Clinton's Military Legacy: SEX

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, you are mixing apples and oranges, and not reponding to my respnes. I have agreed with you that we do not need to have our military deployed in the manner that they are, in some cases. I have stated that in every situation they do have goals. You simply state that they do not, and fail to respond to my comment.

You tell us that the military is not stretched to thin because of Iraq. I tell you that if the military retains the current mission, which is future, and not present, without women, it will retain the forces required. You somply tell us to move the military from certain overseas areas. As I say, with the current mission, and no women, we could not do it. We do not have a pool of qualified males to maintain required force levels.

You tell us you argue from the libertain viewpoint, and suggest that we need a draft. UNBELIEVEABLE! A libertain viewpoint? Who are you kidding.

Yes, if we returned 100,000 military personnel to the US, we might have an additional 100,000 to sent to Iraq, or would we. No, we would not. The 100,000 that you suggest returning include Navy and Air Force personnel who are not needed in Iraq. By the way, they also include some Army that would not be needed.

You tell us that 10,000 would fulfill the mision in Korea. Oh, what is that mission. It is clearly not the current one. Yes, perhaps the mission could be changed. But you have not told us what that mission is, and how it could be done by 10,000.

On Guam: I misspoke. You caught my error, and thanks. I meant Okinawa, I think? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

The Libertarian view I speak of is pulling out of other countries and not being the world's police force. The draft issue is a Democrat view which I agree with. I embrace various positions from various parties so it is hard to fit me into a box <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I understand our troops have missions in these areas. My point, and that of Libertarians, is that they shouldn't have - especially when they are needed in other areas.

The mission in Korea, from what I understand, is to maintain a ceasefire as part of a UN force. Do we need 30,000 troops to maintain a ceasefire?

I haven't said we don't need women in the military. I have said we don't need women in combat positions in the military. The combat positions are a small percentage of the entire military force. I served i a supply unit that had women and an engineer unit that didn't. Of course I served before President Clinton put women in combat and let gays in.

[Gregory Matthews]

RE: "I haven't said we don't need women in the military. I have said we don't need women in combat positions in the military. The combat positions are a small percentage of the entire military force. I served i a supply unit that had women and an engineer unit that didn't. Of course I served before President Clinton put women in combat and let gays in."

Shane, perhaps I do not understand what you mean by "combat positions." But, it sounds, when you refer to those as a "small percentage of the military force" ass being defined as a small number of military MOSs. As you probably know, it is the MOS defination that defines combat positions.

If that is your meaning, then President Clinton did not put women into combat positions. There is a law that prohibits such, and a Presidential Directive could not change such. To illustrate, MOS 11B is a combat position (basic infantry). According to law, women cannot hold that MOS.

As I recall, and correct me if I am wrong. Your earlier statements were that President Clinton put women into combat. That differes greatly from your present statement that placed them in combat positions. As I have stated, if you are going to allow women in the military, you will need to allow them in combat. a) In modern warfare, the Rear Areas is subject to combat. MOSs what do not have a combat positions designator serve in areas where there is combat. If you go back to WW II, or even before women were allowed to join the U. S. Army (Yes women served in what was formally another venue.) you will find that women died due to combat related deaths.

It is basicly impossible, today as we experience modern combat, to allow women into our military, and to keep them from being subject to combat.

You might suggest that we could have women in the military, and only allow them to be assigned to positions in CONUS (the United States). Well, all senior military agree that we could not function with such assignment limitations.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "The mission in Korea, from what I understand, is to maintain a ceasefire as part of a UN force. Do we need 30,000 troops to maintain a ceasefire?"

Shane, it would take far more than 30,000 military to maintain a ceasefire in Korea.

You seem to use "mission" and "goals" as words that have the same meanings. As you recall, correct me if I am wrong. You began be saying that we did not have goals. "Mission" is much more general, and "goals" is much more specific. We can ahve goals in Korea that can be achieved by 30,000, or 10,000 or 1,000. But, 30,000 could never achieve the mission that you have stated.

