Saying women in the military should not be deployed to battle zones is
pretty unpopular among feminist's (I think they might revoke my
membership card after reading this-I hope i get to keep the toaster).
I don't think women belong in combat. Not because they can't do the
job. Not because our country can't handle female battle casualties.
Not because they should be considered any less brave than their male
couterparts.

They should not be deployed for a few simple reasons. It doesn't make
financial sense to our military budget. Why are we paying women jump
pay when there is absolutely no chance that they will ever parachute
into a battle? Why are they issued equipment that they will never use?
Why does the army use it's resources to give women specialized combat
training when it is likely they will never have a chance to utilize
it? Also just silly things like this: The last thing that the women of
the 101st Airborne did before getting on a plane to deploy was go into
the ladies and take a pregnancy test. What? You'll trust them with a
weapon but you won't trust them not to get knocked up?

I've talked to a lot of soldiers who have been deployed to both
Afghanistan and Iraq. Male and Female. They all say that it is a
distraction. There are plenty of blogs coming out of Iraq and
Afghanistan to know that there is an awful lot of hanky panky going
on. Anytime you put 150,000 American soldiers in a foreign country
where they can't drink or socialize with the locals your going to have
some issues. Hell, there are internet boards devoted soley to porn
provided by female soldiers in Iraq (in uniform). That's having an
awful lot of time on your hands isn't it? I looked at one picture and
thought to myself. Where does she get the time for the bikini tan line
and the french manicure. Now true...she's just one soldier. But there
were at least another dozen I saw on that board alone. And no...I will
not give you the address. If you have time to give yourself a French
manicure in a combat zone you shouldn't be there, plain and simple. In
fact it's an insult to what I would call the real women who are trying
to do their jobs and earn respect. Frenchy makes the rest of those
women look bad.

Taking these kinds of incidents a little further, they also serve to
magnify the stratification between genders in theatre. When loved ones
at home see images of female soldiers relaxing next to the pool in a
bikini they might get a little pissed when their son or husband writes
home about day after day of patrols and close calls with IED's.
Granted there are also men relaxing by those pools. From what I gather
they are R&R facilities. But of course what out MSM chooses to publish
are the pics of the hot girls in the bikini's. I'm not saying this
characterization is fair. But if you want to play by the big boy rules
and be in a combat zone then there is some sucking up to be done. You
should also not run and cry to your CO if someone is talking to your
chest instead of your face, put's up a poster on a scantily clad
Pamela Anderson, or calls you Honey. They are men, not robots. If you
don't like how they treat women...fine, don't date them. But from what
I've seen men in the military bend over backwards to ensure that there
is not even the slightest implication of favoritism or treating women
differently in their unit. They're too afraid, and that is a
distraction from the mission as well.

Which brings me to another excellent point. The women who volunteer
and serve our country deserve just as much respect and opportunity as
the men. Unfortunately the system of promotion and subsequent pay
upgrade is flawed. You don't get promoted without experience. And
being deployed gives you a lot more experience and thus better
promotion. I know it's an unpopular concept, but the Army needs to
consider some sort of separate but equal promotion system, so that
women can move up the ranks based on their experience and knowledge,
not on whether or not they've spent time in Afghanistan, Iraq or
Bosnia. Perhaps this means closing certain jobs within the military to
women. Again not too popular an idea. But I think the DOD needs to
take a closer look at what particular jobs women are better at than
men and funnel them that way.

I know that the military is a microcosm of our nation. But it
shouldn't be the grand social experiment that it currently is. Not
when peoples lives are at stake. You want to join an elite combat
unit? Fine, but you have to pass the exact same standards as the men.
Personally, even at my most fit there is no way I could've carried a
220 lb man more than a couple of feet. And I'm not sure I would want
to have to rely on someone who may or may not be able to do the job
being put in the position of having to save someone I loved. That
concept doesn't make me a June Cleaver clone or a Phyllis Schafly
cheerleader. I'm merely trying to point out that we talking about
flesh and blood, not numbers and statistics. We need to give everyone
the absolute best chance they can get of coming home safe and whole.

Please don't think for a second that the women who serve our country
deserve anything less than our utmost respect for their dedication.
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester was awarded a Silver Star awarded for bravery
under fire this year. There is no doubt that there are may brave women
out there who can do this job. To date 47 women have given their lives
in Iraq in defense of our nation. 313 women have been wounded
seriously enough to require evacuation. Yet the official DOD policy is
that women are not permitted in combat. The army specifically gets
aroud this rule by allowing women in support units attached to
battalions. It is time to revisit this policy. The current situation
in Iraq exists because the military cannot get enough recruits to fill
critical positions. So they are filled with female soldiers. The line
between a combat zone and the rear is small and blurry.

© Mare McHenry