of our recent wars, who goes by the online name of van Wijk, sent his thoughts about women in the armed services:
I would like to comment on your views on women in the military, which you have stated at VFR recently. I completely agree with you. I would also go a step further, as I am always telling any who will listen that if I had my way, there would be zero females in Iraq and Afghanistan, period. Civilian women have no more business in a war zone than do women on active duty. Female “soldiers” would be relegated to jobs and units that would never place them near the front, and be limited to the U.S. and Germany in their station changes.
As a veteran of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, I saw firsthand the problems of having females serve alongside men. Sex is the first problem, I think. When there is not much to do except wait for a Scud attack (I was in a Patriot battery), flirting and otherwise “hooking up” become the norm very quickly. Men (not to mention the women) are less focused on their jobs because in the backs of their minds roil things like lust, love, jealousy, rage, despair, the whole range. Married people find it easier to stray being 7000 miles from their loved ones. Many times a love (or lust) affair will transcend rank, with the lower-ranking soldier now receiving special privileges on account of his or her sleeping with the boss. Thus is the chain of command corrupted, which can have dire circumstances under fire.
I will say briefly that I had the great privilege of attending a military academy where a leadership course was required to graduate. All but one of my instructors in this course were Infantrymen in Vietnam, and all saw heated combat (few would talk about what they had seen and done, unlike John Kerry). One day a sergeant was speaking to our class and said something that I will never forget: the mission of the United States Army is not to be a guinea pig for social experiments, or to make its members feel good about themselves, or even to embark on “peacekeeping” missions; the mission of the Army is to meet the enemy on the field and kill him until you hold the field. Period. It was, and is, very simple. If our Commander in Chief and our generals ever realize this, then our problems abroad will be over much more quickly.
I’m sure you remember the case of Jessica Lynch (who I served on the same post with, Fort Bliss). It was very interesting to see the total media blackout on what happened to her, i.e., that she was raped and sodomized repeatedly after her capture. Any female taken prisoner by ANY foreign army, much less the non-army of Islamofascist pirates, can expect the same treatment at the very least. It’s not clear how many other soldiers of the 507th died right there trying to rescue Lynch, but men died all the same. With the media blackout continuing along gender and race (i.e., constantly referring to Arab murderers in Europe as being “native Europeans” themselves), it’s also unclear how many of our male soldiers are dying every day attempting to protect their females, which is an instinct hard-wired into men since the days of cavemen. But again, men are still dying. And if captured themselves, men would be far more likely to break knowing that their squadmate (or worse, their girlfriend or wife) is being horribly violated in the next room and will continue to be violated until someone talks. Would you or I last long hearing the screams of our “battle buddy” in the next room?
The argument most often proferred by the left is that a lot of women are physically able to do the job, and thus should have the freedom to do so. This stance ignores one fundamental thing: it doesn’t matter if they CAN do the job, but if they SHOULD do the job. It all comes down to unit cohesion. The more cohesive a unit is, the more effectively it will kill the enemy and the fewer casualties it will take. Adding females splinters the unit in two, and forces the male soldiers to be politically correct at all costs or face the consequences of an Equal Opportunity complaint. Aggressiveness, an absolute necessity in any soldier, must necessarily be checked in the presence of females (you wouldn’t want to make them uncomfortable, after all). Lastly, I have served in both all-male and integrated units, and in the all-male units 1) morale was always higher, 2) the soldiers bond much more effectively and quickly, and 3) when you can stand before a formation and address that body as “Men,” it makes a difference. You know that your ancestors were addressed as the same when they mustered to fight tyranny, and you know that the bloody business of war hasn’t changed much in millenia of military history. War is not a game in which we should let all participate equally. It is, to quote Cormac McCarthy, “the ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.”
This argument is countered by people who say that the military simply must stop being sexist and see every soldier as a soldier, sinking deeper into the mire of Clinton’s army. I submit that sexism, to a degree, is an integral part of military culture, a culture which is not exclusive to modern armies but that began at the walls of Troy. The culture simply states that you and the men around you, your BROTHERS IN ARMS, must become more effective killers than the enemy who is trying to kill you. A woman’s touch has no place in such a culture.
In closing, the arguments for women in combat don’t matter a whit if the very PRESENCE of women in the field causes all these problems. I also disagree with you on your constant criticism of the war in Iraq, but I will take that up with you at a later date. I hope you can make sense of my rant and I look forward to your thoughts.