Jessica Lynch, Col. West, and Common Sense

[Admin]

In My Opinion by Trevor Bothwell

It is an odd phenomenon that a nation immersed in a war for civilization itself is inspired more by the capture of a soldier than by a soldier who prevents capture by enemy forces.

I’m speaking of course about Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who is currently enjoying the spoils of media celebrity, and Lt. Col. Allen West, who is right now being punished for brilliantly thwarting an ambush against his troops in Iraq.

To be fair, it isn’t surprising that the media has jumped all over the Jessica Lynch story. Pretty, young, and blonde are three attributes not uncommon to success in the entertainment industry, and we all sympathize with the hardship that Jessica endured during her capture in Iraq. However, intending no disrespect to her, Ms. Lynch is not a heroine -- which she herself recently acknowledged to Diane Sawyer in her first TV interview -- but merely the victim of an unfortunate wrong turn.

In stark contrast, Lt. Col. West, who commanded an artillery unit in the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, is being charged with aggravated assault for the heroic tactics he employed a short time ago to save the lives of his men.

Facing gunfire and ambushes, Col. West detained a local police officer he learned had been cooperating with the enemy. Following futile attempts to question the officer, West decided to interrogate his detainee using stronger methods. He discharged his pistol to frighten the police officer, taking care to stand between his weapon and the man, and effectively elicited information that allowed his unit to preempt the ambushes.

For his trouble, Col. West is now faced with the decision to resign from the Army without his pension (for which he would have qualified one week after this incident), or face charges of assault. This is highly disturbing, not least because a distinguished officer is facing his ruin at the very time that the Bush administration is being scolded constantly by the media and other critics for mounting American casualties in Iraq. But when engaged in unconventional warfare, one would think that unconventional methods of survival would seem appropriate when the alternative is sudden and certain death.

The courage of Col. West is evident, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should affirm this by absolving West of these charges. But in the event that Mr. Rumsfeld needs some encouragement, I might point out some earlier heroic actions of one of Rumsfeld’s current employees: General John “Mad Arab” Abizaid, Commander, U.S. Central Command.

Abizaid, a highly decorated and accomplished general who now serves as the Pentagon’s point man inside Iraq, began his impressive military career, ironically, it seems, similar to Col. West’s end.

Abizaid’s reputation for decisive action was cemented during the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada, where, facing a nest of hostile Cuban troops, then-Capt. Abizaid ordered one of his Army Rangers to climb aboard a bulldozer, raise its shovel, and drive it towards the enemy while he and his men advanced behind it (which inspired a fictional scene in Clint Eastwood’s 1986 movie “Heartbreak Ridge”).

But a story that is not so well documented is one told by many senior officers at West Point, and it concerns an event that occurred prior to touching down in Grenada. During approach from the air, Capt. Abizaid allegedly put a .45 to the head of the Air Force pilot who initially would not fly over the drop zone. He also jumped from below 600 feet, which is extremely dangerous. But Abizaid knew that securing the airport with his Ranger Company was critical to the success of the mission.

As one Army expert tells me, “Abizaid probably could have been charged with some type of Article 15 offense (Nonjudicial Punishment)” for the harsh measure of threatening another officer, “but any officer (especially in the Special Operations community) worth the rank on his collar would do the same thing.”

Exactly.

General consensus in the military is that when the bullets start to fly, good leaders do what needs to be done in order to accomplish the mission (within guidelines of the Geneva Convention, of course).

Most Democrats and critics of this war seem to think we can defeat radical Islamists by sending the cast of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” into the desert to slap our way to victory. America chose to send its best into Iraq because it recognized the need to destroy lunatics who would murder innocent Americans in their sleep. And Col. West exemplifies the bravery and nerve that we’d better demand if we expect to come out of this campaign on top.

Jessica Lynch didn’t ask to stand at the altar of idolatry. Indeed, her TV movie was even made without her cooperation. But her ordeal should not highlight the dignity of placing women in combat nearly as much as it should spur consideration of its discontinuation.

Perhaps the media needs Jessica Lynch. But the U.S. military certainly needs Col. Allen West, if it knows what’s good for it.

In My Opinion Archives
Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report and author of the cookbook, 50 Ways to Impress Your Girlfriend’s Parents. He is a former elementary school teacher and college instructor.

This is why we lost the war in Vietnam, and why we're going to lose the war on terror. I thought everybody learned the vital lesson from Desert Storm that military actions are won by letting the soldiers do their job, and keeping the politicians out of the day-to-day fighting. Now we're back to Washington approving targets, busting soldiers for doing their duty, and trying to once again win a war by trying to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

[dum_blonde]

I didn't particularly understand why you threw in that line near the end about how Jessica Lynch's situation should spur consideration of the discontinuation of placing women in combat, especially as there wasn't one word in the rest of the essay that even tried to support that contention. Besides, should women's role in combat be reconsidered because of one female POW, then there's much reconsideration to be done with regards to the role of men in combat.