Shane, you mention that the ceasefire in Korea is maintained by a UN force. You are correct. But, tell us now the percentage of that force that is comprised of U.S. personnel. This is important to understanding the issues, and your comments.

NOTE: When I was stationed in Korea, the force provided by one country, which I will not name consisted of about a dozen people (I do not remember exactly.). Those soldiers filled a very public, and ceremonial role. I used to enjoy seeing them perform their duties.

[Gregory Matthews]

To comment on a point:

Mission: "The mission of the U. S. Army is to close with the enemy, and destroy them."

NOTE: The above is an exact quote to which I have made a very minor editorial change. I.e. it is not exact, but in only a very minor way.

That is a very simple statement, and is the actual statement. It is understood by all military personnel, and applys to all members of the U. S. Army. It applies at all times, and in all places.

Goals and objectives are given to subornate units, are more specific, and limited in time and place.

I have not commented on goals for a couple of reasons: a) Just as Shane is mixing up mission and goals, I am not certain that he understands the difference between goals and objectives. As goals and objectives are limited in time and place, I may not have accurate knowledge of present goals and objectives for Korea, and/or any other place that might come into the conversation.

[Dr. Shane]

When I was in the Army women were not allowed in combat units like Infantry, Artillary or Armour. These were fronline units. I was in a combat engineer unit and no women were allowed in that unit. From what I understand (and I may be misinformed) Clinton allowed women to be part of these units in positions they already occupied like cooks, mechanics, supply clerks, truck drivers, etc.

A big issue of the day was combat piolets. Women were not allowed to fly combat aircraft and as far as I know, that has changed.

As far as maintaining a ceasefire, I don't believe it requires many troops as long as there is no aggression. If North Korea were to become aggressive, obviously it would require many more troops.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane:

Here are two news items that may interest you:

Grandma joins the Army:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,78941,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

New soldiers speak:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,78627,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

NOTE: You must copy and paste the above URLs in order to go the the news item. You will not be able to access the item by cllicking on it. So, copy it to your brouser.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, your statement: "When I was in the Army women were not allowed in combat units like Infantry, Artillary or Armour. These were fronline units." is a mixture of fact and missinformation. (By the way, you might sometime give us the dates that you were in the U. S. Army.)

The primary restriction was to MOSs, rather than what you call front-line units.

You tell us that Artillery units are front-line, and therefore women were not in Artillery units. Let us look at that a little more. An Artillery BN would clearly be considered at front-line unit. But, now tell me if you would consider a DIVARTY (Division Artillery) unit assigned to an Infantry Division, to be a front-line unit.

I served in a DIVARTY unit, assigned to the 7th Infantry Division, and we had women in our HQ company. That period of service was well before anyone had ever heard of President Clinton. No, those women did not have an Artillary MOS. But, they clearly served in thier duties in forward posiitons, and were subject to enemy action. By the way, those women were enlisted, and not commissioned officers.

Now let me take it one step futher. Women have been allowed to hold Air Defense Artillery MOSs before President Clinton came along. Tell me, isn't a woman who sends a missle up against an airplane engaged in combat? I think so. But, there are such MOSs that are not restricted to males only.

On another point: What about a Corps Artillery Brigade. As you likely know, the Corps Artillery is placed well behind the front lines. Yet it sends rounds down range to land on the enemy. It can have women in it, as long as they do not hold an artillery MOS. But, it is not on the front lines.

Shane, women were allowed in Artillery units well before President Clinton.

NOTE: I have served in a Division Artillery BN, which clearly serves in combat areas. I have served in a higher positon in the HQ CO of an Infantry DIVARTY. I have also served in a Corps Artillery Brigade, with an individual BN.

[Dr. Shane]

I can only speak from my experience. I was a member of a bridge-building company in a combat engineer battalion. No women were in our battalion at any level. We once provided river crossing for an artilary unit and spent some time with them as a result. No women were allowed in their unit.

During the Clinton Administration I was very politically active. I worked on several campaigns, lobbied our state legislature and was active in the College Republicans (but I don't often admit to that <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> ) My point is, I stayed quite informed on the political issues during the 1990s. During this time there was a big debate about allowing women in combat.

