would probably enlist in that highly popular war.

I don't blame you for feeling the pain for the death of female soldiers in Iraq. But why don't you care if male soldiers die?

The National Guard goes through the SAME training as the rest of military, and gets body armor, armored vehicles, and M16s/M4s like the rest of the military. Why do you belittle them so? They're well trained and well equipped. A lot of people in the National Guard were on active duty as well, giving them additional experience.

That was a good thing to say. Thanks.

This is speaking in very general stereotypes, of course. I am not going to put a qualifier after every statement swearing that I'm not sexist and begging all DU men not to be offended, so just take this as a blanket statement -- if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you, please don't come to my apartment and kill me. Thanks.

Women have usually had a civilizing effect on society. We make males do things like take baths and buy us dinner and such. Not that we can't buy our own dinners, build our own houses, provide for ourselves, etc., but the mating dance usually has the effect of "civilizing" males. Case in point -- wander into any males-only dorm on any college campus and compare the state of its cleanliness, sanitation, and general organization to that of any females-only dorm on a college campus.

I think your discomfort may come from, on some level, the realization that this isn't a game -- this is something horrific beyond explanation -- and the idea that people whose societal role has traditionally been to civilize and organize are over there getting shot in the head......for NOTHING. For no reason.

more valuable than men because it takes 9 months to have a baby but just _______ to start one

so if you want to protect your 'tribe' etc you must protect the women

also I read years ago an opinion that women shouldn't be front-line soldiers fighting cultures in which male soldiers will refuse to surrender to 'inferior women' soldiers

there's also the possibility/probability that women soldiers will be 'more liable' to raped in captivity that men

I've been trying to figure out what I think about women in combat for 30+ years

The thought of a woman being killed in Iraq only amplifies the whole situation. I don't like the idea of women being shot over there, but I don't like the men being shot either.