[Penn]

Originally posted by Admin
Jessica Lynch didn’t ask to stand at the altar of idolatry. Indeed, her TV movie was even made without her cooperation. But her ordeal should not highlight the dignity of placing women in combat nearly as much as it should spur consideration of its discontinuation.

Perhaps the media needs Jessica Lynch. But the U.S. military certainly needs Col. Allen West, if it knows what’s good for it.

Ah Trevor, do I infer correctly you do not approve of women in military combat?
I agree with much of your commentary, but cannot go along with discriminating against women who choose roles in the military, that may or may not include combat engagement.

That is their choice to make. If the media accounts were at all truthful, then she did her best to defend herself and her fellow soldiers.

She did get shot up and captured, goofy stuff like, ie., making wrong turns - happens in a time of war.

However, she then also got rescued, like any other soldier would hope to be, if the opportunity arose.

No, she's not necessarily a hero, but I think she did ok. JMHO

[trevor]

Dum Blonde,

I mentioned that the Jessica Lynch situation should spur reconsideration of women in combat roles because its glorification is the very reason feminists and liberals are right now championing her. If you remember, many writers were perversely "thrilled" after her rescue that a women would have a chance to be captured and raped during war...ridiculous.

And...many women can't even heave a grenade outside its blast radius. There are plenty of military jobs women can, and do, perform. Fighting a man's war for the sake of political correctness is dangerous. But it's sadly merely one of the flaws in the way we currently conduct military affairs.

Furthermore, if you hear a burglar break into your basement, who are you going to send downstairs with the shotgun? Your husband, or your daughter?

Trevor

[trevor]

penncam,

Similar to my previous response, I am not berating Jessica Lynch, which I believe I clearly communicated in the article. I do not, however, agree that women have a right to necessarily choose to fight in combat situations. This was a "right" that was afforded by a liberal president who was determined to keep feminists happy. His reward was getting NO flak during the Monica Lewinski ordeal.

Generals and civilians in top military positions have the "choice" of wheter to send females into battle. Thankfully, the Marines successfully rebuked Clinton's efforts during the 90s, citing many reasons that women, save for the extremely few who qualify w/r/t the same standards as men, do not belong on the front lines.

I would have to agree with your rationale if in fact all branches required women to meet the same standards as men during training, which they do not.

Trevor

[Penn]

Originally posted by trevor
And...many women can't even heave a grenade outside its blast radius. There are plenty of military jobs women can, and do, perform. Fighting a man's war for the sake of political correctness is dangerous. But it's sadly merely one of the flaws in the way we currently conduct military affairs.

Furthermore, if you hear a burglar break into your basement, who are you going to send downstairs with the shotgun? Your husband, or your daughter?

Trevor

Ok Trevor, it's a little clearer now, in your opinion women do not belong in the combat arena.

However;

#1: I cannot believe the Armed Services, where women can serve in a combat environment, would allow a woman into that same arena physically unable to "heave a grenade outside of it's blast radius".
Gosh Sir, that is basic safety! If she's unable - through strength conditioning/training to accomplish the feat, then in fact, the trainee does not belong in that type of outfit.

#2: However if throughout training, the woman can learn and exhibit skills/ability that are required in the combat arena, then why not let her progress?

Is she any less qualified mentally or emotionally than a man?

As I write this response, I note you have just replied to my initial reply to your post; you say that the Armed Forces do not require women to meet the same basic standards as the men do; well all I can say is these same branches of service are undercutting themselves, and endangering other troops which would presumably serve alongside that individual.

If they are not going to enforce the same requirements for each sex, then they might as well scrap the program.

I think the whole discussion of women in combat is pointless when a case is made based on the actions/inactions of a small group of American women. I would refer those of you who are against women going into combat to look at the success of the Israeli Army over the past decades.

Can some women not toss a hand grenade out of its blast radius? Dr. Ruth Westheimer, the short, squat, and ever annoying sex therapist who looks like an escapee from Munchkinland was a very successful sniper in the Israeli Army. Did it matter how far she could lug a grenade?

I'm all for allowing women into combat roles, as long as we don't have to hear all the whining and nashing of teeth when they get killed or wounded from the media. If they "pays their money and takes their chances" with the guys, good on them.

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by trevor
Furthermore, if you hear a burglar break into your basement, who are you going to send downstairs with the shotgun? Your husband, or your daughter?

The daughter. The husband would think about it too much and only threaten the guy and either run him off or hold him at bay until the cops came. The daughter would shoot to kill.

I think women are more than capable of handling a combat situation. Some women, anyway. As far as rape goes, men get raped by their captors too so . But the women should be able to physically hold their own, the same as men have to. I don't want some little Soccer Mommy in there - I want a mean b*tch who'll have no mercy. In that same vein, I don't want some touchy feely girly man in there, either.

I read Trevor's column as a call to recognize the real heroes, not the media creations. And with that, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Ken King (Premo)]

No courts martial for Lt. Col. West, his pension is secure, the most he will get is NJP. Seems the investigating officer placed a lot of weight on uncovering an ambush.