I don't know the details of what was changed by President Clinton, as I was not active in the Army at the time. I do know that Republicans made several objections. The chief objection was that women are tortured more when captured than men are. (Jessica Lynch was brutally beaten and anally raped when captured in Iraq.) The Second issue was the increased problem with fratinization. We know see that is happening too.

To be fair, Private Lynch was not in a combat unit but rather a support unit. She ended up in combat due to a guy, who lived a few miles down the road from me, taking a wrong turn.

Rather than getting hung up on specifics, the thrust of my begining post on this thread is correct. The Republicans were right when they warned against putting women into frontline positions. What they warned would happen is or has happened.

BTW I served from Jan '88 to Jan '93. I served in two different units. One was a National Guard Bridge Company and another was an Army Reserve General Supply Company. During my time in the NG, I volunteered for various active duty tours but never did more than 180 days of consecutive active duty. I was sent to Fort Dix, NJ; Fort Lenardwood, MO; Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Clayton, Panama and Camp Ripley, MN. While in the NG our unit won a bridge-building competition against our active Army sister unit. We also took first place as the among all Minnesota NG units one year. (Each year all units compete with each other as they are each evaluated during the AT) Our weekend drills were often made into BIVOUACs that started on Friday night. It was a totally, over-the-top, gung-ho unit.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Matthew: You want to change the topic to Clinton's other military, sexual legacy - gays? Let me suggest a new thread for that as the thrust of this thread has been women in combat.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

(Jessica Lynch was brutally beaten and anally raped when captured in Iraq.)

---

I'll let you Google it yourself, but there is at least a possibility that the claim in the book is false.

Here are enough keywords to start your search...

Quote:

---

Dr Jamal Kadhim Shwail was the first doctor to examine Lynch when she was brought to Nassiriya's military hospital by Iraqi special police. Shwail said Lynch was lying in hospital reception, unconscious and in shock from blood loss.

She was wearing her uniform including a flak jacket, military trousers and boots, none of her clothes had been unbuttoned or removed, as the book claims, he said.

---

Quote:

---

Shortly afterwards Lynch was transferred to Saddam Hospital in Nassiriya, now renamed Nassiriya General.

There, Dr Mahdi Khafazji operated on her fractured right femur. He cleaned her body before surgery and found no signs of sexual assault. "I examined her very carefully," he said at his clinic in Nassiriya's center. "I cleaned her body including her genitalia. She had no sign of raping or sodomizing."

Lynch's wounds were so bad a sexual assault would have killed her, he said. "If she had been raped there is no way she could have survived it. She was fighting for her life, her body was broken. What sort of an animal would even think of that?"

The physicians say they provided Lynch with excellent care and are deeply offended to have their treatment of her misrepresented.

Pfc. Lynch has no memory of having been raped or tortured and has not personally alleged she was abused by the Iraqis.

---

/Bevin

ps: Remember the claims in WWI that the Germans bayoneted babies in Belgium? They were false. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? That didn't happen. Remember the heroic Lynch fighting back and killing many? That didn't happen. Remember the heroic and risky rescue of Lynch? That didn't happen. Remember the football hero the Taliban killed? That didn't happen. The USA Army does not have a solid credibility record... and the press and publishers certainly don't.

pps: By the way, a trauma doctor giving a thorough secondary assessment to a multi-trauma patient IS going to take a close look at the genitalia AND the rectum. Indeed he is going to stick a finger up the rectum. I know. I have watched them do it many times in the ER.

[Dr. Shane]

It is a minor point really. Jessica Lynch is one of my heros. I have followed her story quite closely. I know there were some doubts about her anal rape but there is significant evidence that it happened. Yet the anal rape was perhaps the least of what happened to her. She was beaten terribley, had many broken bones and damaged organs.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not trying to convince other people about Private Lynch's anal rape. I have read a lot about her, watched interviews of her and while I could have gotten into a debate over the issue. I am not going there. So don't look for any facts to dispute those Brother Bevin posted.

I will tell you as a child I was anally raped and from my prespective, it is a minor issue compared to everything else Private Lynch went through.

Enough said.